The San Diego Democracy for America Meetup Group Message Board › Mike Lawrence - Why I Resigned
|A former member||
I’m a Liberal. I want nothing to do with an organization that stifles dissent and discourages discussion. I came into Democracy for America following a man who represents the democratic wing of the Democratic party, and I intend to stay a member of DFA. In my mind, Charlie Ime’s organization is not DFA. He claims Meetup as part of his organization, therefore I’m out.
Let me elaborate. Earlier this year, two things happened. Valerie Polichar announced that she was stepping down as coordinator of the Democracy for America Meetup in San Diego. I was one of eight volunteers who answered her call to form a committee to take over the task. She rightly felt that the functions had grown to be too much for one person. I was honored by the group with the position of moderator.
Shortly after that, Charlie Imes formalized what he has long been calling San Diego for Democracy. At his organizational meeting, there was much discussion about the relationship between Democracy for America, San Diego for Democracy, and DFA Meetup. There was a great deal of sentiment expressed that we did not want to lose the character of DFA, and the proposal to become a Democratic Club was opposed by most members. It was finally decided that we would go with San Diego for Democracy, and sub-committee chairs were elected. I was elected chair of the Meetup sub-committee. Lisa Schiff was elected Secretary, Mikki Royce was elected Vice-Chair, and Charlie Imes was elected Chair.
At the first Meetup under new management, Charlie Imes went into a long explanation of the newly formalized organization. It was interrupted by a conference call with California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez. During that conference, Speaker Nunez announced opposition to Governor Schwarzenegger’s plan to change and accelerate redistricting.
It happened that, at a previous Meetup Committee meeting, Jim Wade had asked to be put on the agenda to talk about the effect of redistricting on Democratic Party candidates. When Jim finally got the floor. his views differed from those of Speaker Nunez and Charlie Imes. Charlie attempted to stifle Jim’s opinion. I objected to Charlie’s intervention. Later Charlie let it be known that he intervened because he did not want it to appear that a member of a sub-committee of San Diego for Democracy was speaking against the official party line. I should have resigned at that moment, but I allowed Charlie to mitigate his action.
Our Meetup committee met to discuss Charlie’s attitude, and decided that the Meetup would remain the open forum that we knew and loved. Several of us recalled the debate in both meetings of San Diego For Democracy about the future of DFA/SDfD/Meetup, and several others had not attended those meetings. When we worked up the agenda for the April Meetup, we included time to open the floor for discussion by the Meetup group, many of whom also had not attended the SDfD meetings.
Recently, Charlie called a meeting of the SDfD Steering Committee, which is comprised of the officers and sub-committee chairs. I presented the tentative April Meetup agenda. When I mentioned an open discussion about the organization, I was instructed by all three officers that there was no question about the organization, that everyone knows what it is, that I could tell the group what it is, but no discussion is necessary. Charlie would not listen when I tried to tell him that there were still questions about the organization.
The next day I resigned. Charlie says he has no idea why. I declined to discuss it with him.
|A former member||
Mike, we understand and support your decision to resign from the SDfD. At the last meeting of the SD DFA group 23 coordinating committee it was unanimous that DFA 23 was separate and distinct from SDfD despite what some may think and that message was to be carried forward. We do not think you should resign from DFA 23 since this is not SDfD and hope that you won't. This Roveian like grab for power and control of group 23 can only happen if the membership of group 23 want that result. So far they have not been informed, and we support your request to notify the entire group of your posting, if not the DFA message board also. If that is what the group wants it will likely go on with success but possibly without some past members who may or may not form their own dfa group.
The following is an expression of our overall views of the situation.
It seems like when we last met, we all agreed that the meetup was something special, and fulfilled a real need, and was important to maintain, and valuable in and of itself. It has been a vital and growing organization and has provided a warm and open and welcoming environment for progressives in the area to gather and share and for anyone to be able to express their
views without fears or restrictions.
Forgive me for rehashing a lot of what may already be known but I think it is an important backdrop needed, in order to have a clear understanding of the issues at hand.
The Dean candidacy was not supported by the established powers within the Democratic Party. Dean did not invent Meetups. As he himself has said. he was only smart enough to see and appreciate what was going on and was fortunate to be able to tap into the growing power that gave energy to his insurgent campaign. The meetups "happening", seemed almost miraculous as people spontaneously gravitated to it. It seems to have been born out of the unmet needs and desires of a lot of frustrated people who also felt somewhat deserted, but found in the meetups that they in fact, were not alone and that things where not hopeless and yes as Howard has said. the people do have the power and the people can make it
happen. Howard always recognized these groups as an outside force of people and the true holders of potential for bringing about change.
When he dropped out he was very careful to put it to the meetup groups, what do they want to do, not what does he want them to do. He offered to help maintain a central organization but only if that is what the groups wanted. Also when he ran for DNC chair he made it clear that it was a decision, a big one and not an easy one, and one that was between staying on the outside and working for progressive change thru DFA and other groups or to enter into the Democratic power circles and struggle to effect change from within. Meetups did not come about because there was an upwelling of people who wanted to go out and join the Democratic Party, just the opposite they were looking for
alternatives that more closely addressed their concerns.
Through all of this our own group DFA group 23 thrived and grew, not in any small measure of thanks to the persistence and gentle leadership of Valerie. It has become one of the largest and long lived of the DFA groups. To a large degree because it has maintained the meetup ideals; everyone counts, everyone can express an opinion, news on current progressive activities in the area is provided, general consonance with DFA central is maintained, interesting discussion and guests are provided, and probably most importantly because
there has been maintained an atmosphere of warmth, inclusion and security.
When Valerie stepped down, several volunteered and were accepted as the coordinatinig committee to maintain group 23 and hopefully lead it into the future in the same vein that brought it success to date.
No sooner had this been accomplished, then suddenly in the midst of a meeting of group 23 in common with another group, suddenly flyers were being passed out about another meeting. According to the flyers committees would be formed and leaders elected. The flyers even suggested they may want to
become a Democratic club. This was never pre discussed, it was not clear who was having this meeting, what relationship it had to the meetup or anything else. Some of these questions were asked at that time but were not answered.
The next thing we knew, is that to the attendees of this other meeting, or at least to some of them, an assumption was made that DFA meetup group 23 somehow suddenly became a subcommittee to SDfD, and group 23 suddenly has to vet anything it wants to do at the meetup and be careful what is
discussed at the meetup and who can say what, so that it is in accord with some other agenda. Even some kind of loyalty oaths have been suggested. (to who or what is again not clear) and it is being insisted that large blocks of time be provided for SDfD committee reports vice normal meetup agenda items.
This does violence to the whole concept of Democracy for America Meetups and how they evolved and in particular to group 23 and most particularly to group 23's volunteer coordinating committee which is not the SDfD subcommittee on meetups. We believe that this could ultimately lead to the death null of the meetup and the snuffing out of the progressive spirit and fellowship that has been nurtured growing up to this point.
Having said all this, lets make no mistake about it, DFA group 23 does not have a problem with SDfD. SDfD has timely come into being when many are looking for other avenues to become more active. There is likely much room for much common interest. DFA group 23 does not have a problem with
providing some time for SDfD to report progress and current events and even to make clear to all, the opportunities for people to get more involved with various things beyond what the meetup may offer. Therefore the continuation of DFA group 23 does no violence to the concept and ongoing activities of SDfD, quite the contrary it offers them support. But the
meetup should go on as originally conceived to maintain its vitality. If however DFA 23 is subsumed into SDfD as some have tried to accomplish, then great violence to its concept and vitality is done and the meetup may well be on the road to oblivion.
or at least that is how we see it
Carlene and John
La Mesa, CA
I wish that you would reconsider. We need your leadership and progressive voice.
I am new to DFA, having attended my first Meet-Up right after the election, though I've been a big fan and supporter of Howard Dean since before the primaries.
Surely there is a way for those with concerns to sit down with Charlie and talk this out.
Charlie is a nice guy, and I think his heart's in the right place, but sometimes differences in leadership styles and personalities can cause difficulties. I think those with concerns ought to ask for a meeting with Charlie to find a better working relationship and come up with plans to prevent our group from dissolving. I've been president of an organization and know that it's easy to "take charge" and draw criticism for making decisions without fully consulting everyone involved. Sometimes this is an acquired skill!
I don't think we need to have every committee head making a presentation at the MeetUps, though occasional announcements of important news would be appropriate. Greater detail could be reserved for newsletters or the general meetings, for those who wish to attend.
The Meetups are important for generating excitement among newcomers and keeping the old-timers enthused as well. Having dynamic speakers or other programs is vital in my view, and I wish you'd continue to lead these meetings.
That said, I'm not sure how keeping MeetUp totally separate from the rest of the DFA activities would be practical, as we should keep members informed to some degree of what the rest of the organization is doing. I do think the working committees are important and am glad DFA has taken on these responsibilities. Those who don't want to work are still free to attend Meetups only. I'd welcome bringing other Meetup members onto the steering committee of San Diego For Democracy, if they wish to be included.
As for the issue over Mr. Wade's comments, I was there at that meeting and was actually rather alarmed to hear a DFA member arguing in favor of the $chwarzenegger redistricting proposal. However I'd welcome open debate over it, since others may harbor similar views. I spoke out against Jim's arguments, and perhaps Charlie was just trying to keep things from getting too contentious so as not to drive away new members.
I would vigorously oppose loyalty oaths. However we also need to be sensitive that DFA could be infiltrated by right-wing Republicans who want to disrupt our proceedings. As you and Charlie both know, a similar situation in the AD 77 years ago resulted in white supremacists joining the group and causing problems. So a leader does need some latitude to shut down anti-democratic discussions. Whether this speaker crossed that line is debatable, but I wouldn't judge Charlie as harshly on that issue as some others have.
Another way to handle it may have been to ask for a show of hands to see how many members present would like to schedule a debate on this topic for a future meeting. But Charlie was reacting to an unpredictable turn of events. If you really feel that this subject should be openly discussed, why didn't you raise that issue at the Steering Committee meeting or general meeting?
We do need to act as a democratic organization (small d) in that we should follow democratic processes for resolving disputes, and not allow any one person to dictate what everyone else must do. We also need to avoid being too thin-skinned, as having good people leave or good organizations dissolve over internal squabbles only helps the neoconservatives attain their agenda in the long run.
We have many more important things to do than to fight with each other. If we could devote half the energy to fighting the neoconservative agenda that Democrats seem to spend squabbling with each other, we would all be much better off!
Edited by Miriam Raftery on Mar 27, 2005 7:13 PM
|A former member||
MIKE: I'm out of the leadership rolls, but have felt something went astray, or at the very least cause me confusion as to what was happening with yet another group meeting for what I thought was just one meet-up group. Then really confused when it appeared they were deciding for all DFA meet-up groups to vote to change to DNC group or groups. I agree, we all wanted the varying views because to me at least, that was what made our group great. WE COULD HAVE VIEWS OUTSIDE THE MAIN STREAM OF EITHER DEMOCRATIC OR REPUBLICAN PARTIES And we could disagree with each other and still maintain our devotion to the over all meaning of our group> I certainly hope we can mend fences or at least agree to disagree with the other group and carry on our meet up group>
please consider asking our group what they want before those of us that agree with you lose your valueable leadership> sue
|A former member||
Ya know, I haven't been paying attention to this site because I always knew when and where the Meetups were at, and it never occurred to me to need to look. Someone finally told me that I ought to take a look today. Surprise, surprise.
I just wish each of you had extended the courtesy of discussing these issues with me privately, as I have continually offered to do with the committee as a whole. There are two sides to these issues, and I think it's unfortunate to post such obviously personal, one-sided attacks on such a public forum.
I have continually invited people to join in, participate and discuss any problems they have, whether with me personally or with the actions of the organizaiton as a whole. So far, only Rob Penny and Leon Thompson have taken me up on the offer to verbally discuss things and reach an understanding, which has been very positive. Jim Wade and I exchanged some e-mails towards finding some mutual understanding and discussing the different viewpoints on his support for Arnold's redistricting plan.
I am dismayed and feel that nothing positive is achieved by venting frustrations, jumping to conclusions and attacking me publically on this site.
I'm sorry if I hurt anybody's feelings. I truly am. I'm sorry that Mike chose not to talk to me about his problems or invite me to any of the Meetup committee meetings so that we could get a better understanding of each other's positions. After all, he's the guy who nominated me as Chair of the local DFA organization. I thought we were better friends than this and I'm certain that this could have been handled in a more appropriate manner.
Carlene has never approached me, either in person or via e-mail with any of her concerns. If one doesn't take the time to contact the person with whom they have a problem, how do you expect to solve anything?
I'll be at the next meetup. I'll quietly sit there and will answer any question posed to me. If people want to come up to me privately and air their complaints, they can do that too. Whatever people want to say, they can say to me.
But surely we can find a more positive way to move forward, can't we? Gossiping, negativism, complaining, mudslinging... there must be better ways to work together and get things done. It's beneath us and we're supposed to be working together.
Chairman, San Diego for Democracy
A "Democracy for America" volunteer organization
Edited by User 235,112 on Mar 28, 2005 5:12 PM
|A former member||
I'm a LIBERAL. Please reconsider your resignation!!
Over the years I have been involved in many different groups. I don't know you well, Mike; I have watched you and Margaret, seen you at many events and I can pick up on your style and demeanor as you interact with people. You have the power to be the leader this group needs now; don't throw that away. I think you will eventually see how much you are needed.
Group Dynamics are like an individual in many ways, they ebb and flow, turn and twist and usually there is some sort of power struggle for control under the guise it is best for the group.
Do no throw in the towel now; we have momentum going; groups always need a bit of fine tuning as issues arise. The issue on this was Wade's dissent. That happens. No sense to throw out the baby with the bath water.
I have seldon seen, in my life, the EGO expressed in attempts to CONTROL, MANIPULATE, and DIVIDE, for overt and hidden agendas, as I have seen in political groups.
In my experience your style of leadership is far and away the best style for the democratic process to work. Democracy is messy; there are the inevitable ups and downs. The group will continue to grow under your style of leadership better than either extreme.
I don't know Charlie. I can only read between the lines, from the reports of yours and MR, that his leadership style is not the best for a group. People want a FAIR, KIND, DEMOCRATIC, LEVEL-HEADED LEADER. They are bossed, bullied, and watching their backs in the workaday world and they sure don't want that in a meeting they are volunteering to attend.
I helped start a political group; it was a very unpleasant experience. Two people took over the group; the self-appointed autocratic leader and another controlling type. I was membership chair and they chased away every person I brought in, which were many.
One lady was called and asked if "she was a democrat," people weren't wanted if they "might" be otherwise! Highly insulted she never returned, which was very unfortunate; she was a writer of plays and was on her way into the Hollywood scene; how many people could she have reached!!
Every speaker I brought in was scrutinized and I felt the volunteering for that position wasn't worth it. Staff meetings were basically "one person speaking." I'm very vocal, but I was interrupted with non-stop talking with the "right" opinion.
I have gone back one or two times in 4 years. The "leader" is now trying to bring in people taking meeting time to "butter" them up. Because of the group's lack of membership retention and growth that person is learning that her first leadership style didn't work. If the group had had the leadership style you just "naturally" possess that group would be 3-4 times as big.
The dialogue of the group is pretty much the way it was. And we all know what happens to a controlled group: the intelligent people leave and the group stagnates.
The group attracts only those who are accustomed to the authoritarian leadership style, or like it that way because they don't have to think or do anything.
The group now is about 20, not much more than when the first group met. The leader has another habit; read to the group for 20 mins of their opinions, not leaving time for others' opinions Lastly, this really kills group spirit: Just state your opinion and be yelled at "you can't say that!"
I was one of the ones who spoke out about Wade's suggestion. He has a right to dissent, of course. My opposition was that we are in a downright dirty fight with Arnold; we have to win by defeating him, not abbeting his position. Wade, in my humble opinion, is right at the wrong time.
Like Miriam, I think a person can state their opinion, and if it is a dissenting opinion from what has been discussed, let's take a show of hands for Yea or Nay from the group. If Nay, then the issue needs to be tabled to a committee or some other action named so the person doesn't feel "shotdown."
If Yea, then perhaps we need 10 minutes to have group members speak to the issue. We need to build option into the group strategy to allow for these situations as they arise in the future. Groups are like individuals; they have to change course as the needs arise. Your leadership style will allow for that; an authoritarian style will not.
DFA is an extremely important group and one I would have been attending when you began instead of beating my head against the wall of an egocentric authoritarian leader if I had known about it. I was trying to light a fire under the group I was in and, from what you see, it was a very miserable experience.
DFA is an action group; the members are divided into action committees; that is the only way we are going to change this society; it must be the from the bottom of the pyramid making changes which ultimately changes the power brokers at the top.
DFA is not hung up in Robert's Rules of Order and other nonsense while our country is being sold out and the ship of state is going down. Please think carefully about this, Mike. You are very respected; you are the right leader, in my opinion, for this group at this time. Stay at the helm of this ship, Mike. I would like to hear back from you, Mike; I want to be sure you have seen my message.
Best, Margaret Momparler
|A former member||
Rob was representing the entire meetup coordinating committee including me when he approached you and tried to discuss the issues and our understanding is no understanding could be reached with you despite what you claim in your post. Mike also was only greeted with cold resistance to his efforts to maintain the character of the meetup. We have not been mudslinging but it seems as though your post is. People have been trying to communicate to you on various peoples feelings in regard to how this all went down and how the whole membership of the meetup group was hit blind and cold by the proceedings setting up SDfA. We do agree with your comment that people should work better together. I guess we all should. The meetup group supports SDfA but we don't see why SDfA if it is a blanket group for the larger area has to control the specific meetup groups. It should maintain communications and reach out to this group and other similar minded groups not control them??? As many have suggested there is lots of room for cooperation and resolution to everyones benefit. Going to the group as a whole seemed like the only way left when Mike felt like he had to resign under the circumstances.
|A former member||
Now that Let’s Beat-up On Charlie Week is sadly coming to a close I want to throw a few bombs of my own.
Who does he think he is trying to organize us to be a more effective and dynamic organization? Just because he was one of the handful of weirdoes who started DFA (Dean for America) in San Diego in the first place.
Where does he get off trying to put all the San Diego DFAers under one umbrella? As if there were strength in numbers. What does he know? He acts if DFA can be real force for change.
So what if Meetup.com and DFA Vermont ask HIM for suggestions. Our meetup #23 is doing just fine without him, thank you.
Committees for this, committees for that. What’s that all about? Give me a break. I know every successful organization in the word works that way . . . but we don’t. Hell, we are meetup #23. Pretty comfy cozy just like we are.
What does he know about getting DFAers elected to public office anyway? Just because he got Laurie Saldana named to the original Dean Dozen. So What? She would have won anyway.
What I like most about DFA is, we get things done. We make things happen. And since I have been around - the “go to” guy has been Charlie.
He certainly has a “take charge” type personality. I guess that is why whenever we need to get a big job done we ask Charlie. Then we get to complain about how he does things. What is so cool about this is we don’t have to actually go to the extra meetings or do the heavy lifting ourselves - we can just supervise from the sidelines.
So I say, if he dares to show up at our next holy meetup #23 we should tar him with pizza sauce and ride him out of Giovanni’s on a toasted French loaf. Yeah
That’s what I say.
|A former member||
I haven't attended a meetup since Valerie resigned as it seemed this meetup WAS being taken over by those more into the cult of personality (Dean) and those whose allegiance wasn't to 'democracy for America' but the Democratic Party.
But I got the 'Committee's' email and thought I'd add my less than two cents.
Mike, I certainly understand your perspective "I want nothing to do with an organization that stifles dissent and discourages discussion" but there are two sides to every coin. As the SD FightBigMedia organizer, I was recently accused of doing what you want 'nothing to do with'. But I'd rather be accused of something like that than allow a bigot with an agenda that isn't consistent with the goals of the meetup to use the meetup for their aggrandizement.
And that seems to me is the 'rub' with this DFA meetup. As it grew and more and more people joined ,the mission became muddled. And the meeting where the 'committee(s)' were put together apparently was too broad in focus and tried to be too many things so as to be 'inclusive' that problems could have been predicted. ( I didn't attend as I had been at a DFA meetup,asked if anyone was interested in joining an effort to guarantee the right to vote -and,pithily,someone suggested that was a first step to abolition of the electoral college-had a few people raise their hands and never heard anymore from anyone. So that experience and my perceptions of what was happening to this DFA meetup made me decide to sit back and see what developed).
And now someone that is regarded well by others is voicing a 'I quit". Too bad given how others perceive you.
How about another gathering to clarify the charter of this DFA meetup? I never understood why those who are dedicated Democrats(large 'D' intentional) were so unwilling(?) to fight it out in the internal Democratic Party 'meetups'.
As towards the 'San Diego for Democracy', hell, starting a meetup is simple; why don't those people start their own meetup?
I went to a dinner a week or so ago with the founders of meetup.com and they've a lot coming down the pipeline to make it even easier for those of similar perspectives/interests to have a meetup.
And ,Charlie's take of discussing 'personally' strikes me as anti-democratic; sort of like Bush's take that as President he doesn't have to explain anything to anyone. I'm a member of radioactiveradio.org and in order to become a 'full' member, one has to go thru a session of understanding what 'consensual governance' is about.
Difficult as it is, it might be what this DFA meetup has to agree on as the model for it's actions. And maybe that just isn't the right model for this group,but it does seem to be more in keeping with the other comments I've read.
Anyway, thanks all for letting me have my say and I'll close with an exhortation for members of this meetup to get behind CommonCause's efforts regarding redistricting in California.
|A former member||
Here we go, acting like Democrats again. Will Rogers had it right.
I've been at the meetings in question, the last two DFA Meetups, the two DFA meetings at Joyce Beers, and the two Steering Committe meetings, the one at Joyce Beers preceding the last DFA meeting there, and the most recent this past Wednesday that Mike discussed in his resignation letter (see above.) I have NOT been at any DFA Meetup Committe meetings - that's the committee of which Mike is Co-chair - because I am not a member of it, so I do not know what has been discussed there.
I cannot speak to the problems between Charlie and Miriam, or Charlie and John Falchi, because I was not aware of them prior to reading about them in the emails above
I know that there has been SOME confusion about the roles that the Meetup Committee members and the Meetup event itself play vis-a-vis SD DFA, San Diego Democracy for America, or whatever name this organization has. The confusion has been discussed in the above meetings to some extent, but my perception was that this confusion was not thought to be of high importance, as least as far as I could tell, being at those meetings. I guess my perception was wrong, because this seems to still be a big deal, at least to the Meetup Committee.
I believe that my recollection is clear with regards to the fact that Charlie, in the original organizational meeting at Joyce Beers, the first DFA meeting described in the second paragraph, stated that there is only one organization, San Diego Democracy for America, and that it has a structure (the three elected officials + the committe chairs, which together make up the steering committee) and that one of the things it does is have a monthly Meetup, which has a committee, it is one of the committees who has a chair (Mike), who sits on the SD DFA Steering Committee. Please bear with me on this!
It was my perception, probably shared by others, that the Meetup Committee may very well think that they are THE Meetup Committee that acts as the steering committee for the Meetup, and they are a separate organization entirely, because when Valerie decided to step down as ...whatever she was, I am not sure, I thought she was the chair or head or whatever top-level person of the Meetup...they took over. The Meetup. Were they aware that there was an organization outside, besides, above, parallel to, THEM? I don't know. But this is where the problem is, I think.
Getting back to the organization meeting: we discussed this somewhat, to be sure, but there was not an argument or difference of opinion - it seemed to me that we all accepted Charlie's organizational description, we elected officers and approved committee chairs who pretty much volunteered for the positions. We spend LOTS of time discussing, not so much arguing, about whether or not SD DFA should be a regular Democratic Club. Charlie brought it up, he seemed open either way. I actually, early on, thought becoming a Democratic Club was a good idea, but I changed my opinion after listening to the discussion. (What a concept - or was I a "waffler"?) Anyway, this conversation took a whole lot more time than anything else, including the Meetup Committee.
I thought, and again I think I was not the only person who so thought, that the Meetup Committee might be confused about their role but would not have a huge problem with it once a clarification was made; it sure seemed that Mike felt that way too, but that is only my opinion based on his behavior - we did not specifically discuss it. I must have been wrong again here.
I admire both Charlie and Mike, a lot. For different reasons. They are different people, with different styles and attitudes. I think they both want the right things, the same things we want or should want, but go about it different ways. We need them both. Leon is right about Charlie, and the woman who spoke on Mike's behalf is right about him. But Charlie needs to let people have a little more time, he needs to pay a little more attention to them and maybe look for what they are NOT saying sometimes. Mike needs to be a bit more upfront when something is bothering him - no way did I get that he was pissed off enough Wednesday night to resign today - and he needs to maybe not feel he needs to go his own way when things aren't going his.
We need Charlies and Mikes, Robs and Miriams and Johns. Even Leons<g>.
Mike and Charlie, you need to talk and work this shit out. I wouldn't mind being there - if it would be of help. Or not.
- Simon Mayeski