for rover re: mac invite

[Anonymous]

will you be posting a list of who you send out your mamti concerns to via email at mac ?

 

[Anonymous]

An email was sent to every staff member listed on MAC's website. I'm currently working on the Board of Directors.

 

[Anonymous]

8)

 

[Anonymous]

any replies?

 

[MaryHM]

Wow. John got that response up pretty quick after you posted this, vitz. Guess they were hiding it in the wings, hoping we'd all forget about Glenn's post. Then when you said something, they figured they better cover quick so they didn't get accused yet again of ignoring questions. Poor MAC- which is the worse press- posting a response or not. Must be a hard decision for them. Nice job, vitz.

 

[John_Brandt]

Mary, you win the Area 51 Award. Everything you said is false, but the tinfoil hat still looks good on you.

 

[MaryHM]

Well, if that was a coincidence, it was a stunning and ironic example of one. I prefer a tinfoil helmet. Doesn't hurt as bad when the sky falls.

 

[John_Brandt]

Not really a coincidence. I could have posted it on Friday. I put it together from several parts and asked for clarifying statements on the MAMTI quote and the certification costs. Those were not exactly asked in Glenn's letter but had come up here in threads. I decided to put it all together into that single response.

Vitz's post did prompt me to post it, but I would have done so in the next few days anyway. There were no intentions by MAC not to respond to the letter.

 

[Anonymous]

flip, flop, in the sump this would be top

 

[Anonymous]

plus, i remember what happened the last time people tried to contact mac from this forum

that's why i bumped the thread :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

No replies thus far. No emails, no phone calls (the individual letters included my phone number). I had assumed it went ignored until this. I didn't see what John posted so I guess I'm still waiting.

 

[dizzy]

I don't think John should be the one doing the posting anyway. I think Paul should. He knows how to post to this forum. He is the head of MAMTI and the buck stops with him. It is time he answers some questions directly. How about it Paul.
Mitch

 

[clarionreef]

The lack of respect shown to MACs representatives here was earned...not just given.
The crux of the issue is not the 'social manner' in which it is now debated but in how that manner turned sour and disrespectful.
Respect can be earned...and lost depending on how you work with your victims..
If PAID outsiders are attempting to hijack an industry and filter the right to do business thru a gauntlet of inept, untested methods, its serious.
If same paid outside interests have failed in their own pilot projects to achieve small goals, how on earth do they earn the right to gamble with the livlihoods of so many people?
If a long history of interlopers have failed to convert the poor willing fisherman thru their own false starts, rancorous politics, grant frauds and incompetent projects ...whos fault is that?
Losing the respect and credibility of the people whose lives you play with may understandably make you a pariah in their back yard and an unwelcome guest in their house.
MAC makes their own rules and concocts their own futile attempts to disguise the corporate take-over planned.
They report that they pull the trade along, collaborate with it and consult with it to their funders. Much of this we know is false but the funders are fooled easily as they are enamoured with the theory of saving reefs thru demand side interventions and love the win-win doublespeak they are also brought up on.
Many reform groups prosper everywhere but where they claim to represent. MAC does not fare well in an environment of critical thinking and give and take. Thats speaks ill of them.
Its election year and in the spirit of Democracy I would love to challenge Paul Holthus to a public forum debate on the best way to reform the aquarium trade...one on one @ MACNA.
Debate me Paul. You do know enough about fish, collecting and the way to convert fisherman enough to do well, do you not?
Your group certainly claims to.
Sincerely, Steve

 

[Len]

We aren't asking for mutual respect. We're seeking mutual civility and a cessation to hostile posts.

 

[clarionreef]

Len,
Could you give an example where one thing is over the line but "putting it in this way" is not?
I honestly want to know where the legitamite...and serious disagreement can go...Where it cannot is obvious by the name-calling thing.
Did I go over the line in challenging Paul to a debate?
If/when we do go over...why not ask the poster to delete it immediately?
Steve

 

[Len]

I don't read the forum with regularity because of time contrants (Glenn is doing great and I really appreciate his help). From what I have read the past few days, your posts have been fine.

WHere it cannot isn't so obvious to some folks, and I'm trying to stop all the insults to personal character. It has no place in this or any place that seeks constructive dialogue.

 

[clarionreef]

Len,
Understood.
We must not behave like presidential candidates because they get too personal and too nasty.
I just want to know how far you can go to imply that an outfit cannot do what they claim to get funding. [ which is essentially impugning their integrity.]
In lending its loan fraud.
In court, its perjury.
In scientific survey work its called ...well, research fraud...you know like in claiming successful replicability and reproduceability when one never did...or like in claiming a sustainable reef situation by indicating presence of blueface angels and majestics when there are none left.
In the funding for the development of whitewash protocols for the marine fish trade...its, well, we gave it a shot and hell no we're not giving any money back.
True, there are those who lack the tact and talent to lie, cheat and embezzle properly and this gets them into trouble.
Clearly they need to study up more on the soap selling skills.
Steve

 

[Len]

You are making very serious claims ... claims I hope can be fully substantiate. I will not be the arbiter of truth (it is not my responsiblity nor am I interested in it), but be very careful that you're able to support your serious accusations.

I don't see the utility of your last two sentences.

 

[clarionreef]

Len,
Its daily democracy to force contestants to defend their right to rule over your lives.
THE CLAIMS I JUST MADE ARE ACTUALLY EASIER TO DEFEND THEN YOU MIGHT THINK. Its the lack of familiarity with the terrain that scares people. Familiarity with it makes it a lot easier to prove.
If it is right what I just said...then the guilt of the other party has also commited serious breeches.
Crimes themselves are far more serious then pointing them out.
But...for 'personal safety should we all just stay hidden in the shadows and let come what may?
People with their lives invested in this may be excused for not wanting to take it so lightly.
I'll call for a debate on another thread as to not water down the right and proper citizenship issues we have discussed.
Steve

 

[Len]

Point them out. No one is dissuading earnest discussion, however unflattering unsettling they may be. As I said, just make sure they are substianted or else it is libel. And of course, always conduct yourselves in a civil manner absent of hostility.