I have some opinions based on reading Harv Stein's posts, Randy W's posts,
and discussions I've had with people.
1: An amount of money has been donated to SATCO. That amount appears
unclear to me, but what do I know. I am not a bookkeeper.
2: Randy was/is in charge of said monies. Regardless of what happened to
it, if anything, I would suggest that it all be refunded if possible to
the people who donated. Any money that can't be refunded for whatever
reason should be given to the development guys and the server owners.
Randy and SATCO need to wash their hands of this money immediately. If
you donated funds, demand a refund now!
Regardless of the actual 100% verifiable facts of this whole mess (which I
doubt we'll ever know all of as it's not our business), the matter should
be closed NOW!
Let's all remember 1 important fact here! Regardless of whether or not
Randy Whistler committed any ethical or even legal violations in this
matter, we need to remember that SATCO is HIS and HIS alone! If you don't
believe me, read the SATCO terms of service and their copyright info.
Randy owns it. If he gets arrested, disgusted, "voted out of office",
struck down by an act of God, or anything else, it would be the absolute
end of SATCO.
Now, I would hope that in the wake of the above situation the server
owners would attempt to device some type of way to continue to provide
SATCO's users connectibility to their servers, but of course they would
have no obligation or even motivation to do so, other then the kindness of
their hearts. I sure wouldn't blame them if they decided to shut the
whole thing down.
Now, if that were to happen, where would that leave us??? IVAO?? The
Zone?? Adventure creation software?? All of these bridges are ones that
I personally don't want to have to cross, and any of you who have had
experience with these "alternatives" would probably agree with me.
So before we go asking for Randy's head on a platter, or seek legal
resolution to this matter, let's seriously consider the repercussions of
those actions. I don't know about you guys, but I kinda like SATCO and
wouldn't mind keeping it! :)
So again, let's get all the money out of SATCO's hands and back into the
hands of the people who donated, or to people who could use it. After
that, SATCO's new "executive committee" could then revisit this issue,
hopefully with some financial guidance expertise, and determine a proper
course of action for the future as it relates to supporting those who
support SATCO.
In the meantime, we can all get back to our lives and back on our flight
decks or in our control towers. PLEASE!
Paul Biderman
Houston ARTCC/C2
PS: Never too ashamed of my own opinions to own up to them by providing
my name and email address!
-------------------------------------------------
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
>Let's all remember 1 important fact here! Regardless of whether or not
>Randy Whistler committed any ethical or even legal violations in this
>matter, we need to remember that SATCO is HIS and HIS alone! If you don't
>believe me, read the SATCO terms of service and their copyright info.
>Randy owns it. If he gets arrested, disgusted, "voted out of office",
>struck down by an act of God, or anything else, it would be the absolute
>end of SATCO.
So ? Big deal.
I fail to understand why people think the world will stop if SATCO
comes to an end.
The hobby of online ATC will continue, with or without SATCO.
So if that is the reason people are hesistant to force a change, they
should seriously reconsider.
Ernie.
Adam Kolari
CYYZ FIR
"Paul Biderman" <goll...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3b26eeca$1...@news.simflight.com...
Adam Kolari wrote:
> Not to nitpick, but I hate when that saying is misquoted. It is from the
> Bible and it says , "Money is the root of ALL KINDS of evil" (caps added
> for emphasis). In know, it's just a very minor detail, but it's one of
> those thing that I can't stand ;-).
If you're going to nitpick, at least be complete (since
you were talking about misquoting). :-)
The actual scripture reads "For the love of money
is a [1] root of all kinds of evil." Paul isn't saying that
money is evil; he's warning that the pursuit of it will
lead people astray. It's 1 Tim 6, but I can't recall
the verse, sorry.
... Probably one of the verses most commonly quoted
incorrect. :-)
Cheers,
Brett
[1] It's sometimes translated as 'a', sometimes 'the'.
If I pursue money so that I might donate it to the benefit of others
less fortunate, it is most likely not evil. But if I pursue money so
that I might accumulte it, and hoard it, simply for the love of the
money itself, then that may be an activity that leads one into evil
ways.
Walt
Walt,
Please believe me when I say this is not intended as a flame, but you have
mentioned a point that has always facinated me about "most" religions. How
is it that religion suggests the above yet religion itself has become so
focused on acquiring money?
It is a well known fact that the Catholic Church is one of the richest
institutions in the world and constantly demonstrated to me by the religous
crap that gets sent over to us from the US on some of the cable networks.
Not a flame but a question that has always both intruiged and confused me.
Dave B
Dave B wrote:
> Please believe me when I say this is not intended as a flame, but you have
> mentioned a point that has always facinated me about "most" religions. How
> is it that religion suggests the above yet religion itself has become so
> focused on acquiring money?
Dave:
That's not true of all religions, nor is it true of all branches
of any particular religion. There are quite obvious examples
(in any religion!) of groups that have moved significantly
away from their foundation, but for each of those I can
quickly find another (probably smaller, unfortunately) that
has remained quite steadfast in their spiritual focus.
Walt:
I respectfully disagree with you. The biblical perspective
(in my interpretative opinion) is that you can only pursue
one of two things: God's truth or Man's truth. Pursuit of
God may result in financial gain (ref. Deut 8:18). Pursuit
of money is not godly, regardless of your stated motives.
This can *easily* fall apart into a semantical argument,
though. Indeed, that's a quite common outcome of this
particular discussion in an ecumenical situation. Note
that I did not say that making money is bad.
In any case, we've all strayed pretty far from SATCO
and flying. So if either of you want to respond, it's
probably best for the three of us to take it to email?
Brett
Marc