Re: Mason... Sir,
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I still don't fully understand what your problem is with the PPA. You don't like their board make up is as much as I can glean.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand either.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why you'd dig up a semi-dead thread.
[ QUOTE ]
I invite Mason to make his case that the PPA board composition empowers our opponents in any way, because he hasn't yet. He's entitled to his opinion, of course. However, he states this as incontrovertible fact; he's very emphatic about it, but he has yet to prove it.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is NOT the only reason to question the make-up of the board, to suggest such is a straw man.
[ QUOTE ]
There is another issue concerning the board composition. Specifically, are we players adequately represented? There are many opinions on this, but Mason hasn't made a case that either the Pappas-era PPA (i.e., the time I've been on the board) isn't acting 100% in our interests or that's it's ineffective.
[/ QUOTE ]
How often have you yourself posted that since you "spoke to John" about an issue and because you were satisfied the issue was dead?
Just using improved communications with members, one of John's "highest" priorities, as a yardstick, the approaching 6 month anniversary of John's "reign" has to be considered a failure.
From a grassroots perspective of making the most of resources volunteered that are demonstratively shown to have been and will be needed, the same reign should be considered an abject failure.
I hesitate to offer any of a number of solutions, as me doing so is sure to doom them to immediate rejection.
To suggest that PPA critic's only empower our opposition as you did in the resurrection of semi-dead thread is another example of you loosing your objectivity and claimed 2+2 forum bias representation to the PPA board.
D$D
|