If what you are asking is did a person use me and my candidacy to have permission to send an e-mail the answer is no. I approved my answers to be used. Or to answer it another way; I did not authorize someone to send the e-mail on behalf of me using me as the authorization to National.
Does this answer what you are getting at?
And to respond to the last part. read my previous post. I am of the opinion based on the information that I was given that everyone had equal opportunity to respond. I saw the design of this to be inclusive and not exclusive. Everyone was told about this. It was not some secret that people were left out of. That is misinformation.

Really? A shot at the man's "integrity".
Character assassination right here on APC?

You guys have been in office for far too long.

Check,

Don't know if you are including me as one of "you guys," but "upset" is too strong a word. Maybe "annoyed" is better.

In another life, I worked for a marketing firm. Part of our training involved studying political surveys and picking out the fault in the questions--in essence, what made the surveys biased, and by extension flawed. This "survey" is full of examples that would have been very useful during that marketing training. I won't dissect it question by question, but a teenager should be able to recognize it for what it is.

Second, as my emphasis has been in this thread, the distribution method is suspect and if ACL is involved in that, he'd be best served by admitting that his part in it did not involve the best headwork. I don't think it was probably anything deliberate, just bad judgement.

It's Friday and I have the weekend off for a change. Why be upset?

It seems I am the one who is upsetting a few guys here, so I will return to my lurket status like I said I would do earlier. Have a good weekend all.

Don't worry, MadDog. This forum doesn't like real debate. They just want their point of view to win the day. They don't really care how that happens!:p Things like facts and timelines are just an annoyance. But they really get upset when appearances are bad from the "other" side, go figure!:D

You'll get no argument from me about that. Clearly the author of the questions had a political point of view. Lots of pilots want the answers to those questions though. The candidates weren't restricted to yes or no answers. Some of them did an excellent job of disagreeing with the premise of the question. Others obfuscated at every opportunity. Tried to have it both ways. That's why this questionnaire is far more revealing than the canned e-mails sent out by the candidates.

ACL was not the one that sent the email.

LD refused to participate, he was not left out.

Considering you have more posts than me, but have been on here less than half the time than I have. You seem to like the "debate." ;)

RockyMtmadDog said:

"In another life, I worked for a marketing firm. Part of our training involved studying political surveys and picking out the fault in the questions--in essence, what made the surveys biased, and by extension flawed. This "survey" is full of examples that would have been very useful during that marketing training. I won't dissect it question by question, but a teenager should be able to recognize it for what it is."
______________________________________________

Did you mean just like our Wilson Polling surveys?

That's a wonderful idea!! Maybe we should take this to the MEC forum, where frank and open debate is always welcomed and even encouraged. Oh, wait. No it's not. :rolleyes:



Don't taze me, bro.

I don't even know what happened, but I think that there is funny stuff :)