NoGodBlog.com

I'm so tired of people using poor grammar. Tell the grammar-challenged president that atheist is not capitalized when he's not using it at the beginning of a sentence, or when he's not saying "American Atheists" or whatever.

That's mostly habit. Ellen insisted on capitalization and we're all used to it. I do it too.

So my prayer for rain WAS answered, heh heh...

mushinronjya--

I'm so tired of people using poor grammar.

me Too! As A Teacher, i Am Appalled By mr. zindler's Lack Of Appropriate Capitalization. i Say We Take Him Out Behind The Tool Shed And Beat The Bad Grammar Out Of Him!! :-)

And to you Tim, I hope you're not seriously happy that books and archives were destroyed. I don't agree with your holy books, but I would never want to see them destroyed. The idea of book-burning (or book-drowning for that matter) makes my blood run cold.

I capitalize "Atheist" because it's a mark of pride for me. Screw the grammar and spelling Nazis, I took back the use of the word "Atheist" in my life at least, and make it something to be proud of - proud enough that it's a proper name.

Some of us had to struggle to obtain our freedom from religion, and that's worth the tiny gesture of letting language continue to be fluidic, as society is fluidic. As it should be. And if people who use language can't be in charge of their own language, why should there be any independent speech? It's really better this way.

Good thing Ellen has the diaries...

Seventy grand? How big is this place?

Sure sounds like someone was taken...

But to show compassion...

Say Frank. I deal in the HVAC business. If you don't mind receiving a scratch and dent air conditioner, and if I can find one that's the right size, I'll donate one to the cause...

It's important to keep historical documents for accuracy...

If you're interested let Dave know...he's got my email address...

Comment from: mushinronjya [Member] · http://www.myspace.com/gamer
I'm so tired of people using poor grammar.

You're confusing grammar with punctuation.

Just several weeks after I became Acting President of American Atheists, I discovered that the roof on the American Atheists Center in Cranford, New Jersey had been leaking for some time and water had already done considerable damage to books and other materials in our stock room. Worse yet, there were indications that the part of the roof covering the Charles E. Stevens American Atheist Library & Archives (C.E.S.A.A.L.A.) was also failing and that the special climate-controlled, fire suppression-protected rooms housing the rarest materials were in grave danger.

And the reason that the board of directors had no knowledge of this situation? And why there are insufficient funds to deal with such a contingency? Let me guess:

- Disengaged board members.
- President unwilling or incapable of standing up to board to get something done about it.
- Lack of communication between board and president.
- Lack of common sense on the part of the board regarding prudent facility maintenance.
- Lack of fund raising to increase the trust fund.

Am I getting warm here?

Tarma, look for all the problems you want. We're fixing them.

But first, we need a roof.

Why is this meager operation being run out of a building that could ever require a $77,000 roof repair? That roof repair is greater than the cost of my entire house, and hey, say what you want about my house, but I could damn well run AA out of it if I wanted to. And it doesn't need a roof (just don't store the books in the basement.)

Maybe the first thing AA should to to improve itself is to drop the pretentions and learn to "run light". Here in Pittsburgh we have many institutions that couldn't keep their doors open without huge donations -- not because they're doing a lot, but because of their way of insisting on modes of operation that make them feel special.

BTW, what IS it with all the spelling and grammar Nazis around here, anyway? I used to be a professional proofreader for a company in the UK, and, being an American, that has had the opposite effect that I see the profession having on those who operate locally. Fact is, the "rules" about how things "should be" are all mostly arbitrary. The best we can hope for is a minimum of ambiguity and some internal consistency.

Emerson suggested that a foolish consistency was the hobgoblin of little minds. Of course, he wasn't talking about proodreading, or even language. I wouldn't want to make the trite mistake of condemning consistency in grammar and punctuation with it. But you know the real point of it all is that "a foolish consistency" is the mistake of assuming that absolute conformity to one man's opinion of what is correct limits him and anyone else he has power over.

Consistency without a publication is fine. It has its purposes. But going around insisting that everyone should share YOUR view of what rules are best observed in language isn't any different, IMO, than going around insisting that everyone should share YOUR view of anything else.

That, dear language Nazis, is what we don't like about the fundamentalists.

Frank

Although the deadline for submitting applications for the position of president of American Atheists, Inc. is August 24, 2008, several absolutely excellent candidates have already applied.

The reorganization will be transparent to members, but it will enormously reduce the numbers of headaches our new president will have to suffer in the line of duty.

In the spirit of transparency will you be giving us the names of the candidates?

Cynic,

While language has a tendency to change over time there are plenty of good reasons to adhere to proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

Try considering language from the perspective of someone trying to learn to read or write in another language. I am not fluent in German but I can speak it passably well and can read and write in it better than I can speak it. The biggest difficulty I have is with two things: improper spelling/grammar and idioms. Idioms I can deal with - they can be looked up or explained or the speaker can rephrase (and most people know the idioms in their language are generally unique to their language so they avoid using them in print). Depending on how botched the spelling is, it can make for a really difficult time trying to puzzle out what someone is saying. Computers can't always puzzle out the spelling either when attempting to match anything beyond commonly misspelled words.

Aside from that, using poor spelling/grammar lacks professionalism. A great communicator will strive to be understood by all comers. Great communication skills are expected from leaders.

Why do some people get so uppity when anyone criticizes them or others over using proper English? There are plenty of good reasons for doing so. What counter-argument can you provide? Steganography borne of xenophobia?

Are you advocating being wrong for the mere sake of it, just because criticism makes you uncomfortable? Fundamentalists have that particular problem too. Their arguments don't hold any water when tested with rules of debate and their "truths" don't stand up to the light of evidence. They get angry when you criticize them for being wrong and they show up here shaking their fists at we "damned atheists" that are only guilty of being right.

atomic,

THANK YOU!

Words do have meaning. When misused the meaning becomes unintelligible.

Frank Zindler isn't committing a "gramatical error" when he capitalizes the A in atheist. The term gramatical error implies ignorance concerning proper usage which doesn't apply to Zindler because he is clearly choosing to capitalize the A to give it the same linguistical status as the capitalized C in Christian. That's his choice and I say if that's what he wants to do, what real significance does it have? It's been an AA tradition to capitalize the A for as long as I've known anything about the organization and it was certainly something Ellen Johnson did. It's interesting that the some of the same people who fall all over themselves to sing Johnson's praises are the same ones who bust Zindler out for some minor irritant that Johnson did regularly.

I also find it interesting that Zindler threw out all sorts of new information, such as details about possible damage to the library, and yet 2/3ds of the responses to his letter are busting him on capitalizing the A. I for one don't give a hoot about the A - I'd like to know the extent of the damage.
I'd also like to know who's applied for the position of president, although if I was him, I would make that information available to the members of AA but probably wouldn't feel any obligation to post it to this board or any other forum made up mostly of non-members and disgruntled ex-members.

Chet

Curmudgn,

All good points. I'm not particularly concerned about the "transgression" Zindler made by choosing to give the status of the word "atheist" the capitalization of a proper noun either. Still, I can't help but be irked that a vast majority of Americans have so little respect for the rules of language and - worse - they defend it.

As far as I'm concerned the only thing worse than being wrong in a debate is sounding like you're wrong when you're right. It does a huge disservice to the point you're trying to make and to the people you're trying to convince.

Clearly, dispite my passable grammar and punctuation, you guys have missed my point -- and in have begun to harp on points I'd already conceded. Proper language can only accomplish so much -- reading comprehension skills are your problem.

Again, when consistency is present and ambiguity is mitigated, it comes down to WHOSE rules you're talking about when you declare someone wrong about how they've expressed something. So what, Chicago Manual of Style? Oxford? There are dozens of others you know. And the fact that they're published doesn't make them "right" either.

Again, the point is by singling out one style and declaring it The Style and berating everyone who doesn't conform to it... well, it's dumb. The spirit of any "official" style is about consistency and the prevention of ambiguity. Period. So long as both are present, harping on which style is used is petty, narrow-minded, and, IMO illustrative of just how much the complainer doesn't understand about the very topic he's complaining about.

When you hold up Chicago Style above all others, you're basically calling the Oxford crowd blasphemers.

(Granted, Americans that adhere to Oxford style may not be blasphemers, but they're very likely harboring a few more affectations than I'm comfortable with.)

For the reading comprehension impaired, AGAIN, adhering to A STYLE is important. Which one is the writer's business and no one else's.

Fuck'n A!

Curmudgn is right there is no grammatical error in spelling atheist as Atheist.

Standardization of language and flexibility of language are both requirements of a robust language. As expected these two requirements are often in conflict.

Such is the universe - reciprocity is everywhere! You have no choice but to live with it. I suggest that one should learn to appreciate the inherent richness in this ubiquitous reciprocity rather than beating one's head against the cosmos.

The history of our movement is moldering away.

Your tax dollars are funding the construction of church buildings and the spread of religious marketing right now.

Religious memes are compelling people to kill each other across the world.

Human rights are trampled across the world, with religion used as the excuse.

Religious moral relativism is rampant and if you question it, it is like you are doing something wrong by questioning someone's "faith."

Our government has repealed habeas corpus and the constitution's prohibition of illegal searches/wiretapping.

Our government has acknowledged running torture camps.

Our president believes that Jesus compelled him to invade an impoverished desert country and to start a war in which hundreds of thousands, if not millions, have died or will die.

But.... we will eventually figure out what to call ourselves: atheists or Atheists!

This is like a pitiful parody of that Southpark episode.

I was asked this question today: "What do you think of Christian rock?" The person that asked me this question (in a lunch group) ostensibly wanted my opinion as a musician. So I gave it to her.

But before I tell you what I said I would like to hear what the rest of you think about xian rock.

Comment from: atomictesting

Their arguments don't hold any water when tested with rules of debate and their "truths" don't stand up to the light of evidence.

Of course they do...that is, as long as the debater knows how to frame a proper question...

Chris B

Exactly!

OK...so much for consistency...

Exactly where are the thought police...???

Poor Frank is passing around the collection plate and this thread has digressed into a discussion of English grammar...

Oh...and also "What do I know"(about christian rock) now claiming to be a musician...

What Phreeky meant to say was:

Of course they do...that is, as long as the debater knows how to make erroneous assumptions ...

Of course they do...that is, as long as the debater knows how to frame a proper question...

I can only presume that, by this, you are referring to your capacity to phrase a leading question such that there is only one proper answer. We've all been "treated" to it before. You may feel that this makes you clever. It does not. It just makes you another idiot apologist.

A scientist does not start with a leading question. He goes where the evidence leads and learns about how the world really works. Other scientists can test what he discovers and will come to the same conclusions if they are correct.

A theist starts with a leading question. He goes wherever the bible leads and lives within the world as if it were all based on the fable. Nobody can test a biblical or any other religious claim and not a single one among you can come to the same conclusions as any other.

There is a reason there are so many speculative books written by apologists to shore up all of the weaknesses in the bible and in religious thinking in general. You figure that you can talk your way out of your own stupidity.

What - As a lifelong musician, and veteran rock drummer, I think Christian rock is not only an oxymoron, it's a terrible joke on modern music. It's like when a church buys a hospital so that it can say it has some moral superiority, when really it just had superior funds. Religion rides piggy-back on whatever works, and tries to join in on taking credit for it all.

I've heard a few Christian rock songs that started off sounding good, until the first lyrics were sung. Religion spoils it instantly, and you don't have to be non-Christian to feel that way. I've met lots of Christians who are ashamed of Christian "rock."

Joe Zamecki
Austin

Joe

I've heard a few Christian rock songs that started off sounding good, until the first lyrics were sung.

I have had similar experiences . Even before the lyrics start I have a sense that something essential to rock is missing.

Phreeky doubts that I am a musician. Now what would motivate him to do that? Envy?

I've always prefered that music and lyrics are somewhat balanced with each other in quality, integrity, and interest. Because of that, Christian rock usually falls flat on its face, because that balance is rarely there. (I say rarely, but I can't think of one damned instance of it being the case unless you count U2 as a Christian band, which is arguable either way. Creed just sucks.)

Granted, if that Total Combination were to crop up, chances are they'd follow the money and wouldn't be Christian rock anymore.

Honestly though, I don't listen to it, so I don't feel 100% qualified to judge it except to say there are very definate reasons I don't listen to it that extend beyond my mere disinterest in Christianity. It's kind of like Country music in that sense, though I certainly wouldn't want to lump Country in with Christian rock. (Notice, however, that the concept of "Christian Country" seems utterly redundant.)

It's primarily the integrity thing at play. Every band on the planet emulates someone else's style to some extent. But if a rip-off punk band explains away their close resemblance to Social Distortion (who in turn has some explaining to do, IMO) by suggesting that they were heavily influenced by them in their formative years, I'm a whole lot more likely to believe them than I would a band like Creed. Rock is a big field and its easier to hind behind "infuence" when what you're really after in an angle. But then, the evolution of different styles in rock can be explained by "non-angle" means. No so much in Christian rock.

I am proud to be an Atheist. I don’t care what the grammar police think. I’m going to continue to capitalize Atheist.

I don’t care about xian rock. I simply ignore it.

I do care about the roof falling down and the protection of all the valuable books and memorabilia housed there. We should be thinking of ways to hold fund raisers. Everybody else does it, so why don’t we?

Did anybody else notice that atomictesting's tirade

Why do some people get so uppity when anyone criticizes them or others over using proper English? There are plenty of good reasons for doing so. What counter-argument can you provide? Steganography borne of xenophobia?

Are you advocating being wrong for the mere sake of it, just because criticism makes you uncomfortable? Fundamentalists have that particular problem too. Their arguments don't hold any water when tested with rules of debate and their "truths" don't stand up to the light of evidence. They get angry when you criticize them for being wrong and they show up here shaking their fists at we "damned atheists" that are only guilty of being right....I can't help but be irked that a vast majority of Americans have so little respect for the rules of language and - worse - they defend it.

is the same kind of rhetoric the fundies use against people who don't share their certainty in their dogmas?

Atomic, who died and made you the dictator of "the rules of language?

As far as I'm concerned the only thing worse than being wrong in a debate is sounding like you're wrong when you're right. It does a huge disservice to the point you're trying to make and to the people you're trying to convince.

Yes, sadly, all politicians know that image is more important than substance. With some audiences, you have to talk stupid to sound intelligent. But the posters on this blog ought not to be that kind of audience. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard of intelligence.

There is only one objective rule for proper usage, and that is comprehension. When some nitpicker "corrects" your grammar without first having to ask what you meant, they tacitly admit that no correction was called for.

Speaking of which:

Steganography borne of xenophobia

WTF does that mean?? Were you trying to say "borne by" or "born of"? And either way, what does your grammatical fundamentalism have to do with either steganography or xenophobia?

Back on topic:

The Murray-O'Hairs had a drenched-book disaster in Austin. And now we've got another in NJ.

What is it with AA and leaky roofs?

I think this might be my first post to the blog. Hi Dave! :)

I think everyone should capitalize the word Atheist as they choose, or not.

I find myself frowning when people take AA-organizational blog posts and change the subject.

I knew there were some structural issues at the Center, but didn't know they were so bad. I hope the damage to archival documents isn't too bad.

If you don't live in New Jersey, then you probably don't really know how much a new roof for the Center would cost (hint: it ain't cheap).

Just as employment issues between Ellen and AA are none of AA members' business, really, and discussion of those confidential issues could expose AA to possible legal action (and I therefore suggest AA stop using their website and this blog to try to resolve those issues with Ellen and others and use the legal and professional means available to them instead), potential candidates for the position of President should also not be disclosed outside the confines of those AA board members and staff tasked with the hiring process.

My membership in AA does not give me the right to interfere or insinuate myself into AA staff decisions. Like it or not, AA is not a democratically-run organization. AA is not required, and really should not, discuss personnel issues with the membership. It's a violation of AA's obligation to maintain staff privacy.

Which reminds me, this blog entry was about Frank asking us, members and supporters, to help the organization in this time of crisis. Either decide you want to support AA and help the organization move forward, or decide you don't want to support AA, and find yourself a different organization that does everything just the way you think it should. Good luck with that.

Frank, Dave, my membership renewal and a little extra for the roof is one the way thru the tubes of the internets.

Best regards,

Lisa Ridge

NotSoFast,

Do you really want me to answer the leaking roof question?

I am very glad to hear that the roof has been fixed. However, the way Frank Zindler presents it is deceptive. Frank did not "discover" the leaky roof. Ellen Johnson was fully aware of the seriousness of the problem and was certainly not keeping it secret from the board. It was very high on her list of priorities, but there simply wasn't enough money to accomplish it.

Frank (and Dick Hogan) are acting as if they have accomplished something that Ellen could not. In a way, they have. In their current zest for discrediting Ellen, the board almost certainly would have attacked her if SHE had even SUGGESTED taking $77,000 out of the trust fund to fix the roof.

On the other hand, THEY can do whatever they want. The board has criticized Ellen for making decisions without consulting the rest of the board. Did Dick Hogan consult the board before taking this huge sum of money out of the trust fund? Let's hope that he did. Otherwise, this represents a serious double standard.

Many times, Ellen asked the other board members to help with fundraising efforts. She never got any help. If she had, perhaps the roof would have been fixed long ago.

In this letter and others, Frank brags about all of the things that the current staff is accomplishing at the American Atheist Center. The obvious implication is that these things could not have been accomplished with Ellen Johnson as president. First of all, none of us can be certain what has actually been accomplished and what is just bragging about things they INTEND to do.

Secondly, there is the issue of the new "Director of Operations," Conrad Goeringer. He has been collecting a salary (comparable to Ellen's) for many years. Over the last couple of years, Ellen had been putting increasing pressure on him to come to the Atheist Center to help her with various tasks that required his physical presence. He always refused. During the time that I worked at the Atheist Center (about 16 months), I never saw him once.

Now, Conrad has been forced to become the "Director of Operations." He is at the Atheist Center on a regular basis (daily?). It is unclear what work he is actually doing. If he is doing so much important work at the Atheist Center, why couldn't he have done this work while Ellen was president? He was certainly being paid enough. Ellen communicated very clearly what she needed him to do.

Why was Conrad only able to do his job AFTER Ellen's dismissal?

Why has the board been so unwilling to take responsibility for fundraising efforts? Will they suddenly become interested, now that they have raided the trust fund?

Dick Hogan, Frank Zindler, Conrad Goeringer (and others) need to resign from the board. Their recent misdeeds outweigh any good work they have contributed to American Atheists in the past. They are a disgrace. Frank makes numerous references to all of the grand things that his successor will do. I find that very disingenuous. I still say that the unjustified dismissal of Ellen Johnson was an extremely irresponsible act. Moreover, even if her dismissal had been justified, it still would have been irresponsible to fire her without FIRST finding a replacement. As with everything else these guys say, we have no way of knowing if they really have any good candidates.

Frank: I see that you are no longer making allegations about missing diaries. I’m glad that you realized your mistake. Now, you need to issue a public apology.

Dave: Are you going to block my access to the blog (and delete my account) again? You've done it twice already. If you guys aren't doing anything wrong, why are you so afraid to let me post on the blog?

Arthur Brenner
brenner7@stny.rr.com

I see many of you know as much about "christian rock" as you pretend to know about the bible...

OK "What do I know"...

What christian bands are you familiar with...?

Sir Frank...you can chime in with your vast knowledge also...

Hi Lisa, Thanks for joining in!

She's right, we won't be releasing the names of applicants -- But I've seen them, and the pickins are excellent.

The American Atheist Center is a pretty big building and houses the Library. If you'd like, you can come to see it (and our new roof) at the open house in December.

I am not sure what all of this means.

What is certain is, the board had the power to fix this roof problem, a long time ago. Wouldn't it have been to their credit to have shown they would work with the previous president?

It doesn't show that any future one will have any more luck at moving them forward, because their history discredits them.

Dog, The president runs the center and the operations. The board sets the direction of the company, the president runs the show. The board has little input in the day-to-day operations.

I know it's tough to sort out. We're still sorting things out too. Just remember your sources. I urge you all to come to the next convention, which we will be announcing soon (hint: really really good donuts) and meet the people who will take this movement forward with gusto.

Arthur, even if Johnson was an effective president (which I am in no way convinced of), what reasoning can you put forth that justifies why she (or anyone else) should get to be president-for-life? 10+ years is plenty long enough for one president to head up any organization and if the board is smart, they will set term limits for the next president. Having long-term presidents without term limits sets the stage for stagnation and lack of vision and I think there's more than enough evidence to indicate AA was stagnating under the last few years of Johnson's leadership. The last convention I attended before leaving AA was nothing but a Madalyn O'Hair love-fest and had NOTHING to do with modern activism. Under Johnson, it would have been just more of the same, year after year.

Chet

Dave

She's right, we won't be releasing the names of applicants -- But I've seen them, and the pickins are excellent.

Ahhhh! This must be part of that transparency Frank spoke of.

Lisa

Your not going to persuade anybody here with the shut-up-and-go-along angle - except the xian trolls.

After my co-worker asked me to give her my thoughts on xian rock I asked for her to get back to me in five minutes. She did and this is what I said to the lunch group.

"Rock is a hard and edgy music. Christian rock uses rock as a template and then files off all the hard edges so that thin-skinned Christians don't get hurt."

as a member i am glad the roof issue will be addressed.i see no need for us to keep pointing fingers at each other there are more important issues facing us an the world.
i do 2nd the notion that term limits for president an board are useful to prevent burnout and to allowed for a controlled venting on personal disagreements.regarding terms limits i suggest you be able to serve as many as you get elected too.also what about 6 yr terms with board members serving staggered terms so every 2 yrs someone is up for election.

LisaR - I agree. It's time to move on, regardless of our wounds.

We should all remember that in New Jersey, flat roofs have to be really really strong, because for at least a month each winter, that roof is going to be covered by a few feet of snow and ice. Sometimes for months at a time. So it's not a simple roofing job. It's not a small building. This is important, and we need to get this done, and move on.

LisaR, I'm glad you're sending in your membership dues with a donation for the roof job. AA is still a very worthy investment, in that respect. We DO have a bright future.

Kudos to the AA Center staff!

Joe Zamecki
Austin

Chet,

Arthur, even if Johnson was an effective president (which I am in no way convinced of), what reasoning can you put forth that justifies why she (or anyone else) should get to be president-for-life?

It's not that simple. I never said that Ellen Johnson should have been president for life, but the board's ill-advised and impulsive dismissal of her will almost certainly be a huge setback for American Atheists.

Ellen was not perfect but she was very dedicated to her job. Losing her means losing 13 years of valuable experience and losing an established public representative. With her gone, the atheist perspective will be heard much less in the news media.

If you want to know Ellen's value to American Atheists, just look at the job advertisements on the website. The board is advertising for both a president AND a magazine editor. In fact, they are also wanting to hire a "Director of Operations" (the position that Conrad Goeringer is filling temporarily and reluctantly). In other words, their plan is to hire THREE PEOPLE to do what Ellen did on her own.

Having long-term presidents without term limits sets the stage for stagnation and lack of vision...

Ellen had vision. What she didn't have was support. The takeover by Frank, Dick, and Conrad does not bring any new vision to American Atheists. Frank has occasionally tried to list his goals for the organization. Unfortunately, the goals he describes are usually rather vague (or they are goals that Ellen and the rest of us were already working on). They have nothing new. They have no vision.

Their only excuse for this lack of vision seems to be that they are searching for three new visionary people to replace Ellen. Frank claims to have "several absolutely excellent candidates." We are supposed to take his word for it.

That is simply unacceptable. Firing an experienced and dedicated president was not going to improve American Atheists unless they had an even better replacement AND a plan that would allow for an organized and civilized transition.

Let's not forget that the firing of Ellen Johnson was impulsive and NOT planned out. It was a coup. It represents a tremendous LACK of vision.

Also, don't forget that the board has reneged on their promise to provide Ellen with a severance package. Not only have they seriously damaged American Atheists, they have also done damage to Ellen. She poured her whole life into American Atheists. Not only has the board taken away the career that she loved, they have left her in a position where her future job prospects are seriously limited. They are completely oblivious to the fact that being president of American Atheists for 13 years is a career path to nowhere. Their impulsive decision to fire her was mindless and heartless.

...and I think there's more than enough evidence to indicate AA was stagnating under the last few years of Johnson's leadership. The last convention I attended before leaving AA was nothing but a Madalyn O'Hair love-fest and had NOTHING to do with modern activism.

I just don't see it that way. American Atheists is stagnating under Frank, Dick, and Conrad. They are spending all of their energy looking for big (and easy) projects (like the roof repair) that will make it look like they are doing something. Ellen's accomplishments were the result of hard work, not big spending. She saved money by combining the newsletter and the magazine. When she took over editing of the magazine from Frank in April 2006, she made the magazine much more lively and relevant to the average atheist. She has been doing an excellent job of planning conventions that will give attendees the kind of activities they want. This year's convention was a huge success and Ellen deserves a tremendous amount of credit for her hard work that led to that success.

Dick Hogan, Frank Zindler, and Conrad Goeringer should immediately resign from the board of directors. They are a disgrace to the organization.

Dave Silverman should also resign from the board. He has been an unquestioning mouthpiece for Frank and Dick. The word "toady" comes to mind.

It is NOT time to "move on" and accept this takeover of American Atheists. It is time for Frank, Dick, Conrad, and Dave to move on.

A.r.t.h.u.r B.r.e.n.n.e.r (Dave has made my name a "disallowed term" on the blog. I'm sorry, but that's just WEIRD!)

brenner7@stny.rr.com

Arthur, you keep saying that you are "banned" from the board and yet I keep seeing your posts all over this board. Your claim of censorship lacks credibility.

And I don't know Conrad, Frank, or Dick and what I know of Dave comes from this board and his TV appearances, but Dave doesn't seem to be a "toady" to me. Dave is out there as a public activist, working on the TV show and making public appearances and such whereas I don't see you out there doing anything but post to this board. When you're out there publically doing as much as Dave for the atheist cause, then maybe you will have the standing to make demands, but for now, you are just a keyboard commando with a grudge and I'm not buying into your claims.

You may have other people on this board convinced you are in-the-know but I'm not convinced you aren't anything other than a disgruntled low-level employee who's pissed about getting canned when the leadership changed. And if Ellen Johnson can't earn a living now because she was relying on living off AA for the rest of her life, then that's her own doing. If she had just had the sense to step down after a reasonable term, she wouldn't be in the situation she is now.

Chet

Art-hur-Bren-ner wrote:

I just don't see it that way. American Atheists is stagnating under Frank, Dick, and Conrad. They are spending all of their energy looking for big (and easy) projects (like the roof repair) that will make it look like they are doing something.

I do wonder if the membership really thinks the library is a high priority.

An archive where these books and papers are stored for safe keeping? Yes, that makes sense. But a lending library where a few atheist hobbiests can research books and articles that almost no one reads? If I was going to be a member of AA after the end of this month, I wouldn't consider that the best use of limited resources.

...

WTF? I was blocked from post this message until I mangled Arthur's name. You guys at AA have really lost it (assuming you ever had it). Grow up already.

I agree with most of what Art-hur Bren-ner had to say in his last post. Some of you may say that "What is done is done". I say that "What is done will be done again." The boards action against Ellen was deplorable and has damaged AA terribly. What confidence could they possibly inspire in present and former members? The best thing to do would be to fire the board and give members a democratic voice in AA.

Dave

Grow up! Blocking posts with Arthur's name in it is juvenile. More confidence inspiring behavior?

Blocking posts with Arthur's name

I love Frank Zindler's brand of transparency.

http://symbiotry.com/img/ngb-ab.jpg

Odd. Arthur is blocked; phreedm is not.

What is it Dave, do you want to give the illusion that all is well in AA Land? We know we have warts. What more can Arthur say, anyway? I think most folks here will take his words with a grain of salt.

As to the list of job candidates, I agree that there is no need to make them public. We should respect the privacy of the candidates themselves. Unfortunately, we have to trust the Board to pick the best candidate. At this juncture, giving the Board my trust is a difficult task.

I don't know why Frank offers up a "Save the Books!" tale of woe to justify the new roof. From what I recall reading, the roof has been in need of repair for years. An intact roof is critical to the integrity of a building. It should have been fixed long ago.

Haven't made up my mind yet on sending donations. Money's real tight right now. Tight-tight.

Karen:

What more can Arthur say, anyway? I think most folks here will take his words with a grain of salt.

True, though I tend to agree with most of his opinions.

The really fascinating parts of Arthur's posts have been the memos and draft resolutions which are the words of (some of) the board members. Since no board members have come in and refuted their authenticity (and they've had ample time to do that), I'm assuming those memos are real.

To me the most fascinating point is that the board was aware that Ellen planned to (or at least threatened to) resign if the board didn't back the freedom walk. So why on earth did they fire her during the walk? Why not wait until she was done and see if she resigned or not? I admit I'm biased but I can't think of any reasons that reflect positively on the board.

Arthur wrote:

Also, don't forget that the board has reneged on their promise to provide Ellen with a severance package.

I think Ellen deserves a decent severance package, and AA should just pay it because it's the right thing to do. If there's proof that the board promised her a severance package, and they fired her a couple weeks prior to the time she was going to resign - they may be paying for the severance package, legal fees and punative damages before it's all over.

Chet,

Arthur, you keep saying that you are "banned" from the board and yet I keep seeing your posts all over this board. Your claim of censorship lacks credibility.

I originally registered on the blog as "Art.hur Brenner." Dave deleted that account. Then, I registered for a second account as "Art.hur_Brenner." Dave deleted that account. I guess he has decided not to delete my third account, "Art.hurBrenner." Dave could stop me from creating new accounts, but only by screening all new accounts. He obviously doesn't want to work that hard.

Dave and/or Ed Gauci also set up a redirect (based on my IP address). Every time I tried to go to the NoGodBlog website, the National Enquirer website would come up on my screen instead. I'm sure they thought they were being really clever. The ironic thing is that Frank's post about Ellen and the diaries was much more appropriate for the National Enquirer than anything I have ever posted.

So, I found a way to change my IP address and posted another message on the blog. They responded by redirecting my new IP address (also to National Enquirer). So, I just started using free proxy server websites to access the blog and post more messages.

For further evidence of censorship, please check out my message about the board's Forgiveness Resolution:
http://www.atheists.org/nogodblog/index.php/2008/06/28/an_open_letter_to_ellen_johnson#c91630
I posted this message. Then, Dave deleted it in its entirety. Before he could delete my account, I posted the message again. That's why there is a message ABOVE mine that refers to my message. The fact that it says "Visitor" next to my message (instead of "Member") is evidence that the account used to post that message was eventually deleted.

Then, of course, there was the "disallowed term" silliness.

Do you still think that my claim of censorship lacks credibility?

Art.hur Brenner
brenner7@stny.rr.com

Oops!

Let's try putting that link on two lines:

http://www.atheists.org/nogodblog/index.php/2008
/06/28/an_open_letter_to_ellen_johnson#c91630

Art.hur Brenner
brenner7@stny.rr.com

In yesterday's message, I wrote:

Many times, Ellen asked the other board members to help with fundraising efforts. She never got any help. If she had, perhaps the roof would have been fixed long ago.

Ellen says:

Frank Zindler's response to fundraising was that the board didn't have to get involved because it wasn't in the by-laws and constitution.

Art.hur Brenner
brenner7@stny.rr.com

fixing the roof is more important than walking the backroads of dixie.
i wish Ellen well she gave alot to AA but it is not realistic to think she is going to be president again.so yes it is time to move on.

Karen, Not at all that complicated here. Arthur is a troll all the time. Phreedm is a Christian all the time, and troll sometimes. Phreedm has been warned, but has behaved and therefore not blocked.

Others have been blocked, more will be blocked. I reserve that right. I always have. I've not deleted his posts unless they contain sensitive information, which they rarely have since Arthur had no real access to anything as a part-time employee for a year or so.

But have it your way! I've released the ban on Arthur Brenner. I'd rather not get in a pissing fight with a skunk. Not worth my time. Enjoy the rants. Just don't complain to me when you get tired of them.

As for me, Arthur, I'm sorry you're so angry, but please get over it. You should try to make yourself a positive force for the cause, not a negative one.

If you choose to hate me, again, get in line. You and Chad and Larry can make a "We hate Dave" club. Hold meetings about me without me. Have punch and pie. Throw darts at my picture. Enjoy.

OR you can try to be constructive, truthful, and honest about yourself and your intentions, and whether those intentions will every really happen. And you can move on.

BUT I do ask one thing: Let Ellen speak on her own. She's always been invited. I've asked her to comment. But mini realys from her former part-time office guy are not exactly trustworthy. We have no idea if they come from her or if you are just MAKING IT UP. Are you still even in communications with Ellen? How do we know?

She knows her logon and password. If she doesn't I'll resend them to her on request. Let's hear what she has to say -- from HER ID. Otherwise it's just high-school.

Oh and for the record, I hear you loud and clear RE: presidential terms.

There are a few things I’d like to say.



On the subject of the roof.

It’s been leaking for years and needed to be replaced. I was on the roof myself years ago and saw that first hand. Over the last winter I’ve replaced numerous interior ceiling tiles that collapsed from water damage. Everyone knew that the entire roof needed to be replaced. What was probably a surprise was the damaged inventory in the stock room. That inventory was lost. Another surprise was the sticker shock from the price of the roof repair. Things aren’t cheap in Jersey. Or most other cities for that matter.

It’s not Ellen’s fault the roof was not fully repaired during her tenure. She hired several contractors to perform isolated repairs over the years and they fixed some of the leaks. But new leaks would just occur afterword's. Some of the same leaks would occur several times. The condition of the roof was such that the entire roof needed to be replaced. A complete roof repair for this large building was a complicated job and Ellen needed some help with arranging that. It was on the to-do list.



On the subject of the three people needed to perform Ellen’s old job.

Ellen explained many times to many people how many different hats she put on. From cleaning the toilets to appearing on media to having the building repaired to editing the magazine to arranging every aspect of the conventions to trying to run the office to paying the bills. Everyone knows this and has heard that several times from Ellen herself.

There was just too much to do. It was apparent to many people that Ellen could not cover all those bases. This is not to say that Ellen was not trying. She worked harder than anyone I’ve seen in this movement. She was dedicated to a point that sets the standard. No one would have worked as hard as she did. No one could have. But when you have too many pots on the stove, something always gets burned.

The conventions were a priority as was the magazine. In my opinion, Ellen’s performance with both of those areas was outstanding. Especially the last convention. Ellen was very good at media appearances. In my opinion she represented American Atheists viewpoint on the issues very well. The GAMOW was the best Atheist event I’ve seen yet and that was mostly Ellen’s doing.

But anyone in Ellen’s situation would have had problems doing everything she did. If there was one thing I would have done differently if I were in Ellen’s position is delegate much more. Ellen tried to do too much and couldn’t keep up with everything. Ellen could do most of it some of the time, and some of it most of the time, but she couldn’t do all of it all the time. The details of what was not prioritized isn’t pertinent. What is pertinent is that realistically, it takes two to three people to be able to do what Ellen tried to do herself.

To this end, the board is seeking to hire two or more people to perform everything that Ellen attempted to do.




On the subject of the relationship between Ellen and the board.

Well you can pretty much read that for yourself in Frank’s posts. Ellen does not post on this blog or any other so no one will see what she actually has to say. I won’t repeat any details of what I know but I will say the entire exchange is mutual between Ellen and certain board members. To summarize, both sides are dug into their positions and neither side is budging. Both sides are equally to blame and until they start acting like adults nothing will change with the current relationship.

There is very little or no meaningful communication between the two sides. Just finger pointing and accusations. Each side feels the other side is completely wrong and they are completely right. That’s pretty much the current atmosphere. I certainly hope that changes. Ellen is very important for this movement and her participation (in whatever capacity) will only help American Atheists.

It would take one or both sides of this dispute to make concessions and admit fault to start to make and headway in resolving this. That’s just to start that ball rolling. Both sides will have to apologize and admit their mistakes in order for the situation to be fully resolved. Until that happens, don’t expect to see Ellen back at American Atheists.

Even if Ellen does come back, it will be in a different capacity. For one thing, Ellen won’t be task saturated like she was. Other people will be performing a good part of what she was trying to do. So whatever it is she does in the future, she’ll have time to do it.

Steve Jobs came back to Apple Computer after being voted off the board of the company he founded. It took about ten years for him to come back but look where Apple is today. I hope Ellen can be back sooner, but a lot of that is up to her.




On the subject of this blog.

Dave, I think it’s a mistake for you to block certain names from being mentioned. The same goes for other words. There’s so many ways around it there’s really no point in blocking anything.

As far as blocking Art-hur entirely goes, I think Art-hur does more harm to himself then anyone else. At least to those of us who know what is really going on. Art-hur also is indirectly harming Ellen because of the animosity he’s trying to generate towards a few board members. How are things going to get resolved between the two parties by a third party making accusations against one of them? It’s not. And after everything is said, the harm done to those on the board Art-hur refers to is insignificant. They don’t get paid to do this. If they’re voted out, they’ll suffer no financial hardship. But nothing said on this blog will cause them to be voted out anyway so the best thing to do is for everyone to try and work things out. The current board members will be there for awhile and they will make things work. With or without Ellen. They already have.

Art-hur has said several negative things about me but even still, I don’t think he or anyone else should be blocked since this is a public forum.

Frank, you already know how I feel about you posting letters to Ellen on this blog or in any public venue. I’m specifically referring to the “Open Letter to Ellen Johnson” and also the letter above. I know what you’re trying to do but I also know it won’t work and will only make things worse. Your letters to Ellen do not appear that much different then what Art-hur is doing on this blog to you and the other’s on the board. It looks like a shouting match. In the end, you’re trying to generate animosity toward Ellen. How is that different then what Art-hur is doing here to you? Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Frank, Edwin said it best: “Don’t get into a pissing match with a skunk.”

I also am dismayed that you had the same letter printed in the magazine. Now the rest of the membership can see this animosity also. I understand why you did this Frank but I think it was a mistake and I hope you realize that at some point.

Resolution won’t happen until both parties stop using this blog and any other public venue to air their arguments. If anything is going to be resolved, it won’t happen on this blog. Resolution will have to happen with both parties talking directly.

Dave, I hope you don’t delete this post. If you think you’re getting an itchy trigger finger I hope you contact me first.

Bart

nope. The post stays. I agree with you and reversed my decision to ban the former part-time short-term office guy.

Ellen should blog here, but she won't, so it's her problem. The rest of us should all work on moving forward.

And fixing the roof.

Well written letter, Bart, but don't hold your breath on Ellen's return. She should run with GAMPAC, and make it great.

I'm not holding my breath, but it's not impossible either.

Dave

You have a bad attitude. As communications director you have a lot to learn. Try using openness and transparency as default guidelines for your behavior with respect to AA's business.


Bart

Thanks for the post.

I also am dismayed that you had the same letter printed in the magazine.

You have got to be kidding! He put it in the magazine! Frank is out of control.

Resolution won’t happen until both parties stop using this blog and any other public venue to air their arguments.

Well if they aren't talking off this blog then I would think talking on it is progress. It would just be nice if the parties involved displayed a bit more emotional maturity.


Arthur

Keep up the good work. Without your posts none of us would be aware of the dysfunctional depths the AA board.


Ellen

Please make a post here to let the membership know what you think to be the way forward for AA. You, unlike others posting here, have actually earned the trust of AA members over the years.

I'm not holding my breath, but it's not impossible either.

Possible? Likely?

Necessary.

Not necessary at all.

If AA is going to be a viable activist organization, it's success and survival cannot be tied to any one person (that's true for any organization). Johnson's time with AA is over and there is no going back.

I would love to see Johnson and her supporters let go of their obsession with AA, shift focus to GAMPAC, and make GAMPAC effective. All atheists would reap the benefits of that. But instead of making GAMPAC great, some folks (you know who you are) just won't let their beef with AA go.

What's done is done. Let AA move in whatever direction it ends up going and lets expend our efforts working to help Johnson make GAMPAC great. A politically viable GAMPAC is an organization that I could really get behind with my support and I'll bet I'm not alone there.

Chet

Arthur, I apologize for not believing your posts were being censored. However, with your fixation on AA and certain board members, I still think you are doing a lot more harm to the atheist cause than good. See my post above - if you have the connection with Johnson you claim you do and have done as much work as you say you've done, you would be an outstanding asset to her and GAMPAC.

It's time to sh*t or get off the pot. Help make GAMPAC great.

Chet

Arthur would not be an asset to Ellen and has in fact hurt her career.

The best thing Ellen could do with Arthur is distance herself from him as much as possible. In an earlier post I made that was deleted I explained some of what Arthur did to cause many problems within AA.

Ellen's mistake was not controlling Arthur or firing him when she could not control him. The animosity Arthur caused with the board and within AA did not hurt Arthur so much as it hurt Ellen. It continues to hurt Ellen.

If Arthur is involved in the GAMPAC, many of the same problems will just follow her there.

If Arthur cares about anything other then himself, he'll stay out of any endeavors Ellen pursues. Such has not been the case to date though.

This is not my singular opinion. The web master made a previous post that is still there and many others now know the damage that Arthur caused. It will all come out eventually.

Johnson's time with AA is over and there is no going back.

LOL

What's done is done.

What is done will be done again. Who in the AA organization will not be spending inordinate time watching there backs after what happened to Ellen.

I will tell you the truth, this whole string sounds like the vatican (uncapitalized) bickering behind closed doors.

The difference between organized religion and atheism is that atheism doesn't have a program to recruit and raise money. Personally, I think you do yourself a huge disservice by adopting atheism as opposed to being agnostic. Do you imagine yourself to have the scientific proof that a force of nature who was creative and conscious did not set the big bang off and sat back and watched what transpired? Atheism is a leap of faith as large as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. You want us to believe that the balance of nature, the food chain, the survival instinct, are all an accident. We are all agreed that organized religion is a self serving trap, but, atheists have chosen the polar extreme. You reject that the truth may lie somewhere between.

I am agnostic, and while I am convinced that organized religion is the most dangerous factor in the possible extinction of humanity, I find aheism to be arrogant based upon what is known in science.

NeoWolfe

Hey I'm just continually amazed at how long this blog has lasted being open to non-members, non-Atheists, and people who are openly hostile towards AA in general.

Bravo to AA for being so open and brave in this way. Seriously, the infrequent but still annoying vulgarities are really unexpected. I think we all know who I'm referring to... :o)

Joe Zamecki
Austin

NeoWolfe

You obviously don't understand what the word atheist means. That's simple enough to fix. The mystery is why you haven't?

NeoWolfe,

I'm going to second What. You have a faulty definition of 'atheist.'

I'd be willing to bet that neither of us positively believes in a deity. We are both atheists by the most basic definition.

Belief that no deity exists is an altogether different beast (though it is, by definition, a subset of atheism).

AA members are being asked to donate to the library, but only "authorized scholars" will be allowed access to it. Why aren't library privileges included with the membership? Rather than an occasional peek, members should be allowed at least a week per year to research. Furthermore, if the scholars are from such universities as Notre Dame, Baylor and Brigham Young, I can't see how that helps the cause. Restricting access to knowledge is what the RC Church did during the Dark Ages.

For all the good they'll do members in the library, the diaries might as well stay with Ellen Johnson.

neowolfe

Personally, I think you do yourself a huge disservice by adopting atheism as opposed to being agnostic. Do you imagine yourself to have the scientific proof that a force of nature who was creative and conscious did not set the big bang off and sat back and watched what transpired?

And if this deistic being set this in motion, what questions does that answer for you? It merely brings more questions: From whence came this deistic being? What purpose had it in setting off the big bang? Did it conjure up the contents for the big bang, or were they already present?

Atheism is a leap of faith as large as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism.

Really? I see no evidence to compel me to believe in the gods of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism. There, How much faith did that take?

You want us to believe that the balance of nature, the food chain, the survival instinct, are all an accident.

Yet, if your deistic being sets it in motion, then just sits back to watch what unfolds, how is that any less of an accident, except that the initial domino was intentionally tripped? You seem to fall into the same trap of the goddists who think that humans are the end product of the creation experiment. That ALL THIS is for US. Hint: We're just another species on the rock. When the cells started forming and splitting, it wasn't with a plan to eventually become human.

Not sure exactly what you mean by the balance of nature-it can be quite chaotic. We've altered our status on the food chain. Survival instinct is partly genetic.

Jim,
Once the center is complete the library will be open much more often, to anyone who wishes to use it.

Curmudgeon writes:

"Arthur, even if Johnson was an effective president (which I am in no way convinced of), what reasoning can you put forth that justifies why she (or anyone else) should get to be president-for-life? 10+ years is plenty long enough for one president to head up any organization"...

MADALYN MURRAY O'HAIR WAS PRESIDENT FOR LIFE. I THINK ELLEN SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE ONE TO JUDGE HOW LONG SHE SHOULD BE PRESIDENT OF AA, NOT YOU.

CURMUDGEON ALSO WROTE:
"The last convention I attended before leaving AA was nothing but a Madalyn O'Hair love-fest and had NOTHING to do with modern activism. Under Johnson, it would have been just more of the same, year after year."

Chet

YOU ARE SO WRONG, CHET. THE AA CONVENTION IN MINNEAPOLIS WAS THE BIGGEST AND BEST YET WITH SOME 600 ATTENDEES. WHERE WERE YOU? AND ELLEN, YOUTHFUL AND VIBRANT, WOULD HAVE MADE EACH CONVENTION MORE EXCITING. NOW WE HAVE A BUNCH OF OLD MEN WHO AREN'T CREATIVE ENOUGH TO ENVISION WHERE THEY'RE GOING NEXT AND ARE CONCERNED ONLY ABOUT A LEAKY ROOF.

AND DID YOU SEE NEW MOST RECENT AA MAGAZINE? WHAT'S THAT ALL ABOUT?

Smartgal

Why are you screaming? We aren't deaf.
Or are you just having another tantrum?

Sorry about that. My problem is that I do not know how to isolate a quote from another blog message the way you other guys do. (I don't blog a lot) So in order to differentiate my quotes from Curmudgeon's quotes, I chose to use caps.

It would be helpful if, instead of being snide, Karen, you would tell me how to set off quotes selected from someone else's blog. I do work on deadline and haven't had time to experiment.

I object to your saying I am having another "tantrum." Any bad vibes here seem to be coming from you, not me. It appears you don't necessarily need caps to indicate a tantrum.

Dave Silverman wrote on 7/23/08 in the leaky roof thread:

"...meet the people who will take this movement forward with gusto."

So far, I haven't seen much movement and very little gusto.

Dave, I resent your referring pejoratively (on 7/25) to Arthur Brenner as being a "part-time short-term office guy." I am a part-time worker for our AA-affiliated group and, believe me, it has turned into a full-time, even time-and-a-half unpaid job. Sometimes it feels like the Atheist movement has taken over my life. I suspect Arthur was overworked and underpaid, and the fact that despite that, he remains loyal to Ellen is telling. He knew what Ellen was up against; Frank, Conrad and Dick apparently did not. Because Arthur saw Ellen every day at the office--and Frank, Conrad and Dick DID NOT--gives him more credibility.

I find Arthur's postings intelligent, fascinating, credible and right on the button. What he says coincides with what I have observed about the goings-on at the AA headquarters building whenever I visited there during Ellen's tenure. Ellen's hard work, understaffed and over-tasked situation was quite obvious to any observer. Yet, when it came time to taping the AA Cable TV show, she pulled herself together and was superb on camera--poised, attractive, chic, smart, articulate. I was always so proud that Ellen was representing me and you on TV and elsewhere.

Smartgal,

You know I respect you, but Ellen and Arthur are different people, and the situation with Ellen does not mirror MMOH ... or yourself.

Respecting Ellen's work and abilities (like I do) does not mandate that everyone who supports her is correct, or even good-natured.

Arthur was never more than a part-time office guy for barely more than a year. That is fact. That doesn't mean he was worthless or undedicated, he just has no idea what happened, because he had very little access to what was really happening.

The Atheist movement took over my life 12 years ago. I have never earned a penny for my effort -- I volunteer, just like the Board of Directors.

Ellen is fully capable of communicating on her own. If she wanted to blog, she would. She does not, because she, Like ME, wants to move on, so the movement at large doesn't suffer from splintering.

At least that's what I think she thinks, but what do I know? I only volunteered for her for 12 years.

You'll get the gusto.