Hello Frederick,
> 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.
Wow ... and I thought that this was a very basic conversation ... it's not very complicated to me!
I'm working inside of Novell, with numerous great teams of engineers and product management people who are creating the future of Novell. We are examining the situation that we find ourselves in, are determining what possibilities exist for us, and are pulling together the teams to make this occur. This is called "working" ... and even doing it as a team ... with the endorsements and support of upper management.
You are standing outside, making up stories and pointing blame for past events. You are attempting to create absolute statements of how things are, without any involvement in the teams that working to create the future. You are also stating that you are all about love and peace, and then continue to attack people for doing their best ... and I guess that you are also indicating that since Fred Smart is so perfect so should everyone else be. This is called "talking" ... or more specifically "blowing hot air."
> 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.
Yes ... the board of directors granted him shares ...
And as for the options? Heck mine are under water ... so what am I going to do about it?
1. I could cry and throw a temper tantrum that "... he has more than I do!"
2. I could do my job, and effect the stock price ... pushing it up as high as I want it to go.
I'm choosing to do the latter ...
> I specifically asked you - on repeated occasions - to
> comment on the moral/ethical/rightness of this pattern and
> you have repeatedly dodged the question.
I have not dodged it ever. I have answered it straight every time. Of course it's not the answer that you want to hear, but I am completely ok with everything that has occurred! You, on the other hand, want to dwell in the past, on past events, and how things could have been.
I'm working on the future ... and how things are going to be.
> YOU have a gut. YOU have a mind. YOU have a free will. YOU
> have a sense of right vs. wrong.
Yes ... I do. But let's examine this just a little bit. I have a "sense" of "right vs. wrong" ... but *YOU* sure don't seem to agree with it! You are continuing to want to say that I am "wrong" for what I say and feel. You want to continue to state that I'm just speaking for some hidden force, or group of executives who are putting me up to something ...
No, Fred, I have no problem with what exists ... it is what it is. Waste all the time you want on trying to change the past, but I'll give you a tip ... you won't be able to.
So instead, look to the future, and how it can be. You seem to think that the only useful future is to "punish" or "discipline" those who "need" it ... I don't see any need ... we are doing just fine without your cheerleading or reorg requests.
Maybe you can't see a path to win, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist ... it simply means that Fred Smart can't see it. And if he only stepped down off his alter and started to ask questions - and listen to the answers - he might learn that there are many paths to success. Just maybe.
I can see numerous paths ... and none of them require the type of unprofessional behavior that you feel is so necesary.
> 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.
Yep ... it's a bunch of whining about the past. Sorry Fred, it's done.
> Well you know what Scott?
No ... tell me Fred ...
> 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."
I'm again so glad that *YOU*, Fred Smart, can bless us with your presence, and great knowledge of the absolute rights and wrongs of the world. The great part is that you have a whole world of work cut out for you ...there are obviously a lot of people in the world who are doing things far more "wrong" aren't there?
> Now just to review, here are more bitter examples of
> personal attacks on Frederick Smart.
I'll suggest that you go back and re-read your posts to me. I've said before that you chose to take this to a personal level. I am more than happy to go as low and direct that you want to. You see, I have a great advantage ... I'm willing to look at my life and myself and see the faults and where I failed. And I'll discuss them with anyone. You have, on numerous occassions, make direct and personal attacks ... I am simply continuing the conversation at the level that you set.
Feel free to continue ... I'm game.
> 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.
So you admit it ... "[you] believe" ... not that it's true in any way, shape or form! You simply "believe" that it's true! So what the hell is that worth? Nothing.
I "believe" that your story is crap ... and I believe that mine is better! What the hell is that worth? Nothing.
You see, our beliefs do not create reality. Period. They are simply beliefs which we can choose to infect the minds of others with. And that infection can either stifle or enhance progress.
You seem to enjoy the negative and stifling infections ...
> Do you understand?
Do you?
> 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.
You are right ... I don't.
> The sarcasm and bitterness is so thick I can almost spread
> it into my peanut butter sandwich.
I sure *hope* that you can see it! I'm working to lay it on just as thick as the crap that you are spreading!
> And now here's the kicker which unveils the real McCoy
> which appears to be a personal vendetta against me.
There is no vendetta ... simply that your words mean nothing to me. You have so blatently flipped back and forth time and again that I now know that your words do not have integrity to me. You do not live what you say.
> And now we return to this cold, calculated Lemonism.
Yes ... and I take this as a compliment. It is a very logical progression of language and communications.
> ========
> "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.
I'm sorry that you can't seem to understand what I wrote. I will stand by it, and would be glad to ask any specific questions that you have ... or even provide some specific examples.
It's as easy as this ... point at anyone and ask the question "Do they need help?" No matter who you point at you could say "Yes" or "No" ... it depends on what they are working to accomplish, or what you want them to be. So without context, the answer would generally be "No" ... they are just fine the way they are. Now if you want to outline a specific place that they are, and where they (or you) want them to be, then you can measure and determine the requirements to accomplish that transformation.
> NO ENERGY.
>
> NO VISION.
>
> NO PURPOSE.
>
> NO RISK.
>
> That's all I "see" and "feel" from these attempts to apply
> logic to these defenses.
And of course ... it couldn't be *YOUR* eyes could it?
> 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.
I have, and will continue to ... but you don't want my answer ... you are convinced that *I* am "wrong" ...
Got it.
I have no problem with Stewart accepting the options granted to him by the board ... sorry ... I don't. And I'll work my butt off to make *MY* options worth a ton of money ... and if he gains, so be it. I don't have a problem with it at all.
> 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.
I know that you are hung up on this, but I have no problem with it.
> 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 I say that it exists and it doing just fine ... but you again want to say that I am "wrong". Again, Fred the all-knowing ... consults his crystal ball and can't see it ... so it doesn't exist.
Got it.
> 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.
Yes ... your pattern continues. And it's really too bad that you can't see it. Fred admits that he can't see it ... and so he argues that it doesn't exist.
It's really too bad that you can't stop for a second to look for the path, because it is there, and there are a whole bunch of us running down it ...
> 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.
What the hell are you talking about? What did he "take" that was "yours"? He's only cashed in what was given to him ... and it was given over a long employment dating back to WordPerfect ... you're again saying that all Novell employees should somehow be limited in doing this? Or just the ones that move up in management?
> Forget about ME, Scott. I'm a shareholder.
Yes ... and so am I! And I'll bet that I have a lot more shares, bought and held, than you do. And I have options, that are currently under water that are more than you have.
So what?
> 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.
Yes we have! He was granted options, and he exercised them. Period. What else do you want? (By the way ... I've heard that he also accepted paychecks during this time!)
> Nope. Look around you Scott. Read the press. Talk to
> customers. Talk to those who have left, recently and
> before that.
I do look around me ... and I read the press, and I talk with customers, and I talk with all the people that I work with who are working together to take Novell someplace. You see Fred, that's what I'm doing ... I work at Novell. I don't sit around on the outside making up stories about people ...
> 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.
Cool ... I'm so glad that you have that belief. It doesn't make it real.
> Do I see a bitter snicker behind this??? This is like
> drinking lemonade. Refreshing, but bitter.
No ... just a continued amusement and disappointment reading the words of a man who has so much to offer to the world, but is stuck in such a perverse and negative attitude. I can't believe that it's a happy place to be.
> So, bottom line, Scott keeps defending this path that
> leads to "nowhere."
It's too bad that you just can't see it ... blind by your own religion.
> 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.
Yep ... I was hoping that you could escape from it ... but you have walked yourself in deep ...
> 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 funny how you pose that "question" ... you ask, and sentence to death in the same sentence. Judge, jury, and executioner. You are an amazing piece of work ...
> No bitterness here Scott.
Likewise ... I'm having a blast and making all kinds of progress ...
Scott C. Lemon |
