Okay, this post may result in me getting a warning or maybe worse from the administrators. However, I feel this should be said. I went back into a thread, it had to do with a petition, and went to what I think was the source for the effort. It appears that some woman, whose name I won’t post since I don’t want to give her any publicity, is involved with an organization that works to effect changes or promote the end goals of individual and group efforts. The organization is nothing more than a camoflaged political action committee. Its self-description: “… is a social action platform that empowers anyone, anywhere to start, join, and win campaigns to change the world”. Short and sweet, this petition was politically motivated. So, what was the ‘true’ end result sought by this effort? You can bet it wasn’t what the petitioner tried to make it appear.
And the original poster had the nerve to say that someone else injected politics into that thread?
The thread itself was political. It was entirely for something other than what was petitioned. I think it was to push an effort that would destroy a small piece of culture, garner a wider cultural change and/or to enhance the strength of that PAC.
If the admin or any mod thinks I’m out of line, I will accept whatever action is deemed appropriate. But this had to be said.
I appreciate Alan’s post here. There are other fly fishing-related boards where I debate political issues. FAOL’s no politics rule makes this place special.
Come on guys, let’s keep it civil. This is a fly fishing bulletin board. Snide comments about other individuals that post things here are uncalled for.
It’s not that I am opposed to a political discussion, it’s just that a thread was started which asked people to sign a petition. It appeared non-political but, on some simple investigation, I found that there were hidden and significant political alterior motives behind the petition. Now maybe you weren’t aware of the initial thread and the petition or maybe you were. I just didn’t think it was very ethical for a PAC to use an extremely popular entity, possibly without that persons approval, to secure some social change which the person who was to theoretically benefit might actually be against and who had asked that the process cease. At any rate, you’ve every right to your opinion.
The person who is responsible for the petition process with all those sinister motives you ascribe to her ( whom you won’t name ) is not a member of the FAOL bulletin board, best I know.
The original poster, Deb, is one of the most respected members of this Board. Now Deb may have miscalculated in starting the thread you are referring to, but I am confident that Deb had nothing but the best and most honorable intentions in starting it, seeking only a certain level and kind of recognition for a highly regarded fly angler.
Maybe you can clarify for us who ( by name ) is using whom ( individually and collectively ), and how that who is using the “we” referred to in the title you gave this thread ??
None of this has anything to do with Catskill patterns, the Catskills, or for that matter anything Catskill. I don’t think the word ‘Catskill’ was even mentioned until you wrote it.
John,
"Maybe you can clarify for us who ( by name ) is using whom ( individually and collectively ), and how that who is using the “we” referred to in the title you gave this thread ??
Perhaps unbeknownst to the original poster, the PAC (change.org) was a hired gun to push for a cultural change (see that organizations own self-description) simply to break a private clubs rules and barrier. WHO was being used? Possibly anyone who believed the cover story without knowing the underlying motive which may have been quite different and unsupported by the intended and well-deserved recipient. HOW - The use of friendly web sites(like this). “Who is using the “we” referred to in the title you gave this thread ?” (not sure I understand this but I think you mean - The PAC is trying to use the WE. The original poster may have been innocently drawn into this by the cover story.
Hey, if you think this is all off base, don’t worry about it. No big deal.
Hey let’s bury this. You are all right and there is much grey area here. mnklagoon said it right- yawn. This country is very polarized and it’s sad. At our local fly shop, it’s the same type semantic warfare and yet because the other person is a fly fisher we tend to listen and maybe see the other side and agree to disagree. Kind of like the old days if you will. Stay in the room and hash it out,compromise, and and move on and be friends. Thanks kindly, have a smooth day and tight lines. Michael J.
… clearly suggests that you believe Deb started a political thread for “something other than what was petitioned.”
You’re saying that you think Deb was pushing “an effort that would destroy a small piece of culture, garner a wider cultural change and/or to enhance the strength of that PAC.”
I’m wondering what facts, proof, or evidence you have that Deb intentionally started a political thread for other than her stated purpose of supporting Joan Wullf’s desire for a particular kind of recognition.
It strikes me that you are using a well respected member of the FAOL Bulletin Board to advance your own desires to attack a third party with whose political agenda you disagree.
So - who is using whom ??
This is not something to write off lightly as you attempt to do in your response to my earlier post. An unwarranted attack on one of our well regarded Bulletin Board members is a big deal, as least to me.
“I’m wondering what facts, proof, or evidence you have that Deb intentionally started a political thread for other than her stated purpose of supporting Joan Wullf’s desire for a particular kind of recognition.”
First, I was not aware that the poster, Mato Kuwapi was a woman whose name is Deb. Second, she did start the thread. Third, did she(Deb) know it was political or that the organization behind the petition had some alterior motive(s)? I did not question her motives. She may have just accepted the intent which she had read or heard. Fourth, it seems to me that even a well respected member of this site may be incorrect once in awhile. Finally, Deb wrote, “After some very recent discussion with the persons involved in this petition, I now have more clearity into what’s going on. Hopefully you’ll understand.”
Well, according to other “respected” members (not quite sure how that term is defined but if you’re a member, you’re respected otherwiase you wouldn’t be permitted to post), “Why didn’t you(Deb) have a “discussion” with the people involved before posting this? Anything in bed with Change.org is usually a load of crap anyway…” Other “respected” members questioned most all of the assumptions in the original post, and another ‘Respected’ member wrote, “If (name of petition originator) is the same person who was ‘involved’ with Stan Bodgen a while back, me thinks she might be better served by just doing her television program and not stirring the pot(s).”
Even the person identified in the petition had asked (quoting from a poster who had contact with that person) “[b]the subject makes her uneasy and she has asked that we not stir the pot.”
[/b]Well, maybe I’ve said too much and too much has been said.
