[at-l] Kennebec Bridge

[spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Weary wrote:
>Well, I don't agree that it's a useless pissing match. But the answer to 
>"why"
>is that I think it important to defend volunteer decision-makers from
>unsubstantiated attacks, since it is increasingly difficult to find people
>willing to take on these critically important jobs. I don't want volunteer
>control and maintenance of the Appalachian Trail to end, and it will if 
>users
>discourage those who do the work needed to keep this a volunteer trail.


Yes, Bob - I know what you're doing.  The problem is that you don't.

Contrary to your assertion, the "volunteer decision-makers" weren't attacked 
- it was the decision itself that was questioned - and rightfully so.  
There's a large difference there.  What's really been "unsubstantiated" here 
is your argument by assertion that the decision was right and defensible.

What you did was to take a casual comment made by TJ and blow it up into a 
semi-major pissing match.  If you had shrugged your shoulders and let his 
first comment go, it would have died right there.  Nobody, including me, 
would have paid any attention to it, TJ wouldn't have expanded on it - and 
it would have disappeared like the mist on a warm sunny morning.

If you hadn't then insisted on answering his second post with what was 
patently fluff - along with  another  attack on TJ, then I wouldn't have 
gotten involved.    In your own words "This truly is a silly argument."   So 
- it's a silly argument and yet you don't see that it's a useless pissing 
match?  Hmmm - must be that "liberal logic" thing again.

But you attacked again - and at that point, the issue became a big bright 
blob on the radar screen. And I started to wonder what it was you were 
trying to convince everyone about.  So I asked for information.  YOU are the 
one who's the big shot in MATC - YOU are the one with the phone numbers - 
and YOU are the one trying to convince everyone that MATC is squeaky-clean.  
And yet even now you still haven't provided the information that several of 
us have asked for.

Now - some background - for several years now I've been assigned to 
independently evaluate contractor performance on a multi-billion dollar 
contract.  As the boss said my first day on the job - "Keep them honest".  
I'm very good at what I do - and I have fun with it.  And  I've forgotten 
more about "odors" than most people will ever know - or even want to know 
about.

Do you have any idea what kind of alarm bells your defensive actions and 
attitude raised in my nasty suspicious mind.  In plain English - in BIG RED 
FLAMING LETTERS - the questions arose - what's he trying to hide?  What did 
MATC do that requires that much defense?

The questions arose, not because I believed MATC actually had anything to 
hide - but because your "defense" of MATC was inappropriate to the 
"threat-level" involved.  Now let's get this straight - I do this for a 
living. And if one of the organizations I watchdog were to put up that kind 
of smokescreen  over something that trivial, I'd be all over them like stink 
on an ape because I'd KNOW beyond doubt that they'd screwed something up and 
were trying to hide it.

In the words of the immortal bard - "Methinks the lady doth protest too 
much".

So let's get to the punch line - I don't give a damn whether an organization 
is "volunteer" or not - ALL organizations are subject to screw-ups.  Your 
attitude is apparently that screw-ups in volunteer organizations should be 
ignored simply because they are volunteer organizations.  And that the 
actions and decisions of "volunteer" organizations should NOT be questioned. 
  I won't even ask if that's a "liberal" attitude.

Regardless - either or both of those attitudes (and they generally come as a 
pair) are some of  the fastest ways I know to ensure major problems for an 
organization (any organization) - and the eventual degradation/destruction  
of the organization's credibility and effectiveness.  And I know a lot of 
ways for organizations to engineer their own demise.  I've been well-trained 
in that regard.

I'm gonna use some of your own words here - but modify them -
I don't want volunteer control and maintenance of the Appalachian Trail to 
end either, but it WILL end if ATC and the trail clubs aren't responsive to 
the concerns of their members, contributors and other stakeholders.  And 
that responsiveness includes openly and honestly answering questions about 
their decisions, processes -- and finances.  It also means that when one of 
the stakeholders asks a question, you don't blow them off - or attack them 
for asking the question.

Straight talk - I'm a stakeholder in MATC.  I've given them money before and 
I have a request from them for more money on my desk right now.  And I was 
gonna write them a check.

Why don't you convince me that I should do so.  Because, as of right now, I 
have some questions about the MATC decision making process - especially 
about the Kennebec decision.  And if I don't get answers, they won't be 
getting a check. I can just as happily send that money to Haiti and provide 
a year of schooling for 4 children.

In fact - I'll make it easy for you - send me the name and phone number for 
someone who has the answers - and I''ll them call them -- on my nickel.  It 
won't even cost you.  Such a deal I'm offering you ..........

Finally, I don't think you have any clue how much credibility loss MATC 
suffered as a result of your knee-jerk defense of something that didn't need 
defending in the first place.  But I'll tell you for sure that it wasn't 
zero.  Even if I'm the only one, there are now questions in my mind that 
weren't there before.  I don't appreciate being fed "opinion and 
speculation" when I'm directly asking for real facts.

Later,
Jim

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail