EMW

[Del]

Re: EMW

Sorry Ken but you have got the topic history wrong here.
It was first muted in the subscribers forum, and you personally asked dave to check it out.

Dave e-mailed tony who responded with the line that it was not worth trying to distinguish between trade and public. Basically he couldn’t be arsed.

It was only then that the lads gave him a slaggin in the open trade forums. He had his chance to do something about it and chose not too.

Pehaps this will now encourage other trade suppliers to have a pricing policy. Better yet it will discourage others from following suit.

I just wonder who you got the PM and posts from ? probably other suppliers 😉 (that was a rhetoical question by the way)

Sean

[kwatt]

Re: EMW

Quite honestly I couldn’t give a flying fook about the history or of picking the bones of the thing. I have interest, but only in the following areas…

Does it affect, or could it affect UKW, it’s position, plans or it’s standing? How I sort that if there is a problem is the primary goal.

Does it hold any longer term implications for the trade in general, if so should the point be made in public?

Does it breach legislation?

How do we learn not to make the same error again, if indeed it even is an error?

How does the trade in general view it?

Can we use it to our advantage either now or in the future?

I look at things in a different light from you Sean, as does Kev and Dave and it’s the opinion of all that makes the whole as we each are offered differing views, that’s why it works.

The “where’s, why’s, what’s and when’s” only come into force where you want to get all specific about things or where you want to pick the meat from the bones, we don’t want to do that and I’d far rather distance myself from the issue for now until the dust settles. Kevin made his point, loud and clear, as well as explaining his actions in public and I have absolutely no truck with that at all. Nor do I have any truck with the sentiment behind what was done, in fact in many ways I’d support it.

But from my perspective I have to look at it as a problem, a conflict of interest if you like and how to put it right, get on and move on with other things that are, to me, more important battles right now. The only reason I set this conversation off is so that we ALL learn from it.

K.

[Dave_Conway]

Re: EMW

It was only ever EMW that has posted in the public forums BTW…..

I asked for a reponse which I posted in the subs forum for discussion, Martin then chose to let it go “public”. At the time I cringed a bit as I knew it may be a little OTT. I think he should’ve asked before posting it and he would more then likely have been told not to.

Back to the complaints, can we have a look at them as it may also help us “learn” how to deal with such occurances.

Dave.

[Dave_Conway]

Re: EMW

Bollocks, we both posted at the same time :wave:

*edit* we forgot to add bollocks to the banned words list 🙂

[Del]

Re: EMW

At some stage you have to decide who you are and nail your colours to the mast. We will eventually come unstuck if we try to be all things to all people.

Correct me if I’m wrong but this site was set up for independent service providers, by independent service providers, and owes a large part of its success from the support and interest shown by independent service providers.

They are the ones who turn up at national meetings, The ones who are helping us to get the training for p&g off the ground and for the most part the ones who help us out as moderators and contributors in the forums to keep it all ticking over.

We will be making a big mistake if we think we can censor what they will or will not say in the forums by either request, or worse still, instruction. My advice is dont go there.

Granted that I can see that a telephone call or two may well have been in order. To inform Tony of the strength of feeling within the trade about suppliers not having a trade pricing policy in place. And to give the guy time to make his mind up and come to an informed decision. In this respect alone there is merit in your concern.

This is probably what you mean by forming a policy for such occurences.

But at the end of the day if he or any other supplier chooses to ingnor the concensus of opinion expressed in trade forums then he or they should be prepaired to accept and bear the consequences.

Sean

[kwatt]

No problems there with me at all Sean, or I expect with Dave and Kev.

But by deleting Tony’s post we did, in effect, censor him whether you want to see it that way or not. That’s the problem with free speech, it is what it says on the tin and to try to challenge it takes a bit of doing.

Anyway, what you getting so excited about anyways?

BTW are we all up for a conference call this evening?

K.

[Del]

Re: EMW

I know we’re all after the same thing and things have to change a little along the way as we are obviously growing into a corporate animal.

I sometimes worry a little too much about not forgetting those that gave us their support to get this whole thing off the ground.

I do take and fully accept your point about deleteing post’s, but I can also understand as I share kev’s frustration regarding wholesalers and trade suppliers jumping onto the retail bandwagon, without any regard for the trade guy’s who have supported them for years.

I also fully realise that they are sufferin too, due to people replacing product rather than repairing, but it still doesnt justify suppling public at our prices.

I’m not getting excited (honest) just offering another viewpoint is all. The one thing I have learnt about you twats is that if I were ever to be regarded as a yes guy, I’d be history.

Conference to night no probs.

Sean

[Author]

Posts