MAC's spokestoken...

[Anonymous]

hmm..

i don't get why the identity of the poster is more important than the questions being asked, john.

does the answer change depending on who you're telling the answer to?

No, but how you frame your reply does, depending on the audience.

If you were to ask me a camera question, I'd want to have some idea what level you at with camera gear and film and such before I would attempt to answer the question. Otherwise I could easily go completely over your head, or answer it in a way that could be construed as condescending, all because I'm not sure what your level is.

Here you guys are reading some sort of sinister intent out of John, then implying things about him... All he wants to know is whom he is addressing.

I dunno, but given the chilly and generally hostile reception to his simple question, I'm not sure I'd ever bother coming back if I were in his shoes.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

please prove to me via email, or on this forum, that you are really mike kirda

:roll:


i also understand that your above quoted post also applies to blue hula?

from what i gathered, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for mac to have ignored her email


unless mac wants to claim that just by her association w/this bb, she doesn't deserve simple basic courtesy?

sorry-but this just cements my opinion that the entire mac staff are a bunch of buffoons, and supremely rude ones, at that

 

[MaryHM]

No one made My Hairy Ass reveal his/her identity. Why is this stipulation being forced on Advantage? Hold on, let me guess. Not because you answer people differently based on their knowledge level/experience. If that was the case, you could simply ask him/her what his knowledge level/experience is- no need for names and titles. I think Advantage has posted enough for us to have a feel of his/her knowledge level about the topic at hand. The only reason anyone would demand him/her to reveal his/her identity is so they can find something to attack!! Look at what has been done in the past to me, Jenn, etc... Diverting attention from our questions via personal attacks. Look what happened to Andy (I think his nick is spawner). The moderators took extraordinary measures to reveal his identity and use it to attack him and divert attention from the questions he was posing. It's so ridiculous. The answers to the questions are the answers to the questions. They don't vary on the askers knowledge level/experience. Advantage, as damn curious as I am about your true identity, I urge you to not reveal it. It wouldn't matter anyway. Then you would be Mr./Mrs. Whoever You Are who does XYZ for a living who still doesn't get any answers like the rest of us "outted" fools.

 

[mkirda]

i also understand that your above quoted post also applies to blue hula?

from what i gathered, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for mac to have ignored her email

As there is no reason for them to have ignored numerous e-mails from me.

John <> MAC and MAC <> John.

Maybe I have my timeline messed up, but I believe Jessica started on the board around the same time John got fed up and decided to step down and basically stop posting. Maybe that has more to do with it?

If Jessica was expecting an answer from John directly, I think she placed her hopes of getting an answer in the wrong hands. Those questions should be addressed directly to Sylvia or Paul, not to a single member of their BOD.

I think the biggest mistake people were making on this board was to expect John to answer any and all MAC questions. He started and tried to be helpful, but that turned out not to be good enough. This is why, looking back on things now, I see so clearly why it was doomed to failure.

Is it so weird to you, Vitz, that I can clearly see and understand the viewpoints of people as different as Steve and Mary and John and Jenn and Ferdinand and Dante and Roger? And that I can agree with a lot of what all of them say, and disagree with a little?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[MaryHM]

If Jessica was expecting an answer from John directly, I think she placed her hopes of getting an answer in the wrong hands. Those questions should be addressed directly to Sylvia or Paul, not to a single member of their BOD.

Mike, Jessica has directly put her questions to Paul Holthus via email. No response. If I remember correctly though, there was a thread where Jessica was asking some questions and John wanted some answers from her first. She gave her answers and he mysteriously disappeared.

 

[Anonymous]

I personally like for people to know who I am when posting, thats why I used my real given name. Many choose not to, dogfish head (or whate ever his aka is, what is it again Chip?), Horge, Ad van Tage, sardinic wit and My Hairy Ass all have choosen to NOT use they're real names for various reasons that only known to them. IS that wrong? Nope, but makes it hard to take them seriously sometimes. Heres a what if: what if they aren't allowed to use the company computer for personal reasons (and some one one this board whom hates them, reports them to their boss causing the loss of a livelyhood)?

To ease your pain, I'm Ad van Tage!!!

 

[clarionreef]

If John were in fact defending the indefensible,
who else could've done any better?
Actually I remember many positive and constructive dialogues with John and only saw it all fall apart when MAC dis-engaged from the CORL training proposal [ in June] and decided to continue with only bogus training from their office corps. To me that was absolute proof that they were not sincere and were going to play down the field work and go straight to where the money was...facility certifications instead of fish and divers!
Sincerely, Steve
As a commercial diver and trainer for 25 years I have some degree of right to this professional evaluation of said "field staff".

 

[Anonymous]

If Jessica was expecting an answer from John directly, I think she placed her hopes of getting an answer in the wrong hands. Those questions should be addressed directly to Sylvia or Paul, not to a single member of their BOD.

Come on now Mike, aren't the the nit picker on this board (or is that just with Kalk?). Jessica stated MANY times her emails where directed to Mr. Paul Holthus!!! She knew from the get go about lapdogs so she directed her questions to the one in charge.

EDit: ---Written while Mary posted her response--

 

[jamesw]

Dizzy said:

James obviously wanted someone who would promote the MAC agenda.

That is NOT true and I would like to refute this in the strongest possible terms.

Please allow me to explain. Reefs.org is NOT a dictatorship where what I decide goes. We are a democratic group of "ops" and we make each and every decision about this site as a group.

We voted as a group to appoint a new moderator when Mary quit and John was the most knowledgeable candidate. He is involved in MAC, has been in the industry for a long time and has a service company. That's like 3 out of 2 qualifications!

Never at any time did reefs.org ask John to moderate the Industry Forum because we want to further the MAC agenda.

We are an educational website and community.

Sincerely,
James Wiseman

 

[mkirda]

Jessica stated MANY times her emails where directed to Mr. Paul Holthus!!! She knew from the get go about lapdogs so she directed her questions to the one in charge.

I know, Gresham, I know...
Trust me, I know all about it...

Get this. I've asked John his advice on how best to get questions answered.
Some I actually have hopes on getting answers (four months on, but still getting responses...), others I have no hope ( multiple requests have gone unanswered...)

I'm not trying to nitpick anything- I'm being centrist and hoping for civil, productive discussion only.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

i also understand that your above quoted post also applies to blue hula?

from what i gathered, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for mac to have ignored her email

As there is no reason for them to have ignored numerous e-mails from me.

John <> MAC and MAC <> John.

Maybe I have my timeline messed up, but I believe Jessica started on the board around the same time John got fed up and decided to step down and basically stop posting. Maybe that has more to do with it?

If Jessica was expecting an answer from John directly, I think she placed her hopes of getting an answer in the wrong hands. Those questions should be addressed directly to Sylvia or Paul, not to a single member of their BOD.

I think the biggest mistake people were making on this board was to expect John to answer any and all MAC questions. He started and tried to be helpful, but that turned out not to be good enough. This is why, looking back on things now, I see so clearly why it was doomed to failure.

Is it so weird to you, Vitz, that I can clearly see and understand the viewpoints of people as different as Steve and Mary and John and Jenn and Ferdinand and Dante and Roger? And that I can agree with a lot of what all of them say, and disagree with a little?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

i only find macs resounding silence to be the weird thing here

oh, and the notion that a:knowing who someone is should affect factual responses, and b: that 'identifying' yourself by claiming to be any so-n-so on a bb post is valid id :lol:

do you respect those who ignore you? :idea:

 

[MaryHM]

James, sell it somewhere else, cuz I ain't buying it. John Brandt was not even an active member of this board when you chose him to be moderator!!! Had posted maybe 3 times in a year and a half before he was promoted to moderator. If you are going to sit here and say that he wasn't chosen solely because of his position with MAC, then I'm going to call you out on it. There are plenty of other people who had industry experience that were active members of this board at the time I resigned. I had suggested Jenn and Glenn to you as good replacements when I was asked. I think I also suggested SeaMaiden as a good unbiased, active person to choose. You pushed John though in a very interesting way, and offended some of the other RDO staff members in the process. Don't act otherwise.

 

[clarionreef]

In defense of silence on RDO...
'Tis better to be thought a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

 

[jamesw]

No Mary, while that may be what you think, it is not true. John was selected because he was the best candidate for the position as I have stated many times.

Cheers
James

 

[MaryHM]

Ok James, if it makes you feel better to think that then go ahead. But when you personally go out of your way to find a moderator that isn't even an active member of RDO, then something stinks. Here's a question- have you ever installed a person as moderator of any forum at RDO that was not an active member of this community prior to that installment??

 

[jamesw]

Well the first time I spoke to John about the internet and #reefs was at WMC in Seattle in 1998. I don't really think it matters what day he registered on this board, his qualifications are his qualifications. Like I said, he is involved with MAC (so knows about how MAC works) he has been in the industry for a LONG time, and he is still involved w/ his service company. That's like I said 3 out of 2 qualifications met! So we thought he would be a good moderator.

He was not chosen in order to forward anybody's agenda - he was chosen because he was the best candidate for the job.

He contributed quite a bit to our community before he was a moderator.

Cheers
James

 

[blue hula]

Maybe I have my timeline messed up, but I believe Jessica started on the board around the same time John got fed up and decided to step down and basically stop posting. Maybe that has more to do with it?

If Jessica was expecting an answer from John directly, I think she placed her hopes of getting an answer in the wrong hands. Those questions should be addressed directly to Sylvia or Paul, not to a single member of their BOD.

How flattering Mike - I single handedly hounded John off the board?

Time line is as follows:

I started lurking on this board when Mary was moderator.

I lurked through the period when John was moderator - and frankly was somewhat disturbed to see the level of lobbying that occured in a role that should be filled by a Libran. But not my issue (at the time)

John went to the Philippines.

John came back and VOLUNTARILY posted on issues associated with Batasan of which he had limited and insufficient knowlege.

I began posting because I knew something about the specific issue and place. I also emailed Paul Holthus requesting information. Repeatedly.

John left himself open to getting hammered because rather then saying "gee I don't know" he expounded. Authoritatively and such that most would think MAC was doing a bang up job in Batasan. His bad luck I worked there.

NEVER HAS THERE BEEN A CLEAR ACKNOWLDEGMENT FROM MAC OR JOHN (even in the early days BEFORE i got cranky) THAT THE SANCTUARY IN BATASAN WAS NOT THEIR INITIATIVE.

And there were opportunities. Read the threads. I sat quietly waiting for John to clarify. Why could he not answer the simple question of "how large is the sanctuary?" - BECAUSE IT WASN'T THEIRS AND THEY DIDN"T HAVE A CLUE! Why didn't they just say so ? Because then people would ask - "well what have you actually done then". They allowed people to think it was theirs and that they were thus making progress on the standards for collection areas.

In the early days, I didn't ask John questions out of the blue. All of my initial contributions and questions were in response to HIS posts. So the expectation of a response .. well i call it "discussion" and I think it is a reasonable expectation. I believe I previously referred to it as the "you show me yours, I'll show you mine" game. Apparently we were actually playing "i'm taking my ball and going home".

Note - I also don't generally ask Kalk questions out of the blue - i respond to his posts - with technical information or personal knowledge.

Indeed, John should take a lesson from Kalk - have enough faith in what you post that you'll take the heat (although I wish both would take on board the responses they get at least some of the time).

I deeply resent the implication that I somehow hounded John off the board. That's kind of like saying "kill the messenger" ... or "blame the victim" ... or "don't let facts get in the way". What happened to "take it on the chin" and "stand up and be counted"?

Sorry I've interferred with the backroom negotiations. While I would welcome John back - it would be as a participant rather than a lobbyist.

There are times when the middle road is the wrong path.

Sincerely and unhappily,

Bruised and Blue Hula

 

[JennM]

No Mary, while that may be what you think, it is not true. John was selected because he was the best candidate for the position as I have stated many times.

Cheers
James

Of course he was! And we all saw how well that worked!!!! :roll:

Sorry James but that statement just had to be called up.

I would have declined the job, as I do not have the time to devote, but I only knew I'd been recommended for the job because MARY told me. I was never approached by RDO to even discuss my qualifications. I've owned/moderated my own board on an unrelated topic, for the last 4+ years. My board gets 100-200 posts per day and 6000 or so visits per day. Nobody asked me my qualifications or experience. Perhaps it was because I'm on the wrong side of the agenda. Nobody from RDO said a word to me. Conclude what you will in that regard.

I will commend RDO on its choice of Glenn as moderator - he does a great job.

Jenn

 

[jamesw]

I think Glen AKA Rover does a great job too. We are very very lucky to have him.

The fact of the matter is folks - when you quit a job, you don't usually get to choose your replacement. Mary quit and she didn't get to choose her replacement. She recommended a person, or some people, and we chose someone else who we thought was better qualified.

I can understand being miffed about that - the person we chose has an opposing point of view - but not to the point of accusing us of "foul play."

Sincerely,
James Wiseman

 

[JennM]

Chuffed?

I think you'd better look up the meaning of the word "chuffed". In my book it means "pleased".

I have no problem with anyone being moderator, as long as they can perform the role. When people begin to use their position to further an agenda, or intimidate, or bash, then I take issue with it.

A person can have an opinion, but be fair in administering a forum at the same time.

I'm chuffed that Glenn is mod

Jenn

 

[mkirda]

Mike, Jessica has directly put her questions to Paul Holthus via email. No response. If I remember correctly though, there was a thread where Jessica was asking some questions and John wanted some answers from her first. She gave her answers and he mysteriously disappeared.

Yes, I am aware of this. It is not clear to me that John got the information he needed from MAC to be able to answer the question before he stopped posting, or if he ever got it. I know for a fact that he wouldn't know the answer to a question quite that detailed.

Privately, I've been pushing John to come back to help answer questions.
So you don't read that the wrong way, let me state it explicitly: I don't like the fact that MAC has not responded to anyone recently. It is not a slap at John- We understand each other- He understands why I feel it important that MAC address the questions put to it and I understand his reasons for not posting here recently.

Regards.
Mike Kirda