Dave

["Karen Randall" <krandall@world.std.com>]

Mary wrote:

> Karen, if his motives are so honorable, why did he ask for the pick of the
> contest CD's?

What do you perceive as dishonorable about that request?  We have every
right to say, "No."  I gave you all of MY photos from the convention so that
you could pick what you wanted.

> DAVE is the one creating the devisiveness because of his
> personal style.

Personal style, in and of itself cannot create divisiveness.  It's the
response to that style that turns it into a war zone.  It is perfectly
possible to disagree with someone and keep things civil.

> I can't believe that you are saying that I'm not playing
|> nice after what he put you through over the contest ad in PAM.

He didn't "put me through" anything.  He made some claims I didn't agree
with.  There is no question that I got irritated with him.  So I called him
on it.  I _told_ him how I felt, and what I believed was fair.  He backed
down immediately.  One phone call that ended pleasantly, and got AGA exactly
what it wanted.  I have less satisfactory endings to conflicts with my
children on a daily basis.<g>

> Okay, according to your perception, I am not playing nice, but he was an
> out and out bully and you're defending him!

First, I've never met a bully that you could reason with.  There is no
question that Dave requires some "management".  But he's not the only
worthwhile person in the world that this can be said of.

Second, as far as defending him is concerned, of course I'll defend him when
he's done nothing wrong.  He was wrong about the AGA/PAM ad issue, and I
told him so.  He backed down gracefully, apologized, and has gone forward to
work for the benefit of AGA.

He's right this time, and _you_ are wrong about his motives.  If anyone were
to attack your character and motives, I would defend you too.

> Personal feelings aside,   I have suggested a compromise of giving him
some
> material for PAM 5.  I am willing to go along with giving him some
material
> on this basis.

Then you are effectively saying that you (and because of your feelings, AGA)
are not interested PAM's  participation in publicizing the showcase.  I
don't want to read about the showcase in PAM next summer.  We'll be well
into planning the next contest by then.  If that is truly AGA's stance, then
we need to be honest about it and tell Dave now, so that he can plan his
editorial calandar.  But if I were Dave, and AGA shut me off on this
subject, I probably wouldn't bother offering them a 2 page spread again very
quickly.

Let me point out that if Dave WERE interested in "scooping" us, or gathering
material without us, all he has to do is pull the information off the APD on
Nov. 30th, and approaching the winners individually for their permission and
their "story".  AGA does not "own" these photos.  We only own the right to
use the photos as we see fit.

He is _NOT_ going to do that, so don't get upset about it.  But he _could_
legally do it, and there's not a thing we could do about it.  All he would
be doing would be printing a factual "news" story.  He _wants_ to see both
TAG, and you as its editor, succeed.

Karen