Surely PAM’s leaders didn’t really believe that suing donors would be greeted with anything but scorn, anger and frustration from most people (not a “small but vocal” group). The letter to the editor indicates otherwise — an unrealistic attitude about public attitudes and PAM’s place in the larger community. No wonder they’re having difficulties.
As to the comment about those who didn’t “honor guarantees” — from the articles in the paper, I figured that those guarantors were similar to friends who co-sign on loans because the debtor either doesn’t have the collateral or the credit history to get the loan on their own. The co-signer isn’t guaranteeing to give the money to the friend should they fall short. They’re guaranteeing to the bank, the lender, that they’ll be good for the money should the friend default. Their signature as a guarantor allows the friend to get the loan. And that’s what happened with PAM, right? With the guarantors’ help, they got the loans but then defaulted, and the guarantors were on the hook to the bank.
By the way, I’ve not pledged to PAM, nor do I know the guarantors, so I hope my comments are not put into what Dr. Morton calls the “transparently self-serving” category.
