Another bombshell ; high level firing at MAC

[Anonymous]

The MAC is rotten at the core. If the MAC BOD hires from within its organization or from the other MAMTI partner organizations, we can expect more of the same. It will be impossible to have true reform. Rumor has it, that several individuals associated with the rot want the job of Executive Director for the MAC. If the MO trade allows it, it will only have itself to blame.

If the MO trade allows it? And how pray tell do you suggest the MO trade fights it if it doesn't want it? Simple asnwer, it can't. MAC does not answer to the trade ultimatly. Sure, dealers can choose not to join, and 99.99% aren't a part of them, so by defacto the trade has spoken and MAC is still there They'll be around until the funding runs out, or they land on their own two feet and continue to run. If you look at the success NGO's have had in this trade, like IMA, MAC, AMDA and such, and look who's around now, you'll see the trade doesn't support anyone them really.

 

[clarionreef]

Guys,
The regular programming on network TV has far greater leeway in allowing freedoms of expression and opinion that you imagine is appropriate. We operate in a normal, rather free wheeling society and then come here and have to respect a boundry of freedom that is more limiting and restrictive then we are used to in America.
The problem is, we are not all clued into what constitutes the boundry of propriety with you all....or the rules of censorship you are saddled with... or what world view you are trying to manipulate.
We do know that this changes with each and every moderator thruout the years so it does seem to be relevant to personality.
The ngo and corporate world gives us a clue. For example, non disclosure clauses...and the fear of lawsuits regardless of wether they have merit or not.
This place has been very quiet for the last 2 months. Perhaps it should be again.
Steve
For industry professionals here, many things are extremely relevant that some find boring or inappropriate. [The 10 year usurpation of the reform movement for example...now in serious flux] .
I totally understand this. I have those feelings as well in hundreds of other sections of the internet. I would never however, deny them the right to expression regardless of how worthwhile I felt they were.

 

[clarionreef]

Gresham makes an interesting point.
"the trade doesn't support anyone them really".

Since when did the trade support anything.... either way....?
The survival problems just being in this trade may prevent a collective, responsible and generous, spirit from evolving.
It must stem from the illusions of big profits from live fish we have always heard about.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Guys,
The regular programming on network TV has far greater leeway in allowing freedoms of expression and opinion that you imagine is appropriate. We operate in a normal, rather free wheeling society and then come here and have to respect a boundry of freedom that is more limiting and restrictive then we are used to in America.
The problem is, we are not all clued into what constitutes the boundry of propriety with you all....or the rules of censorship you are saddled with... or what world view you are trying to manipulate.
We do know that this changes with each and every moderator thruout the years so it does seem to be relevant to personality.
The ngo and corporate world gives us a clue. For example, non disclosure clauses...and the fear of lawsuits regardless of wether they have merit or not.
This place has been very quiet for the last 2 months. Perhaps it should be again.
Steve
For industry professionals here, many things are extremely relevant that some find boring or inappropriate. [The 10 year usurpation of the reform movement for example...now in serious flux] .
I totally understand this. I have those feelings as well in hundreds of other sections of the internet. I would never however, deny them the right to expression regardless of how worthwhile I felt they were.

Steve,

For the millionth time, no one is having posts edited because of content. What we working to avoid is nasty snipe fests. Your accusations that the editing has anything to do with interest, worthwhileness, boredom or world view bending are frankly insulting.

Instead of holding the hands or regulars to this forum who know better, we are simply editing their posts, and they know they are free to post again with the same content expressed in a less nasty, 'snipey' way. To say that people don't understand what is being asked of them is unbelievable since we have publicly gone over this again and again and again.

If you feel there is nefarious intent beyond the stated purpose of the moderation, expressed in the sticky at the top of the forum, or if you really are unable to express your opinions in a manner consistent with that sticky, I don't really know what to tell you - except perhaps that this isn't the right forum for you.

 

[clarionreef]

Rich,
What constitues a snipe to you may be read as a witty retort, a good answer or a touche to another.
Content gets lost chronically here with the deletions.
Thread get watered down, locked, threatened to be locked and the basis of it is often what you...you personally see as a snipe.
I find a lot of your lectures to me condescending, arrogant and ill considered....however, I dont think they should be deleted.
They show where you stand and thats important.
Granted....slander and personal insults are bad form. ..and with that in mind, I'm glad you're not editing the presidential debates as they are as bad as anything here. Esecially when they get personal over allegations of impropriety. Thats part of the process ...the fact that one may risk such allegations dissuades crooks from commiting them.
Thank God they are allowed and that things are free wheeling enough in the public press to make the guilty feel apprehensive..
Sincerely, Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Rich,
What constitues a snipe to you may be read as a witty retort, a good answer or a touche to another.

You betcha and its the mods admins jobs to make that determination based on history and what we hear from other members of the community. When we have decided we were wrong, threads are reopened or posts restored.

Content gets lost chronically here with the deletions.

I disagree. A lot of the time only the parts of the posts that violate the UA or UAA are removed. Most of time, the content that was removed has already been expressed by the same person or earlier in the thread by another.

Thread get watered down, locked, threatened to be locked and the basis of it is often what you...you personally see as a snipe.

See above.

I find a lot of your lectures to me condescending, arrogant and ill considered....however, I dont think they should be deleted. They show where you stand and thats important.

Fair enough and back at you. However, if either of us started nastily sniping at each other, I think action may be helpful. Do you see the difference between the dialogue we are having and the nasty sniping that sometimes gets edited?

Granted....slander and personal insults are bad form. ..and with that in mind, I'm glad you're not editing the presidential debates as they are as bad as anything here. Esecially when they get personal over allegations of impropriety. Thats part of the process ...the fact that one may risk such allegations dissuades crooks from commiting them.
Thank God they are allowed and that things are free wheeling enough in the public press to make the guilty feel apprehensive..
Sincerely, Steve

I don't really see what that has to do with this forum (and BTW, I find it hard to believe that you don't know about the massive amounts of editing that go into presidential debates).

In recent history, this forum has become a de-facto pulpit for one side of several issues because it has been nastily intolerant of opposing views - intolerant in such a way as to make people unwilling to post here not because of their positions being questioned, but because of how they were/are treated by other posters. The UAA was written to try to change that so that this forum could offer some kind of useful dialogue.

As your friend, if you really feel that the UAA and the UA and the way they are put into play are unfair and something that you don't want to put up with, I would be happy to help you set up your own website with your own forum that you can run any way you like.

 

[PeterIMA]

Thales and Steve, Can you guys argue somewhere else? Freedom of speech is important, but the topic being discussed is who will become the next Executive Director of the MAC?

I want to discuss ROT in the MAC. Is there any hope of saving the MAC? Lets get back on topic.

Peter

 

[Anonymous]

I agree Peter. I don't think freedom of speech has much to do with this forum, but I do think I have to respond when members bring up administration issues.

I think MAC can be saved if they start producing results. Without results, its all just talk. I don't think I really care who is the next ED of MAC, I just care that they get the results the organization is supposed to generate.

 

[Anonymous]

calling a con artist a con artist is sniping ?

:roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Again, for the 2 millionth time, your content wasn't a problem, they way you chose to express it was.

 

[Anonymous]

Again, for the 2 millionth time, your content wasn't a problem, they way you chose to express it was.

that's a non-answer if i ever heard one

the content and the expression of it are the same thing!

we have a con artist and a con org who pretty much swindled an industry, or many people in it, and i called him what he is, and made the observation that the biggest damage he's done (and his org) is that now people will even be less likely to believe ANY "reform" org's statements about potential accomplishments (once bitten twice shy, and all that), and possible achievements

what the mac and it's head con artists did is absolutely deplorabe, and despicable, and should be treated and talked about as such in manner and tone to match


there, i didn't name any names-happy now?

 

[PeterIMA]

Vitz, I agree with what you just posted.

Peter

 

[Anonymous]

So, if talking about MAC ROT is fine, talking about the past ROT IMA sufferred should be totally kosher as well then Peter. Yet, when I bring up the subject, your idea of free speech goes out the door and you threaten to sue me or anyone that wants to talk about it!

 

[PeterIMA]

Gresham, Too bad we happen to agree about the MAC but less so about IMA. At least, the IMA did constructive things with the funds it received.

Peter

 

[clarionreef]

sound bite;
"In recent history, this forum has become a de-facto pulpit for one side of several issues because it has been nastily intolerant of opposing views - intolerant in such a way as to make people unwilling to post here not because of their positions being questioned, but because of how they were/are treated by other posters. "

You are in no position to say this with any credibility....especially since it is such a faulty analysis of the situation.
The freedom to express views has always been open to all sides here and it is the inabilitry to defend ones position to a surprisingly clever and experienced audience that has has driven away some posters

Now....many of the loyal opposition are now on this side of the aisle since the 95% of the entire roster at MAC was fired or resigned.
Theres hardly anyone left on the other side numerically anymore. The most critical players are now ex employees. Where do you think so many of the leads and leaks come from?

Believing in the sincerity of the group in question is now considered a naivite indicator and finding a 'true believer' to exchange views with...[much less drive away] is difficult to say the least.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Again, for the 2 millionth time, your content wasn't a problem, they way you chose to express it was.

that's a non-answer if i ever heard one

Its a direct answer seeing as you have been in so many discussions regarding the UA that I have a very hard time believing that you don't know what we are talking about.

the content and the expression of it are the same thing!

Not necessarily.

we have a con artist and a con org who pretty much swindled an industry, or many people in it, and i called him what he is, and made the observation that the biggest damage he's done (and his org) is that now people will even be less likely to believe ANY "reform" org's statements about potential accomplishments (once bitten twice shy, and all that), and possible achievements

Well put.

what the mac and it's head con artists did is absolutely deplorabe, and despicable, and should be treated and talked about as such in manner and tone to match

I disagree, and don't think thats what you did in the above paragraph. If you feel the need to ignore the UA and UAA, please go somewhere else.

there, i didn't name any names-happy now?

Names have nothing to do with it. Go back and add names to your above paragraph if you like.

 

[Anonymous]

sound bite;
"In recent history, this forum has become a de-facto pulpit for one side of several issues because it has been nastily intolerant of opposing views - intolerant in such a way as to make people unwilling to post here not because of their positions being questioned, but because of how they were/are treated by other posters. "

You are in no position to say this with any credibility....especially since it is such a faulty analysis of the situation.
The freedom to express views has always been open to all sides here and it is the inabilitry to defend ones position to a surprisingly clever and experienced audience that has has driven away some posters

Now....many of the loyal opposition are now on this side of the aisle since the 95% of the entire roster at MAC was fired or resigned.
Theres hardly anyone left on the other side numerically anymore. The most critical players are now ex employees. Where do you think so many of the leads and leaks come from?

Believing in the sincerity of the group in question is now considered a naivite indicator and finding a 'true believer' to exchange views with...[much less drive away] is difficult to say the least.
Steve

Ah, I see where you have been coming from.

You think the people I am talking about are pro MAC, and that I may somehow be trying to help them get their points across. You think this has something to do with sides. This is not the case.

There is a huge group of industry people who don't really care about MAC one way or the other, and they are the people I am referring to above. They are the people who tell me they don't post here because of how they have been treated by other posters or because they have seen how other posters have been treated.

In short, I don't care what 'side' of any issue anyone falls on. What I do care about is how they choose to express themselves in their posts.

 

[Anonymous]

Again, for the 2 millionth time, your content wasn't a problem, they way you chose to express it was.

that's a non-answer if i ever heard one

Its a direct answer seeing as you have been in so many discussions regarding the UA that I have a very hard time believing that you don't know what we are talking about.

the content and the expression of it are the same thing!

Not necessarily.

we have a con artist and a con org who pretty much swindled an industry, or many people in it, and i called him what he is, and made the observation that the biggest damage he's done (and his org) is that now people will even be less likely to believe ANY "reform" org's statements about potential accomplishments (once bitten twice shy, and all that), and possible achievements

Well put.

what the mac and it's head con artists did is absolutely deplorabe, and despicable, and should be treated and talked about as such in manner and tone to match

I disagree, and don't think thats what you did in the above paragraph. If you feel the need to ignore the UA and UAA, please go somewhere else.

there, i didn't name any names-happy now?

Names have nothing to do with it. Go back and add names to your above paragraph if you like.

ok, i honestly don't understand-adding names would make this post essentially the one you deleted :?

 

[Anonymous]

Again, for the 2 millionth time, your content wasn't a problem, they way you chose to express it was.

that's a non-answer if i ever heard one

Its a direct answer seeing as you have been in so many discussions regarding the UA that I have a very hard time believing that you don't know what we are talking about.

the content and the expression of it are the same thing!

Not necessarily.

we have a con artist and a con org who pretty much swindled an industry, or many people in it, and i called him what he is, and made the observation that the biggest damage he's done (and his org) is that now people will even be less likely to believe ANY "reform" org's statements about potential accomplishments (once bitten twice shy, and all that), and possible achievements

Well put.

what the mac and it's head con artists did is absolutely deplorabe, and despicable, and should be treated and talked about as such in manner and tone to match

I disagree, and don't think thats what you did in the above paragraph. If you feel the need to ignore the UA and UAA, please go somewhere else.

there, i didn't name any names-happy now?

Names have nothing to do with it. Go back and add names to your above paragraph if you like.

ok, i honestly don't understand-adding names would make this post essentially the one you deleted :?

It would make the content more the same (although I think the difference is minimal in this case), but the expression is quite different. If you are interested in more discussion about this, please pm me.

 

[Caterham]

One trait that is quite admirable in a moderator is being consistent.

Time and time again many of the contributors to this forum are told the same thing. You can pretty much say whatever you want within reason but you better watch how you say it.

You think someone is a thief? No problem, just say it gracefully and back it up with facts. You think a NGO told a bunch of lies and misled a group of people? No problem, just say it gracefully and back it up with facts.

If I had something that I felt everybody needed to hear I promise you that I would know how to phrase it. We have all been told many times.

You know what you call a smart blonde?

GOLDEN RETRIEVER