[sac-board] Re: Star parties & waivers

Paul Dickson wrote:

>You're being childish about this.  You're just trying to spread fear,
>uncertainty, and doubt about allowing the board to choose to use a
>waiver.  We are not even discussing the waiver itself.  So how can you
>decide what rights, if any, you're giving up.
>  
>
Childish? Not really - Name calling is childish, in my opinion.  I'm 
just putting forth my viewpoint on this topic.  It's that it doesn't 
seem to agree with yours, does it?  I thought we were discussing a "hold 
SAC harmless" waiver to be used at club sponsored events that non-club 
members are encouraged to attend, like the AAMM - If not, then I'm 
certainly in error. 

Fear and uncertainty?  I wonder how the survivors of the Titanic would 
have felt, after the fact, if they had to have signed a "hold harmless" 
waiver to gain passage?  After all, it was touted to be "unsinkable", 
nothing could possibly happen to it, so why not sign one?  Right?

>How about mentioning you are not a member haven't been in a long time.
>  
>

But you already did, so I don't need to.  I've attended some of SAC's 
events in the past that non-members were encouraged to attend, such as 
the Pierre Schwaar Star Gaze at Sentinel, and the already mentioned 
AAMM.  I am speaking from that perspective.  If I'm not allowed to do 
so, please let me know.

/Bob

Other related posts: