This is from Richard Easley - read on to see why George Dawson is used
for email...
----------------------------FYI
On 4/19/05, George Dawson wrote:
> Good evening/morning, Listers --
> Several weeks ago, an on-list thread discussed the Mercedes-BenzDiscussion
List partnership between Stu and me.
> Stu joined in this discussion by stating:
> "Richard and I had a disagreement around the same time and ourpartnership
ended at that time."
> Not true.
> Privately, and sometime later, Stu sent me an e-mail which stated, in part:
> "We formed a partnership of convenience to start the list. Thatpartnership,
in effect, no longer exists because I no longer find it"convenient" to be a
part of this partnership."
> Listers, let me describe what a "partnership" is: "partnership iswhere two
or more persons agree to carry on any business or adventuretogether, upon the
terms of mutual participation" (Black's LawDictionary, 4th Ed. Pp.1277).
> The Mercedes-Benz Discussion List was formed in 1998, and was based on*my*
(Richard's) initiation of discussions with Stu that first beganat StarTech in
Colorado Springs. When we initially formed the list,as many of you know, it
was hosted using resources allocated for myuse by Baylor University, and I in
turn provided (and still provide) aportion of my allocation to be used for the
list. Here the main listpages have resided to this day, and as of this evening
(Monday,4/18/05), each and every message to the list has a direct link to
thelist's pages at Baylor. Additionally, the list page atwww.mercedeslist.com
directs potential members to the list rules --again at Baylor.
> Stu and I began as equal co-owners and administrators of the listsince I
initiated the list seven years ago, and I have never agreed toanything less,
nor asked for anything more. Last year, without anynotice, Stu took unilateral
actions that have deprived me of my rightsas co-owner of the list.
> Again, for emphasis:
> Stu and I began as equal co-owners and administrators of the listsince I
initiated the list seven years ago, and I have never agreed toanything less,
nor asked for anything more. Last year, without anynotice, Stu took unilateral
actions that have deprived me of my rightsas co-owner of the list.
> I want to repeat Stu's assertion -- again, with emphasis:
> "We (Stu and Richard) formed a partnership of convenience to startthe list.
That partnership, in effect, no longer exists because I(Stu) no longer find it
"convenient" to be a part of thispartnership."
> Anyone who understands even the most basic contractual law understandsthat
Stu had every right to dissolve the partnership by either 1)withdrawing from
it himself or 2) reaching an agreement with me. ButStu didn't withdraw or
negotiate, instead he chose to TAKE (see below)my share of the list for
himself, without any notice, discussion, ormy consent.
> Our partnership was *not* a "partnership of convenience." Andwhatever a
"partnership of convenience" is, it is *not* recognizedunder the law. In
addition to this unfounded assertion, Stu didsomething this past fall that I
still have a hard time believing --Stu in effect changed the locks on our
business and LOCKED ME OUT ofour list.
> Again, for emphasis: Stu changed the locks on our business and lockedme out
of it. Without my knowledge. Without my agreement. And, withHank Van Cleef
being a willing participant in this scheme -- evenafter being informed of the
situation by me. Both Stu and Hank havecontinued to refuse me access to list
management.
> Stu and Hank have stolen my co-ownership of the list.
> A number of list members who are aware of Stu's illegal and unethicalactions
have encouraged me repeatedly to both respond on-list abouthis disconcerting
attitude and actions and "do something" about Stu'sillegal, and -- foremost to
my mind -- unethical take-over of thelist.
> I have intentionally sat on this issue for several months now, hopingthat
Stu would do the right thing in this situation, but it is nowclear to me -- by
evidence of Stu's public mis-statements about whathas occurred, and Hank Van
Cleef's inappropriate participation in listmanagement -- that I need to post a
response on-list to Stu'sstatements.
> Finally, those of you who have wondered about Bill Brandt'sconspicuous
absence from the list -- and were told by Hank Van Cleefthat Bill simply
wanted a temporary break from the list -- now knowthe real reason for his
absence.
> Richard W. Easley, Mercedes-Benz Discussion List Co-OwnerWaco, Texas
> PS Note that this e-mail was sent through another account because itis
likely that Stu and Hank are (illegally) blocking my messages.
__________________________________________________________________________
Striplins: if you see this line more than once you didn't TRIM YOUR POST

__________________
Bill Reimels
Now down to one:
1972 300SE 3.5 W109 (Euro delivery)