Some TAG, AMDA, MAC History
- Thread starter Nancy Swart
- Start date
Mitch, I find that pretty insulting. Both to me and to MASNA. Let's see...what's the difference between my fund and AMDA's fund?? Well, I started with a plan of exactly where the money was going and how it would be spent. I made this plan public and I track the project's progress on my website. People can see exactly how much was spent on what. There were no "behind the scenes" deals with MASNA. I didn't approach them, they approached me. To insinuate otherwise is ignorant. And as far as saying MASNA doesn't know what they're doing...at least MASNA accomplishes one thing every year of a major scale- MACNA. I don't know when the last time was that I saw AMDA complete anything of substance.
All of that said, I'm not trying to be derogatory to either Mitch or AMDA, because I consider both to be allies. That's why I haven't pressed the issue of transparency like I have wanted to. But please don't make accusations against me or MASNA because it serves no one any purpose.
SciGuy2":19ostg31 said:
Lee here is exactly what he said.
There is no other way to take this Lee. I think your point is more trying to understand or hope he was not being insulting. I on the other hand am taking what he said at face value of his words and the context of how it is said.
I've given two days for all interested to respond, and as promised I'm linking to Bob Fenner's site some unlinked correspondence that is very pertinent to the continuing questions about how MAC conducts business. I do know that Mary has this same information linked on reefsource.com, however I feel that there may be others who either don't know or may find it easier to look from here. I feel it's important, as well as eye-opening, especially to those who aren't "hip to the sitch".
MAC correspondence 1
MAC correspondence 2
MAC correspondence 3
There is a great deal to read in here. Happy reading!
MAC correspondence 1
MAC correspondence 2
MAC correspondence 3
There is a great deal to read in here. Happy reading!
Seamaiden,
A lot of the stuff that I saw there was never meant to be made public. For my part I was trying to figure out just who MAC was. I had been told that MAC wanted to shut down the trade, by some people I trusted. Much of the heated discussions that went across the AMDA forum were arguments as to whether or not AMDA should endorse MAC. The AMDA BOD was composed almost entirely of people from service companies. Many of the retail members of AMDA had questions that were not being properly answered. We were basically being asked to accept everything on blind faith. The AMDA BOD met and decided to endorse the MAC without going to the members, despite receiving a letter I had written asking them too. It was not unanimous and at least two BOD members resigned in protest shortly there after.
Those are indeed old links and time has healed the wounds. AMDA is composed of dealers and service people who want a better industry. Despite the temporary bad feelings, some of us old combatants are now trying to work together. Gone is the public fighting. We are very serious about the AMDA Net/Training Fund. We are not trying to work against MAC as they enjoy very solid support amoung several of our members. We think that most of the people who will donate to the fund will be industry people. The plan is not completely finalized, but it had to start somewhere. I agree with John that the threat to shut us down has never really went away. I know a lot more about MAC than I did when those threads were active and much of my suspicion is gone. I think they will eventually get it right. I also think it could have been much easier.
Mitch Gibbs
A lot of the stuff that I saw there was never meant to be made public. For my part I was trying to figure out just who MAC was. I had been told that MAC wanted to shut down the trade, by some people I trusted. Much of the heated discussions that went across the AMDA forum were arguments as to whether or not AMDA should endorse MAC. The AMDA BOD was composed almost entirely of people from service companies. Many of the retail members of AMDA had questions that were not being properly answered. We were basically being asked to accept everything on blind faith. The AMDA BOD met and decided to endorse the MAC without going to the members, despite receiving a letter I had written asking them too. It was not unanimous and at least two BOD members resigned in protest shortly there after.
Those are indeed old links and time has healed the wounds. AMDA is composed of dealers and service people who want a better industry. Despite the temporary bad feelings, some of us old combatants are now trying to work together. Gone is the public fighting. We are very serious about the AMDA Net/Training Fund. We are not trying to work against MAC as they enjoy very solid support amoung several of our members. We think that most of the people who will donate to the fund will be industry people. The plan is not completely finalized, but it had to start somewhere. I agree with John that the threat to shut us down has never really went away. I know a lot more about MAC than I did when those threads were active and much of my suspicion is gone. I think they will eventually get it right. I also think it could have been much easier.
Mitch Gibbs
Mitch, this is why I put the links here (in the history thread), and I did give two days for those whose correspondences are present to respond/contact me regarding them. I did so with Bob's permission, and I gave the heads up because I felt it would simply be the polite thing to do. However, as Mary pointed out, while not linked via WWM, all of this is available to those who choose to educate themselves on the issue through one of her sites, so they're not entirely news to folks.
I'll state again that I feel they are beneficial to those who are "new to the game", they were eye-opening for me. A huge part of the reason why I decided to put them forth is that much of what was debated then is still being debated now. Much of what's there has not lost its pertinence due to time. Therefore, I felt that for many, especially folks like Ms. Swart, it was important that they be brought up to speed. I think this may serve to put aside the old arguments, and help us all move forward. We do want to move forward, yes?
Because there were few/no dates, I did not know the timeline involved, though you, Mary, Steve, and others do. Mary immediately posted stating the age of these correspondences. If I may be so bold, I feel that anything you "regular players" can add to round out the picture, as you've just done, is also quite helpful.
Many of the arguments/debates occurring here have become rather circular, and I don't know about anyone else, but I never feel as though any progression has been borne of the circle.
I'll state again that I feel they are beneficial to those who are "new to the game", they were eye-opening for me. A huge part of the reason why I decided to put them forth is that much of what was debated then is still being debated now. Much of what's there has not lost its pertinence due to time. Therefore, I felt that for many, especially folks like Ms. Swart, it was important that they be brought up to speed. I think this may serve to put aside the old arguments, and help us all move forward. We do want to move forward, yes?
Because there were few/no dates, I did not know the timeline involved, though you, Mary, Steve, and others do. Mary immediately posted stating the age of these correspondences. If I may be so bold, I feel that anything you "regular players" can add to round out the picture, as you've just done, is also quite helpful.
Many of the arguments/debates occurring here have become rather circular, and I don't know about anyone else, but I never feel as though any progression has been borne of the circle.
seamaiden":1fww0fkj said:
I don't see how reading the MAC Attacks creates any progression. It makes the circle even tighter and one spins into confusion. MAC and its associates are nothing like they are portrayed in those dusty files. Too bad MAC doesn't keep files on the dirty tricks and BS that many of its detractors pull. That file would make for an interesting and eye-opening balance.
SeaMaiden if it is for educational or historical purposes then I would like to add a another comment or two. AMDA was primarily divided on the issue of whether or not we should accept MAC flaws and all, and trust them to make the necessary changes to prevent industry collapse, or whether we should insist that they get it right first. Most of the trust was coming from the service companies, and most of the ones who wanted them to get it right first were brick and mortar retailers. I suspect it is still that way to a large degree.
I did find the near takeover of AMDA by the LA wholesalers to be interesting. I know some of us, myself included were asking for a change in leadership, but I was totally out of the loop on the LA dealings. I find it interesting that this little group of wholesalers and Bob did not include any of the brown skin wholesalers from the Philippines or Indo. I guess it was because that scheduled MAC meeting was only for those who had signed the pledge to become MAC certified. Others in the industry were not invited. I believe even Steve R. signed the MAC pledge just so he could get in. It must have been one interesting meeting for sure.
At least Bob is not guilty of editing out the parts or comments he made that put him squarely on the black list with the other troublemakers. Bob Fenner as AMDA president. Now there's a thought.
I did find the near takeover of AMDA by the LA wholesalers to be interesting. I know some of us, myself included were asking for a change in leadership, but I was totally out of the loop on the LA dealings. I find it interesting that this little group of wholesalers and Bob did not include any of the brown skin wholesalers from the Philippines or Indo. I guess it was because that scheduled MAC meeting was only for those who had signed the pledge to become MAC certified. Others in the industry were not invited. I believe even Steve R. signed the MAC pledge just so he could get in. It must have been one interesting meeting for sure.
At least Bob is not guilty of editing out the parts or comments he made that put him squarely on the black list with the other troublemakers. Bob Fenner as AMDA president. Now there's a thought.
Indeed, Mitch, a heck of a concept.
I think you make a very good point about who was and wasn't involved, though I'm not sure of the practicality of it at that time. And this kind of information is what I'm striving for. The files may be dusty, but they are educational, and education is what needs to be dispersed among as many as possible. Especially when there are so many who still have no idea that cyanide use is still a problem.
Also, I'd like to note that part of what attracts me to ideals such as those that CORL espouses is that they seem to be aiming for a much more holistic, could I even say altruistic (?) approach. I find it troublesome to my heart that the folks who are LIVING this drama don't appear to readily factor in. Steve and others have said this far better than I ever could, though. The "flavor" is different with CORL, and Mike King, though not always timely,
seems to be more than happy to answer questions and share as MUCH information as he possibly can. As a matter of fact, between yourself, Peter Rubec, Mike Kirda, and Mike King, y'all have damn near blown my disk capacity!
I will state again, I am being drawn to the conclusion that, for the sake of the hobbyist, some sort of certification program will be necessary. It's the veracity of those certifications that needs to be brought up to par. That is where my own (and others') questions lie.
John, do you really want to come off like that? You seem bitter about this, and as I've told you before, I do realize and appreciate that you are in a very tricky position. However, it now seems as though you'd prefer to squelch this information, others might interpret it is a rewrite of history (?). Yes, if MAC hasn't kept track of everything, that really is too bad. Part of what I'm hoping to achieve by posting this information is to help add my bit of fire under the collective MAC behinds, I/we really want answers to the questions, but more importantly, I want MAC to actually mean something, to show the highest scruples and levels of ethics, so that, should they become the certifying agency, it would truly hold some water. I don't think that's wrong, is it?
I think you make a very good point about who was and wasn't involved, though I'm not sure of the practicality of it at that time. And this kind of information is what I'm striving for. The files may be dusty, but they are educational, and education is what needs to be dispersed among as many as possible. Especially when there are so many who still have no idea that cyanide use is still a problem.
Also, I'd like to note that part of what attracts me to ideals such as those that CORL espouses is that they seem to be aiming for a much more holistic, could I even say altruistic (?) approach. I find it troublesome to my heart that the folks who are LIVING this drama don't appear to readily factor in. Steve and others have said this far better than I ever could, though. The "flavor" is different with CORL, and Mike King, though not always timely,
seems to be more than happy to answer questions and share as MUCH information as he possibly can. As a matter of fact, between yourself, Peter Rubec, Mike Kirda, and Mike King, y'all have damn near blown my disk capacity!I will state again, I am being drawn to the conclusion that, for the sake of the hobbyist, some sort of certification program will be necessary. It's the veracity of those certifications that needs to be brought up to par. That is where my own (and others') questions lie.
John, do you really want to come off like that? You seem bitter about this, and as I've told you before, I do realize and appreciate that you are in a very tricky position. However, it now seems as though you'd prefer to squelch this information, others might interpret it is a rewrite of history (?). Yes, if MAC hasn't kept track of everything, that really is too bad. Part of what I'm hoping to achieve by posting this information is to help add my bit of fire under the collective MAC behinds, I/we really want answers to the questions, but more importantly, I want MAC to actually mean something, to show the highest scruples and levels of ethics, so that, should they become the certifying agency, it would truly hold some water. I don't think that's wrong, is it?
I was afraid this was going to happen if the old AMDA crap was dredged up. As much as I want to just let your comments go, Mitch, I can't.
Concerning the "near takeover of AMDA". We discussed it. It wasn't a big secret (There were AMDA BOD members that were informed of it to get their feedback), but we didn't want it to go public per se until we worked out 1) if we even wanted to do it 2) if we did, how we wanted to organize it. It's not like there was going to be some huge overthrow and the AMDA membership would wake up the next morning with a new BOD. All of those discussions were about the feasibility of doing it and organization if we decided to do it. Because if we decided to do it, we would have gone to the membership with an intact plan in place. You know, the same membership that Randy Goodlett felt shouldn't be contacted about AMDA throwing support behind MAC.
There were two meetings that occurred.
Meeting #1: I called Bob Fenner and told him we needed to have an importers meeting. I knew I couldn't call up everyone and say "Let's do lunch.", but I knew that Bob could. And he did. It was an importer meeting. Not an exporter or retailer meeting. That is why no "brown skins" as you put it or retailers were involved. This meeting was for us to decide a course of action concerning MAC.
Meeting #2: MAC got a little freaked out that the LA wholesalers were having unified meetings (it had never happened before), so they called their own meeting to address our concerns. The only people MAC wanted at that meeting were people who had signed statements of committment. This was quite frustrating to many of us, as there were other wholesalers from across the country that wanted to come in for the meeting but were told they couldn't. But then they allowed Steve in by letting him sign at the last minute. The main thrust of that meeting was the DOA issue. Apparently Elwyn Segrest and I were the only ones that bothered to notice that in the standards. No one else had commented to MAC about it, so MAC assumed everyone else was fine with it. At the LA meeting they learned otherwise. Now for the interesting part. All during the AMDA discussion board stuff that went on for a couple of months before these meetings, MAC repeatedly told everyone that the standards were set and could not be changed at this point. Of course, once the wholesalers threw a fit all of a sudden the standards were changeable- and got changed. Although they aren't much better.... Inconsistency. This is MAC's biggest flaw.
If people want to read the old stuff and ask a specific question, that's fine. But I really don't want to get in a back and forth about the whole thing.
Concerning the "near takeover of AMDA". We discussed it. It wasn't a big secret (There were AMDA BOD members that were informed of it to get their feedback), but we didn't want it to go public per se until we worked out 1) if we even wanted to do it 2) if we did, how we wanted to organize it. It's not like there was going to be some huge overthrow and the AMDA membership would wake up the next morning with a new BOD. All of those discussions were about the feasibility of doing it and organization if we decided to do it. Because if we decided to do it, we would have gone to the membership with an intact plan in place. You know, the same membership that Randy Goodlett felt shouldn't be contacted about AMDA throwing support behind MAC.
There were two meetings that occurred.
Meeting #1: I called Bob Fenner and told him we needed to have an importers meeting. I knew I couldn't call up everyone and say "Let's do lunch.", but I knew that Bob could. And he did. It was an importer meeting. Not an exporter or retailer meeting. That is why no "brown skins" as you put it or retailers were involved. This meeting was for us to decide a course of action concerning MAC.
Meeting #2: MAC got a little freaked out that the LA wholesalers were having unified meetings (it had never happened before), so they called their own meeting to address our concerns. The only people MAC wanted at that meeting were people who had signed statements of committment. This was quite frustrating to many of us, as there were other wholesalers from across the country that wanted to come in for the meeting but were told they couldn't. But then they allowed Steve in by letting him sign at the last minute. The main thrust of that meeting was the DOA issue. Apparently Elwyn Segrest and I were the only ones that bothered to notice that in the standards. No one else had commented to MAC about it, so MAC assumed everyone else was fine with it. At the LA meeting they learned otherwise. Now for the interesting part. All during the AMDA discussion board stuff that went on for a couple of months before these meetings, MAC repeatedly told everyone that the standards were set and could not be changed at this point. Of course, once the wholesalers threw a fit all of a sudden the standards were changeable- and got changed. Although they aren't much better.... Inconsistency. This is MAC's biggest flaw.
If people want to read the old stuff and ask a specific question, that's fine. But I really don't want to get in a back and forth about the whole thing.
seamaiden,
Count me bitter. Dragging out all this past crap does NOTHING to burn any fires under MAC's butt. It is a total delusion on the part of a number of people on this forum that their whining and libelous trash-talking of MAC is actually directly forming it into a cute little object. If y'all never said another word, MAC would continue on with its stated mission and goals.
Readers of MAC Attack: Please understand when you are reading those MAC Attack files, the parties involved and accused of various improprieties are not here to give their views and proper rebuttals or updates. There are more stories than are told in those files. MAC does not believe in reaching goals in industry reform by hanging out laundry or creating Internet smear campaigns. MAC will remain positive and continue to work towards its goals.
Count me bitter. Dragging out all this past crap does NOTHING to burn any fires under MAC's butt. It is a total delusion on the part of a number of people on this forum that their whining and libelous trash-talking of MAC is actually directly forming it into a cute little object. If y'all never said another word, MAC would continue on with its stated mission and goals.
Readers of MAC Attack: Please understand when you are reading those MAC Attack files, the parties involved and accused of various improprieties are not here to give their views and proper rebuttals or updates. There are more stories than are told in those files. MAC does not believe in reaching goals in industry reform by hanging out laundry or creating Internet smear campaigns. MAC will remain positive and continue to work towards its goals.
Whoa, John. I absolutely resent that comment. I, personally, am NOT trying to smear anyone or organization. To accuse me of a "smear campaign" is WAY out of line. I really thought I'd stated my intentions quite clearly. You're reading the very same forums I am, and I gave warning two days prior that I would be posting these links. Nothing has ever stopped you from contacting me directly before, I don't know what would have stopped you this time. It's clear to many of those who have been involved in this from the get-go that those who haven't are not aware of what's gone on in the past. While I would have loved to contact each and every person whose name comes up in those files, I simply don't have the means, I certainly don't know them and they wouldn't know who I am.
It may be history, but you should know that adage as well as anyone else--
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Yep, you hit the nail on the head, if not another word was said, MAC would continue AS IT HAS. Therein lies the problem! Sheesh. The status quo is not acceptable, nor is it accepted. We're going about attempting change using the American way, by voicing our concerns. So, since this method isn't how MAC can be encouraged to change its ways, and writing letters doesn't seem to work, what would you suggest? Shut up and wait? Not gonna happen, my friend.
Quite frankly, the situation with MAC is not very positive. Mary's (now epic novel) letter to Paul has still gone unanswered, and to the best of my knowledge each and every other person who has contacted the organization with very pertinent questions has yet to be answered. Is it that he's unaware of the goings on here, or hasn't yet received those queries? Or is that being made up? Is that part of the "smear campaign"?
It may be history, but you should know that adage as well as anyone else--
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Yep, you hit the nail on the head, if not another word was said, MAC would continue AS IT HAS. Therein lies the problem! Sheesh. The status quo is not acceptable, nor is it accepted. We're going about attempting change using the American way, by voicing our concerns. So, since this method isn't how MAC can be encouraged to change its ways, and writing letters doesn't seem to work, what would you suggest? Shut up and wait? Not gonna happen, my friend.
Quite frankly, the situation with MAC is not very positive. Mary's (now epic novel) letter to Paul has still gone unanswered, and to the best of my knowledge each and every other person who has contacted the organization with very pertinent questions has yet to be answered. Is it that he's unaware of the goings on here, or hasn't yet received those queries? Or is that being made up? Is that part of the "smear campaign"?
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
