Looks like you're both right

[MarkInTx]

... in response to Re: I don't agree with the condemnation!, posted by Quasimoto on Oct 15, 2002

Wow!

I certainly never meant to CONDEMN Jack. I don't think that my not recommending him is the same thing as condemning him... is it?

I was just trying to say what you said: "I don't think Jack's agency is the only opportunity"

Maybe it came out wrong?

Hey, if someone came to me and said: "I'm thinking about going with Firstdream, what do you think?" I wouldn't say: "Oh no! Not THEM!"

I would give them the same advice that I gave Frank O (what seems like 100 years ago): "Jack is an honest agency, but understand that he has a methodology, and you need to understand it, because he will expect you to abide by it. If you can, then go ahead, he's one of the best. If you can't, find someone else."

Is this condemnation? I don't think so.

I agree with you that board politics and customer service are two different things.

But... Isn't it somewhat alarming that he attacked you? Aren't you a LITTLE concerned about sending a friend to a foreign land and putting them in the hands of a man who can be, at times, so darn petty? (Which I never understood, because I always thought that those outbursts MUST have hurt his business... It made me think twice. To be honest, it made me cancel a tour with him...)

Me personally, if I were starting over from scratch, I would contact RW, and use her services. That was if I had any sense of a "I want to be married relatively soon..."

If I were starting over, and just wanting an adventure... I would probably go with A Kherson Rose. Unless I had my heart set on Russia. Then I would probably use LTP if I went to Tver or Jack's if I went to St. Petersburg. He has good people in St. Pb. He also has good people in Kiev, I hear, so I might go with him if I decided I wanted to go to Kiev.

Anyway... I certainly didn't mean to condemn him. I just don't feel morally obligated to throw any business his way.

If you feel good about doing it, God Bless you... go right ahead... won't hurt my feelings any...

[Quasimoto]

... in response to Condemnation?, posted by MarkInTx on Oct 15, 2002

I appreciate your explanation. I just think Jack is able to separate business on his turf, from the personal issues. At one time I think I would have liked to kill the man! Thankfully SLC is a long way from Dallas. But regardless of his character flaws, I think he must do a good job once you are on board.

Steve

[Oscar]

... in response to I don't agree, posted by MarkInTx on Oct 15, 2002

Why don't you take this opportunity to let some of this stuff with Jack go?  I just feel it's a little cowardly to be dinging a guy when he can't be here to defend himself..
You were a really nice guy here a while back but in the past few weeks you have really changed.  You have picked fights with just about everyone here lately, pretty much since you got back from Kiev.  One can only ask what is going on in your life right now that would be making you so testy??

My opinion..  Do your worst.

[Dan]

... in response to I don't think it's very cool Mark, to at..., posted by Oscar on Oct 15, 2002

n/t

[MarkInTx]

... in response to Now THAT is Something We Agree On Oscar ..., posted by Dan on Oct 15, 2002

He could say that the sky was green, and as long as he was disagreeing with my post... you'd agree with him.

How utterly predictable...

[Dan]

... in response to Really? What a shocker!, posted by MarkInTx on Oct 15, 2002

n/t

[thesearch]

... in response to No More So Than Your Inane Reply  LOL  n..., posted by Dan on Oct 15, 2002

inane ------ had to look it up ---- could not remember exactly how Webster defined it -------- empty, senseless, silly

[Dan]

... in response to /, posted by thesearch on Oct 15, 2002

n/t

[MarkInTx]

... in response to I don't think it's very cool Mark, to at..., posted by Oscar on Oct 15, 2002

How is that an attack?

I'm just saying that I don't think we need to make some sort of a pact to send business Jack's way...

How is that an attack?

Unless you're counting the fact taht I called him an honest agency owner an attack...

[Oscar]

... in response to Atack???, posted by MarkInTx on Oct 15, 2002

As a few others have noted lately Mark, you seem to have a very selective memory, you really have been quoting people incorrectly and also take things way out of context, giving them your own spin..
This below (that you happened to leave out) IS an attack and could not be considered otherwise.  If you have a feud with Jack, that's certainly your business, it's not like myself and others haven't had any, but to kick a guy when he's not even here to defend himself is I think a cheap shot.  I just think you might take the time instead to let it go.. and if that is not possible, you might wait to take your shots at him when he is here to respond, that's all.
From your post (that is supposedly NOT an attack)-

"But it is also true that he would attack people incessantly. He ran off several other Agency owners. And the fact that he couldn't let go of his feud with Mark H is nothing short of amazing. It isn't like Patrick didn't give him every chance...
Frankly, his childish behavior makes me think twice about EVER recommending him again. (I have in the past... but not any more...)"

[MarkInTx]

... in response to Re: Attack???, posted by Oscar on Oct 15, 2002

An Attack...?

Hmmm... Well, I guess some might think so.

I stand by it though.

He DID attack certain people constantly. He would attack anything Mark H said for example. He also attacked anything I said -- only after I said something he perceived as derogatory about Firstdream, though. There were others who were probably before your time that guaranteed an attack from Jack.

He DID run off other agency owners. Of course, he called them scammers, and what not, but there were some guys on here who would support them and say that they were not scammers. Jack simply accused these guys of being shills. Again, this might pre-date your time on here, but I'm sure that some of the guys on here remember it well.

I did find it amazing that he couldn't let go of his dispute with Mark H.

And as for calling his behavior childish, I was merely echoing Patrick's own words when he banned him.

I don't consider these things attacks... but I guess I can see that if I were prejudiced in favor of Jack, then I might see it that way.

I thought I was being fair and balanced. I gave him credit for the good things he contributed, while pointing out some of the things that were hard to take at times -- and in fact eventually would get him banned.

As for me "attacking a guy who can't defend himself..."

I have only three things to say:

One, it is hardly MY fault that he can't defend himself, now is it?

Two: Everyone felt VERY justified to take parting shots at others who were banned from here. Why is Jack exempt?

Three: I didn't say a single thing until someone posted something that said in effect: "You know, Jack was a great guy. It's a Shame he was banned. We still need to make sure we send business his way..."

And all I was TRYING to say was: No, we don't. Jack had his plusses... and he had his minuses. (Like ALL of us on here, and yes that includes me.)

He was fairly warned... and he was fairly banned.

And if we are going to send business the way of an agency, I suggest we pick someone who was not banned.

That's my opinion.

And despite your (and your new-found friend Dan's) feelings to the contrary, I am entitled to it.

It is amazing to me, though, that you think it is UNFAIR to take a shot at Jack who cannot defend himself, but thought NOTHING of taking a shot at Ken's wife...

[thesearch]

... in response to Re: Re: Attack???, posted by MarkInTx on Oct 15, 2002

Mark --- attack?

To me it is all in  how you define it and where you draw the line in the sand as to what constitutes such.  

Since it was a post you did not start and it was about the issue, I did not view your post as any wrong doing.

However, if you did such on a repetitive basis, well then that is another story - always taking the opportunity so to speak. So, you have had your say on this, it should be over.

Others will draw the line closer on the issue with less latitude. And, that is ok if they live themselves within the guidelines they verbally support.

I can not disagree with them as this is where they draw the line. It is valid for them. It is a more altruistic stance then mine but that does not make me and you wrong on this either.

As for Dan agreeing with Oscar just because the post disagreed with your post? No, I do not see it. You simply have that feeling because you and Dan have had your share of disagreements. By stating such, you are essentially calling him a liar about his agreeing with Oscar and that his post is purely revengeful in its intent and has nothing to do with his opinion on the topic.

It is true that two people if they have disagreed might be more motivated to post that they disagree with that person but, as a sole motivation - I do not see it at all. There were too many other opportunities that Dan did not take the option on.

So, although no one cares, I agree with you that you did nothing wrong, and agree with Dan that your response to him was inane but, there is nothing wrong sometimes in saying something inane. It still gets your point across as you see it. Sometimes it works better than being nane. I don't know but it just seems that if the word inane exists the opposite should have been nane.

[MarkInTx]

... in response to /, posted by thesearch on Oct 15, 2002

Repetitive posting would be an attack.

It would also be baiting, and has little or no place on the board. I have no intention on posting daily "Jack Bashings." I really didn't dislike him. I just thought sometimes he skirted the board rules.

Reasonable people can disagree with me on that... but that is my opinion...

As for my comment about Dan... you and I will have to respectfully disagree. I think Dan ONLY agreed with Oscar because his was a response to a post from me. Had Oscar written that to anyone else, Dan would have not commented at all. (I also disagree with you that Dan passed up other opportunities. I think he has chimed in with an equivalent of "me too" on every negative post about me. I haven't done an exhaustive search... but it surely seems that way. He was even chiming agreement with joe/yoe, for cryin' out loud! Anyone who said anything bad about me is OK in Dan's book! That's why I called it predictable...)

Now, do I think that he wouldn't have commented on Oscar's post because he didn't feel that way? No... Dan is clearly a fan of Jack's. But he wouldn't have said anything because before Dan and Oscar came together united in their feelings about me, he wouldn't have agreed with anything Oscar said, simply out of principal.

However, having said that, I think that their current lovefest is good for the board. If they stay united by a common enemy (me) then at least we don't have to see another one of their "inane" battles.

And, I've got a "three post" rule. If I can't get my point across to someone in three posts, I drop it. For some people, I lower the posting number (Some are down to zero, for instance). So, I won't get into stupid name-calling, school-yard fighting, and inane bantering... I promise!

BTW... I think that a post that got its point across so succinctly is hardly inane... but then again, I guess that is simply in the eye of the beholder...

[Dan]

... in response to I agree...., posted by MarkInTx on Oct 15, 2002

Traveling this week allows me a bit more time for posting - and today, for some reason, I felt a bit more energy to direct towards the board than normal.

It only happens to coincide with your profligate posting today.

Lucky you.

- Dan

[Dan]

... in response to /, posted by thesearch on Oct 15, 2002

The antonym for 'inane' - according to the reference site www.synonym.com - is "wise"

Cheers Greg!

- Dan