Scott.....
Let's not get too complicated. I think your obsession for "lemonizing" Frederick Smart in the Scott Lemon blender has moved you away from understanding what started this return to focus on Stewart Nelson.
He got more $.10 shares back in June. AFTER the fiasco!! Thousands and thousands of new shares when other employees' options were far under water.
I specifically asked you - on repeated occasions - to comment on the moral/ethical/rightness of this pattern and you have repeatedly dodged the question. YOU have a gut. YOU have a mind. YOU have a free will. YOU have a sense of right vs. wrong.
And the most you could ever spit back out was to defer this to Novell's BODs. I take that back, you actually pushed it back into my face saying this was all "just sour grapes" on my part.
Well you know what Scott?
You are right. But for different reasons. Sure I could see myself in Stewart's shoes taking all those shares for myself, etc. but that still wouldn't make it "right."
Now just to review, here are more bitter examples of personal attacks on Frederick Smart.
////////////////////////
"I simply have you pegged as a whiner who wants to point blame and make accusations instead of looking for constructive possibilities for creating the future."
"I also have you pegged as someone who wants to act like they know everything about the inner-workings of specific people, but really don't."
"And pegged as a hypocrite who talks of love and peace, but they throws spears and attacks from behind."
"I'm afraid that you demonstrate that you really don't understand what forgiveness really involves. And on top of that, you pollute the word with your attempts to twist and spin the truth."
///////////////////////////
All I have done is focus on ONE person, Stewart Nelson, who happens to be "leading" Novell. And I have backed up much of the personal focus on Stewart with CLEAR CONCRETE EXAMPLES OF ACTIONS WHICH HE HAS TAKEN WHICH I BELIEVE HAVE WORKED TO HARM NOVELL.
Do you understand?
Then I go so far as to say "I forgive Stewart Nelson for selfishly acting out and taking those $.10 options."
But, NOoooooooooo, for a Lemonized view of the world doesn't interpret or "see" anything that Stewart has done in this area as wrong or questionable.
As you last confirmed in your last message about my offer to forgive Stewart:
"Wait now ... this is great ... *you* forgive someone for taking what was granted to them by the board or directors. My ... how incredibly wonderful of you Frederick. I know that Stewart is going to sleep so much better at night because you posted this ..."
The sarcasm and bitterness is so thick I can almost spread it into my peanut butter sandwich.
Then I go on to "forgive Stewart Nelson for working too hard to defend the Old guard inside Novell."
And I get it thrown back in my face with...
"So can you give the concrete and specific examples, in detail, where this is true?"
Scott, if you don't understand this point then I'm really sorry.
And now here's the kicker which unveils the real McCoy which appears to be a personal vendetta against me. After I wrote "And I forgive you, Scott Lemon, for defending your and his right to simply "be" and "walk the talk" as you say" you wrote....
Scott: "I, certainly, do not need or want any cheap forgiveness crap from you, Fred. Your attempts to use something like this to manipulate a situation are obvious and sickening. Sorry ... you can keep it ... you have demonstrated that your word has no value on this thread."
I then get back to the same issues by saying....
"But we still are left with a Novell that needs help.Would you agree? And if not, please elaborate as to the reasons why Novell does not need any help from anyone."
And now we return to this cold, calculated Lemonism.
========
"So this comes down to the fundamentals of language and communications. I am not a believer that anyone *needs* anything. I believe that there are endless possibilities available to us in our lives, and that Novell has limitless possibilities. If we choose a specific possibility, then we can evaluate what choices can be made to move us closer to creating that possibility. But we don't *need* to do so."
"If we outline a specific possibility that we are creating, then we can easily outline the specific measurable objectives, and the action items, required to reach that possibility."
"So to generically say "Novell needs help" leaves so much open that I can't agree ... if only because there is no context placed on the direction or destination."
========
Boil all that down and you have NOTHING. Perhaps an incredible dodge, spin and weave routine which can continue in endless circles, doubling back on those who question anything/anyone/anytime.
NO ENERGY.
NO VISION.
NO PURPOSE.
NO RISK.
That's all I "see" and "feel" from these attempts to apply logic to these defenses.
Unless you openly share your core feelings about the quality of Stewart Nelson's leadership in relation to his these specific, concrete ACTIONS relating to his stock moves, there really can be no single step toward any constructive future involving me offering help and assistance to you, through you and beyond you to others inside Novell.
For as you say.....
"I'll also offer that "assistance" is much more productive then "help" ... and I'm sure that if you truly wanted to assist Novell that people would be open to all sorts of assistance. But I'll also suggest that assistance is not sitting at home spewing trash about what people "did wrong" or "are forgiven for doing" ..."
So there's the "wall" that Scott Lemon has built in defense of what I really don't know. You won't comment about the right or wrong relating to specific actions Stewart Nelson has taken in these stock affairs. You simply defer and refer this to Novell's BODs.
So I basically get back to "simply referring to a very real need for ENERGY and VISION and EXCITEMENT which Novell needs to become "relevant" once again."
And then the defensive wall gets presented right back again....
Scott: "I know that most of my coworkers already have this, and it continues to grow and build. There are numerous exciting projects underway internally, and there is a strong desire to succeed and make Novell successful ... and I keep finding more and more each day. But since you don't work at Novell, I guess that you don't really know ..."
So let me bring this back home by repeating:
"This is ALL my entire argument against Stewart Nelson
boils down to. His leadership has been deep-sixed -
undercut - by his actions which have transparently
revealed to shareholders, employees and others that he's
in this for selfish power/control reasons which are not
bringing energy, light and passion into reversing this
rot, this decline we are in."
And more "lemons" get thrown at me:
Scott:
"No ... this is simply what *you* want the story to be, Fred. And you keep telling it, over and over, in the hopes that you will be proven "right" ... you so want it to be true. It's ok ... that's just a typical human behavior ... but it is still just a story that you are writing ..."
Again, so where does this leave us?
Nowhere.
And perhaps this is where you, Stewart and Novell want to remain. For as you responded:
Scott: "Great! It's a good fit ... I believe that the Tao beliefs are something like "Life is empty and meaningless ..." so we are right on target!"
Bottom line, this pattern of separation and defensiveness
continues. I don't see any path of light which could bring
hope to raise the internal morale problems Novell seems to
be facing.
Then the personal lemonization against Frederick Smart continues:
Scott: "Wow ... and if Fred can't see it then it must not exist? Kinda' like "If Fred can't get Stewart to talk on the phone then ..."
So the world is, because Fred says so ..."
So I will repeat, "all of these problems can be laid to rest at Stewart Nelson's doorstep. He's the leader. Eric delegated authority and responsibility for him to run these things. I just don't see him as an effective leader. He's protecting and defending more than he's leading."
And then this defensive lemonization factor comes back:
Scott: "Where the heck do you get this? Please give one concrete example of the "protecting and defending" crap ... please! Give a detailed example of an action that he has made ... a decision ... a choice ..."
Ok.
His ENTIRE record of TAKING what's his as his and what's ours as his in the form of Novell equity over the past 1+ year.
And then another personal wise crack attack:
Scott: "And as for you not seeing him as an effective leader, who cares ... it's again the world according to Fred."
Forget about ME, Scott. I'm a shareholder. Shareholders have rights to ask questions. Some of them can and should be tough and very direct. After months and months and months we have yet to get ONE simple concrete explanation from Stewart, you, the board or anyone which justifies these specific, concrete ACTIONS he has taken in this Novell equity/option area.
So I close by commenting:
"And more of the folks who could really bring positive
change back to Novell seem to be leaving. And the ones who
are attracted to stay or work at Novell will, by
definition, fit and support this defensive/combative/closed pattern or leave."
And Scott responds with a nonanswer:
Scott: "And so that is the way it is. Period. Huh? Fred says so, Fred "sees", and so it is. No other explanations, no alternative views ..."
Nope. Look around you Scott. Read the press. Talk to customers. Talk to those who have left, recently and before that.
There are some really great people inside Novell, Scott. I believe this 10,000%. But I simply believe that Novell has a leadership and culture problem that needs to be addressed. There's a leadership and culture that smothering Novell to death.
Frederick: "That's how I see it Scott."
Scott: "Yep ... you sure do."
Do I see a bitter snicker behind this??? This is like drinking lemonade. Refreshing, but bitter.
So I get to the point by commenting "I'm puzzled as to what you are defending."
And the REAL truth comes out: a blatent, personal attack on poor me, Frederick Smart:
Scott: "I'm not defending anything ... I'm working inside of Novell to create a future, along with a lot of employees, that will make Novell successful. In addition, I'm simply replying to your posts, and explaning that your Don Quixote pontifications are a waste of time. You are so far off track by now that you are creating more damage than assistance. You are continuing to fight to be right, at the expense of Novell. And you are continuing to be a blatant hypocrite about your "love" and "peace" stories ...
You used to be of value on this thread, and internal to Novell ... but please keep posting because the employees who are busting their butts are able to get a better idea of who you really are."
And this view of Frederick Smart is confirmed by your answer to my comment about you:
"It's like watching a guy fighting for the right to defend
the right to remain in the bottom of this dark, deep well
that's only getting darker and deeper."
Scott: "Yep ... that's what I see when I'm reading your posts, Fred. Look in a mirror ..."
So, bottom line, Scott keeps defending this path that leads to "nowhere." I repeat "I don't see you reaching out in the spirit of reconciliation, forgiveness and understanding. It's simply reduced to this "Frederick Smart is the problem" bottom line."
And Scott repeats the same ole, same ole saw: "No ... Fred is not the problem ... Fred simply is failing to distinguish what he is creating ... and he's refusing to budge an inch just so that he can be so right ..."
There really isn't anything more to comment on about this dialogue. A repeated pattern seems to have been set in this circular stone - a defensive "lock" if you will. Nobody has the guts to dare question what Stewart Nelson has done to abuse/use the trust of shareholders and general employees with his inside stock deals.
It's like an open sore that will remain open. A moral rot that's exposed for what it is with simply "no comment." Sour grapes is all. Period.
On a lighter note, I do have several songs I could sing to Scott and others inside and outside Novell after a long hike to the top of some moutain outside of SLC someday. And, as I mentioned, "perhaps that kind of tonic is needed to bring this dialogue to it's ultimate transformational conclusion."
And at least Scott and I can agree on this one point when he responded "Sounds great ..."
No bitterness here Scott.
Peace.
GO!! |
