Steve writes:

> I absolutely disagree. Our problem has never been with people at
>  Winston's level; I seriously doubt that anyone will suggest that Harry
>  had any less of a commitment to the 3000, or was any less willing to
>  push it within HP's management structure, than does/is Winston. Are we
>  satisfied with the success Harry enjoyed in his efforts? I certainly
>  am not. Our proposed "ad" is not targeted at Winston, so I don't see
>  how his reaffirmation changes anything--he is not the problem.
>  Conversely, the people who *are* the (indirect) target of the campaign
>  have a solid, years-long history of less-than-benign neglect.
>
>  WRT "we should honorably give HP a chance to make good on that
>  effort": we have no commitment from anyone at HP to undertake any
>  effort, other than the same people who have made the same commitment
>  in the past--and had zero success. No one within CSY has been able to
>  get the attention of HP senior management within the last decade; I
>  have absolutely no reason to believe that Winston, despite his best
>  intentions and efforts, will be any more successful. It's time he got
>  some help.

And Paul and Neil and others write:

> I say we keep collecting the money.

I completely agree with everything that Steve and the others have written.
The primary point that I was trying to make in my previous posting was that
we ought to give Winston as much of a chance as we possibly can.

However, that doesn't preclude continuing to collect money. As the sum grows
larger, so does the potential threat. The money that we collect will hang
over the entire process like the Sword of Damocles, and that's not
necessarily a bad thing.

So the question is: Why should YOU give money? The most obvious -- and most
selfish -- reason is that it is an investment in your own future. I wholly
agree with those who argue that the money has to be used to make a point, and
a strong one at that. The only way that that's going to happen is something
very much like a WSJ ad, or perhaps better yet a full-page, well-written open
letter placed in the WSJ.

Indeed, because this is a selfish enterprise, and not a charity, I would
suggest that you contribute much more than you would if you were giving to a
charity. This entire project will affect your immediate future and your
capacity to earn a decent wage on a platform that you obviously feel deserves
your respect.

I can see three outcomes. One is an outright failure. In that case, you get
your money back (minus any transaction charges). In this instance, you didn't
lose any money, but you may have lost a great deal more.

The second is that we succeed, in the way that may be occurring now, without
having to run the ad/open letter to HP. In this second case, you again get
your money back.

The third is that the concensus of the group is that HP has clearly not been
responsive and the ad must run. In that case, your money has become an
investment in your future -- and may well be the cheapest and best money
you've ever spent.

While I remain convinced that we should give the highest levels of HP some
time -- perhaps until late November -- to begin speaking publicly (and with
some enthusiasm) of the HP3000, I see no reason not to continue collecting as
much money as quickly as we possibly can. The larger the sum that we collect
the larger the Sword will be that will hang over Damocles.

Wirt Atmar