sweetbranchforge wrote:
First of all, on this site, there seems to be an epidemic of over inflated sense of self-importance. You all try to sound more like lawyers than shoers.
Whatever we are, at least we are not so cowardly as to hide behind a nom d'plume. By the way, it appears from comments you have made that you are a member of the AFA. If so, then a cursory perusal of the membership list does not identify any member who lives in Liberty Center, OH. Care to comment?
Even the so-called owner of this site
"So called owner"???? Don't you really mean, defacto, verifiable and absolute
owner of this site?
, who at fiirst was going to can the discussion then waffled and decided to not take his toys and go home.
GONG!! Wrong. Baron clearly stated that unless a certain individual who was posting under a nom d'plume, identified him/herself, the thread would be removed. In response, said individual indentified herself as Bunny Goodrich. Thus, she fulfilled the mandate and no action on Baron's part was necessary. So, your charge of 'waffling' is proven wrong, your mendacity exposed, and your credibility plunges below zero where it had previously hovered.
This thread nor site (the battlefield he spoke of) is not for his personal amusement.
Really? How have you arrived at this astonishing conclusion?
As I am wont to say, you are
hoist by your own petard.
When things go his way, which is usually antagonistic as proven by his allowing and even egging participants on with this discussion, everything is hunky dorey but the threat of closing a discussion is ever present.
A wag might opine "His sandbox, his rules"
That is censorship.
Nope it sure ain't. If you can produce even one instance where Baron has acted inappropriately or outside the boundaries of his responsibilities as both
Owner and Moderator of this site, then I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you and pillory Baron without regard for his personal or professional wellbeing.
From what I read of the Katrina ordeal, Mr. Kramedjian and all of his two years of experience proved he was neither a leader nor farrier and certainly not a leader of farriers.
This is a slanderous accusation and one worthy of utmost contempt. The facts have repeatedly shown the opposite of what you allege. Doubt me? Try reading Tom Bloomer's reply to Ms. Goodrich. And, while you are at it, use all of your apparently limited intellectual capacity, to read for content in context.
This is not about legal-eeze. It's about the AFA.
Wrong again. Its about fulfilling the legal obligations as provided in the Publishing Contract. And in that respect it is about the AFA and the leadership's responsibility to fulfill their fiduciary obligations to the membership.
I again reiterate that this is about a vendor under contract to the AFA. Take the personalities out and deal with that and that alone.
The organization will never go forward if it continues to chew people up and spit them out.
Unfortunately, at this time, that seems to be the nature of the beast.
Mr. Davidson's temperment aside, he assumed all the risk, financial, emotional and his reputation to provide the membership with a very high quality magazine. And now it looks like he too will join the list of those discarded.
Perhaps you can show me where someone held a gun to Mr. Davidson's head and forced him, under the penalty of death or other dire consequence, to travel the path he chose. And, we cannot cast aside Mr. Davidson's temperment. It is that temperment that placed him in a quagmire of his own making with apparently no one willing to pass him a rescue line.
It's disturbing to me that so many identify Mike Nolan as being the representative of the AFA when it actually belongs to the members.
Are you perhaps a card carrying member of the Doofi Nation? For better or worse the membership identifies its
elected officers and for some, the members of the AFT, as the representatives of the AFA.
Rick, go back to the beginning of this post. Do you think it's acceptable to give unilateral control to the ACTING Executive Director because of what two dues-paying members wrote?
Excuse me, the Acting ED was appointed Project Manager with the
full approval of the Executive Committee. And it had nothing to do with what two members wrote. Further, under the articles of the Publishing Contract, the Project Manager was acting completely within his jurisdiction. Again,
no censorship occurred, nor has any censorship ever occurred.
Doubt me? Then read,for content in context, Danver's precise reply to me on this issue dating back to when he was Editor of PF. Still doubt me? Then do your due dilligence and provide me of even one instance where there was censorship enacted.
quote] Have you even read those letters?[/quote]
Several times.
Do you think it would be appropriate to withhold those opinions from the membership?
Nope. But what was being asked for was that before those letters were published, the accused be given an opportunity to respond so that both sides of the issue would be presented at the same time. Not such an unreasonable request(or if you like, demand), is it?
And it is noteworthy that Mr. Ferguson was given an opportunity to respond to the Duckett letter prior to publication, and when he did not avail himself of that opportunity, the letter was published. Hardly a shining(or tarnished as the case may be) example of censorship don't you agree?
Do you think it's appropiate to prevent censorship as soon as it rears it's ugly head or should it be allowed then dealt with later.
Should censorship, in your words, 'rear its ugly head'. then it should immediately dealt with. In this case, nothing of the sort happened. What did happen is that apparently Mr. Davidson got his undies all twisted up over the idea that the AFA was going to exercise its contractual rights with regard to publication of the PF magazine. Rather than approach this as a businessman, apparently Mr. Davidson let his emotions rule the day, and as a result, now finds himself and his vendor company in a rather precarious position, with little support or approval. If Mr. Davidson is counting on the membership of the AFA to back him during his temper tantrum and fit of pique, then I beleive he is laboring under a false hope and I would counsel him(were I to be asked) to grow up, act like a businessman and fulfil his contractual obligations without being a female cat. If he then wants to take his case, as an AFA member, to the membership so be it. Thus far, we, members and non-members alike, have not heard one word from Mr. Davidson. Only from his what appear to be, his talking heads. The AFA on the other hand, has responded publicly, within the constraints placed on them by their legal counsel, directly and succinctly.
It's clear that Ink and Anvil stood on principle regarding the issue of protecting the member's voice and forwarding the mission of the AFA [/quote
Bullsh-i-t. This is about Mr. Davidson's ego and his unwillingness and apparant inability to fulfil his contractual obligations. Again, take the personalities out of it and what you are left with is a contractor(the AFA) and one of its vendors(Ink & Anvil) being in disagreement over the vendor complying with the
signed terms of their written contract. And its not Ink & Anvil standing on any principles, rather it is Mr. Davidson who has taken personal affront and the temerity of the entity (the AFA) to require him to perform according to what was agreed to in the contract between the two.
(read what the mission statement is, because you have been long winded in distracting us from that.)
I have distracted no one from anything. Ms Goodrich made a very serious accusation and then attempted to substantiate it with misinformation, half(if that)truths and personal character assassination. Said character assassination being contemptable. Much the same as your contemptable attempt to do the same to Mr. Kramedjian and Mr Tayler. Contemptable, scurilous, and ill-advised.
Has the administration been doing that? No, they have been doing damage control because they have been doing damage to the AFA.
While you and I may be in agreement that certain elected individuals within the current administration have done damage to the AFA, in this instance, the only one damaging the AFA is Mr. Davidson(of course, that's JMNTBCHO) and if he, as he has in the past claimed, "loves the AFA" and "When cut, bleeds, AFA", then he would not be engaging in the actions he currently is undertaking. So, if you(whom ever you are)or anyone else, want to make this personal, I suggest you start with Mr. Davidson and his un-businesslike and un-professional behavior.
Regardles of the outcome, this is another huge blemish to the organization and I for one am discouraged that it can recover.
O yea of little faith. this is not a huge blemish on anyone but Mr. Davidson. And quite frankly, I don't give a rat's patootie who publishes the PF, just so long as I continue to receive it as promised as a member benefit. And I think you'll find that when you cut through all the BS, the rest of the membership feels the same way. Mr. Davidson may be a legend in his own mind, but that means little to nothing with regard to the membership receiving a benefit it was promised. Put up or shut up seems to be an appropriate adage right here.