Re: MCM - Digest V1 #341

["Mary McCaw" <marymccaw@mediaone.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: MCM - Digest <owner-aga-mcm-digest@thekrib.com>
To: <aga-mcm-digest@thekrib.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2000 6:12 AM
Subject: MCM - Digest V1 #341


>
> MCM - Digest          Saturday, July 8 2000          Volume 01 : Number
341
>

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 06:05:09 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>
> Subject: Everyone on vacation?
>
> Was wondering if everyone has stepped out this week, as nobody has
commented on the issue with the PAM ads.  I would like us to come to some
sort of coherent agreement on what to do about this...  and this starts with
discussion...
>
>   - Erik

I tried to respond on Thursday, but my message got bounced, so I'll try
again.

Apparently there has been some miscommunication and I have misunderstood the
agreement between Bob C. and Dave.

I was upset because I thought that the agreement was NOT reciprocal.  I
thought Dave was expecting three more ads for the one ad he ran in PAM.
Hence the question I posed several days ago about the agreement.
Previously, in response to a specific question I raised, I had been told
that the reciprocal ads were a one-shot thing for both PAM and TAG.

In principle I have no objection to reciprocal ads, although so far things
have been such a hassle I wonder whether or not it is worth it.  So for now
I think we should honor the original agreement and then see what happens.
So that would make us one ad behind in meeting the agreement.  I think that
that Dave's contention that we are two ads behind because of the so-called
convention ad is ridiculous.  Since he presented it to Karen as an
annoncement rather than an ad, I don't think we are under any obligation to
honor Dave's interpretation.

You all need to know that that this agreement has some repercusions for TAG.
Potentially, it can add 3 more pages to a particular issue.  The number of
pages for a final copy has to be in a multiple of 4.  If  we already have,
say, 32 pages, to comply with the agreement I'll have to add 4 more pages.
As long as I have another short article to put there, it's no big deal.  But
potentially I can be in the position of having to scramble around trying to
fill up three pages.

If I am to do an effective job as editor, I can't be the last one to know
about ads.  In the future, I think Dave and I need to communicate directly
about the ads.  If okays need to be gotten, I will be more than happy to
present details to the group.  Three way communication plus has muddied the
waters.  In any event, in the future, I will print only those ads which have
been expressly approved by the MC or SC.

Mary - --

 Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 08:21:35 -0400
> From: Karen Randall <krandall@world.std.com>
> Subject: Re: MCM - Digest V1 #340
>
> At 03:12 AM 7/6/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >OK, it sounds like Dave's latest position is "one page exchanges with one
page", whether that is an ad or an "announcement".  This means that because
Karen wrote an announcement of the Chatanooga conference, we are now "two
behind" in exchanges for PAM, not "one" as we had originally surmised, and
that we are meant to either pay for more PAM space or "make it up" with
exchange ads until we are "even".

As far as I'm concerned, this is yet another example of how mnipulative Dave
can be.  No way should we submit to this crap!

Mary