Originally posted by dearnis.com
In all fairness to Jeff this is not an IMAF issue, it is local issue. I don't see it as reasonable to expect Jeff to comment on the situation.
Hi Chad,
Here are some points that I need to clarify:
1) Whether its JD's IMAF, the MOTT(s) IMAF, or Tim Hartman's WMAA, if they have public officers and maintain public (web) information, for integrity sake, shouldn't there be a corresponding degree of adequate information?
Each of these groups have posted publicly their policy or news. For example, remember November 2000 or recently the news of Dan Anderson joining WMAA? Datu Tim Hartman and his organization has always been forthright and forthcoming regarding public information.
When there are changes in officer positions, it is big news because of the impact. The private reasons behind the decision need not be mentioned. If you recall even with yourself, I did not press nor ask your personal reasons. I even publicly said that I respected them, whatever they were.
2) When I mention JD's IMAF, I use it to differentiate it from the MOTT(s) IMAF. And since JD's IMAF is the focus of the post, I use the "JD's IMAF" for clarification purposes only. I do not mean that Jeff himself personally needs to state anything.
And finally,
3) I am not indicting neither Jeff nor Lisa, but this particular site in the past has changed their page content without notice. Previously, a whole sub-discussion on how to review the history of archived web pages sprang from this point.
Palusut