A
Anonymous
Guest
http://reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46733
http://reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=45596
http://reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46731
http://reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=45595
http://reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46734
http://reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=45599
8O
so far we have a 'warning' posted the 2nd time around, that's just as misleading as the first time around, posted by the org. that helped spread it the 1st time around, profited over it,and by their own self induced 'diversifying' into the aquaculture venue, have just spread their resources/efforts too thinly to even now pretend to hope to be effectual in most, if not any, of the reasons they justified their existence w/the 1st time around :lol:
whew! even i'm confused by that
we then have an elective survey (patently biased and innacurate by it's very method of application) posted to what end i don't know-though it also presents a misleading picture (i'm willing to wager that i've dealt w/more customers over the years than actually took part in that survey, and just by virtue of my larger and more diverse sample, can attest to the results not reflecting reality in any way :lol: )
seems to me that there's now a 'void' about to, or already, forming :wink: in the reform of the use of cyanide movement, and i've been tossing some thoughts around in my little head
these are purely speculation, and no factual implication of any sort is implied:
(it does require that i attempt to don and switch some proverbial 'hats', however)
all these hats are based solely on my interpretation of the various 'characters', based on what i've seen/read/heard/observed about them,and then independently reaching my own conclusions
i do not profess for even a moment, that my assessments are correct, or factual, they are my own assessments
1st, my MAC hat:
well-if i were an ngo that used a platform to get involved w/a program, to whatever end, and failed it's objective in the self imposed time frame and self imposed methodology(read: cdt test), there are some things i wouldn't do, while staying in 'my character':
i would not admit to my lack of accomplishment (this is not the same as admit to failure, for, while an expensive, on many levels, venture this was, there WERE lessons learned, that can be used for benefit)
i would try to keep my hands in the pie
i would also not want to see someone else succeed better than i did, for less resources claimed needed than i did, for not being embarrased is more important to me than seeing the problem get fixed by the next one willing to step up to the plate
i would use the easiest most popularly acceptable methods to do that, including methods that were proven to work before (see above links :wink: )
now for another hat-actually, i'll wear a few at once:
as one of a small group of smaller ngo's who are each part of the solution, i would try to discredit the level of value of the other part's, either due to past 'blood feuds', personal animosities present, or lack of accomplishment in the area i deem to be more important
i would publicly repeat 'i told you so' to to the org. creating the void, to the point of sounding like a tantrumist
that's more than enough hats and obscure analogies to torture you with, and that end's my preamble:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
2 very simple events(among others) have occured in the recent past:
MAC has absolutely failed to implement a cdt, well beyond their own self imposed and announced (and changed at least once) timeline.
one, or a group of, smaller ngo's(and private individuals, maybe) has managed to successfuly set into motion a conerstone of the necessary foundation to reform the MO movement.
how profound, and precipitous, a moment, indeed
this is not, imo, a time for yelling at each other, or finding fault with, each other in the 'bashing sandbox' this forum has become of late, especially when it's known now, which method(s) don't work, for accomplishing the end goal, which has nothing to do with the ngo's, anyway
it has to do with aiding and sustaining dying reefs
please let's not ever forget that
those who wish to work together can, and those that don't, don't have to
but there is strength in numbers
all the exchanges as of late have not been helping either side of the 'contest' and the perception of us thinking about ourselves as contestants, to the 'lurkers' of this forum is a dangerous one, and one we'd be far better off without
we've all vented plenty at each other, and are quite capable of coming to our own individual conclusions about each other's character
i don't think that's necessary
we all know what the goal is right?
creating a managable self sustaining, non damaging trade that benefits those most responsible for it's existence - the divers, the exporters, the importers, and the hobbyists
and of course, first and foremost the reefs-for their ecological importance to the planet, their neccessity as habitat for the amazing variety of life they provide an environment for, and their source as income for those nations who have been fortunate enough to have them within their territory
i prob'ly pissed some of you off with all of this, and it's been written while i'm fairly pissed off, myself, but it's something i thought important for me to say
while i may not be a huge contributor to the attempt to fix things, i've reached the decision that this is the last and only thing i'll be doing, with the time left for me on the planet (hopefully quite awhile left yet)
as far as i'm concerned, anyone who really wants to help fix the core issues, in a sensible, methodical fashion, and can learn from past mistakes, should welcome anyone else who shares that goal-people just need to figure out which area they're best in fixin', and get to work on it-if in a collaborative effort with others, fine,if by themselves, well...
that's fine too
my $0.02
http://reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=45596
http://reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46731
http://reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=45595
http://reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46734
http://reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=45599
8O
so far we have a 'warning' posted the 2nd time around, that's just as misleading as the first time around, posted by the org. that helped spread it the 1st time around, profited over it,and by their own self induced 'diversifying' into the aquaculture venue, have just spread their resources/efforts too thinly to even now pretend to hope to be effectual in most, if not any, of the reasons they justified their existence w/the 1st time around :lol:
whew! even i'm confused by that
we then have an elective survey (patently biased and innacurate by it's very method of application) posted to what end i don't know-though it also presents a misleading picture (i'm willing to wager that i've dealt w/more customers over the years than actually took part in that survey, and just by virtue of my larger and more diverse sample, can attest to the results not reflecting reality in any way :lol: )
seems to me that there's now a 'void' about to, or already, forming :wink: in the reform of the use of cyanide movement, and i've been tossing some thoughts around in my little head
these are purely speculation, and no factual implication of any sort is implied:
(it does require that i attempt to don and switch some proverbial 'hats', however)
all these hats are based solely on my interpretation of the various 'characters', based on what i've seen/read/heard/observed about them,and then independently reaching my own conclusions
i do not profess for even a moment, that my assessments are correct, or factual, they are my own assessments
1st, my MAC hat:
well-if i were an ngo that used a platform to get involved w/a program, to whatever end, and failed it's objective in the self imposed time frame and self imposed methodology(read: cdt test), there are some things i wouldn't do, while staying in 'my character':
i would not admit to my lack of accomplishment (this is not the same as admit to failure, for, while an expensive, on many levels, venture this was, there WERE lessons learned, that can be used for benefit)
i would try to keep my hands in the pie
i would also not want to see someone else succeed better than i did, for less resources claimed needed than i did, for not being embarrased is more important to me than seeing the problem get fixed by the next one willing to step up to the plate
i would use the easiest most popularly acceptable methods to do that, including methods that were proven to work before (see above links :wink: )
now for another hat-actually, i'll wear a few at once:
as one of a small group of smaller ngo's who are each part of the solution, i would try to discredit the level of value of the other part's, either due to past 'blood feuds', personal animosities present, or lack of accomplishment in the area i deem to be more important
i would publicly repeat 'i told you so' to to the org. creating the void, to the point of sounding like a tantrumist
that's more than enough hats and obscure analogies to torture you with, and that end's my preamble:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
2 very simple events(among others) have occured in the recent past:
MAC has absolutely failed to implement a cdt, well beyond their own self imposed and announced (and changed at least once) timeline.
one, or a group of, smaller ngo's(and private individuals, maybe) has managed to successfuly set into motion a conerstone of the necessary foundation to reform the MO movement.
how profound, and precipitous, a moment, indeed
this is not, imo, a time for yelling at each other, or finding fault with, each other in the 'bashing sandbox' this forum has become of late, especially when it's known now, which method(s) don't work, for accomplishing the end goal, which has nothing to do with the ngo's, anyway
it has to do with aiding and sustaining dying reefs
please let's not ever forget that
those who wish to work together can, and those that don't, don't have to
but there is strength in numbers
all the exchanges as of late have not been helping either side of the 'contest' and the perception of us thinking about ourselves as contestants, to the 'lurkers' of this forum is a dangerous one, and one we'd be far better off without
we've all vented plenty at each other, and are quite capable of coming to our own individual conclusions about each other's character
i don't think that's necessary
we all know what the goal is right?
creating a managable self sustaining, non damaging trade that benefits those most responsible for it's existence - the divers, the exporters, the importers, and the hobbyists
and of course, first and foremost the reefs-for their ecological importance to the planet, their neccessity as habitat for the amazing variety of life they provide an environment for, and their source as income for those nations who have been fortunate enough to have them within their territory
i prob'ly pissed some of you off with all of this, and it's been written while i'm fairly pissed off, myself, but it's something i thought important for me to say
while i may not be a huge contributor to the attempt to fix things, i've reached the decision that this is the last and only thing i'll be doing, with the time left for me on the planet (hopefully quite awhile left yet)
as far as i'm concerned, anyone who really wants to help fix the core issues, in a sensible, methodical fashion, and can learn from past mistakes, should welcome anyone else who shares that goal-people just need to figure out which area they're best in fixin', and get to work on it-if in a collaborative effort with others, fine,if by themselves, well...
that's fine too
my $0.02
