Originally Posted by
TheManager
Like I thought T Bender, you currently don't have the capacity, or perhaps just lack the ability now, to analyze how we got here and how to fix it.
You have nothing of value to add to the discussion, particularly when you get blinded by your anger.
You are desperate for a few things. You have established that you want:
1. A contract that pays you now. You are well into the twilight of your shelf life as a pilot.
2. A bargaining agent that is not the DPA.
You have some mighty barriers in front of your needs at this point. It obviously agitates the turds out of you as evidenced by:
A. Your presence here again, albeit under a different screen name, and:
B. The tone of your interactions with others here. Not real professional for someone holding the company position that you do.
Try maybe coming up with ideas, solutions, that can collectively advance our group from the ditch we are in. Works better than what you are doing. On the current path, you'll just rinse and repeat - get angry, attack people here, eventually go away claiming disgust, lurk, get angry again, invent new screen name, come back, repeat.
Let's start with one simple problem. One bite at a time. How does one keep DPA at bay at a a time when they will capitalize of the crisis at hand? Ideas?
I'm not desperate for anything homey. I just don't think your little stories do anything to examine facts. And who pray tell am I attacking? You? Seriously? Are you so think skinned that my telling you that your little parable is nothing but conjecture is an attack? Then prove that is the way it went down and let's discuss it.
I don't gas about DPA other than to recognize it as what it is; a divisive entity with a divisive 'leader" t a critical juncture. But they are not the issue before us. This TA is.
I have my
needs and you have yours. They are probably different. My needs are different than Carl's as are yours. That doesn't make them any less valid.
And not that it is any of your business at this point, I am a soft no at this point. I find it interesting that you like to say that the MEC's talking points are driving people to a no vote. Have you ever thought that you are having the opposite effect? When you berate people for having a different opinion than yours, and when those people actually read the contract language rather than bullet points and make up their minds based on what they read there rather than here, you just might be driving them to a yes vote. But you don't care about that. It takes stones to vote no and send it back, and that is what this group sorely needs, right?
So let's discuss the issues, as they stand, without all the cute little Hitler videos and cute little stories, and without all the ad hominem attacks that you find so amusing. Or not. It's up to you. I really don't care. You are voting no anyway so what does it matter?