Print

[65GT]

http://wbcci.org/documents/December%202009.pdf

There's a minor disturbing little trend developing here...

Look at the signature of the President's Corner Message (inside cover):

Tom C., International President
www.president.org

President dot org?  What the heck is that?  The website doesn't even exist.

Then take a look at the last two IP newsletters at Region 9

http://www.wbregion9.org/pdf_files/October%202009%20IP.pdf

&

http://www.wbregion9.org/pdf_files/November%202009%20IP.pdf

Both of these are signed:

President@WBCCI.gov

Dot GOV -- Have we become an official branch of the government?  How does the WBCCI rate .gov status?

I really don't get it -- is leadership trying to feign that they don't understand the basic structure of email addresses, or our own club .org designation?  Why would they do that?

Should we expect leadership that can't distinguish a .com from a .org from a .gov, that doesn't understand that WBCCI dot gov doesn't exist, that we don't own www dot President dot org, to understand what has taken place with our new forums system?  Holly smokes -- what is going on here? 

[Simon]

What the.... That is almost funny - You told me that Tom was a tech savvy guy as far as the IBT is concerned - but I am doubting that now.

[65GT]

I didn't use the word feign by accident.  The IP was using a laptop with WiFi as far back as Perry (I was sitting across from him at a picnic table late at night), and uses a Blackberry routinely, and effectively for communications.  No, I'm betting this is a deliberate and intentional demonstration showing that our leadership is simply not Internet capable, just in case they need to claim such in the future.  It's called 'plausible deniability' and considering how poorly the club is performing on the Internet, I think any defense is a good defense at this point...

"Your honor, we were all simply confused by all of these here events involving that there Enternet.  When he said IP Address, I thought he was looking for the men's room!"   

[Simon]

plausible deniability - now where have I heard that before??

[ByamCaravanner]

My guess is, whomever did the layout put those in there are place holders to be replaced later with the correct web links... obviously this never got done. It certainly should have been caught when proofing the press run. Either way, this can be easily fixed on the online edition... if THAT doesn't get done, then we're back to your explanation.

[Pahaska]

I think that Simon is correct.  I have never found Tom Collier to be devious, agree with him or not. 

[65GT]

Whew, I feel better already! 

Still John, THREE publications, TWO different signatures, ALL wrong?