Fw: MCM - Digest V1 #405

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mary McCaw" <marymccaw@mediaone.net>
To: <aga-mcm@thekrib.com>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: MCM - Digest V1 #405


> > Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 17:52:42 -0500
> > From: "Karen Randall" <krandall@world.std.com>
> > Subject: Dave
> >
> > 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?
>
> His aggressive stance makes me doubt his good will towards TAG.   You and
I
> percieve him differently.  Let's just leave it at  that.
>
> 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.
>
> I don't feel it's the same thing.
> >
> > > 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.
>
> I disagree with you.  In effect you are saying that aggressive people bear
> no responsibility for their behavior.
>
> It is perfectly possible to disagree with someone and keep things civil.
> I know this.  It isn't something you have to tell me.  I have never said
> anything uncivil to Dave.
>
> There is no question that Dave requires some "management".
>
> Kathy Olson called me last night, and I thought she made a good
suggestion.
> She said that when Dave approches any of us about something, we say, "I'll
> discuss it with the MC and get back to you."  The MC should then give him
a
> date by which he can expect a decision since he gets antsy about
deadlines.
>
> When Dave and Erik came up with their plan, I had been working nonstop
just
> about on TAG.  The day before I taken a break to do some other things I
had
> been neglecting.  Then the next day I got sick.  When I received Erik's
> message it reminded me of when an agreement was made for TAG to exchange
> advertising space with PAM, and I was the last one to find out about it.
> You all know the outcome of that one.  I apologize for upsetting everyone
> because it was not my intent.
>
> In this present situation with Dave I overeacted mainly because of old
> history.  Also because I am the editor of TAG I have a unique
> responsibility.  James said that it is just as well that I don't worry
about
> advertising because it is his job.  Well, TAG is my job, the lens through
> which I tend to see things.  We all have them.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> I find it difficult  to trust Dave and doubt that I ever will.  I make a
> point of trying to saying as little about him as I can because I know
there
> are members of the committee who feel otherwise.  The little that  I see
> him, I am civil and try to be pleasant.  Please try to accept this.
>
> > > 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.
>
> No, I don't really think that because of my feelings the AGA shouldn't
> publicize the showcase in PAM.
> I will back down from my position on the condition that we adopt Kathy
> suggestion as outlined above in dealing with Dave.
>
> I haven't e-mailed Peter yet about PF.  What I had in mind getting some
> publicity for next year's event,  pre and post convention/showcase
stories.
> Perhaps you all may have some other ideas.  Anyway, I thought better of
> plunging forward without some more input.  I am beginning to think that
> David Lass was right when he suggested we really need to sit down and talk
> about decision making.
>
> Mary
>