RRGCC Answer

[rhunt]

I'm going to have to side with Wes on this one. No more support from me until there is some major change in leadership of the RRGCC.

Gretchen please resign.

[Wes]

Let me get this straight Ray/Wes.

Do you want the RRGCC to respond officially to anything that is said on this board or not?

Would you rather me not post? Express my opinion? If so, that's fine. I can live with that.

Wes, do you have an idea of who you would want as a leader of the RRGCC?

For me, I think it is dumb to have to post at thered.org, then link that to a post here, then follow both threads. Because that is what usually happens anyway. I would love to see the rrgcc be active here.

Your opinions are fine. I think just the trying to *force* people to post over at thered.org is what upsets people.

Nope, not for sure. Only that the current one(s) seem to be hurting the cause more then helping these days. To take nothing from the hard work they have done in the past, they are really not helping the rrgcc these days.

Wes

[MiaRock]

why you have decided to attack me in the past few months I'm not completely sure, but i'm not that surprise you seem quite skilled at burning bridges...

meanwhile i am quite content with MY identity...and luckily i rarely climb at the red and since you don't climb i don't have deal with your unfortunate personality anymore....

[SCIN]

John, as I said before, I *really* don't care. I don't read much of the stuff about the coalition anyway. Just please respect what I've asked of you. That goes for any of the Coalition members. Either answer questions or don't. Just don't use my site for promotion of the new site. I never piggyback off of anyone else without asking so I expect the same. A couple of times mentioning the new site is fine but post after post of "Don't post here at Ray's site.....come to our site!" gets really old.

Like it or not, the stats I've displayed today should change your opinion on the usefulnesss of this site as an informative resource. Not everyone likes a stuffy atmosphere and this site has proven that.

[Spragwa]

"The position needed to be filled when Hugh took flight cause he couldn't stand the heat. "

Bullshit Gretchen. You act like Hugh is some irresponsible no account. Hugh can take way more than you will ever be able to give. If you want to know why there's a mass exodus from the RRGCC, look in the mirror.

[Johnny]

[charlie]

........

Charlie,

SInce you brought up the issue, I am fully aware of how public this site is. WHY THE FUCK DO YOU THINK THAT THE RRGCC HAS BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG AND WHY WE DON'T WANT TO PUBLISH JACKSHIT HERE WHEN IT'S DEMANDED??? Yeah I guess it's only convenient when it's convenient to your arguement.

What was my argument again?

I don't care where you or anyone else posts their bullshit.* I also think the red.org should be the site for coalition info. Johnny's opinions on the matter are well stated and pretty damn accurate. I just made an observation that you have to be pretty damn clueless to think this petty crap isn't a liability for the coalition. I also assumed, incorrectly perhaps, that you were interested in helping instead of damaging the RRGCC. As much as people want to pretend this doesn't reflect on the coalition, you have to understand it does. Like a lot of things, it's a full time position so to speak....

*Bullshit -- stupid, personal, petty attacks to be viewed as something completely seperate from useful information coming from the RRGCC.

I love what the coalition has done for me and I hope there are still better things to come, but this kind of crap is noticed and it sure as hell doesn't make things any easier for anyone. For every step the coalition makes forward, there are a ton of steps made backward because this kind of stupid BS.

So yeah, there's my argument.

[Spragwa]

I do think that is one thing that the RRGCC frequently misses. Asking questions and stating a dissenting opinion is not the same thing as attempting to undermine the coalition. While Johnny is absolutely correct that his attempts to address serious issues are frequently subject to personal attacks and hi-jacking; the coalition frequently takes high-handed stances on issues. For instance it seems like a common theme is "if I ask you to do something then you must either do it or you don't have a voice." Part of being a coalition is taking everyone's personalities and proclivities into consideration when disseminating information. You can't control people. Unfortunately. Or many of us would vote to mute Gretchen.

I know exactly what I would like out of a leader of the coalition. Someone who is personable, who can delegate, who does not micro-manage, whose ego is not completely tied to the pursuit of their own "vision," who can lead and not bludgeon, and who will serve as a conduit for the good of the community. Those people are available but they aren't leading the coalition.

[Johnny]

[SCIN]

John,

I'm not concerned with you or anyone else promoting the RRGCC. I have a generic policy against any website promotion on my site because I see it as a form of spam. I'm talking about the website, not the organization. The opinions of some members of the RRGCC (such as Gretchen) about my site definitely have something to do with this. The fact that I was ridiculed by members of the RRGCC for creating an online guidebook and them creating their own in the end definitely has something to do with this. Why should I allow such an organization to use my site for their own promotion when they see mine as laughable? But those things only cause me to firmly adhere to my policy and not relax it a little bit. I don't think it's that complicated to see why I wouldn't want all of the members to come on here and ask everyone to post over at their site. I know you understand this.

You definitely misunderstood me when I said "Either answer the questions or don't". I meant it like........you know, like it reads "Either a) Answer them any way you'd like (humor and sarcasm preferred) or b) don't answer them. I really don't care.