[PyrNet-L] GPCA membership protest

[Victoria Coffman <dilligaf@erols.com>]

>From: JYoung2352@aol.com
>Subject: Re: [PyrNet-L] GPCA protest rebuttal 
>Let me see if I have this straight -- A woman puts all of her love,
>devotion, and unbelievable hard work into creating an outstanding Great
Pyrenees kennel over a period >of decades.  All she wants to focus on is
continuing to strengthen and extend the life-line of this >magnificent
animal - so she hires someone to register her Domain name and take care of
her web-site.  >She completely trusts this woman to handle the business
side of her web-site which
>she wanted established to share news about  HER kennel with the general
population.  While this >breeder is busy taking care of her dogs - showing
and promoting this wonderful breed - this business >woman that she trusted
to take care of her web-site actually established the Domain name in her
own >name.
>But, if I have the story straight - she does not own or even partly own
this kennel.  I also believe that this >woman did not contribute any blood,
sweat, or tears for those Great Pyrenees that made the kennel >what it is
today.
>The owner of the kennel has made it clear that she would like her
>Domain name returned to her and placed within her name  - which was the
original deal years ago. By >not returning the name to the rightful owner
she has made a clear statement of what her ethics are.  It is >an
embarrassment for this woman trying to appeal to the GPCA  for membership
when her connection >with the breed is attaching her name to a kennel that
she did nothing to help create or nurture to what it >is today.
>Jen

Jen:  
None of what you have written is true and it shows how little you know
about this issue.  You should not be one to question my ethics when you
know so little of the ethics of the person who you so recently have come to
know, are fooled by, and are defending so vehemently.  In fact, anything
any*one* writes on this list is obviously completely onesided.  However,
since you are not at all involved in this case, I cannot understand why it
is you claim to have so much information.  In fact, according to the
constitution of the GPCA and the letter sent to the general membership, a
committee was formed to complete an investigation.  The committee would
have the most complete information and perhaps once the general membership
has heard from the committee, they can then make an informed vote. However,
it doesn't sound like any of this has anything to do with Great Pyrenees or
the GPCA and perhaps instead of having other people do her dirty work, the
protestor should take her case, if she feels she has one, to a court of
law, and not to the GPCA, and certainly not to an Internet Pyr list.
Unfortunately for the protestor, anyone made to share the expenses of a
domain name and share the kennel name also shares ownership rights.
Therefore, the protestor knows that in a court of law she has no case and
she thinks a dog club is the place to settle a legal matter.

Meanwhile, I would like to apologize to the rest of the list members that
have become overburdened by this severely misplaced issue.  It would be
nice if we could turn our attentions back to something a little more
meaningful. Doesn't anyone have anything Pyrrelated going on in their
lives?  I think this has answered all posts to date.  I don't intend to
answer any others, nor do I feel obligated to.  This issue is a lot more
than just a domain name ownership issue and unless people know all of the
facts, they should not cast aspersions on other people.  What has
transpired that led to this is no one's business and it certainly isn't
anywhere close to anything that has been posted here thus far.  Marcia
mentioned my ethics in her post.  This is not a case of ethics.  It is not
a case for Marcia or anyone else to decide.  My ethics with regard to this
issue are not for the GPCA to decide.  This case should be decided in a
court of law, and not by individuals who have heard only bits and pieces of
one person’s one-side story.
Victoria Coffman