AVSIM's Questions of Randy Whistler
Tom Allensworth
over at the AVSIM SB/PC forum
To answer your question Reggie, our sources were promised anonymity. I will
not violate that trust or that commitment. I trust them and have known them
for years and so too have all of you. That's all you need to know at this
point.
Tom Allensworth
"Cali Kid" <C...@thanksbutnospam.com> wrote in message
news:3b22aaa2$1...@news.simflight.com...
> Ok, Tom; legitimate questions. However, turnabout is fair play. You've
> called out Randy, now how about some attribution to your sources. If the
> cards are to be laid on the table, is should be a two way street.
>
> There should be a foundation of fact, or at least a credible basis for
your
> questions and assertions. It would appear to me that both of you need to
> lay the cards on the table.
>
> While waiting for Randy to respond, I'll wait for you to do the same.
>
> Reggie
>
> "Tom Allensworth" <t...@avsim.com> wrote in message
> news:3b22...@news.simflight.com...
> > We stated we would post this here too...
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
> >
> > We were going to hold off posting this until tomorrow. However, we are
> > pretty confident that we are not going to get a response. Therefore, we
> are
> > posting it 24 hours in advance...
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tom Allensworth [mailto:t...@avsim.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 10:09 AM
> > To: Randy Whistler
> > Subject: It is time to Lay the Cards on the Table
> > Importance: High
> >
> >
> > Randy,
> >
> > Many in your organization have accused me, and AVSIM of course, of
having
> > antipathy toward you and that a personality clash exists between us that
> > drives AVSIM's reporting about SATCO. To set the record straight, as I
> think
> > or hope you know, I have NO personal animosity to you what so ever. I
have
> a
> > lot of concerns about your management style, and have told you so many
> > times - as you also know. It is certainly no secret that I AND the
senior
> > staff of AVSIM had real problems with the way SATCO was managed prior to
> our
> > withdrawal of support from the organization over a year ago.
> >
> > Now we have this latest situation.
> >
> > Randy, other than the pabulum that you posted in the newsgroup, you have
> not
> > answered the definitive questions that MUST be answered to set this
> > situation to rest. For the public record, and which of course we will
> report
> > on, these question demand your response.
> >
> > KANSAS CITY:
> >
> > Monies were contributed to SATCO for sponsorship of the first Kansas
City
> > SATCO conference. If what we have been told is accurate, there was over
> > $2,500 collected from various organizations, including $200 from AVSIM.
> > Because some 35-40 rooms were booked, the Holiday Inn provided SATCO the
> > conference and meeting rooms at no cost. Attending members paid for
their
> > own room charges and meals. SATCO provided soft drinks. So, here are the
> > questions regarding Kansas City:
> >
> > * How much money was spent of these donated funds?
> > * How much money was left over of those funds donated?
> > * What happened to those funds that were left over - how was the money
> used?
> > * Why did you refuse to provide an accounting of those funds when asked
to
> > do so?
> >
> > PUBLIC DONATIONS:
> >
> > Members of the organization took it upon themselves last year to solicit
> > donations to assist in defraying the cost of server operations and
> bandwidth
> > costs. As we understand it, approximately $3,700 dollars were donated in
> the
> > intervening period. Also as we understand it, none of these funds have
> been
> > conveyed to any server host. So, the questions:
> >
> > * Please confirm our understanding that no funds have been provided to
the
> > server operators. Is this in fact, the case?
> > * Did you require that all funds gathered by donation be sent to you,
> > instead of to an alternative account established by those setting up the
> > donation system?
> > * Did you commingle those funds with your personal savings/checking
> accounts
> > or did you create a separate account for those funds?
> > * Starting as early as December last year, requests were placed in the
> > newsgroups asking for an accounting of those funds. In the early days of
> May
> > of this year, senior staff members asked for an accounting. Throughout
> this
> > roughly seven month period, no definitive accounting of those funds has
> > occurred. Why?
> > * One, possibly two, senior staff members volunteered to pay their own
way
> > to Kansas City to help you straighten out the accounts and provide a
> public
> > accounting. You rebuffed their offers of assistance. Why?
> > * Would you be willing to provide a NOTORIZED bank slip, that is
> verifiable
> > by an independent entity, that accounts for the donated funds?
> > * If some or all of these funds have been spent, what have they been
spent
> > on?
> > * If you cannot or will not provide an accounting to the SATCO
community,
> > would you be willing to tender your resignation from SATCO and
relinquish
> > all rights to its name?
> >
> > JOE JURECKA'S POSITION:
> >
> > As you know, Joe has posted a very strongly worded message to the AVSIM
> > forum, which was subsequently copied over to the newsgroup. As we both
> know,
> > the INTENT from the very beginning of PC/SB and the SERVER software was
> that
> > the SERVICE remain free. From those of us that were there in the early
> days,
> > it was always understood that any organization providing hosting would
do
> so
> > at no cost. A philosophy that was clearly stated numerous times in those
> > early days, and subsequently re-enforced by Joe, Jason and Marty and
again
> > by Joe in the AVSIM forum. That has been the INTENT from the first day
> that
> > SB/PC and the SERVER software became available.
> >
> > * Do you support that intent and will you continue to support it?
> > * Do you agree that accepting donations, is a violation of that intent?
> >
> > Randy, no pabulum, no spinning, just give us the facts please. The
people
> > within SATCO are deservedly proud of what they have accomplished. If the
> > numbers I hear are correct, some 35 to 40 thousand users of the service
> > deserve your forthright answers to these questions, and they deserve
them
> > quickly. I would caution you by saying that this time, this situation
> isn't
> > going to just go away by silence, spinning or refusing to answer the
> > questions. If I do not receive answers to these questions by 6:00 P.M.
EDT
> > on Sunday, June 9th, I will interpret that as a refusal. I will then
post
> > this message in its entirety to both AVSIM and the newsgroup for the
> > community to assess and judge accordingly.
> >
> > Tom Allensworth
> > Publisher,
> > AVSIM Online
> > --------------------------------
> > Simulation's Premier Website
> > Pay a visit today and stop by
> > our store while you are there!
> > --------------------------------
> > Web Site: http://www.avsim.com
> > Email me: t...@avsim.com <mailto:t...@avsim.com>
> >
> > Second message sent to correct an error:
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tom Allensworth [mailto:t...@avsim.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 12:14 PM
> > To: Randy Whistler; Randy Whistler
> > Subject: Further to my earlier email
> >
> >
> > I just noticed that the time and date stated in my final paragraph is
> > Sunday, June 9th. That should be Sunday, June 10th, just in case there
was
> a
> > possibility for any misunderstanding.
> >
> > Tom Allensworth
> > Publisher,
> > AVSIM Online
> > --------------------------------
> > Simulation's Premier Website
> > Pay a visit today and stop by
> > our store while you are there!
> > --------------------------------
> > Web Site: http://www.avsim.com
> > Email me: t...@avsim.com <mailto:t...@avsim.com>
> >
> > Allensworth
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > FS SHARECENTER - The Best Flight Sim Shareware is here....
> > New Now: Bari Palese and Philadelphia International Aiport Sceneries
> > by SimFlyers Associated - Buy them in a bundle at a sensational price!
> > http://fssharecenter.com
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > SIMMARKET Download Store - NEW NOW: The GAP Singles
> > The best Collection of German Airports ever - Now includes Innsbruck
> (LOWI)
> > http://simmarket.com/online/gap
> > ------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Your use of the simFlight Newsgroups is subject to the terms
> > outlined at http://simflight.com/snn
> >
> >
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> FS SHARECENTER - The Best Flight Sim Shareware is here....
> New Now: Bari Palese and Philadelphia International Aiport Sceneries
> by SimFlyers Associated - Buy them in a bundle at a sensational price!
> http://fssharecenter.com
> -------------------------------------------------
> SIMMARKET Download Store - NEW NOW: The GAP Singles
> The best Collection of German Airports ever - Now includes Innsbruck
(LOWI)
> http://simmarket.com/online/gap
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Your use of the simFlight Newsgroups is subject to the terms
> outlined at http://simflight.com/snn
>
>
-------------------------------------------------
FS SHARECENTER - The Best Flight Sim Shareware is here....
New Now: Bari Palese and Philadelphia International Aiport Sceneries
by SimFlyers Associated - Buy them in a bundle at a sensational price!
http://fssharecenter.com
-------------------------------------------------
SIMMARKET Download Store - NEW NOW: The GAP Singles
The best Collection of German Airports ever - Now includes Innsbruck (LOWI)
http://simmarket.com/online/gap
------------------------------------------------
Your use of the simFlight Newsgroups is subject to the terms
outlined at http://simflight.com/snn
Cali Kid
Robert Graessle
completely offbase and invalid, then why has Randy never come out and
refuted them? He's had months to do this, and he's failed to. While
Randy's lack of a defense doesn't prove anything, it sure looks suspicious,
and it can only incite more questions.
I personally find the questions very intriguing, and I'm awaiting an
official response to them.
Robert Graessle
SATUSA Houston ARTCC
"Cali Kid" <C...@thanksbutnospam.com> wrote in message
news:3b22aaa2$1...@news.simflight.com...
> Ok, Tom; legitimate questions. However, turnabout is fair play. You've
> called out Randy, now how about some attribution to your sources. If the
> cards are to be laid on the table, is should be a two way street.
>
> There should be a foundation of fact, or at least a credible basis for
your
> questions and assertions. It would appear to me that both of you need to
> lay the cards on the table.
>
> While waiting for Randy to respond, I'll wait for you to do the same.
>
> Reggie
>
-------------------------------------------------
Cali Kid
allegations. However, fair play is fair play. Tom has elected to take
Randy on in a public forum; he has alluded to some improprieties without
identifying his sources and implied (directly) there has been a breach of
fiduciary responsibility. If Tom is legitimately seeking answers, he should
legitimize his assertions. While AVSIM is not a news organization, if he
want to raise the flag on truthfulness, accountability, and the facts of the
matter, he has to play by the same rules.
He, nor can Randy, have it both ways. I would expect the same if I were in
either of the main players' shoes, and I'm sure most others would also.
Reggie
"Robert Graessle" <rgra...@choice.net> wrote in message
news:3b22...@news.simflight.com...
Tom Allensworth
-------------------------------------------
Randy,
KANSAS CITY:
PUBLIC DONATIONS:
JOE JURECKA'S POSITION:
Allensworth
-------------------------------------------------
Phil Dowling
>We stated we would post this here too...
>
>-------------------------------------------
>
>We were going to hold off posting this until tomorrow. However, we are
>pretty confident that we are not going to get a response. Therefore, we are
>posting it 24 hours in advance...
This sums it up for me.
Thanks for confirming to me what I already suspected about you.
Phil Dowling.
Cali Kid
the truth is to come to light. I don't agree with your logic. Simply put,
if someone cannot, and will not stand behind their assertions, it is hard to
discern the truth.
I'm disappointed you see fit to hold someone accountable for their actions,
and in a public forum no less, but refuse to be held to the same standard.
Whether it be allegations of misappropriated funds, or allegations that
their is an ulterior motive by the publisher, truthfulness and the facts are
what this issue boils down to.
Dave B
Don't get your G-String in a tangle <g>. Randy Whistler has had more than
enough time to come out and put the record straight. What difference does
one day make when this has been at question (although not publicly) for a
few months? And if I may say so, the email to Randy was VERY well put,
logical and pertinent. At the end of the day it is no different to an
earlier post by yourself suggesting people write direct to Randy if they
want to know where their (hard earned) money went to.
As (warranted or not) leader of this organisation, this situation demands an
immediate answer. Satco (again) is being made to look VERY foolish, the
situation (once again) is starting to affect the developers (and future) of
this product and the situation demands either an immediate resignation or
immediate action. There is no halfway house. Randy Whistler is accountable
to A. The members of Satco, B. Contributors of any donations made and C.
EVERY person that has given their time to make Satco what it is.
He cannot hide behind every Lemming and Yes-Man forever because in doing so
makes a mockery of every person such as yourself that gives in many, many
different ways to make Satco what it is. Leadership has its price and that
price is accountability and action.
Good on Tom for doing this, because as you once said yourself over at the
Avsim forum "Tom is a man of integrity".
Cheers
Dave B
"Phil Dowling" <ph...@devaughn.com> wrote in message
news:42d5it0ncqtrd8qkg...@4ax.com...
Phil Dowling
>Don't get your G-String in a tangle <g>.
Hey you leave my g-string outta this <G>
>Randy Whistler has had more than
>enough time to come out and put the record straight. What difference does
>one day make when this has been at question (although not publicly) for a
>few months? And if I may say so, the email to Randy was VERY well put,
>logical and pertinent. At the end of the day it is no different to an
>earlier post by yourself suggesting people write direct to Randy if they
>want to know where their (hard earned) money went to.
Well unfortunately I do not trust Mr Allensworths motives. If I
REALLY thought he had the best interests of the users at heart then I
might remain silent...However I just don't quite honestly. However it
was rather a low shot. However I don't think his comment of "it being
unlikely to recieve a response" was quite on the high road either...
>As (warranted or not) leader of this organisation, this situation demands an
>immediate answer. Satco (again) is being made to look VERY foolish, the
>situation (once again) is starting to affect the developers (and future) of
>this product and the situation demands either an immediate resignation or
>immediate action. There is no halfway house. Randy Whistler is accountable
>to A. The members of Satco, B. Contributors of any donations made and C.
>EVERY person that has given their time to make Satco what it is.
Indeed. And the original mail to Randy that Tom sent I have to agree
was very well worded. I had issue with the comments at the top....(I
think I only quoted the top ?). I also agree with you that Randy
really needs to get onto this and get it straightened as soon as is
possible.
>He cannot hide behind every Lemming and Yes-Man forever because in doing so
>makes a mockery of every person such as yourself that gives in many, many
>different ways to make Satco what it is. Leadership has its price and that
>price is accountability and action.
Indeed. And as Randy has already stated he has made a fair few
mistakes. Now is the time to rectify them. Since in the orginal mail
Tom mentioned 6pm tommorow night edt which is a fair schedule then I
think Randy knows what his time schedule is. Pretty fair to my mind.
However to say one thing in private and then post the message in
public ? A little off IMO.
>Good on Tom for doing this, because as you once said yourself over at the
>Avsim forum "Tom is a man of integrity".
Well I am not always right. But am always willing to be proven wrong.
Let's see if I am wrong this time shall we <G>
Like I said. Randy has things to do and it is up to him entirely to
do them. I have tried to keep an open mind about this until he had
what *I* deemed to be a fair crack of the whip to deal with it.
Depends on your definition of "fair crack of the whip" really doesn't
it ? I guess mine is just a little longer than others <G>
However at no point was there ever any need IMO of public accusations
with litte-no proof. And there have been such and it has only served
to inflame matters rather than solve them. However I guess that is
the nature of this particular beast.
My patience with this hobby as a whole is running thin...
And that ain't nothing to do with this situation <G> More an
impending move to the USA. I got better things to be doing ;-)
See ya later and thanks for the mail..
Phil
Brian Crowley
>
> >We stated we would post this here too...
> >
> >-------------------------------------------
> >
> >We were going to hold off posting this until tomorrow. However, we are
> >pretty confident that we are not going to get a response. Therefore, we
are
> >posting it 24 hours in advance...
>
> This sums it up for me.
>
> Thanks for confirming to me what I already suspected about you.
Agreed Phil. I'd post a "Boycott AVSIM" message, only I really don't
think there is any need.....
--
Cheers
Brian Crowley
SATUK S1
Brian Crowley
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> We were going to hold off posting this until tomorrow. However, we are
> pretty confident that we are not going to get a response. Therefore, we
are
> posting it 24 hours in advance...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Allensworth [mailto:t...@avsim.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 10:09 AM
> To: Randy Whistler
> Subject: It is time to Lay the Cards on the Table
> Importance: High
>
Right, so assuming that you're on Eastern time, that was sent at 15:09
British time this afternoon, and your post to the newsgroup appeared 23:49
by my clock. So, you've given the guy 8 hours to respond. Hell, I hope he
wasn't out this afternoon...
As valid as your line of questioning may be, your sensationalism makes
the UK tabloid press look pedestrian.....
Dave B
Do you really think posting a boycott of Avsim would work? Afterall, the
suggested boycott by the developers of the programme is going unheeded AND
THEY ARE THE ONES WHO SHOULD BE SUPPORTED MOST IN ALL THIS. The danger is,
this has all the potential to go down a path similar to what we have seen
with PFG.
Cheers
Dave B
"Brian Crowley" <b...@northfieldbham.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3b22...@news.simflight.com...
>
Phil Dowling
> Agreed Phil. I'd post a "Boycott AVSIM" message, only I really don't
>think there is any need.....
Well I do not think there is any need old chap. What will happen will
happen..I must confess I was wrong to sink to that level anyway....
But heck who ever said I was always right <G>
We will see what occurs.... <G>
Phil
Brian Crowley
Dave B <imat...@hotmail.co.addanm> wrote in message
news:3b22...@news.simflight.com...
> Brian
>
> Do you really think posting a boycott of Avsim would work?
I don't need to post anything, that was my point. People who subscribe
to this list are intelligent enough to decide what they want to do. I'm damn
sure I know what I think, and I'm equally sure that I'm not alone in
thinking it. The word I remember being used in connection to the conduct of
AVSIM was "shameful", and although not entirely convinced then, I am now.
Michael Cross
wish this would go away and don't really care about the issues. How sad...
Mike
"Brian Crowley" <b...@northfieldbham.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
Scott Barefield
I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment that unsigned posts deserve far
less consideration than those posts submitted by someone who signs his/her
name -- and therein lies the difference between Tom's post and other
"anonymous" posts. HE signed his name. Would it be helpful to know the
names of his sources? Perhaps. Is it necessary? Not really. If Tom
wishes to protect the names of his sources, then so be it. He obviously
trusts his sources and their integrity enough that he is willing to sign HIS
name to the post, and in doing so, Tom accepts responsibility for that
information. If he's wrong, you hold HIM accountable for the information he
posted. As far as I'm concerned, this information came from Tom, and it is
up to the individual user to determine for him/herself how to "process" that
information -- take the information into consideration, form your own
opinions, collect more information and draw your own conclusions. If you
like/respect/trust Tom, then you can choose to trust the information. If
not, then you can choose not to.
Respectfully,
Scott Barefield
"Cali Kid" <C...@thanksbutnospam.com> wrote in message
news:3b22aaa2$1...@news.simflight.com...
Phil Dowling
> I wish the USA the best of luck <G>
Awwww it seems to have managed for 200 odd years...I am sure it can
cope with little old me <G> HAHAHA
Brian Crowley
>
> My patience with this hobby as a whole is running thin...
>
> And that ain't nothing to do with this situation <G> More an
> impending move to the USA. I got better things to be doing ;-)
I wish the USA the best of luck <G>
--
Cheers
Brian Crowley
SATUK S1
Brian Crowley
Michael Cross <mtc...@NONEFORMEhome.com> wrote in message
news:3b22c84a$1...@news.simflight.com...
> He's had months to reply not just 8 hours. It seems to me some people
just
> wish this would go away and don't really care about the issues. How
sad...
>
> Mike
Replied in private, since I didn't realise you'd crossposted it <G>
--
Cheers
Brian Crowley
SATUK S1
-------------------------------------------------
Ernie Alston
wrote:
>
>And that ain't nothing to do with this situation <G> More an
>impending move to the USA. I got better things to be doing ;-)
We'll have you switched from warm to cold beverages in no time.
Then we'll work on your spelling <LOL>
Ernie.
Phil Dowling
>We'll have you switched from warm to cold beverages in no time.
Cannot wait <G>
>Then we'll work on your spelling <LOL>
You KNOW I am a lost cause there !! LOL
Phil
Cali Kid
"Scott Barefield" <nigh...@midwest.net> wrote in message
news:3b22...@news.simflight.com...
> Reggie --
>
> I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment that unsigned posts deserve far
> less consideration than those posts submitted by someone who signs his/her
> name -- and therein lies the difference between Tom's post and other
> "anonymous" posts. HE signed his name.
And therein lies the problem; he signed his name to an article alleging
improprieties on the part of someone. He states his sources were promised
anonymity, so he will not reveal them. Sorry, that simply is not accepting
responsibility for the content of his article. For all practical purposes
and intent, he has already stated the information is not from him, but, from
someone else.
We certainly don't know if there in fact are any sources; whether or not Tom
or the sources have embellished, fabricated, or otherwise altered an
occurrence. The sources certainly haven't publicly provided specifics as to
their issues.
Tom has not stated that he has looked into or otherwise made an effort to
verify the information provided by his sources. He has used his forum (up
to this point, IMO) to further rumors, innuendo, and speculation. There is
no way he can be held accountable for his comments other than to identify
his sources either in print, or a court of law should the matter end up
there. His is not a news agency, he would not be testifying in a criminal
matter, and he certainly would not be covered by a reporter's shield law.
Having said all of that, Randy should/must address the issues raised by
these sources. However, I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Those
who expect accountability from him should also expect accountability from
those making the allegations. No, this isn't a courtroom. The court of
public opinion in this matter is flawed at best. I refuse to pass judgement
on Randy or Tom until they both reveal the truth. To me, the truth doesn't
come from a promise of anonymity to someone not willing to stand behind
their statements; nor does it come from someone who becomes the center of a
storm and refuses to take action necessary to calm that storm.
> Would it be helpful to know the
> names of his sources?
I think it would put to rest a lot of the rumor, innuendo, and speculation.
> Perhaps. Is it necessary? Not really.
Only if someone doesn't value the truth.
> If Tom
> wishes to protect the names of his sources, then so be it. He obviously
> trusts his sources and their integrity enough that he is willing to sign
HIS
> name to the post, and in doing so, Tom accepts responsibility for that
> information. If he's wrong, you hold HIM accountable for the information
he
> posted. As far as I'm concerned, this information came from Tom, and it
is
> up to the individual user to determine for him/herself how to "process"
that
> information -- take the information into consideration, form your own
> opinions, collect more information and draw your own conclusions. If you
> like/respect/trust Tom, then you can choose to trust the information. If
> not, then you can choose not to.
I'm not believing anyone until the facts are presented. I wonder what Tom
or anyone else would do if he was held out in a public forum to be dishonest
by someone who refuses to reveal their sources, yet demanding he provide
answers to allegations made by those not willing to stand behind their
statement.
Sorry, but in matters of the conscience, the rule of majority has no place.
($1 to Dr. Covey)
I appreciate your response Scott, but I respectfully disagree.
Reggie
Todd Barker
fact though. Are you ever going to grow up and get past it all? Asshole.
You are to blame for so much of the bickering. Why don't you just dry up
and blow away and leave off the arrogant, conceited bull shit?
Justin Snyder
associating yourself with people of this ilk. And good luck with getting
honest answers from SATCO1. What a sordid little tale this has become.
"Tom Allensworth" <t...@avsim.com> wrote in message
news:3b22...@news.simflight.com...
Randy Whistler
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> We were going to hold off posting this until tomorrow. However, we are
> pretty confident that we are not going to get a response. Therefore, we
are
> posting it 24 hours in advance...
Sorry to disappoint everyone, but I most certainly will respond. This has
gone on long enough. To the users, I do apologize for the length of time it
has taken me to get this documentation to your review. Since late April,
our family has lost 3 family members, two to cancer and one to a heart
condition. These things, along with caring for my elderly parents, has
taken up a great deal of my time in the last few weeks. I will note that
Harvey and I agreed on a course of action on our about May 10. Due to some
of the above issues, I did not make this disclosure a priority. My family
comes first. This is supposed to be a hobby, and fun. I realize that this
should not have taken this long, but for those of you who have lost people
close to you, particularly 3 in a row, you can understand, I hope.
Additionally, my regular job takes up 10-12 hours per day of my time, plus
my second job 2-4 evenings as well. This severely limits my time for tasks
that were not priorities.
> Many in your organization have accused me, and AVSIM of course, of having
> antipathy toward you and that a personality clash exists between us that
> drives AVSIM's reporting about SATCO. To set the record straight, as I
think
> or hope you know, I have NO personal animosity to you what so ever. I have
a
> lot of concerns about your management style, and have told you so many
> times - as you also know. It is certainly no secret that I AND the senior
> staff of AVSIM had real problems with the way SATCO was managed prior to
our
> withdrawal of support from the organization over a year ago.
Well, a lot of those "management" issues have been resolved for quite some
time. Not personal? What do you mean not personal? Maybe it's not
"personal" to you, but I take it personally. Very personally.
My answers will be interjected between the interrogation.
<KANSAS CITY:
>
> Monies were contributed to SATCO for sponsorship of the first Kansas City
> SATCO conference. If what we have been told is accurate, there was over
> $2,500 collected from various organizations, including $200 from AVSIM.
> Because some 35-40 rooms were booked, the Holiday Inn provided SATCO the
> conference and meeting rooms at no cost. Attending members paid for their
> own room charges and meals. SATCO provided soft drinks. So, here are the
> questions regarding Kansas City:
This information is incorrect. SATCO paid for much more than just "soft
drinks". We paid for the van usage(it was supposed to be free), we paid for
veggie/sandwich trays in the small conference rooms, we paid for usage of
one of the small rooms(yes, the large room was free - not the smaller
rooms - though they were supposed to be). Additional charges were the use
of an overhead projector at the dinner and on Saturday, podium, etc. I
remember that SATCO(me) received a bill after the convention for almost $300
additional to what we had already paid. Some of the donated funds were also
used for the paper goods needed for the convention, etc. I would like to
give you a more detailed accounting of what happened then, but it has been
over two years ago that this occured, and I cannot remember the details now.
Perhaps I should have kept better records, but I didn't.
> * How much money was spent of these donated funds?
All money donated for the first convention in 1999 was expended on the
behalf of said convention to the best of my recollection.
> * How much money was left over of those funds donated?
To my knowledge, none. As I recall now, two years later, I personally had
to come up with the extra $300 we were billed after the convention.
> * What happened to those funds that were left over - how was the money
used?
See above.
> * Why did you refuse to provide an accounting of those funds when asked to
> do so?
When was I asked? Aside from one message in my Email on Friday, which I
responded to, I cannot recall ever being asked about any of the donated
funds from the first convention in 1999.
> PUBLIC DONATIONS:
> Members of the organization took it upon themselves last year to solicit
> donations to assist in defraying the cost of server operations and
bandwidth
> costs. As we understand it, approximately $3,700 dollars were donated in
the
> intervening period. Also as we understand it, none of these funds have
been
> conveyed to any server host. So, the questions:
>
> * Please confirm our understanding that no funds have been provided to the
> server operators. Is this in fact, the case?
This is true. When Jonathan Reid and Mike Hayden were bringing up the SE
USA server, I was in contact with Jonathan about providing him either the
product, or reimbursing him for products/software purchased. We discussed
purchasing the LINUX OS, or some hardware items he would need, such as hard
drives. However, after I spoke with Mike, he and Jonathan decided not to
accept any of the donated funds at that time. I do not recall if a reason
was given, though none was required. To date, no other server owner has
requested any assistance from the server donation funds.
> * Did you require that all funds gathered by donation be sent to you,
> instead of to an alternative account established by those setting up the
> donation system?
I don't recall "requiring" them to be sent to me. If my memory serves me
correctly, during discussion with Ron Lemke and Mike Hayden, I expressed my
opinion that, if funds were to be donated in the "SATCO" or "SATSERV" name,
then I thought it was appropriate to have them in a SATCO account. I do not
recall knowing that Ron had set up a separate account for these donations,
but that does not mean they didn't tell me and I forgot it. At the time,
having the funds in a SATCO account seemed to be the best idea. Upon
retrospect, I wish we would have let Ron and Mike deal with it. One other
reason why I thought using the SATCO account was the right thing, was so we
could use a service called PayPal that I had just found out about.
> * Did you commingle those funds with your personal savings/checking
accounts
> or did you create a separate account for those funds?
There is a separate "SATCO" bank account(a free account) that I have had
open for several years, for SATCO business, such as domain name, web server,
etc., expenses. This is the account that these donations were deposited in.
The donations, however, were not separted out until late in May, after my
discussions with Harvey. Once again, hindsight is 20/20 and I should have
opened a separate account or let Ron handle it. That was a bad decision on
my part, but it's done and there's nothing I can do about that now. The
only "commingling" that has occurred is the use of my PayPal account to
accept credit card donations. Once again, on retrospect, this probably
should have been a separate account, but as mentioned above, it did not
occur to me that there was any issue or regard here. I should point out as
well that no one else suggested separating them into their own accounts,
though if I had been cognizant of Ron's separation, it might have dawned on
me.
> * Starting as early as December last year, requests were placed in the
> newsgroups asking for an accounting of those funds. In the early days of
May
> of this year, senior staff members asked for an accounting. Throughout
this
> roughly seven month period, no definitive accounting of those funds has
> occurred. Why?
If anyone wanted to know anything about the donations, they should have sent
me an Email like Jim Davis did in April(if I remember right). Once Jim sent
the message, though I disagreed with it, I spoke with Harvey and we
established a process that was agreeable to Jim. While I was aware of the
discussions in the newsgroups, I did not take them as valid requests.
Perhaps a bad choice, but done nevertheless.
> * One, possibly two, senior staff members volunteered to pay their own way
> to Kansas City to help you straighten out the accounts and provide a
public
> accounting. You rebuffed their offers of assistance. Why?
Harvey and I had discussed how to proceed with this process. The members
who volunteered were SATUSA staff, not senior staff members, though they
both have been around for a long, long time. It was a judgement call that
we would provide the accounting in the process Harvey and I agreed upon.
> * Would you be willing to provide a NOTORIZED bank slip, that is
verifiable
> by an independent entity, that accounts for the donated funds?
Harvey, who has left SATCO, has agreed through a third party to review the
bank statements that I will be mailing him. I should explain here also, the
original process Harvey and I discussed and agreed to. I was to obtain the
bank statements, separate the donations, and establish a new separate
account for the donated funds. Once that was done, I would forward those
statements to Harvey for review. After his review, he would return the
statements. I must admit that I did not work as rapidly on this perhaps as
hindsight would indicate now that I should have, but as explained at the
top, my family issues came first.
If, for whatever reason, you feel that Harvey is not trustworthy enough to
independantly verify these statements, please let us all know who you think
would be.
> * If some or all of these funds have been spent, what have they been spent
> on?
None of these funds have been expended at this time. Phil Dowling and I
have been trying to figure out how to distribute them adequately, so that no
one would end up violating any service agreement they might have with
whomever hosts their servers. We have not struck on a decent solution as of
yet, though one was being considered just before this all came about.
> * If you cannot or will not provide an accounting to the SATCO community,
> would you be willing to tender your resignation from SATCO and relinquish
> all rights to its name?
I have sent a message to the HQ staff to review the pages I have created and
posted with the scanned statements, showing the current status of the SATCO
account. However, at this time(probably due to the hour), I haven't had any
response yet. I hope to hear from staff very soon, but those pages can be
reviewed at http://www.satco.org/donationsba1.htm. The SATCO Executive
board will decide how to proceed with the organization.
> JOE JURECKA'S POSITION:
>
> As you know, Joe has posted a very strongly worded message to the AVSIM
> forum, which was subsequently copied over to the newsgroup. As we both
know,
> the INTENT from the very beginning of PC/SB and the SERVER software was
that
> the SERVICE remain free. From those of us that were there in the early
days,
> it was always understood that any organization providing hosting would do
so
> at no cost. A philosophy that was clearly stated numerous times in those
> early days, and subsequently re-enforced by Joe, Jason and Marty and again
> by Joe in the AVSIM forum. That has been the INTENT from the first day
that
> SB/PC and the SERVER software became available.
SATCO provides the membership interface between the users, who use PC or SB,
and the server owners. The service is now, and will always, remain free to
the end users. From what I know, those people hosting the servers at this
time are doing so at no cost to anyone but themselves. SATCO provides no
hosting services other than database administration, membership and web
sites. I am aware of his intent, and do not believe that has been violated.
> * Do you support that intent and will you continue to support it?
My views have not changed. SATCO does not profit from anything related to
the servers, SB, PC or the hobby. There is no cost now, there will be no
cost in the future(while I have anything to do with it, any way).
> * Do you agree that accepting donations, is a violation of that intent?
I am not an attorney, so I cannot give a legal interpretation, but from my
best information from legal counsel, as well as many other people within the
organization, I do not believe we have violated the End User Licensing
Agreement(EULA) that is posted in relation to SB, PC or the server packages,
nor the intent. SATCO itself is not an end user of SB, PC, or the server
software. We do not provide any server boxes, all of the servers are
privately owned and the licensing belongs to the owner of that box, not
SATCO. In the same manner, the SB/PC EULA belongs to the individual user,
rather than to SATCO. SATCO does not provide the SB/PC software the users
operate anywhere on it's website, though there is a link to the developers
group. While most of our users are using copyrighted, licensed programs
like MS FS, PS1, ATP, or FLY!, PP and the like, these licenses belong to
that user, not to SATCO. This is the interpretation I was given when I
asked. I was concerned then that there might be some conflict, but upon
conversation with some server owners, legal counsel, and others within
SATCO, we believed there would be no conflict. If the donations were in
violation of any EULA, our information was incorrect.
> Randy, no pabulum, no spinning, just give us the facts please. The people
> within SATCO are deservedly proud of what they have accomplished. If the
> numbers I hear are correct, some 35 to 40 thousand users of the service
> deserve your forthright answers to these questions, and they deserve them
> quickly. I would caution you by saying that this time, this situation
isn't
> going to just go away by silence, spinning or refusing to answer the
> questions. If I do not receive answers to these questions by 6:00 P.M. EDT
> on Sunday, June 9th, I will interpret that as a refusal. I will then post
> this message in its entirety to both AVSIM and the newsgroup for the
> community to assess and judge accordingly.
You may read whatever you want to into this message. I cannot control
thought processes. These answers are honest and truthful, and are the facts
as I can best explain them. I have tried to provide as much information as
possible, as candidly and truthfully as possible. I may not have done it to
satisfy someone else's time frame, but I have done the best I could, given
the circumstances. Harvey left the organization partly due to my failure to
communicate things with him, and I take that blame. I cannot speak for
Harvey, nor for why he has left the organization, but I suspect that my lack
of communications skills contributed to his departure.
SATCO is also embarking on a refund process at this time, though all the
details are not completed yet. Those who donated via PayPal will be
refunded via PayPal, minus any handling fees out of SATCO control. Those
who donated via check or money order will be refunded in like manner, with
fees deducted if applicable. Once this process is completed, then SATCO
will NEVER accept any support from it's users again. The donation process
was intended originally to assist the server owners/providers with needs, or
to provide another server box if possible. Obviously that will never
happen.
SATCO is now much larger than I had ever envisioned it and it keeps growing
at an astronomical rate. This is one reason why the new SATCO management
structure will be governed by a board of directors, who will make the
decisions. This board is still in it's formative and developmental stages,
but it promises to be something that we can all be proud of.
SATCO USERS: you have my apologies for allowing this to drag on as long as
it has. However, I do have responsibilities outside of SATCO that must, at
times, take precedence over the hobby, and your needs. I think the
executive board is hopefully a way to ensure this will not occur in the
future.
--
Regards,
Randy Whistler
Executive Director
SATCO
Scott Barefield
Whether AVSIM is or is not a "news agency" and whether it would be protected
under laws is not really relevant (though I think we'd all be surprised with
the number of off the wall things that DO receive freedom of speech
protection). If you pick up your local this morning and a reporter says
"sources tell us...blah blah blah," do you run to the paper screaming to
know who their sources are? Perhaps, but I doubt it. You judge the
integrity of the publication, the integrity of the author, and the
information presented and draw conclusions for yourself. People get called
out in public forums all the time -- sometimes by reputable accusers, and
sometimes not. Again, that is somewhat up to the reader to decide for
him/herself.
You've really done exactly the thing that I was describing. You've decided
not to believe Tom based on the information and your opinions and there is
absolutely nothing wrong with that. I'll agree with you that knowing the
sources would strengthen his arguments further and it MIGHT end rumor,
innuendo and speculation (depending on who the sources are).
Now for the following comment of yours:
> > Perhaps. Is it necessary? Not really.
>
> Only if someone doesn't value the truth.
I have never been more instulted or infuriated by a comment on a newsgroup
than this one. I'm going to pause for a minute, take a deep breath and
REALLY hope that you are not accusing me of not valuing the truth. If you
are, then you are beneath contempt, and you have obviously not read any of
my other posts to this group. You don't know me, you never have, and I can
guarantee that you know nothing about me! I know nothing about you and I
would not presume for one minute to judge you as a person based on your
posts here. While I will agree to your right to post your opinions and your
freedom of speech, you should be ashamed for even implying such a thing.
Scott
Paul Watts
"Randy Whistler" <rwhi...@nospam.kscable.com> wrote in message
news:3b23...@news.simflight.com...
>
> "Tom Allensworth" <t...@avsim.com> wrote in message
> news:3b22...@news.simflight.com...
> > We stated we would post this here too...
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
Hi Randy,
Although I have never met you please accept my sincere condolences for the
death of your family members.
Also thank you for attempting to satisfy the wolves and sharks who scent
blood and have gone into a feeding frenzy of accusations and counter
accusations.
I truly hope that you won't give up on the organisation that you started but
I wouldn't blame you if you were very disappointed and disgusted at some of
the news group posting that have gone on here in the last couple of days.
I think AVSIM (through Tom Allensworth) has shown it's true colours
throughout this fiasco and I for one will be avoiding them from this moment
onwards and will be sticking to the many other excellent flight sim web
sites out there.
Randy, I joined SATCO for the fun and enjoyment of being with like minded
people who have the imagination to create a virtual world of flying and
controlling so that I could do things that I have only dreamed of in real
life. SATCO, its volunteers and the many external software developers ,
scenery & plane designers etc, have made this possible.
I do not know who is right or wrong in this current debate and I am sure
there have been mistakes made on both sides. I just hope that when you
submit the bank statements that it shut-ups the people who are making the
accusations and we can all get back to having fun and enjoying our hobby.
Randy, however it all pans out, my thanks to you for putting in a lot of
time and energy to start and continue to lead SATCO and I am sure you have
the appreciation of many people all over the world.
Hang in there !
Cali Kid
> Reggie --
>
> Whether AVSIM is or is not a "news agency" and whether it would be
protected
> under laws is not really relevant (though I think we'd all be surprised
with
> the number of off the wall things that DO receive freedom of speech
> protection). If you pick up your local this morning and a reporter says
> "sources tell us...blah blah blah," do you run to the paper screaming to
> know who their sources are? Perhaps, but I doubt it. You judge the
> integrity of the publication, the integrity of the author, and the
> information presented and draw conclusions for yourself. People get
called
> out in public forums all the time -- sometimes by reputable accusers, and
> sometimes not. Again, that is somewhat up to the reader to decide for
> him/herself.
For the record, I will not yield from my position. TA is the one who has
gone beyond "reporting" allegations, he has accused RW of improprieties.
The only thing he has made clear is his prior issues with RW and SATCO.
Most stories come to light based upon a fact or set of circumstances that
are verified and provides a foundation for the story or allegations.
>
> You've really done exactly the thing that I was describing. You've
decided
> not to believe Tom based on the information and your opinions and there is
> absolutely nothing wrong with that. I'll agree with you that knowing the
> sources would strengthen his arguments further and it MIGHT end rumor,
> innuendo and speculation (depending on who the sources are).
I hope this is an oversight on your part; I clearly stated I also did not
believe Randy. Neither of them has done anything to support their position.
One is hiding behind "promised anonymity," the other continues to say the
proof is forthcoming.
>
> Now for the following comment of yours:
>
> > > Perhaps. Is it necessary? Not really.
> >
> > Only if someone doesn't value the truth.
>
> I have never been more instulted or infuriated by a comment on a newsgroup
> than this one. I'm going to pause for a minute, take a deep breath and
> REALLY hope that you are not accusing me of not valuing the truth. If you
> are, then you are beneath contempt, and you have obviously not read any of
> my other posts to this group. You don't know me, you never have, and I
can
> guarantee that you know nothing about me! I know nothing about you and I
> would not presume for one minute to judge you as a person based on your
> posts here. While I will agree to your right to post your opinions and
your
> freedom of speech, you should be ashamed for even implying such a thing.
>
> Scott
You did a pretty good job of jumping to a conclusion here, then going off on
a tangent. Rather than wait for my response, you made an assumption and
submitted an interesting comment for someone who says he took a deep breath.
My comment was not directed at you; sorry you took it that way. Maybe I'll
try and do a little bit better job of clarifying what I meant.
My comment was directed at Tom; if he is demanding the truth, then he needs
to be in a position to say he is above reproach, pure and simple. The truth
is not found in a "promise of anonymity." The same applies to Randy. The
truth will be found in bank statements and explanations.
You're right, I don't know you. I haven't presumed anything about you; but
I did notice you made an assumption about my intentions and rather than wait
for me to respond, stated I'm beneath contempt. That's OK, however; you
stated why you felt that way, though you are mistaken. Especially seeing
how you stated you don't know me.
Bottom line for me; TA and RW will not be believed by me until they both
come clean. Both of them have raised more questions than they've answered.
Reggie
Harry Juris
apologize for putting family first. The fault I would find would be
that you did not turn over responsibilities to a staff member when
personal circumstances prohibited you from devoting necessary attention
here. Hopefully the reorganization to which you alluded will prevent
that from happening again.
As far as the letter from Avsim goes. I just posted the following on
their forum under the subject "Allensworth--Nothing to say??"
" There is a long and detailed answer from Randy Whistler to your
thinly disguised personal attack letter.
So I come over here to see what you have to say and all I see is a
headline screaming "Avsim asks some tough questions" No mention of a
response. Oh I'm sure your "answer" will be "We just hadn't seen it
yet" but in my (not so) humble opinion, you would much rather ask
questions than see answers.
Look up the phrase "Yellow Journalism" in any book on the History of the
U.S. and if the shoe fits..wear it"
Looking forward to better days
Harry
WWA5513 "
greg1
My sympathy for your personal losses.
I will not try to judge the content of your reply as I do not have the
facts. I do however feel that IMHO this was never the point. SATCO has
grown to a large organisation that directly affects the enjoyment of
dozens of thousands of people worldwide and as such you now have a
responsibility that goes beyond just simply *enjoying your hobby* and
doing things as you see fit.
Not to mention the hundreds/thousands? of people and ventures that are
directly or indirectly making a living out of this (would I have had
recently spent another $3,500 on a major hardware upgrade to host the new
toys and addons -commercial or freeware, would I have been splashing
another $100-a-month to my ISP and phone company so that I could be
on-line in style, had it not been for SATCO/SATSERV/SB/PC? -no, niet,
nein, ohi, ne).
The point is, we now *all* have a responsibility. Should I be
researching the scenes behind SATCO or squawkbox in order to decide
whether to invest my spare time and money in this, in case someone decides
to pull the plug for whatever justified or unjustified reasons? From HQ
right down to the most remote SATCO division, from the freeware
developpers to the last controller, we should all be in this together. And
most importantly, we have to make sure it's safeguarded and watertight.
That this thing is put on autopilot and becomes totally independant of any
one person. That one person's work can be carried out by the next person.
The recipe for success of any large organisation is maybe this: to make it
so that the organisation benefits from exceptional individual input but
remains collectively unscathed from individual error.
In my proffessional experience, whenever there is a difficult situation at
hand, I make sure that everyone pertinent participates in the
decision-making process, particularly those in the board that I know first
hand would be totally against, even though the call might be mine to make.
In this way I make sure that, once the decision is made, they are all
involved (again, particularly those that would love to see it flop -for
whatever personal or substantiated reasons).
It sounds as though you have yourself identified some major shortcommings
in your leadership style, coupled with a few important wrong judgement
calls. It shouldn't have been instigated by this major boat-rocking in the
first place but your post is certainly in the right direction.
I hope that wounds heal for all concerned.
Greg Economou
Athens, Greece
SATEUR Member C2
Hellenic vACC Assist. Director
ICQ 54690717
e-mail: gr...@hol.gr
Adam Kolari
those whiners who like to cause trouble on theis NG. I envy you for going
through what you just did and still have the patience to put up with all the
babies on this list. SATCO doesn't need quitters (but having Harv back
would be nice, he was such a great guy), so my advice to all the followers
who jumped ship would be "don't let the door hit your butt on the way out".
Again, good job Randy, I'm proud to be associated with SATCO!
Regards,
Adam Kolari
Toronto FIR
Adam Kolari
an idiot? No? Well you should. I can't believe you would commend Tom "I'm
too chicken to reveal my sources" Allensworth. Anytime someone won't reveal
their sources, you know there's something going on. When you said "people
of this ilk", you were referring to yourself.
Adam Kolari
"Justin Snyder" <jus...@simchoice.com> wrote in message
news:3b22f472$1...@news.simflight.com...
Justin Snyder
"Adam Kolari" <rako...@cyberbeach.net> wrote in message
news:3b23...@news.simflight.com...
Scott Barefield
I am honestly quite relieved that I was wrong about your intentions and I
apologize for the misunderstanding -- thank you for the clarification.
> Bottom line for me; TA and RW will not be believed by me until they both
> come clean. Both of them have raised more questions than they've
answered.
On this point, I'd say we agree 110%.
Take care,
Scott
Justin Snyder
And don't come back with any crap about me insulting you. You just called
Harvey and Tom Schroeder and Jim Davis quitters and followers. Sorry but
those guys aren't among the mindless morons who follow the bandwagon. As
Avsim so precisely put it, Harvey Stein was the moral barometer of SATCO.
Now he's gone and we have no more information than he did.
"Adam Kolari" <rako...@cyberbeach.net> wrote in message
news:3b23...@news.simflight.com...
J. Jason Vodnansky
You just don't get it. If a source wishes to be unnamed, he remains
unnamed. It is just that simple!!! Tom Allensworth has done nothing wrong
in my opinion. Let me restate that so there is no misunderstanding. Tom
Allensworth has done nothing wrong in my opinion. We are all entitled to
our opinions.
Now as to you calling everyone quitters, again, you just don't get it.
These people who resigned have all been around for a long time. There is
still information that remains to come out. Information that we know, but
are not prepared to divulge. There is a time and place. Right now is
neither.
So in calling the likes of Harvey, Tom, Jim, Mike, myself quitters and
followers, I ask that you think about what it is you have. Randy, has his
own beliefs as well, and his own opinions. He is certainly entitled to
them. However, the rest of us have ours and this issue has a long history.
Randy is not an evil person!!! Again, Randy is NOT an evil person. Just
someone who has different ideas. Ideas of which I have a different opinion.
Remember it is IDEAS that make this world go around.
J. Jason Vodnansky
"Justin Snyder" <jus...@simchoice.com> wrote in message
news:3b23d92f$1...@news.simflight.com...
Brian Crowley
>
> And don't come back with any crap about me insulting you. You just called
> Harvey and Tom Schroeder and Jim Davis quitters and followers. Sorry but
> those guys aren't among the mindless morons who follow the bandwagon. As
> Avsim so precisely put it, Harvey Stein was the moral barometer of SATCO.
> Now he's gone and we have no more information than he did.
Erm, either my newsreader is screwed, you're attributing things to Randy
that he didn't say, or you're talking to Adam and it just ain't that clear.
--
Cheers
Brian Crowley
SATUK S1
Brian Crowley
> Whatever. Amazing how torn up you are. So angry.
It's equally amazing how much you don't post when you've got no actual
argument to present. To be honest I wonder whether the second name you post
is less a surname more a personality statement.
--
Cheers
Brian Crowley
SATUK S1
-------------------------------------------------
Amy Gilbert
My thoughts precisely!!
I feel sorry for people like Adam Kolari who have to call those of us who
resigned as "whiners" and "quitters". Those that know me personally know I am
in NO WAY a quitter, nor did I jump on any "bandwagon" when resigning from
SATCO. I wasn't even anyone important-just a C2. But I had my OWN reasons for
withdrawing from the organization and I stand by those reasons.
Once again J. Jason, my kudos and ^5's to you. To anyone else who doesn't agree
with what I have to say, go ahead and flame me. I'm a big girl and I can take
it.
Cali Kid
pretty well. You positions are not at all off base, and you seem to allow
others to have some wiggle room for their positions.
Take care, now if I can just learn to shoot a good VOR approach, I'd be a
happy camper.
Reggie<-------it is hot in SoCal today.
"Scott Barefield" <nigh...@midwest.net> wrote in message
news:3b23...@news.simflight.com...
Cali Kid
few questions himself.
Seeing how others had posted questions to Randy about the funds and other
issues, why did he find it necessary to post questions from AVSIM, seeing
how he stated he withdrew his support from the organization over a year ago?
Did he have some special standing as a donor, a contributor of services, or
did he see an opportunity to follow-up on his personal issues with RW?
Were his intentions to pass on information to us? I thought he pretty much
did that on his site, but he still saw fit to come here with it. The
comment that he wouldn't get a response so he was posting his questions
early certainly tainted whatever intrinsic motivations he may have had in
posting his questions.
Interesting that he would post comments accusing RW of improprieties in this
forum, then tell us he will respond only once in this forum? Why should he
expect RW to respond, yet he be above responding to others? I think what is
good for the gander is good for the goose.
Regarding the issue of "sources," there will always be a question in my mind
as to who is being truthful when it comes to sources. Did the source say as
much as was reported, or was there some embellishment? Were the sources
providing firsthand information, or merely passing on rumors they heard?
Finally, when accusing someone of actions that constitute a criminal
offense, and publicly calling them out, that person should be prepared to
come clean themselves. Anything less raises legitimate questions about
their truthfulness and motives.
Reggie
Justin Snyder
Keep trying Brian. You'll get it.
(This is getting old Brian.)
"Brian Crowley" <b...@northfieldbham.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3b23...@news.simflight.com...
>
Brian Crowley
>
> Keep trying Brian. You'll get it.
I don't think I will actually.
*PLONK*
Adam Kolari
No, you didn't jump on the bandwagon. You just happened to quit (aka
resign) at the same time as everyone else. Tsk tsk...shame on me for
thinking that.
Adam Kolari
Adam Kolari
If the source's info in 100% accurate, why does he/she wish to remain
anonymous? What are they worried about? If the info is true, why hide the
source? They have nothing to lose if revealed, right? Plus, if the info is
wrong, the person(s) who know the truth can talk to that source and confer
as to who has the right story.
Adam Kolari
william graves
Bill Graves
J. Jason Vodnansky
Jason
"Brian Crowley" <b...@northfieldbham.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3b23...@news.simflight.com...
>
J. Jason Vodnansky
Thanks for the kind words, tried to e-mail you but no joy.
Drop me a note at jame...@yahoo.com
J. Jason Vodnansky
"Amy Gilbert" <adgil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B23E953...@hotmail.com...
SickofJustinSnyder
With all due respect to Mr. Stein, who I
agree is (was? will again be?) a great asset
to SATCO and a fine, upstanding person, I say
--
Justin, why not take that barometer and....
You know what I mean.
BTW, "Justin Snyder" <jus...@simchoice.com>
wrote: