NABA policy debate

Ron Gatrelle gatrelle at
Fri Jun 15 01:13:03 EDT 2001

I have not been involved is the NABA thread till now.  I would sum this up
as an exercise in futility on both (all) sides.  I don't think those who
are anti-NABA are such  because of what is on paper - policy statements,
by-laws, etc. They are, lets say, "uncomfortable" because of their
instincts, feeling, experiences (e.g. Leroy's equip vandalized by people on
a naba activity), etc. There can be no "factual" solution because there is

Someone could produce a video of JG under oath saying he does not oppose
collecting and they still would not be convinced. Why?  In their gut they
feel that what they are hearing is just double-speak, for the cameras if
you will.  I would also say that their focus is not really naba or any
number of its board members but Jeff himself.  They don't trust him - thus
they don't believe him.

I think they feel that the carefully chosen wordings of public statements
are but polite political masks typical of the word games played by radical
groups - like racial militants when they say they don't mind blacks/whites
going to church or school just not their church or school. And then
saying - see, we are not racists. Or cleaver evasiveness like, "it depends
on what is, is". In other words, they are not so much interested in what is
said (facts) as in what was not said or meant (ulterior motive).

Personally, I don't "know" anything about Jeff or NABA. I have just kind a
been doing my own thing. I do know I occasionally hear stuff that is not
good - about Jeff not NABA. I have heard things from some rather prominent
people over the years who have told me some pretty  amazing negative things
from one on one dealings with Jeff.  I have not seen any of them post such
"information?" on line - probably to avoid a law suit. These things may not
even be true - but it is interesting when one hears the same basic themes
from very different people over a period of years.

Those who are defending NABA and Jeff are, in my opinion, good honest
people who are simply taking things at face value. They see the other side
as being on a type of irrational witch hunt. They know what they mean by
the words, by-laws, etc. coming under fire and thus see no problem. And
from their rational, sincere, balanced view they are right. But this is not
about their view or the actual words - it is really about Jeff and what
people think they know about him and his "agenda".

Now, I expect the anti side to say that the above is not really what they
are about because it looks to make them out as people who are simply
operating by emotion and not facts - which is as big a no no as one can
find in a scientific intellectual group. So having denied the above, they
will continue answering the quoted statements with - ya, but.

The pro side will continue defending their own integrity - for by extension
and identification they see this as an assault not just on NABA or Jeff but
on themselves - as they really are "innocent of the charges".

What is missing here is Jeff Glassberg himself.  I do not believe for one
second that he is unaware of the discussion here on Leps-l. How is that?
If you will consult the leps-l list of subscribers you will note that one
naba at - a.k.a Jeff Glassberg - has been subscribed for a along
time. So MB (IF you are correct and this is his personal e-address) you did
not need to give this as his personal e-address - we already had it. And
Leroy you did not need to send the question - he already had it. Like the
wizard of OZ, all he had (has) to do is step out from behind the curtain
and answer for himself.

PS  Personally, if he really has been lurking on his list while ya all mud
wrestled over all this and did and said nothing - it ought to tick everyone


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit: 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list