[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [seedsavers] Guess who has asked to be subscribed to this list.



There are always at least three sides in these matters: his side, her
side, and the Truth.

I would more likely believe greater parts of Mr. Whealy's version if
he were to admit responsibility for at least some of the problems,
raither than painting himself as a poor old perfect victim. Because
it's very rare that in events of this nature that any one person is
entirely and thoroughly innocent and exploited by every other person
involved. If you will search the forums at GardenWeb, you will find
some perspectives posted there by folks who have had the opportunity
to visit with folks who have first-hand knowledge of these situations.
A somewhat different perspective from Mr. Whealy's is painted in these
posts. Are they accurate? Don't know, but am willing to bet there is
at least some element of truth there. Moreso than the "woe is me"
letters Mr. Whealy is sending around.

The advisors who signed the letter backing the board are a group of
hard-working folks on behalf of genetic preservation. Some of them do
it sacrificially, and I have long respected them and supported their
endeavors personally, outside of SSE. Furthermore, the advisors who
did NOT sign the letter have not issues a statement in support of Mr.
Whealy. The absence of their signature on that letter does not
necessarily signify their support of him.

Frankly, I am a bit taken back by the visciousness of Mr. Whealy's
statements regarding his wife's roll in the establishment of the SSE.
First, the seeds that kicked off the effort were HER family heirlooms.
Second, he says that he did it alone while she stayed home with the
kids. Behind every "good" man is a woman who gives him the support
necessary for him to function. How the dickens does he think he was
able to travel and toot the horn for heirloom preservation if HER
efforts didn't free him to do so? Nevertheless, in doing some searches
about this SSE thing over the past month, I came across an ad that
Kent AND Diane place in a magazine, searching for folks with family
heirlooms to share. I frankly do not believe that he was a lonely
little wheel traveling the path all alone for more than a decade. His
attitude towards his wife's contribution in maintaining family
stability while freeing him up to travel and do the fun stuff of
setting up this organization is offensive.

Are the rest of these characters blameless? I doubt it. However, they
are players in this movement, and must be dealt with somewhere or
another.

Keeping Diane out because of preconceived prejudice against her is not
fair. After all, it is not as though you cannot kick her off list
should she prove to be disruptive. Which I sort of doubt she will be.

Elise

On Feb 7, 2008 11:51 AM, Lawrence F. London, Jr. <lflj@intrex.net> wrote:
> Lawrence F. London, Jr. wrote:
>
> > Guess who has asked to be subscribed to this list:
> >
> > Your authorization is required for a mailing list subscription request
> > approval:
> >
> >      For:  diane@seedsavers.org
> >      List: seedsavers@lists.ibiblio.org
> >
> >
> > That would likely be Diane Ott Whealy of Seed Savers Exchange, http://www.seedsavers.org/.
> >
> > Well, in light of events described in both of Kent's letters, as far as I am concerned, she can start her own list.
> > Anyone else have thoughts on this? This Amy Goodman character sure sounds like an institution wrecker and anyone
> > supporting her would likely be pretty much the same.
>
> That would be Amy Goldman, not Amy Goodman.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> seedsavers mailing list
> seedsavers@lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/seedsavers
>
_______________________________________________
seedsavers mailing list
seedsavers@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/seedsavers