I've said this before, and I'll say it again now:

The tools are at your disposal to organize an event down there. The event committee is still, and always has been open to those who want to get involved. If you're not happy with the pace and location of the events that we do organize, the event committee is the place to start.

What we don't have, but maybe we should, is a mutiny committee. If you'd like us to start one where you can organize the overthrow of the current chain of command, I have no problem with that. Or perhaps you'd like a demolishing committee instead, since the title of your thread here is more akin to a dismantling of the SOS effort.
You know we're very accomodating on things like this, so just let us know which way you want to go.
:)

I'm not sure those are the best courses of action. Let's follow a third plan:

Why don't you continue with the same conduct you've been practicing for the past year? This way, when things are exactly the same in three, six or nine months from now, and yet another person asks why we haven't staged an event for fill in the blank, you can tell him/her:

A. The event committee is open, it's always been open.
B. There's just a lot of apathy out there right now, I'm seeing it everywhere and not just in immigration ...
C. We're doing pretty well for an organization people threw under the bus and tried to strangle!
D. We're here to poke, prod, encourage and assist ...
E. We can't force anyone to organize something. I can lead a horse to water ...
F. Well, we just had an election season go by, people have been pretty worried about this economy and that's keeping them busy ...

That way, when pressed on the subject, you won't have to invent new irrelevant and inaccurate excuses, you can utilize the old reliable ones that have been field tested.

When the event committee did organize, you did nothing but criticize the main person engaged in organizing. You berated her, belittled her, condescended, antagonized, impugned, and even torpedoed her in the full view of the rest of the committee. Is it any wonder that the others would be reluctant to take the initiative after witnessing that bit of savage, unwarranted, and undeserving action?
And now you'd have me stand before the remaining crew, with the executioner still sword in hand, and ask "alright, who's next?"
Hell no! That's not me. I get out and provide example instead. I'm not afraid of you either. I don't care which side of the immigration issue you're on; The treatment is still the same. And that's why we don't curtail or silence you. We're not going to take the nightingale approach, and that of several other organizations/websites that have censored you and others for perceived or real infractions. What we are going to do is let the record speak for you. So it's up to you how you want to be remembered.

As for the event committe, it is still open. We still want action, and we still welcome participation. You can apply yourself, or complain about how others don't. The former has at least a chance of success. The latter has a pre-ordained outcome. I choose the chance of success. I beg others to do the same

Respectfully to all parties here:

Has Sam and the staff at Derailamnesty.com organized and fielded an event?

Is Sam himself willing to organize and field an event in SoCal?

What is so important about titles of organizations as opposed to personal initiative?

Not baiting, sincere question.

The personal attacks (Schwilk, executioner, etc.) are a nice and imaginative addition to the excuses you've been floating for awhile, but the equation remains the same. You have an organizing committee that won't organize. Doling out 37 different, and increasingly creative, explanations for inaction and SOS atrophy, to me, Phil, Cole or whoever else broaches what is clearly a sensitive topic w/ you, doesn't change that SOS is ignored b/c it is inactive. So, when Cole remarks that it looks like most of what is done here is cut and paste, he's right.

That's the record, and I'll be happy to stand on it.

Most topics are sensitive to me; I'm a sensitive guy. And I repeat: I'm not afraid of you or your scrutiny either.

If you don't like the cut and paste; don't read it

If you don't like the effort we are doing, or you think it isn't enough; duly noted, but it carries less weight when you haven't offered something in alternative. You telling people they aren't doing enough is not the same as doing something yourself

I respectfully ask as to what is Sam's solution?

Junk the organization, change the leadership, change the membership, or step up and organize an event in Southern California?

Once again, not baiting.

Not only are you unafraid (Dude, what would or could I do to you?), you're not easily embarrassed, either. There doesn't seem to be much about SOS's ongoing decay and increasing irrelevancy that seems to phase you.

And I did offer you an alternative, and you hit the roof when I mentioned it - Close it down.

It's getting embarrassing ... although I'm confident you don't agree.

Look, there's no point belaboring this further. You and I clearly reason very differently, and this is hardly the first time we've disagreed.

When (and if) you get fed up, let me know. I'll buy the url from you. I won't continue the organization but I'd like the internet traffic.

Running the risk of "chirping", I now see potential motivation for this thread:

I respectfully submit that an offer could have been privately made. I believe the disagreeable nature of this public discussion was and is totally unnecessary.

No; I'm not afraid of embarrassment either. I would think my history of activism would have been your first clue. And yes; I'm very stubborn, and even my own bodily decay doesn't phase me.
Today, and throughout the past year, you've posted many links to your website. You're already getting free internet traffic...from an allegedly decaying, irrelevant organization no less. No need to thank us. That's what we're here for