reposting from another topic ...
Shrink: "To suggest that BLUEGRASS is in any financial hardship is assanine and irresponsible..."
Ignoring for the moment that the book in question was Bluegrass, this kind of suggestion was inevitable due to the information posted by Joey C., and your response to it, yesterday. I'm not questioning anyone's motives, what I am saying is that posting vague warnings about 2 unnamed books is akin to yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater - a lot of people panic or overreact, and unfairly good books get tarred and feathered in the process. Whether or not the person posting about BG had an axe to grind, the door was flung open.
By not naming Bluegrass as a good book, you opened the floodgates for speculation, and then you say that it's 'irresponsible' for people to speculate on their financial condition. Without rancor, I submit that there is a lot of irresponsibility in this whole situation, and as someone else pointed out, a lot of money ain't going to the suspect CR books this weekend until the book is cleared or named.
Is there a better way to handle it? I don't know, maybe - next time perhaps simply don't respond or post anything until you know what's what. When someone with your standing posts that 2 unnamed books may be in trouble, fallout was inevitable. IMHO.
p.s. If you are now willing to say BG wasn't one of the books in question after they got slammed, why didn't you say that before they got slammed? For that matter, why not name the books you know for a fact are okay, to avoid this problem?
Shrink: "To suggest that BLUEGRASS is in any financial hardship is assanine and irresponsible..."
Ignoring for the moment that the book in question was Bluegrass, this kind of suggestion was inevitable due to the information posted by Joey C., and your response to it, yesterday. I'm not questioning anyone's motives, what I am saying is that posting vague warnings about 2 unnamed books is akin to yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater - a lot of people panic or overreact, and unfairly good books get tarred and feathered in the process. Whether or not the person posting about BG had an axe to grind, the door was flung open.
By not naming Bluegrass as a good book, you opened the floodgates for speculation, and then you say that it's 'irresponsible' for people to speculate on their financial condition. Without rancor, I submit that there is a lot of irresponsibility in this whole situation, and as someone else pointed out, a lot of money ain't going to the suspect CR books this weekend until the book is cleared or named.
Is there a better way to handle it? I don't know, maybe - next time perhaps simply don't respond or post anything until you know what's what. When someone with your standing posts that 2 unnamed books may be in trouble, fallout was inevitable. IMHO.
p.s. If you are now willing to say BG wasn't one of the books in question after they got slammed, why didn't you say that before they got slammed? For that matter, why not name the books you know for a fact are okay, to avoid this problem?
Jazz
I see your point, and i agree with it for the most part, but, Shrink did not start this mess, it was another poster, as you know.
Now, we have a poster who, as it appears, had spoken with Shrink, and seemingly, Shrink mentioned that there were a couple of books he was having to check out, due to some concerns, for whatever reason.
This poster then takes it upon himself to post this in the forums.
Now, what is the proper response? Should Shrink have named the two books, without first checking into the supposed problems? I don't think so.
Should he have just denied it? "I did not have verbal relations with that poster!"
No.
So, he just posted what he thought best at the time, he was looking into what appears to be fiancial problems at 2 books. Then, came back later to cut that to one.
Now, i am not defending what i consider an unfair panic causing comment, but, i don't really see the beef with The Shrink.
What would you have done differently?
Would you have really named the 2 books, without 1st checking the facts? I doubt it..
He was put in a shitty situation, imo. And he, and the sponsors look shitty because of it.
By The Way:
I am NOT trying to attack you, or your opinions in any way, i am just curious what you think The Shrink has done wrong here, and what you would have done differently.
I have a great deal of respect for you, as always, and appreciate your input on just about everything here.
Thanks
I see your point, and i agree with it for the most part, but, Shrink did not start this mess, it was another poster, as you know.
Now, we have a poster who, as it appears, had spoken with Shrink, and seemingly, Shrink mentioned that there were a couple of books he was having to check out, due to some concerns, for whatever reason.
This poster then takes it upon himself to post this in the forums.
Now, what is the proper response? Should Shrink have named the two books, without first checking into the supposed problems? I don't think so.
Should he have just denied it? "I did not have verbal relations with that poster!"
No.
So, he just posted what he thought best at the time, he was looking into what appears to be fiancial problems at 2 books. Then, came back later to cut that to one.
Now, i am not defending what i consider an unfair panic causing comment, but, i don't really see the beef with The Shrink.
What would you have done differently?
Would you have really named the 2 books, without 1st checking the facts? I doubt it..
He was put in a shitty situation, imo. And he, and the sponsors look shitty because of it.
By The Way:
I am NOT trying to attack you, or your opinions in any way, i am just curious what you think The Shrink has done wrong here, and what you would have done differently.
I have a great deal of respect for you, as always, and appreciate your input on just about everything here.
Thanks
I agree with Uncle Butternutts. That's indeed a VERY strong post. It seems like it's easy to judge other peoples' actions. But Uncle hit the nail right on the head...
The fact of the matter is that Shrink is not responsible for anybody else posting in this forum. And we all know Shrink was not the one who posted about these "2 books" to begin with.
As business men, what would have you done differently? The way I see it, Shrink was put in a no win situation. He had not finished to prove all the veracity of the facts by the time that Joey C posted. Knowing this, ws Shrink to post the names of the books anyway? Or was it the most responsible thing to do to wait until he had all his facts confirmed?
I think the man made the right choice. Now, if he said let's wait for a couple of days, let's wait until he posts the facts. Any assumption before that, it's just that: an ASSUMPTION.
The fact of the matter is that Shrink is not responsible for anybody else posting in this forum. And we all know Shrink was not the one who posted about these "2 books" to begin with.
As business men, what would have you done differently? The way I see it, Shrink was put in a no win situation. He had not finished to prove all the veracity of the facts by the time that Joey C posted. Knowing this, ws Shrink to post the names of the books anyway? Or was it the most responsible thing to do to wait until he had all his facts confirmed?
I think the man made the right choice. Now, if he said let's wait for a couple of days, let's wait until he posts the facts. Any assumption before that, it's just that: an ASSUMPTION.
I agree, UB and Walk, that this was a situation the Psych got forced into due to another poster - my point is, there just HAS to be a better way to handle this - surely this must be, no? My point about Bluegrass was that Shrink openly said they were not in trouble, but only when they were questioned - why couldn't he have said this before they got grilled? As an advertiser I'd expect something more than essentially being left to twist into the wind for half a day. More than that, there needs to be an honest post-mortem of this situation and heads put together to come up with a better approach than this one, where the forum runs wild with speculation, fingers are unfairly pointed at innocents, and uncertainty reigns for a weekend. I'm no offshore guru, but I can tell you that this whole incident sends a sorry message about the offshore industry, that innuendos and rumors become fact without merit. I would think that the good books advertising here, like Bluegrass, would and should expect some fairer way of treatment, and that these kind of situations should be responded with the highest level of attention. I'm sure Shrink is attempting his best, but this kind of thing sours my view on this industry - if legitimacy and respect are ever to be earned, then this Wild West kind of stampede to judgement needs to be managed better.
I play at several books on that list, and I have absolutely refused to change one iota how I am acting with regards to them this weekend. I'm not going to be a sheep.
p.s. Thanks for the kind words, UB - I'm not trying to be a prick here (though some say I have a knack for it) but this one is really galling me - this kind of crap has got to stop - how to do it, I am not sure. But when the Rx swings the pair of balls that they do, with great power comes great responsibility. I feel pretty damn bad for Ted and others who have been unfairly viewed in this sorry mess.
[This message was edited by Jazz on August 23, 2003 at 05:38 PM.]
[This message was edited by Jazz on August 23, 2003 at 05:46 PM.]
I play at several books on that list, and I have absolutely refused to change one iota how I am acting with regards to them this weekend. I'm not going to be a sheep.
p.s. Thanks for the kind words, UB - I'm not trying to be a prick here (though some say I have a knack for it) but this one is really galling me - this kind of crap has got to stop - how to do it, I am not sure. But when the Rx swings the pair of balls that they do, with great power comes great responsibility. I feel pretty damn bad for Ted and others who have been unfairly viewed in this sorry mess.
[This message was edited by Jazz on August 23, 2003 at 05:38 PM.]
[This message was edited by Jazz on August 23, 2003 at 05:46 PM.]
What would I have done differently? Hmmm - fair question. I would probably not have responded to Joey C. directly, instead got in contact with the 2 books and gotten to the bottom of it as fast as possible, as Shrink seems to be doing. To me, the damage was confirming that 2 unknown books were being questioned, without telling people who they were. Good books were left to fend for themselves - yet when someone challenged BG, Shrink said flat out they didn't have a problem. The thing I don't understand is WHY make an exception for one book when all the others who are not the problem book could be impacted? Don't they deserve consideration too?
S-h-i-t, now I'm depressed, I'm arguing for the protection of books.
p.s. If I had a truly perfect answer I'd share it!
S-h-i-t, now I'm depressed, I'm arguing for the protection of books.
p.s. If I had a truly perfect answer I'd share it!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Ahem ... ah. sorry 'bout that, UB - I'm drinking bourbon and after excruciatingly spell-checking my damn response I hallucinated the good General as the respondee - my sorrowful pardon <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
lol
No harm done buddy.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>you need a 'drunk' icon on this site! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I hear ya
Never thought i would see the day that The General and i would be confused with one another..This stuff must be kicking in already.
lol
No harm done buddy.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>you need a 'drunk' icon on this site! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I hear ya
Never thought i would see the day that The General and i would be confused with one another..This stuff must be kicking in already.
Jazz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>My point about Bluegrass was that Shrink openly said they were not in trouble, but only when they were questioned - why couldn't he have said this before they got grilled? As an advertiser I'd expect something more than essentially being left to twist into the wind for half a day.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
True Jazz, it could have been treated differently. We agree completely and I don't wanna be arguing about a point where we both concide. But I think that the main reason for Shrink not being willing to do that is that then it was gonna be a process of elimination, where poster could strat bashing books until the man had to come in and say "nope, that ain't the shop". And a weekend is a whole lot of time to play that game.
Enjoy your bourbon brother. I'm a bit lit myself...
Uncle Tweaker
Did you just call me "buddy"? Did you just "buddy" me? Are you mad at me sweetheart? Whatever happened to motherfvcker and other REAL affectionate words? Huh?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>My point about Bluegrass was that Shrink openly said they were not in trouble, but only when they were questioned - why couldn't he have said this before they got grilled? As an advertiser I'd expect something more than essentially being left to twist into the wind for half a day.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
True Jazz, it could have been treated differently. We agree completely and I don't wanna be arguing about a point where we both concide. But I think that the main reason for Shrink not being willing to do that is that then it was gonna be a process of elimination, where poster could strat bashing books until the man had to come in and say "nope, that ain't the shop". And a weekend is a whole lot of time to play that game.
Enjoy your bourbon brother. I'm a bit lit myself...
Uncle Tweaker
Did you just call me "buddy"? Did you just "buddy" me? Are you mad at me sweetheart? Whatever happened to motherfvcker and other REAL affectionate words? Huh?
I know it Gak, i don't know what to say.. It has to be these little blue pills. They are screwing me up..I am thinking "true dat fuknut", but, i am posting, "thanks buddy, have a nice day" ... I think i have a good basis for a large lawsuit here..
I have taken two large yellow pills, to try and offset the damage the little blue pill has inflicted.. We will see how this pans out.
Have a nice day
Moderately overweight Frank
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> >General and i would be confused
UB is the one that was on Star Trek...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I knew this seemed familiar
I have taken two large yellow pills, to try and offset the damage the little blue pill has inflicted.. We will see how this pans out.
Have a nice day
Moderately overweight Frank
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> >General and i would be confused
UB is the one that was on Star Trek...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I knew this seemed familiar
