[DML] Re: Public vs Private.

["outatime81" <outatime81@xxxxxxxxx>]

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/