Rick makes a lot of very good points here. It was not my intention to suggest that if you don't agree with me, you are "unreasonable"....again, intent and emotion and feeling not being well translated via e-mail. Re-reading it sure does make it sound that way.....it was a huge mistake to word it that way. There have been a lot negative comment all around on character, motives, claims of "hiding" etc... I'm sorry that my last post was worded the way it was as it was not kind. I have lowered the level of the topic and conversation. Thanks Rick for pointing this out so well. Your thoughts are well respected and give a totally different perspective to this. It was never my intent to be a promotion tool or spokesperson for the DOA. It was out of shear excitement after decades of crap, backstabbing, threats, ignoring and outright lies and deception that I couldn't believe that I actually spoke to a President of the DOA (who doesn't live in So. Cal!!) who listened and answered my tough questions and heard my deepest anger and said that "those days are over"..... I thought, rather naively, that if someone like me, who was SO against this organization could EVER feel differently, I wanted to share that. Since I am not a DOA insider and as I would have rather wiped my bottom with a copy of DW magazine rather than read it I thought that my view points could make some people a bit less angry and suspicious and believe that not everyone associated with the DOA is up to no good. I didn't take into account that even though I have been on this board since almost the beginning, that you all don't really know me that well, so I got upset that I was all of a sudden being lumped in with the actions of the former DOA with suggestions that I too am trying to "hide" just because I like to talk on the phone. Kinda like, "Who the hell is this guy teling us to trust the DOA?"....I over-estimated the group knowing the kind of person I am and really knowing my pent- up anger towards the DOA for the threat against me. I had a new family, a new baby girl and I get a phone call at work telling someone will be at my home that night to kill me with a baseball bat! I know it was someone connected with the DOA 100% as it came right on the heels of my comlaint to the DOA about DW and D1. The call came to my private office number AND the caller asked for me by name.....gee, lets see....who would had that information??? I had to call my wife at work to tell her not to go to the house, take the kids from daycare to another persons house and the LA cops wouldn't do a thing when I called them for help. Even days and weeks later I was worried about my family being at risk. So I had NO love for this group. We've got a long way to go. Yes, the DOA needs to prove itself by deeds. I believe they will. We are all not going to agree on all the fine points of how that should happen and if Ken wants to do things his way in terms of communication, I'm ok with that. We are all at different levels of willingness to trust again. I failed to see that and did not take into account Marc and Kevin's higher level of concern that make them more cautious than I am. If my trust is broken I'll be very hurt and disappointed but I will be glad that I gave it a chance. Not everyone in a place to go there and I now understand that. Where we really disagree is the use of the phone as a communication tool. I will never agree that the phone is a tool to hide things and that verbal communication is a negative. When I have a verbal communication with someone that needs to be documented I send a follow-up e-mail to that person that outlines our conversation and requests the other person to confirm the details of my understanding of the conversation. This gives you the full benefit of hearing the other person and then having the documentation of the converation in writing. If the other person does not confirm your e-mail they have in effect validated your take on the conversation. They would not be able to counter you later as they failed to offer a different viewpoint. I see the phone as a quick way to cut to the chase without the back and forth of e-mail. We all have our ways of doing things. To suggest that anyone who calls someone rather than e-mail is hiding, I just don't agree with that viewpoint, so we will have to agree-to-disagree. I will most likely rejoin the DOA because of my hope that change in the group will happen. If I have the chance to be involved in a more deeper role I may also take that opportunity as well. For me, what better way for a skeptic to know what is really going on inside the DOA structure? Rather than wait to see if it's real if I find that it's business as usual I'll know first hand and get out. I was once a proud member of the DOA and my enthusiasm was shattered by the level of nonsense that I learned once I got into it all those years ago. An ex-girlfriend in LA's Dad was a former President of the DOA. Gil Moreno was an honorable man and he resigned after several of his decisions as DOA President were changed without him knowing. He would not put up with that kind of backstabbing crap so he not only resigned but quit the DOA. Gil told me, "Enjoy the club if you join but don't get invovled in the politics" I didn't really understand that comment until that fateful call to my house with the verbal threat. So Kevin, Marc and I are really on the same page in many ways. It's just a difference of opinion on the nuts and bolts of the "how's" and "why's" in my opinion. I'd really rather talk to Marc in person and hear his voice and hear what he has to say. This is why I will take the opportunity to talk to him or Kevin at the next event we are all at so I can feel and see the energy, emotion and passion in their words. For me, this is the best way for people to effectively communicate. As for the apology to the members at large for this thread that Kevin mentions in another post....Let me also explain this, this came as a result of a phone call from a member who told me he was sick and tired of this stuff and that he's on this forum to learn more about the car and tech stuff. So the apology was really to him (and perhaps other) it was not intented as some sort of grandstanding on my part but rather a response to a private conversation. I skip over stuff I don't want to read all the time so I agree with Kevin 100%. It was simply a nod to the guy who called me and I wanted to acknowledge that if he read the post. I think the most sensible thing said here is the post below from Rick. Thanks again for your unbiased viewpoint about how I have come across. (not that others have been "biased"...just want to make sure nobody reads that wrong too!) Marc and Kevin, if you would like to take this to private e-mails rather than phone calls to continue the discussion that would be great, I've got no problem with that. Tom Watkins --- In dmcnews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "twinenginedmc12" <twinenginedmc12@...> wrote: > > Mr. Watkins. > > Unfortunately, I can no longer take your support of the DOA as a > plus. You have become your own, and the DOA's, worst enemy. > > In your post below, you have made a few faux pas which impaired your > credibility, shared below in case you are interested. > > You took a non-personal topic with potential value, and when a > countering viewpoint was offered, you responded by attacking > personally the individual with countering viewpoints, as opposed to > the viewpoint itself. > > You have stated that you believe that "most reasonable people" will > agree with you. This characteristic is very destructive to conflict > resolution. It basically says: "If you disagree with me, you are > unreasonable." To which I say "Jump in a lake, you reasonable > person, you." > > Marc may, as you say, "have issues that none of us will ever be able > to resolve." So do I. So do you. It's irrelevant, and bringing > that fact up is a diversionary tactic from any real issues. By > attacking the arguer, instead of the argument, you have lost > credibility with me, and set the DOA back in my esteem by being a > inept, and possibly dishonest and manipulative spokesperson. > > The "new" DOA will have to regrain trust in the Delorean community by > refraining from the alienating behavior that got it into trouble in > the first place. It is very difficult to prove the absense of > something, so it may take a good long time. It cannot be proven by > promotion. Repeated trumpeting of "just give them a chance..." just > raises suspicion to me. They must win trust back quietly, > steadfastly, and by repeatedly being a positive influence. They > don't need spokespeople. Their actions will do their talking. > > I think the most sensible thing said on the topic was posted by > Claude, who wrote something along the lines of "blah blah blah, > children, why don't you park your Deloreans..." > > I attribute it to chance. > > Rick Gendreau. ------------------------------------ To address comments privately to the moderating team, please address: moderators@xxxxxxxxxxx For more info on the list, tech articles, cars for sale see www.dmcnews.com To search the archives or view files, log in at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dmcnewsYahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dmcnews/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dmcnews/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:dmcnews-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mailto:dmcnews-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: dmcnews-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/