MAC's spokestoken...

[mkirda]

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

Wow! Talk about taking things out of context!

Jessica, I have never said, nor tried in the slightest to imply, that you hounded John off the board. I'm sorry that you took it that way- I will do my best to make things clearer next time.

When asked why I thought he never responded to you, I simply said that I didn't really know, but that perhaps the timeline was such that at the point John started getting fed up and stopped posting, you were just starting the more difficult questions. It was a stab at a guess, a possible explanation, that is all. Hell, I don't condone the fact that he never responded to you. Your questions were appropriate and well reasoned.

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".

One possible explanation for sure, but it may not be the correct one.

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

Sure is seeming like a lot of people are bothered by my centrist tone at the moment... I'm not sure it is 'the wrong path' or not. Is it wrong for me to try to change MAC's mind about this forum, and to try to encourage them to participate once again?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[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?

Mike ... that's the whole paragraph. How was I supposed to take it? What "context" am I missing? The last sentence seems pretty clear.

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".

One possible explanation for sure, but it may not be the correct one.

I wasn't offering an explanation. I was pointing out that John's behaviour was pretty poor and that there was a reasonable expectation of an answer since HE engaged ME. What possible alternative is there ?

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

Sure is seeming like a lot of people are bothered by my centrist tone at the moment... I'm not sure it is 'the wrong path' or not. Is it wrong for me to try to change MAC's mind about this forum, and to try to encourage them to participate once again?

I thought: "John <> MAC and MAC <> John" ???

As to centrist approaches ... I'm all for it. Conservation is ALL about balance ...

But there is a difference between mediating opposing positions and defending poor behaviour ... what because someone's feelings were hurt or they were tired? And before you tell me that you're not defending poor behaviour because, yes, you agree questions should be answered ... you are ... everytime you soft peddle John's reasons for opting out.

MAC / John would gain a lot of respect if they just showed up without all the molly coddling and coaxing.

Jessica

 

[blue hula]

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.

Well that's pretty thin ...

If John didn't have the information he needed, why was he making claims about the Batasan sanctuary (which you asked him about incidentally) ?

What detail ?
Question 1: How big is the marine sanctuary at Batasan?
Question 2: Were there or were there not resource assessments done on Batasan ?

My goodness, if John can't answer basic questions like these, why do we want him back to speak for MAC (as opposed to posting as an individual which I would welcome...)

And what does that say about MAC that even members of their Board can't get basic info 8O 8O 8O

The mind boggles.

Pink hula

 

[Anonymous]

change MAC's mind about this forum, and to try to encourage them to participate once again

Umm, officially, MAC was here once. That would be the P. Holthus #reefs session. John stated numerous times that he wasn't posting as an official MAC voice (well he said that only after he was asked questions he couldn't asnwer), so why the call to get him back? He never answerred any hard questions, what makes you think he'll answer them now? He never talked for MAC, what makes you think he'll do it now? If John wants to attend this open forum, he may do so at any time and he knows this. Let it rest and if the guy wants to contribute, he will. He's sure doing a good job currently defending himself (well James and Mike are doing it for him).

 

[mkirda]

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?

Mike ... that's the whole paragraph. How was I supposed to take it? What "context" am I missing? The last sentence seems pretty clear.

But then I added to my thought process and explained to you what my intention was. Jeez... E-mail or BB posts are so imprecise, language-wise... I state what I mean(t) knowing that in no way can it be misconstrued, yet it still is misconstrued...

I've obviously touched a nerve I never intended to touch in the slightest.
In no way did I intend to convey that I thought you were the reason why John left, and in no way have I tried to apologize for his behavior. In retrospect, it was a mistake to even attempt to answer the question posed to me asking me why I thought he didn't answer your question(s). I have no idea, and as every guess I've made or possible explanation I've offered has seemed to have offended just about everyone, I'm sorry I took the bait.

What possible alternative is there ?

{grin} Given my track record on this, I will abstain from answering.

I thought: "John <> MAC and MAC <> John" ???

As to centrist approaches ... I'm all for it. Conservation is ALL about balance ...

But there is a difference between mediating opposing positions and defending poor behaviour ... what because someone's feelings were hurt or they were tired? And before you tell me that you're not defending poor behaviour because, yes, you agree questions should be answered ... you are ... everytime you soft peddle John's reasons for opting out.

MAC / John would gain a lot of respect if they just showed up without all the molly coddling and coaxing.

Jessica

Jessica, I have never defended John's poor behaviour. I have understood it (at times), but that is very different than condoning it or defending it. Does understanding the reason why a wife shot her philandering husband, whom she caught in bed with her sister, mean that I am defending murder? I don't think so. Maybe you see things differently than I.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Ad van Tage]

Ad,

I will communicate with you about this as soon as you tell me and the forum who you are without ambiguities.

Mike, given what you have written on other threads, would

This is an example of making things personal when there is no need.

not have been a great reminder, that when courtesy and respect go out the window, there is not much hope for a fruitful dialogue!

One then ends up with (the modified)

We know the reasons why John should no longer posts as a representative of MAC.

I sincerely hope we can arrive at a more professional and less partisan
dialogue on this forum, which will be devoid of personal slings and arrows.

I trust this post will be treated as such!

 

[Ad van Tage]

Yes and no...

We know that personnel within MAC read this board religiously (Hi, guys!).
Mike Kirda

Mike, how do WE know? And who might these "guys" be?

If in fact there are MAC personnel here, lurking/reading or otherwise,
might we ask who THEY are? [ Just nicknames, or handles will be dandy].

I have been seriously considering addressing enquiries to the entire
MAC Board of Directors, and asking THEM = the BOD = what gives in the field of communication to and from the MAC...

Clearly there are times that electronic communications go astray, get lost, stay in the cyber-void, etc. But it seems to me that that is not the case with the MAC.


E-communications are simply a oneway steet, it is as if the MAC is just one gigantic e-sponge that sucks up all and sundry e-messages, without as much as regurgitating an e-echo.

Oh and lest I am misunderstood. I'm not just speaking about the failure of the MAC to have a rational, calm and capable voice and presence on this forum. Heck I am also speaking about direct communications to the MAC from a potential "client" [importer] :idea: :idea: :idea:

 

[Anonymous]

Ahem - "ping xx.xx.xx.xx" "Confirm delivery" "Confirm read"
<shrug>

 

[mkirda]

Mike, how do WE know? And who might these "guys" be?

If in fact there are MAC personnel here, lurking/reading or otherwise,
might we ask who THEY are? [ Just nicknames, or handles will be dandy].

When I posted that message, I knew that at least one person, David, was reading the forum regularly. I believe that 'religiously' was the term he used back at IMAC. He also indicated that Paul and Sylvia also regularly read the forum.

After having made that post, I was informed that this is no longer the case. It is not clear to me that anyone from MAC now reads the forum.

I have been seriously considering addressing enquiries to the entire MAC Board of Directors, and asking THEM = the BOD = what gives in the field of communication to and from the MAC...

That is your prerogative.

Clearly there are times that electronic communications go astray, get lost, stay in the cyber-void, etc. But it seems to me that that is not the case with the MAC.

E-communications are simply a oneway steet, it is as if the MAC is just one gigantic e-sponge that sucks up all and sundry e-messages, without as much as regurgitating an e-echo.

Yes, that has been a problem.
Even simple questions have never been addressed.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[blue hula]

Jessica, I have never defended John's poor behaviour. I have understood it (at times), but that is very different than condoning it or defending it. Does understanding the reason why a wife shot her philandering husband, whom she caught in bed with her sister, mean that I am defending murder? I don't think so. Maybe you see things differently than I.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

Oh my ... I'm now in even more illustrious company :wink:
I believe you used a very similar analogy with Kalk ...

You did hit a nerve ... there is a lot of discussion about the behaviour and attitudes of those of shall we say a more critical bent ... and IMO, it reflects an erroneous view of MAC as somehow the long suffering, misunderstood underdog.

I know you know that so was suprised by your timeline ... but fair enough if you didn't mean it that way ...

Am off for a weekend of surfing and diving and chasing blue hulas for all of you snow bound North Americans ...

Happy New Year from Down Under
Blue hula

 

[mkirda]

Mike, given what you have written on other threads, would

This is an example of making things personal when there is no need.

not have been a great reminder, that when courtesy and respect go out the window, there is not much hope for a fruitful dialogue!

Ad,

Out fishing again? Ok, I'll bite.

E-mail is toneless, which makes it difficult sometimes to ascertain the intent of the poster. In this case, I read it as a simple query. Why? Because John asked me earlier if I knew whom you were. So I knew the tone of his query in context already.

Others didn't read it that way- Instead, it came across as hostile.

I trust this post will be treated as such!

Ditto!

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[JennM]

Mike, I have to ask this... and I'm asking in the most respectful way I know how.... but....

Why are YOU speaking for/defending John?

He's perfectly able to speak for himself.

Just my perception, but it makes both of you look... well bad is not a good word, but it sure does look strange that you're doing all his talking.

If John has something to say, let him say it.

Again, just puzzled, and not trying to be hostile, but I just find it odd that for days on end, you've been the John Brandt spin doctor.

Jenn

 

[Ad van Tage]

Out fishing again? Ok, I'll bite.
.........................

How I wish Mike!!!

I think it is Blue Hula who is doing that - the fishing - , see previous message.
I am not into fishing! Besides it would be icefishing here! Prefer warmer water. And I won't use a speargun, just a camera!

But sadly, am waiting for the next big storm to come and dump on us...
It will "shovel and shut-up", without the rancher's "shoot" 8O :roll: 8O

 

[Ad van Tage]

Ahem - "ping xx.xx.xx.xx" "Confirm delivery" "Confirm read"
<shrug>

See Maiden :lol: , even requesting a "read reply"
doesn't assure one gets to know that delivery was made.

It happens to be optional on the recipients side...

Kinda like posing a question here, which does not assure an answer.
Just ask James or Chris, or for that matter John B.
Goodness it wasn't for lack of trying, or ... ?

And finally no amount of pinging will help...

:idea: Sometimes you just have to find a way around these problems :idea:

 

[mkirda]

Mike, I have to ask this... and I'm asking in the most respectful way I know how.... but....

Why are YOU speaking for/defending John?

He's perfectly able to speak for himself.

Just my perception, but it makes both of you look... well bad is not a good word, but it sure does look strange that you're doing all his talking.

If John has something to say, let him say it.

Again, just puzzled, and not trying to be hostile, but I just find it odd that for days on end, you've been the John Brandt spin doctor.

Jenn

This will be my final post on this topic.

I have never, in any of my posts, 'spoken for' John. I would not presume to do so. I have merely pointed out that, instead of the one or two reasons ascribed to 'why' he does not post here any longer, that those reasons may not be correct. We don't know. When I offered possible alternative reasons, I discovered how truly unpopular John really is here in this forum.

There is this perception here as to what sort of person John is: Bitter, hostile, small little man who snipes at everyone anti-MAC he can at any and all times, avoided all questions, and who is a complete yes-man for the MAC. Having known him for... Jeez, going on ten years now... I can honestly say that John the Human Being is not at all described by the perception(s) above.

I don't see this as defending him per se. He is not perfect- he has his faults, just like we all do. If you think that my pointing out that his motivations may not be what people posted, and that his character is not described by the perceptions of this forum makes me a 'John Brandt Spin Doctor', so be it. But it doesn't make it so.

I guess the only odd thing is that I can reconcile the viewpoints of John and Steve.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[mkirda]

Oh my ... I'm now in even more illustrious company :wink:
I believe you used a very similar analogy with Kalk ...

Maybe. I've lost count of the numbers and types of analogies I've used on Kalk. I'm glad you took with a sense of humor though...

You did hit a nerve ... there is a lot of discussion about the behaviour and attitudes of those of shall we say a more critical bent ... and IMO, it reflects an erroneous view of MAC as somehow the long suffering, misunderstood underdog.

I know you know that so was suprised by your timeline ... but fair enough if you didn't mean it that way ...

I do not view MAC as some sort of underdog at all. Many of the problems they have brought upon themselves for failing to define themselves publicly. A great step forward could be made if they were to start answering the questions posed to them. I believe there are differences in the way MAC sees themselves and the way they are perceived here: Meaning that they have not defined themselves to the public very well.

Am off for a weekend of surfing and diving and chasing blue hulas for all of you snow bound North Americans ...

Happy New Year from Down Under
Blue hula

As this is a family-friendly board, I can't say what I want to say... :wink:

Have a great trip and send us some pictures when you get back.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[clarionreef]

Mike,
When scrolling back to the days following IMAC in April of 2003, one can see a great deal of goodwill and consensus reflected in the postings and the news.
James...among others congratulated us on the breakthru w/ MAC and the training accord and peace plan w/ CORL was what allowed it to happen.
The problems were going to worked out and real training was going to be pushed forward.
I had a group photo taken w/ the MAC tribe and a hundred hours of dialogue with John and Dave V. of MAC.
I remember hugging John goodby at the end and shaking hands w/ Ric Pruess, the AMDA vice pres and first certified retailer as I left for the airport.
After that it was never the same again.

MAC withdrew quietly and unilaterally from the CORL accord [ Crafted jointly between Corl and MAC in Manila in Feb. and sabatoged all the work and momentum that had been created. The rest is a marked lack of achievement in the field. The field....where the fish come from...

What really galls me today is how many of the MAC folks there at IMAC already knew they would not really go thru with the CORL/MAC accord...and yet somehow believed that it would not be a big deal when finally revealed.
I kept my focus on this accord and the training program on the table. After 6 months of sincere effort to break this impasse...the olive branch we offered was refused. MAC chose to dis-engage. This also ment that John would dis-engage as he chose to stick with his team.
And so the CORL/MAC 'thousand man training' did not go forth and MAC still has a serious credibility problem for failure to deliver fish supply to go with the rhetoric and p.r. [This is no doubt the cause of the fracture between certified dealer...Living Sea in Chicago and MAC. ]
It is a history if things of substance like this that divide us...not petty differences in a personality or two.
Some are loyal to a team...as in a sport or recreational matter. Others are loyal to the issue, the fisherman and the reefs, the welfare of the trade etc...and have a hard time selling out higher ideals for the little personal ones.
Steve

 

[jamesw]

Steve,

That's not how I recalled things happening though.

I remember everything up to and including the end of IMAC.

But after that you say that MAC sabotaged the MAC/CORL accord? From what I have understand and read CORL never even submitted the final proposal to MAC that they promised. They sent an incomplete draft and never followed up.

I can see how that stalled progress for sure - but I wouldn't call it a failure on MAC's part.

Feel free everyone to call me a MAC apologist now. But I'm just pointing out the facts. Anyone can bring up the relevant discussions here using the search feature. (I don't need to do it for you. Much as I'd like to, I'm at work now.)

Cheers
James

 

[clarionreef]

James,
Of course there is such an explanation available as you heard.
The truth is it died in MACs hands, not CORL. MACs country coordinator had it last and by the way, along with the right of final edit.
It died in his briefcase as he was held back from finalizing input and turning it in.
This is well know in other circles James. Its just that over here, so far removed from reality, you get the professional version of things.
However...if it was true what you were told...Why did the partner in good faith, ie Mac not snap the fingers, made the calls and prod the thing along? Answer....because it was in their hands already...where it lingered and died despite the proddings, urgings and questions of the CORL side.

Fine...if MAC is happy with a non cooperative method of working they should not have accepted my offer in compromise in a letter dated Nov of 2002 and not wasted CORLs time for so long. It would appear that "that little field issue" was not so important after all.
The trickle of fish they have produced so far and with all that money spent is criminal. With us...they could have expected...er demanded top notch, commercial and professional results...It would've transferred the responsibility to CORL to do the hard work in the field.
We were so close...once again to getting the unity everyone wants. SO close!

HUGE ERROR AFTER ERROR IN THE PROMULGATION OF THIS THING SUGGESTS THAT WITH DIFFERENT LEADERSHIP...WE MIGHT LIVE IN A VERY DIFFERENT SCENARIO NOW.
Steve

 

[MaryHM]

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."

James, please. I didn't even suggest anyone until YOU asked me for suggestions. I could have cared less. I really don't care that John was moderator either. See, the moderator title really doesn't mean a whole lot. The only difference between moderator and regular poster is that the moderator has some extra technical benefits (stickys/deleting/etc...). A moderator's opinion doesn't hold any more weight than a regular member's opinion. I'm not miffed that John was the moderator- the way he conducted himself pissed me off, and the way he was installed was definitely a tad on the suspicious side. Even other rdo staff have said this to me. I also saw the letter you sent to John inviting him to be moderator- signed "Reefs.org President" if I remember correctly. You ain't the rdo president. You pushed John through not because of his qualifications but because of his alignment with MAC. Didn't you go to the rdo administrators and request that MAC be given its own forum?? Didn't they say no?? Wasn't getting John as moderator the next best thing in your mind? Maybe I'm wrong about all of this, but I'm just going on conversations I had with various other rdo staff members at the time.