posted on February 13, 2001 01:03:52 AM new
It is very wonderful that you come froward with your true colors, most honorable Twinsoft.
To make such decrees as to who should or should not participate at this early stage is very very bad.
How many others will YOU decide, without vote or consensus, are unfit for the project? What qualifies YOU to make such decisions?
What type of minds only make such judgements as good or bad, without any grey area?
The best thing you said was: "I will not participate in these discussions again." Perhaps you will keep that promise, and allow ALL INTERESTED USERS to have a voice.
posted on February 13, 2001 01:31:07 AM new
Judgements, judgements and still more judgements:
"I see a lot of people seriously interested in the idea of a co-op. I do believe that eventually it will happen. However, I have disagreed with Jamie's ideas from the start. I think they are bad, and Jamie's co-op will be worse than no co-op at all."
Bad? Why are YOU the one who gets to decide for the co-op what is BAD? No idea can be considered BAD, even the wild idea that everyone is this "R--- person" whom you consider your nemisis.
Not your place, Twinsoft. Not your place AT ALL to ban and censor and claim to to the one who decides for all. NO, no not at all.
"Jamie associates himself with people I consider the worst kind of message board trolls. I will not respond to R and his many bogus IDs. The sellers co-op has become a power play and fresh meat for R message board games. You asked for leadership, so here it is. Jamie and R have no place at the helm of a co-op. If that's not what you wanted to hear, I am sincerely sorry."
Again, decisions without vote or consensus. Who gave TwinSoft that power? The power to decide who Jamie should associate with? The power to say who should or should not be "at the helm"? If Jamie or this "R--- person" want to be voted in, why shouldn't they be "at the helm"?
I want no part of such arbitrary decision making, nor should ANY of you interested in a co-op. All should be decided by vote or consensus, not one person with a grudge.
"I have too many real life issues, and too much respect for my own vision of a sellers co-op, to stand by and watch the co-op prostituted to trolls. I've said my piece, and it's not my desire to play kindergarten cop. This is not a game to me. I wish you success in all you desire. I will not participate in these discussions again."
I hope you now turn back to your "real life issues", I hope that the others interested in this project can now see that a mistake was made in accepting ANY help from someone hwo only wants to control, and not co-operate. I understand your confusion, Twinsoft. Both control and co-operate start with the letters co. Easy mistake to make.
Please keep your promise, please bow out. Now that you have shown your true desire to make decisons about who should or should not be involved has come to light, I am certain that nobody will cry very much about your departure.
posted on February 13, 2001 01:39:01 AM newtwinsoft says:
"....I consider the worst kind of message board trolls. I will not respond to [b]Ross and his many bogus IDs". The sellers co-op has become a power play and fresh meat for Ross' message board games. You asked for leadership, so here it is ??. Jamie and Ross have no place at the helm of a co-op. If that's not what you wanted to hear, I am sincerely sorry.
I have too many real life issues, and too much respect for my own vision of a sellers co-op, to stand by and watch the co-op prostituted to trolls. I've said my piece, and it's not my desire to play kindergarten cop. This is not a game to me. I wish you success in all you desire.
What kind of nonsensical and inflammatory posting is this? Where is Ross? I believe that I've had sufficient experience to recognise him, and I do not.
Is every interested poster who either disagrees with you, twinsoft, or simply doesn't like your style, your act, or your pretensions Ross, or to be included in your personal definition of "the worst kind of message board trolls"?
If your paranoia is so boundless, then perhaps, no, surely your promise that "I will not participate in these discussions again" is the best think that you could do in the interests of any possible cooperative effort.
posted on February 13, 2001 06:32:12 AM new
Thanks Michelle! We needed that.
Hi folks, I really am starting to understand some of the emails I've recieved from people who are hesitant to post on a message board.
We now have 5 pages of comments, most of which have been about chest thumping, he said she said, and personal attacks or arguements other than the subject.
Anyone can start a thread on AW. This one was started for a specific reason. Do some of you think you've helped the co-op cause by what you've posted?
I and a small group have actually been "WORKING" on this for over a week now. We have opened the doors for working with just about anyone. We have invited all.
All we have asked is that you focus on sharing the goal of creating a co-op. All AW asks is that you focus on the thread.
If you don't like me or anyone working with the group nobody is going to force you to help or join.
If you want to argue about another subject, please start another thread. If you want to attack me or anyone else, start another thread.
If you want to help build a co-op and be a part of something then read the work paper and either help fix it or comment on it.
There are other places for all this other stuff.
And if you're here simply to sabotage a small groups efforts I feel truly sorry for you.
posted on February 13, 2001 06:50:40 AM new
This is my first and last descent into the Soap Opera morass that this obviously is-
Wataru-
You have posted not one single thing that can do anything but hurt since these specific threads have been started. Continuing to address comments to a member who had opted out, no matted what you may think of that member, is self-indulgent nonsense, and I think I join in with most everyone else in asking you to knock it the hell off.
Jamie-
I'm having a real difficult time with your canned "help, make concrete suggestions, don't be negative" attitude. There are many people trying to. There are many things being posted that appear directly to "help," including all the things posted about mission statements by people who are aware of the fact that (Business 101) mission statements come BEFORE business plans in most ventures, and in ALL Cooperative ventures. AND, you appear to have an idea in your head that is implanted there and will stay there no matter WHAT evidence or law you're presented with. On another thread, someone said that nothing has been written about a "not-for-profut" Corporation... WELL, you KNOW that "something" has, and that ie the EXACT legal definition of both and how they can or cannot be considered as "exempt" by the IRS, and you respond to that posting as if nothing actually has been, and you are going to be able to fool the IRS and the State Atty. Generals by making this into a non profit or not-for-profit organization, WHICH BY LAW IS SIMPLY NOT GOING TO FLY if this Coop creates an auction site. Since I'm the one who did all the work to point this out to you publically AND privately time and time and time again, I have to question whether if something comes up that you may not want to hear, and is documented, #1. why did I waste my time? and #2. will you be like whomever Paul Simon was talking about in "The Boxer," and be the man who "hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"?
Enough for me. Until and unless someone shows me either publically or privately that this "movement" can have anything resmbling cohesiveness, and not turn into a long-running Soap Opera, I have better things to do with my time.
edited to correct spelling mistakes made out of sheer exasperation with all of this...
[ edited by tentwentytwo on Feb 13, 2001 06:53 AM ]
posted on February 13, 2001 07:04:32 AM new
A perplexing problem...
How does a democracy function? Who gets to vote? How is closure on devisive issues obtained? Who sets the course?
A co-op is really a specialized form of democracy. Look at the bigger world for answers to the problems that confront you.
Who gets to vote? Citizens. But not just any citizen. There are age requirements. And with citizenship there are other requirements such as military service and financial support of the country via taxes.
What requirements will the co-op expect of its citizens? Just to be a seller or buyer in the online auction place? If co-op membership is unqualified then instead of a democracy you will have chaos. This is precisely the problem the OAUA confronted during its formation. Their solution was to require verification of identity.
How is closure on divisive issues achieved? By majority vote? Hardly. There isn't a single divsive issue in today's world where the resolution comes from a majority vote. Closure on divisive issues is only achieved when the minority is willing to accept the proffered solution. And because the majority usually feels that it has the right to its solution without modification simply because it is the majority, most solutions are rarely that. The minority refuses to accept an entrenched majority position.
Closure is achieved, if it is to be achieved at all, by movement from entrenched positions by all parties.
Who sets the course? Leaders. Call it a steering committee, a dictator, a president, a board of directors, it doesn't matter. Someone must in effect say, "this is the way we are going". Not as a command but as a means of actually initiating action. The leaders are those who accept the responsibility for making those kinds of statements and then explaining why that course is the correct one. If the group the leader claims to set the course for disagrees then the leader is deposed. But only if someone steps into the vacancy.
Leaders must accept that the course they propose be critically examined within the structure of the governing organization. At the same time leaders have the right (indeed the obligation) to ignore criticism that occurs outside the structure of the organization. And should that criticism prove disruptive of the organization then the leaders have the right to oppose that criticism. Leaders are under no obligation to bring disruptive voices from outside the organization into the organization. Or to accommodate disruptive voices that step outside the structure of the organization.
At this moment, there is no co-op. There is no organization. Until some organization exists any one can step forward as a leader. Any disruptive voice can be quashed from a forum that is controlled by another.
A co-op will only be formed when the folks that want a co-op start organizing it and stop worrying about accommodating every divergent opinion.
posted on February 13, 2001 07:14:15 AM new
Wow, Code, that was an amazing post!! And true too. I suggest you partipate on one of he commitees? Perhaps the one focusing on bidders rights and needs?
posted on February 13, 2001 07:46:04 AM new
I'm in agreement with tentwentytwo who has voiced my sentiments exactly.
There are excellent posts to this thread by what I would term, the kind of people and ideas that are needed to begin the foundation work of a coop. Yes, they directly impact the work sheet put forth yet they are ignored. That is, of course, unless they make a negative statement that someone sees fit to offer a retort to.
Jamie, I don't know if your post was directed towards me, for one, but I am not in agreement with the sequence of events as put forth in the work sheet. However, it appears that one MUST accept the work sheet theory first and spend their energy there if they are to be considered "one of your group". I, and others here, have tried in vain to convey this but to no avail. Additionally, I am not going to run to the "other" board to comment and help. It's already a closed issue what your group has decided.
I am advocating that we first try to establish where our conceptual coop falls insofar as the profit, not for profit, etc., thing is concerned as started by magazine, dave, powerseller, tentwenty and whoever else was involved in that most important, crucial discussion which should have never ended as abruptly as it did. We need to consider the information imparted by auctionfool's first post in this thread and dman's and tentwenty and Nancy. Dman is saying IT ALL! yet his posts appear to fall on deaf ears and closed minds.
And what about this membership drive? That has been discussed from the start with negative impact for many (myself included) yet it still lives and remains a key focus of you, Jamie. I believe it is premature but, if you and your colleagues don't agree, you can and will go on without me. That's acceptable to me since I never could and still can't find myself in these endeavors as put forth.
Lastly, I think the efforts and hard work exhibited to keep the momentum of these discussions going has been quite noteworthy. Unfortunately, for me, they have taken some turns that have lost my support.
Now, is this going to be viewed as one of those negative posts of someone who does no work but feels free to offer "detrimental" comments? I hope not because what I'm trying to convey is what I perceive to be some key issues that are keeping others from discussing and participating as well.
posted on February 13, 2001 07:57:19 AM new
I've seen mention of a "membership drive" several times in the posts I've read, yet no explanation of what kind(s) of items this co-op will be oriented towards selling, or restricting from sale.
How are sellers (prospective co-op members) to know that they will even have the opportunity to sell their products, should they decide to join?
How much time and energy will sellers be willing to put into this effort without some assurance that they are not working for naught?
posted on February 13, 2001 08:08:17 AM new
Like tentwentytwo, I have purposely avoided the infantile arguments and name-calling on these threads. I simply don't have the precious time to waste on that sort of foolishness, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
Extra time is a commodity that few of us has in abundance, making the decision of how to best utilize that time all the more important.
I can tell you I do not have time to devote to a project that is poorly planned and haphazardly executed. The impatience of a few, seemingly content to slap some numbers on a page and force-feed it to the masses, will derail this project, the concept of which is universally accepted as the core of our future success as online auction sellers.
*Should* a co-op auction site *ever* become reality, it will happen only after a solid foundation has been laid. Will we build that foundation by virtually ignoring every known business principle? By discounting the guidance offered by the thousands of co-ops that have been there and done that? I think most participants know the answers to those questions.
Once again I propose we adhere to the NCBA's chronological listing of preparations. The Steering Committee needs to be formed before anything meaningful can happen.
I further propose that we direct our undivided attention to identifying and recruiting talented, well-respected individuals, both in the online auction industry as well as in the areas of law, finance and cooperatives.
IMO, this list must include the names of toyranch, Rosalinda, and auctionfool25 (MBA accounting). magazine_guy would be an invaluable contributor, although he's already stated his time is committed.
Here's hoping we can divert our attention to the singular act that can propel us forward.
posted on February 13, 2001 08:10:24 AM new
Molly: Anyone can start an thread on AW. The title of the thread is quite clear and the aim of the thread is also quite clear.
Some fine posts have been left in this thread but they aren't related to the topic. And sometimes when this happens someone who is new to the discussion can become lost and this defeats the purpose.
All I have suggested is that these other ideas be shared in other threads. I have no problems with anyone disagreeing with anything I say or print. I as person though would appreciate if the comments were kept polite. I don't think this has to be about personalities?
Look, nobody expects everyone to agree with each other. If you or anyone else doesn't wish to participate then they won't. If the group as a whole demacratically goes in a direction that I as a member can't support I will leave myself.
I am not interested in fighting with you or anyone else. All I am interested is in building a co-op and a co-op that I can sell my products from. The rest will not be remembered a year or two down the road.
I wish you and everyone else the best. The doors are open if you want to build something. If not I wish you well.
MEMBERSHIP DRIVE: This was discussed in the platform at the beginning of this thread. Once the commitee's that are forming now are finished with their reports we will be having an initial membership drive at some point.
This will be elaborated on once the committees start to finish their initial work.
As for the co-op, it has already been suggested that it would be non-exclusive so at the moment anything that is legal to sell would be welcome. How it's handled will be up to the membership of course.
There are many ideas being floated around. Your thoughts and suggestions is what this thread is about.
The first work sheet at the beginning of the thread is just a set of ideas that have been put out. It's up to each of us to make it better even if it means scrapping it and starting all over!!
posted on February 13, 2001 08:25:56 AM new
I've been away for awhile.....RL job and all.
Fountainhouse(Nancy)..... duly noted. Thanks for checking in.
tentwentytwo:
OK, how we'all doing so far?
-------------------------------------------
GREAT POST!
twinsoft,
[b]I think that electing a steering committee based on
who has input to this particular thread is not a good idea.[/b]
Thats not what I meant.
I think most of us are looking for someone to take some charge here(as you and Jamie both made it clear your not the leader). We want someone to take a firm hand and get us to the "Steering Commitee" point.
You and Jamie were doing great and we were all following your leads. Then you split, accused each other of raining on your parades. And you lost a lot of confidence in people. Well we need some to take the raines and we need someone everyone has confidence in, and someone who WON'T when it gets a little sticky tell us "I never said I wanted to be leader". RIGHT NOW I think most of us are trying to find someone to look up to.
Its time someone took CHARGE....OK
Lets just get past the MISSION STATEMENT then we can go forward on the STEERING COMMITEE.
By the way, when I made my list for those to draft a Mission Statement, I made it from the people who have been posting thier qualifications and their input. I don't mean to omit anyone. BUT, WE HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE. So it goes.....
And yes, for those INTERESTED enough to post a MISSION STATEMENT I think they make good canidates for a Leadership roll. Steering Commitee or otherwise.
packer
By the way it took me awhile to catch up since yesterday afternoon. i've seen some GREAT posts here.
posted on February 13, 2001 09:35:59 AM new
Jamie - since it appears you were addressing my post, I'll reply as best I can.
You say, "Some fine posts have been left in this thread but they aren't related to the topic. And sometimes when this happens someone who is new to the discussion can become lost and this defeats the purpose."
My question is what posts, specifically, are you referring to that are not related to the topic? as I can't seem to recall without rereading everything and time is not on my side to be able to do that.
You say, "All I have suggested is that these other ideas be shared in other threads. I have no problems with anyone disagreeing with anything I say or print. I as person though would appreciate if the comments were kept polite. I don't think this has to be about personalities?"
My question, was this directed to me? What did I say that had anything to do with personalities? I stated facts and attacked no one. Perhaps I'm missing something here because my post had nothing to do personalities or impoliteness.
You say, "Look, nobody expects everyone to agree with each other. If you or anyone else doesn't wish to participate then they won't. If the group as a whole demacratically goes in a direction that I as a member can't support I will leave myself. AND
I am not interested in fighting with you or anyone else. All I am interested is in building a co-op and a co-op that I can sell my products from."
My question, who is fighting? I wasn't. I stated where I think this conception has to begin. If you're construing that as fighting then you can see why the majority of people who are interested in the coop are not speaking up. And I assure you, there are many. You have taken my opposing views on foundation building as fighting ~ not in the best interests of a coop, I might add. No, it is not fighting, it is constructive debate that is desperately needed before we do so much as to even consider pulling committees together.
The key issues that I and others keep bringing up were not even addressed in your post. Why is this? Why are those voicing opposing, but constructive views feeling alienated?
It is then left at (once again), if you agree, here's where you fit, if not, that's okay too because we're off to do this the way we see fit, regardless.
posted on February 13, 2001 09:40:24 AM new
"You're so vain, you probably thought this song was about you? " Damn, where are those musical notes on the keyboard....
MOLLY: If I want to quote someone directly I do. I would put MOLLY: "X" The x is for the words.
Again, I suggest you reread the whole thread and the post that you are quoting and I'm sure you'll understand my meaning.
Thanks all, and let's get some ideas out here to discuss!
posted on February 13, 2001 10:18:32 AM new
Well packer, I have started a few threads for people that want to join the committees. Just check here on AW and our message board.
And the ideas I've asked for are related to the work sheet and how to improve or replace it.
And of course you could start a thread?
If you say [b]Thanks all, and let's get some ideas out here to discuss[b] one more time I'm gonna(insert barf gif here).
Well.....naw, I won't say it again today. Looks like the point has been made.
Toy, thanks for the gif. I'm glad to see that you're finally contributing to the discussion!(g)
posted on February 13, 2001 10:54:45 AM new
Jamie - you still have not directly answered any of my questions or concerns which are the questions and concerns of many.
Instead, you've conveniently side stepped the issue(s) by throwing a stink bomb at me. I'm curious what is it? Is it getting the money? Is it getting media acclaim? What makes you fight this fight?
I'm not looking for an answer from you so please do me the service not to respond to me again.
I've gotten the answer I was looking for concerning the type of person that I am dealing with. And so have the rest of us. Your true colors have been exposed.
Thanks for your post. Hopefully it will open some eyes before it is too late.
posted on February 13, 2001 02:05:26 PM new
GAWDALLMIGHTEE- is there actually a "man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" DISEASE? To the person on this thread it concerns- Do you REALLY think that by ignoring all the useful, varied, and usable input that you get on EVERY thread you post on that you choose to ignore, that
your constant "OK, folks, let's get going here, this is fact-finding and instead of posting negative blahblah do this blahblah" will magically transform itself into any reflection of truth or reality, which is <drumroll> THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DOING ***EXACTLY*** AS YOU HAVE BEEN ASKING THEM TO DO ALL ALONG?????? WAKE UP. YOOHOO. If it's just a tactic of yours to repeat that stuff, CUT IT OUT. You are insulting the intelligence of the very audience you need behind you. If you TRULY believe that you haven't been given VERY useful and VERY good input that you SHOULD factor in to what you're trying to do, then I hope there's a pill for what ails ya, because something does, and it's serious...
posted on February 13, 2001 02:20:54 PM new
Molly you are not being ignored. I am not going to get into any sort of war of personalities on AW. I have stated this many times.
I have also stated that if I was mentioning you by name I would. For you to suggest othewise is to call me a liar. So for you to keep asking isn't going to help you or me.
I have very clearly stated my position on the co-op and how I would like to work with people. I don't expect everyone to agree with me but I also will not keep going back and forth with people who are not interested in building the co-op or are off the topic of the thread as unfortunately this post is.
If you have any question directed to me regarding the first work sheet I would be more than happy to address it. Otherwise any other questions can be directed to me via email or another thread.
10-22. I don't know. There do seem to be a lot of folks around here that can't read or comphrehend what's been written and it's a shame.
Luckily a few can and we can go and work forward to create a co-op.
posted on February 13, 2001 02:32:09 PM new
Jamie-
Needless to say (but I'll say it anyway, even though you and everyone else knows who I was directing my comments at), I was talking about YOU.
In 4 days, you have taken a person who didn't know you from Jeff Bezos before, was willing to work with you towards a common goal, has the talent and drive to contribute, and DID do fairly extensive research for that goal
despite being newly-involved (ME), and turned that person into someone who needs Toyranch's barfbag, as I watch you ignore everything you want to to the point you repetitively claim that something which exists actually doesn't (USABLE INPUT), and ignore the facts I uncovered through my own research by pretending that they simply don't exist either. That's a lot of "accomplishment" in 4 days. 4 more like that, and you won't be able to build a Coop out of an ant farm.
And I agree with your last little statemnet "Luckily a few can..." We just may have a difference of opinion about WHICH few, I fear...
posted on February 13, 2001 02:41:23 PM new
The end of my posting on these Coop threads. Nothing I have said or done has served any useful purpose, and continuing to say or do anything in relation to it would be an exercise in sheer futility, which is a realization about where I am that I'm sometimes slow to get to, but now I'm definitely there....
posted on February 13, 2001 02:42:13 PM new
Hey 10-22. I wish you and Toyranch and the rest of your group the best of luck with your endeavors. Just remember that the doors were open and that someone tried to make something.
Time will show all. It always does.
Ideas have been expressed in this thread.
You brought up some good points which were discussed by a few people. If you feel that because I refused to discuss off topic ideas you don't want to work with us....
Same for anyone else. We will not build this by childish behaviour on anyone's part but by finding common ground and building upon this.
In spite of a few folks who have tried to blow this out of the water there has been quite a bit of strong support.
You and your gang will have to come up with more than that to stop us from building our future.
posted on February 13, 2001 03:05:58 PM new
I spend most of my time listing and taking care of business, so I have little time to read all the posts here.
I am Not surprised that strong feelings and differing viewpoints generate some disagreements. Conflict is a normal occurrence during the growing process and can result in finding some common ground and finding the leaders who can pull things together.
Once the processes have reached the point of creating a mission statement, an organizational structure, constructive meetings, etc... I would like to take part. Who knows, perhaps more than one organization will result from these ideas.
Please contact me when steps are taken in those directions.
