Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

When you lock eight people in a room and don't let them out this is what happens.

Unlock the doors. Lift the barricades. Let in the refreshing, cool wind known as the general public. The breeze just might blow away the tension.

Ken Crippen wrote:
But his attacks and lies about me were fine?

I have no knowledge whatsoever of what is or isn't a lie. This is politics. I have a family member who is recently elected to a local office. Her main critic calls her a liar. What I have learned is that sometimes the term "lie" is opinion and not fact. Now, since I don't know what happened, I have to weigh-in only on the tone of the verbiage used. (Also the term "attack" is often a non sequitur as well)

So, Ken, I make no assessment whatsoever as to what is or isn't a lie or what is or isn't an attack. I have zero knowledge.

My criticism is that verbiage as a retort was uncalled for. That's just my opinion. I am not saying I am right or that I know the facts or back story, just that when a shot like that is taken by someone I respect (you) against someone I also respect the only way I can respond is to try and get the rhetoric down, which is also what I do to my sister's critic. I try and use calmness and reason.

But, you are totally free to disagree. When I read that I didn't read it as an attack or as a lie. It didn't come off as that, and this is coming into this totally blind.

Here is just another opinion, which you, of course, are free to disagree with. Here it is: If you are truly the aggrieved party, you will more readily make your case if you come across as fair and reasonable. When the "lie" word comes out so quickly and easily, it doesn't make your case look just.

I just don't like people I respect going after people I also respect. But I also understand that since I don't know all the facts I shouldn't opine. But when it is in the middle of a football forum . . .it is hard to miss

Like sands through the hourglass...

Seriously gentlemen, what are you, 12?

JohnTurney wrote:

Ken Crippen wrote:
But his attacks and lies about me were fine?

I have no knowledge whatsoever of what is or isn't a lie. This is politics. I have a family member who is recently elected to a local office. Her main critic calls her a liar. What I have learned is that sometimes the term "lie" is opinion and not fact. Now, since I don't know what happened, I have to weigh-in only on the tone of the verbiage used. (Also attack is often a non sequitur as well)

So, Ken, I make no assessment whatsoever as to what is or isn't a lie or what is or isn't an attack. I have zero knowledge.

My criticism is that verbiage as a retort was uncalled for. That's just my opinion. I am not saying I am right or that I know the facts or back story, just that when a shot like that is taken by someone I respect (you) against someone I also respect the only way I can respond is to try and get the rhetoric down, which is also what I do to my sister's critic. I try and use calmness and reason.

But, you are totally free to disagree. When I read that I didn't read it as an attack or as a lie. It didn't come off as that, and this is coming into this totally blind.

Here is just another opinion, which you, of course, are free to disagree with. Here it is: If you are truly the aggrieved party, you will more readily make your case if you come across as fair and reasonable. When the "lie" word comes out so quickly and easily, it doesn't make your case look just.

I just don't like people I respect going after people I also respect. But I also understand that since I don't know all the facts I shouldn't opine. But when it is in the middle of a football forum . . .it is hard to miss

I get where you are coming from. Trust me. I did not want things to devolve to where they went. I provided a solution for people who have been unable to get a solution from PFRA management. What happened? I was attacked. Whether you agree on the word "attack" or not is a difference between us. It was definitely read by me as an attack.

Now, when my integrity is attacked by using lies (or, if you prefer, statements devoid of truth), I am not going to stand for it and I will defend myself.

People have repeatedly tried to resolve issues offline with not even a simple response. This thread was started to hopefully get SOMEONE to respond. The only response was an attack on a long-time member (26 years and counting for me). The amount of time it took to write the scathing response would have been better served to actually answer the issues posed and probably would have taken less time overall.

Just think. All of this never would have happened if a simple response was given when things were raised privately:

"Sorry. It was an oversight on our part. We will get it resolved in a week or two. Please give us time. Thank you."

or

"We are working on it, but it has proved more challenging than anticipated. We do not have an exact schedule for the resolution, but we are working on it and we will keep you informed. Thank you for your patience."

That is how leaders lead. Not attacking people for daring to raise the issue or for providing a solution they were unwilling to provide. Not ignoring people you do not feel like responding to.

Instead, the members who are not part of the approved list get ignored or attacked for daring to raise an issue. People pay their hard-earned money to be a member of the organization and they do not deserve less because they are not part of the select ones who are allowed a response.

When I was ED, I was constantly hit with people calling me at all hours of the day and night to complain. I was hit with email complaining about everything under the sun. Even when I was on vacation, I still had to respond to members. Why? Because these people paid their hard-earned money to be a part of the organization and they deserve to be heard. Some were valid criticisms and some where not. You have to deal with it. I was working 80+ hour weeks at my day job, traveling for that job and still putting in a full-time job running the PFRA. However, when you are a manager, you have to suck it up and deal with things that are not pleasant. You do not attack the very people that are paying to keep the organization alive.

As the face of the organization, everything you say and do is not a reflection of you, but the PFRA as a whole.

Ken Crippen wrote: Just think. All of this never would have happened if a simple response was given when things were raised privately:

"Sorry. It was an oversight on our part. We will get it resolved in a week or two. Please give us time. Thank you."

or

"We are working on it, but it has proved more challenging than anticipated. We do not have an exact schedule for the resolution, but we are working on it and we will keep you informed. Thank you for your patience."

That is how leaders lead. Not attacking people for daring to raise the issue or for providing a solution they were unwilling to provide. Not ignoring people you do not feel like responding to.

Precisely. People understand when you level with them. But you can't just not respond.

I have no idea what happened with the forum technically, or who was responsible. I'm staying out of that.

The way I see it is this: reaching some common ground between the leadership of this group solves nothing. The bigger issue is the group needs to agree on a direction and agree that said direction may not be 100 percent agreeable to all. The goal (at least from my standpoint) is not to settle who does what or who did what best. The goal is to move the group forward and quit thinking about yourselves and the spot you occupy. You have to find a way to put the group first or this situation will just end up repeating itself.

Do all members want growth? I don't know why they wouldn't. I sure hope they do.

Telling folksy stories about our sister might result in cooler heads between y'all, but it isn't going to solve the larger issue.

Ken Crippen wrote: Whether you agree on the word "attack" or not is a difference between us.

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the verbiage ...seems like anotherhalf-dozen uses of "attack". Good luck with that.

Veeshik_ya wrote: People understand when you level with them.

Leveling with you never works.

JohnTurney wrote:

Veeshik_ya wrote: People understand when you level with them.

Leveling with you never works.

When have you leveled with me?

Veeshik_ya wrote:

JohnTurney wrote:

Veeshik_ya wrote: People understand when you level with them.

Leveling with you never works.

When have you leveled with me?

Every time I respond to you.

John...John...John...put away the vitriol. Not everybody in the forum is going to give you an "attaboy" every time you fart.

It doesn't mean they don't like you.