• We just finished a fairly major forum upgrade. If you are having problems using the forums, please clear your browser cache and that should clear up any issues. Otherwise post in the Help Thread or email us at forum_moderator@aawforum.org. Happy Holidays!
  • December Turning Challenge: Tree! (click here for details)
  • Congratulations to Vincent Luciani for "Flower Pot" being selected as Turning of the Week for December 23, 2024 (click here for details)
  • Welcome new registering member. Your username must be your real First and Last name (for example: John Doe). "Screen names" and "handles" are not allowed and your registration will be deleted if you don't use your real name. Also, do not use all caps nor all lower case.

AAW Mailing List?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stuart Johnson said:
Ed, it would be helpful if you cut and past the entire message so we can see the bashing in context. On the other hand maybe you should be posting your comments on the forum where the original message appears.
Click to expand...

Stuart,
"He hit me first" is no excuse.
I understand what Ed's trying to say, and I agree...
Turn the other cheek, then, if necessary, turn around an show another and another. As a person capable of and "punished" for snappy comeback, it serves no GOOD purpose here/any more.

Like you, Ed, (me too) should gather information where he can and use it where he wants... Kind of like what you guys are doing.

War is futile, bad blood, bad attitudes, bluster, accusations and deprecation are really out of line for the circumstances we are dealing with now. I know there are a lot of questions that SHOULD (and probably never will be) answered. At the point of knowing that, one has to decide whether or not to use the same tactics that didn't work before for a much different situation now.

I respect what you want to do, I'm just not sure anyone has the strength or means to actually accomplish it. And definitely not by trying to be the baddest dog on the porch. We're not (IMO).
 
Last edited:
Mandel takes the high ground!

This was posted by Mark Mandel on the MAG forum. It sheds light on the people that the BoD chooses to represent them. A forgotten quote by Ed.

Mark Mandell/AttackDog#2:
Mr. Wilson,
You're welcome to your opinions if they keep you warm at night. But the revolving door of controlling individuals in the AAW will have to be replaced if this organization is to truly progress and become responsive to all of its members. There has been an entrenched "leadership class" who, while surely appreciated for all they have done, nevertheless will have to be supplanted by new leaders and new ideas. Otherwise, "the new boss will be just the same as the old boss", and all of this will have been for nothing.

. I'm working on s**t that would have disqualified most all of your heroes from doing much more for the AAW than volunteering to hold the door at the annual symposium.
Click to expand...

Add this to your list Ed.

Curtis Thompson
 
Just as in the recently ....

...removed body of heated conversations on this forum, most disputes begin from some action that results in namecalling, followed by taunts, and hopefully some later resolution in order to conduct beneficial business. That cycle has begun again, only this time there is an alternate forum that does not ban posters for insubordination. The provincial attitudes of administrators here, mixed with the actions of the BOD, have created a core of concerned missionaries on the other side, and so the cycle begins again. It would benefit all to cease the bickering and haughty attitudes, and resolve to put our efforts to a better use for the sake of our AAW, whatever it may become from now into the future.
 
This is why .....

Ron Sardo said:
jamie, I deal with mailing lists and copyright everyday as part of my business. If you really did all that you say, you would know exactly why what was done is so wrong.
Click to expand...

...jumping to conclusions, such as email addresses being illegally acquired by members, is not relevant without additional facts. You don't know how those emails were gathered and neither do I, so stop with the baseless theats. When the BOD has a monoply on communications with the membership, some of us wish to also be able to present our side of the story to those same members. That's how resolution must be achieved, thru open communication.
 
Jamie Donaldson said:
...jumping to conclusions, such as email addresses being illegally acquired by members, is not relevant without additional facts. You don't know how those emails were gathered and neither do I, so stop with the baseless theats. When the BOD has a monoply on communications with the membership, some of us wish to also be able to present our side of the story to those same members. That's how resolution must be achieved, thru open communication.
Click to expand...

How they were acquired is beside the point, in my opinion. The mere fact they were used for an unsolicited mass mailing is the issue.

The BOD has the "monopoly" on the addresses because they are the elected board of the group to which we gave those addresses and trusted to protect them. As far as I can tell, they showed reasonable diligence in trying to protect those addresses. The fact that one or more AAW members (or their agents) harvested the addresses and used them for a bulk mailing to the membership is in violation of the terms of use. You want to present your side of the story? Fine. Just don't use my AAW address to do it. I've got plenty of other addresses you could have collected legitimately. If you're trying to give the appearance of a credible organization, I'd suggest coming up with legit methods to get your word out.
 
Vaughn,

You forget that you're dealing with people who operate on the the basic premise of "The end by any means available." They either cannot (or refuse to) understand that their invasion of member's privacy is wrong or they will rationalize it as justified, if not for the greater good of the very people whose rights they have violated. It is the same attitude that splashed this whole thing over the Internet to begin with, and neither you nor I will change it one little bit.

ps: And Curtis, if you're going to quote me, please put in just a little bit of effort to spell my name correctly; especially when it's right in front of you inside the quote. I wouldn't want some guy by the name of "Mandel" getting any of the credit. As an aside, I don't "represent" the AAW Board of Directors. If I did, I can pretty much guaranty that there would be people answering some serious charges in a court of law rather than on some Internet chatroom.
 
Last edited:
Marvin Hasenak said:
How about an opinion from some of the members of the board of directors? Or don't they post anymore?
Click to expand...

More importantly, did Tibbets, Haskell and the Lacers sanction this illegal activity?

Or maybe since they do not post on Todd's forum they are trying to distance themselves form that group? Actually I know that is not true, I've received the emails about thier plans at St Paul.
 
Jamie Donaldson said:
...jumping to conclusions, such as email addresses being illegally acquired by members, is not relevant without additional facts. You don't know how those emails were gathered and neither do I, so stop with the baseless theats. When the BOD has a monoply on communications with the membership, some of us wish to also be able to present our side of the story to those same members. That's how resolution must be achieved, thru open communication.
Click to expand...

Then find out and tell us how your group acquired these emails.

There only two ways I know that the emails can be acquired, and both are illegal.
 
Respect for others

Basically there was a lack of respect for members privacy.

A site was built because the AAW website insists on a minimal level of respect in postings.

No one has been banned from this site for disagreeing with the AAW or the Moderators. Disrespectful behavior does result in timeouts and bans.

Recent history indicates the vast majority of AAW members are satisfied with the service of their board and apreciative of the effort put forth by volunteers on their behalf.

A minority has held to their goal of punishing the Board and disrupting the AAW. Sadly it has become a bit of a holy war for a few AAW members. Reason and logic are unimportant when they disagree with faith born beliefs.

We should all be thankful there is a site that tolerates mean spirited posts so we can get this site back to focusing on the positives.

-Al
 
Ron Sardo said:
More importantly, did Tibbets, Haskell and the Lacers sanction this illegal activity?

Or maybe since they do not post on Todd's forum they are trying to distance themselves form that group? Actually I know that is not true, I've received the emails about thier plans at St Paul.
Click to expand...

I don't care what anyone else thinks about the use of the mailing list, I want to know what each board member thinks. Let each of them speak up here and tell me what they think.
 
Marvin Hasenak said:
I don't care what anyone else thinks about the use of the mailing list, I want to know what each board member thinks. Let each of them speak up here and tell me what they think.
Click to expand...


Well I care if Tibbets, Haskell, and the Lacers sanctioned this illegal activity. The use of private material in such a manner can have some major repercussions.

I would like to hear what they have to say.
 
Ron Sardo said:
Well I care if Tibbets, Haskell, and the Lacers sanctioned this illegal activity. The use of private material in such a manner can have some major repercussions.

I would like to hear what they have to say.
Click to expand...

That still does not give me what I want to hear. I am waiting for the board members to tell us what they think. Not one of them, but all of their opinions on the email issue.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Stramiello
Sooooo . . . how are those bylaw revisions coming along?
Click to expand...
Marvin Hasenak said:
I am getting the feeling that we are not going to like what we see.
Click to expand...

I honestly hope you will be plesantly surprised. Members of the committee have worked hard and have put in several hours trying to update the bylaws. We have a call scheduled for tonight to wrap up a few remaining items. What's next will depend on the outcome of the call, so I can't say.

I also don't see any connection between these two issues. Yes, some of the people you have been arguing with about the (mis)use of AAW members email addresses are members' of the bylaws committee. If you're going to let that prejudice your view of our work, then I'd suggest it matters not how hard or how honestly we've done our work -- you won't be satisfied with it.
 
Marvin Hasenak said:
That still does not give me what I want to hear. I am waiting for the board members to tell us what they think. Not one of them, but all of their opinions on the email issue.
Click to expand...

I guess we are at a stalemate since neither of us are getting what we want to hear.
 
Marvin Hasenak said:
That still does not give me what I want to hear. I am waiting for the board members to tell us what they think. Not one of them, but all of their opinions on the email issue.
Click to expand...

You might just get your answer when the process server knocks on someone's door. I smell a class action here that could easily bankrupt the culprit(s) just with the attorneys' fees. Short-cuts can, indeed, be very expensive in the long run.
 
davidwalser said:
worked hard and have put in several hours
Click to expand...

Not For Nuthin', Bro, but speak for yourself on that "several" thing. I passed "several" more than a month ago.😀

When we post what we've be able to do over those long hours, I have absolutely no doubt that the "woodturner.org," oops, "woodturner[sforum].org" (my mistake) will be all over us with more rants and charges of being Board puppets and dupes.
 
By-laws revisions

David, Mark and Ron

You and the bylaws revision committee have my trust. I don’t believe that the committee would try and rig the new revisions to anyone’s advantage. I believe you are working for the good of the AAW. I will tell my friends that also.

Many AAW members that I speak with are all for more member participation in the candidate selection process and the committee staffing. That would be my preference also. Having said that, I understand the mechanics involved in achieving that might be very difficult.

I hope the committee has spent some time on this issue and found some way to advance this goal. I understand there is a limit to what the AAW can spend on decentralizing power and giving the members more say in all the processes of governing the Association.

I, like many AAW members would like to be involved in an open discussion / review of the bylaws before they’re summated to the membership for a vote. There’s always going to be those that cry foul and not be happy. But if a reasoned explanation is given from the committee during a review period as to why certain changes were made or didn’t go far enough in some instances it will help with the transparency issue.

I look forward to the release of the by-law revisions and hope the committee can provide a period where they can be reviewed.

Thank you for all your work

Curtis Thompson
#15049

PS, I and others at the Woodturners Forum are trying to tamp down the rhetoric. No more baiting for both sides is a good goal. Maybe if cooler heads prevail, we’ll all be a family again soon.
 
Mark Mandell said:
When we post what we've be able to do over those long hours, I have absolutely no doubt that the "woodturner.org," oops, "woodturner[sforum].org" (my mistake) will be all over us with more rants and charges of being Board puppets and dupes.
Click to expand...
I don't know... I think (hope) they will see that what we have tried to do is well balanced.


davidwalser said:
Members of the committee have worked hard and have put in several hours trying to update the bylaws.
Click to expand...

Several Hours Dave? I know lawyers can work 36 hour day, but here I thought you were an accountant.
 
Hmm, in reading over this entire thread ~ hmm. I'm not picking out any particular comment other than to say I find this discussion amazing.

I haven't heard of anybody selling information nor violating rules with regard to a mailing list of some sort. I have no idea, but I can tell you this: there truly are two issues at play here.

I. One is called the 1st Amendment. I certainly am free to talk with those whom I choose about interesting topics and no, I don't mean hateful things (have no interest in that, never have) but anything interesting. Be it controversial or not. Discussion is a good way to come to consensus. And inclusion of people with different backgrounds, opinions basically maximizes effectiveness many times if everyone is on the same mission statement. Goes back to that statement along the lines of 'the sum is far greater than that of it's parts.'

II. The other one is called basically choice. I can pick and choose who I read, what I read, what I discard, whom I do not want to read; and I'm certainly responsible for what I read, choose to watch or not. I get junk mail every day in the snail mail box: that goes directly to the paper recycles. Yes, from charitable organizations soliciting money. If I want to donate money to a particular cause, I do that. If I don't, then I won't. Might be slightly annoying, waste of paper, but I certainly don't read it. I didn't solicit the ads which comprise, now, half of the Sunday newspaper. Those, too, go to the recycling bin without ever having been read.

I'm more than willing to read opposing viewpoints, people's opinions and still have this unique ability to make up my own mind. So I guess what I'm saying is frankly the hoopla over another site just astonishes me. Sure, I'd join it, see what folks say. I also go routinely to another wood turning site that has nothing to do with any AAW stuff.

But again apparently my background is very different, in that the sites with which I would have a problem would be actual truly illegal ones. And that has to do with my background in law enforcement and social work and the abuse of children, i.e. child porn, criminal offenses. Those kinds of things, sure: Federally prosecute them all, anyone who would do such a thing. Criminally charge those kinds of people and put them in prison.

But expression of opinions and thoughts about things, uhm, that truly is about the freedom of speech and I have a right to contact anyone I'd like to contact about virtually anything that is not illegal content. I'd never do anything illegal, nor defame someone's character, nor engage in that type of behavior, but goodness. The whole point of communication is to talk about your interests as long as they're legal interests.

Anyway, just my thoughts on the matter. And perhaps folks are now kinda having 'much ado about nothing.' As long as there wasn't a violation of some trade laws, or selling of lists, or anything like that, ya have every right not to read something or to read what you like on others' sites, long as it's not illegal content. I knew there was a reason I always liked Shakespeare.

Hmm anyway, just some things that I thought I'd offer for your consideration on this thread.
 
Judy Kingery said:
I get junk mail every day in the snail mail box: that goes directly to the paper recycles.
Click to expand...

Here is the part that you are missing Judy, mailing lists are property. A person can't not take what doesn't belong to them.


The addresses on junk mail that you receive came from a list which is usually seeded with tracing addresses. A company will purchase the list for a certain number of mailings. If the mailer exceeds that number they are automatically invoiced a premium for unauthorized use.

Since Vaughn created a unique e-mail address for AAW, his email address can be considered a way of tracing that the list came from AAW.

If I where able to purchase a list similar to AAW's member list from a national list provider, it would cost me about $650 for a single use.

Using AAW's list without proper authorization is theft.

I don't know about you, but I have a problem with dishonest people
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ron,

I have no interest in taking what doesn't belong to me at all whatsoever regardless of what it is. I, too, have a disdain for dishonesty.

Let me clarify, that yes, I do understand quite well, about the sale of mailing lists, and the criteria specifically that defines when it constitutes a theft and when it does not. I pretty much wrote the policy on confidential information about far, far more sensitive material than mailing lists, trust me.

Just in reading through the thread ~ and nope ~ I have no idea who Vaughn is, nor what transpired whatsoever. I'd hoped I made that clear in the beginning of my comment. Just in reading through the thread, people take information and make it mean far, far more than it does; if I do understand the issue correctly. As I clearly stated, I have no idea if someone bought a mailing list or anything.

But I certainly may contact anyone I like, and say hello. That is not solicitation nor selling of addresses nor anything remotely related to that. It's communication or discussion of a mutual interest. Which is the entire purpose behind publication of AAW's directory.

So nope, I didn't miss a beat, Ron. The only thing I'm missing is information regarding the specific criteria or transaction by which it occurred. My main emphasis with my comment concerns a much broader basis, and refers to the entire thread of comments. Sure, on your site, or with monitors or what not, you have every right to regulate, do what you will.

But as far as, ha, stating who I can contact or with whom I can talk or to which site I might go, uhm, truly does have to do with 1st amendment speech and far as I know it's ok for me, as a long-standing member of AAW, it's aok for me to contact someone in AAW and have a conversation. Not about confidential matters, but about anything else I'd like to discuss be it even something as mundane as the weather. I just found the thread amazing.

I guess what surprises me, is people are seemingly offended by differences of opinion. And sometimes differences of opinion, if respectfully offered, can get some really positive things done.
 
Judy Kingery said:
But as far as, ha, stating who I can contact or with whom I can talk or to which site I might go, uhm, truly does have to do with 1st amendment speech and far as I know it's ok for me, as a long-standing member of AAW, it's aok for me to contact someone in AAW and have a conversation. Not about confidential matters, but about anything else I'd like to discuss be it even something as mundane as the weather. I just found the thread amazing.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with the 1st amendment Judy. But you are right, you may contact anyone you wish to carry on a conversation. It is okay to use the AAW for that purpose.

What you can't do is take 12,000+ emails addresses from a club's list then give those addresses to a company that sends out emails for any reason without permission.
 
Jude, you or any other AAW member are certainly welcome to use my e-mail address to send individual correspondence. I agreed to that concept when I provided a contact address to the AAW. What I did not agree to is for that address to be used for unsolicited bulk e-mail (UBE), particularly if that bulk mail is not sanctioned by the AAW. The fact that the spam was generated by another AAW member does not take away the fact that it was still spam, and does not take away the fact that the list of addresses was apparently obtained and used illegally.

Jamie Donaldson said:
...so much for any rational attempts to reason with this bunch of self righeous zealots. Good bye.🙁
Click to expand...

I think this statement is hilarious. Oh, the irony! 🙄
 
When any of us joins the AAW, we each agree to abide by its rules. The Print Directory carries a specific quoted standing policy that member's information shall not be used for a mailing list. We each agree to that policy, whether we know about it or not, as we each have the obligation to look up and read all of the AAW's rules and policies to which we've agreed by joining the organization. Thus we are each presumed to know and agree to be bound by them. Just as in the world at large, ignorance of the rules is no defense.

This has nothing to do with anyone's Constitutional rights. Anyone can use the Directory to contact another member, that's what it's there for. But in using the directory, whether in print or on-line, we, as members, again are bound by its use rules. That agreement is between each of us and the AAW as well as a commitment to every other member in the Directory not to violate the limited-use rule on which we each were entitled to reply when we gave the personal information. Mr. Todd and anyone else involved in the wholesale harvesting of AAW member e-mail addresses and compilation of that information into a mailing list, have directly violated their agreement with each of us. In doing so, they have exposed every member of the AAW in the Directory to unwanted, vexacious e-mailings by others' acquisition and misuse of that compilation and may even have made AAW members into an easy target for hackers, bot-net operators and other cyber-criminal types.

Our privacy is a precious thing and, while under attack from many directions, must not be surrendered without a fight.
 
Last edited:
I'm long past the issue of being removed from the ByLaws Committee. I hold no grudges or ill will.

We need to move forward . . . together.

For the sake of the future of The American Association of Woodturners . . . we need to find our harmonic balance . . . as an association . . . and work together.
 
What are you guy's doing

I am a new member of the AAW. About 2 months. The next time my membership comes up for renewal. I will think very serious about renewing it. You are worse then little children. Most of you are so wrapped up in your self's that there is no room for anyone that holds an opinion that is different. As an outsider I wanted to just to get information on wood turning.

If you are all lawyers then go some where else and get some clients. Stop using AAW resources for you own count room battles. I don't have 20 years of AAW to look back on and at the rate you going I never will.

Carol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top