More MAC

[MaryHM]

Respectfully resurrected for everyone's perusal:

http://reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=26612

Same basic thing- someone pulled information off of a company's website and started discussing it. You can see what happened there. Why is this thread any different?

 

[Anonymous]

Why is this thread any different?

Different moderators. I don't have a problem with companies being discussed as I feel it some what difficult to discuss the industry while keeping everything nameless and un specific. It was clear to me that Ad was stating his opinion about the subject and company. You can feel free to assign whatever value you wish to his opinion. Because his comments brought up another bigger discussion (How far can any one company control the chain of custody?), I also felt it wasn't an attack on the company and decided to allow the discussion to continue.

Hey RDO, why is it ok to talk about SeaCare, but it wasn't ok to talk about Foster's and Smith?? Double standard?? If a company is paying you for advertising then they're off limits, otherwise they're fair game.

In the previous case, Dr F&S was accused of lying. In this case Ad has a difference of opinion about how a company should operate. Different kettle of fish in my opinon.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Mary , how exactly is it within" the rules of engagement" to talk about the company" MAC " and its business practices but not company" XYZ"?

 

[clarionreef]

Kalk,
I agree with you.
Since I too see MAC as a bonafide business now, [ ie. a public relations firm ]
and not a public, non governmental organization, perhaps the business rules should in fact apply.
Clever of you to set up the question.
Thanks, Steve
PS. Nah. On second thought, they 'legally' are still a "non profit" organization. Even though they act like a P.R. firm.

 

[MaryHM]

Mary , how exactly is it within" the rules of engagement" to talk about the company" MAC " and its business practices but not company"

That question has been posed and answered several times in this forum. Because MAC is not (in theory) a company (yet). They are a non profit organization. That is different than a privately owned business. I will assume you can see and understand the difference. If not, let me know and I'll go into further detail for you.

 

[Tim Tessier]

I will reply to all the various questions this evening.

Best Regards,
Tim - Seacare

 

[Anonymous]

Hi all,

I do believe that MAC is the last chance stakeholders of the marine aquarium industry in the Philippines and Indonesia have. I also believe MAC is the only organization with the credibility to "force" exporters, middlemen/women and collectors in PI and IN to
comply with the certification initiative. It has been demonstrated that MAC's program has some weakness which can be corrected. This, with our participation by means of constructive criticism.

Bad mouthing of MAC is not going to help, to the contrary, it will provide radical groups with ammunition to close down the trade in those countries.

No other organization or group will have the economic support and the willingness of various stakeholders to tackle the problems the trade has in the Ph. and In.

Please do remember that working in the Philippines is very complex. Forget quick fix and short answers. Is going to take time.
What MAC needs is support.

Jaime
_________________
Regards

But I thought you said EASI could do something to help?

 

[Anonymous]

Jaime wrote:

With a 90% mortality of cyanide caught fish vs. zero for hand-net caught specimenes, we only need shift this balance a tad.

I agree with Peters comment after you posted this (although it was referring to the CDT), if you don't know a subject matter, don't comment on it. Come join the real world, net caught fish die just as much as cyanide fish when not handled well.