| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Admin
547 Posts |
 Posted - 11/25/2003 : 23:30:29
|
In a thread in the Coverage Forum the topic went off topic. Here is a link to thread where the comments were first made. I removed the off topic discussion from that thread and listed them below.
http://www.catadjuster.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=677
Posted - 11/25/2003 : 12:52:06 by CCarr
" Others can proceed as they see fit, but I'm reluctant to offer any comment on your 4 questions, until I am satisfied "who" you really are or who you are representing; or the true intent of your effort here."
I moved the comments that I believe off topic to this thread. They are as follows.
******
Posted by - ChezCache on 11/25/2003 15:54:33
While the rest of us are smelling logs burning in the fireplace and succulent turkey roasting in the oven, Clayton is off on another wild goose chase with his bloodhounds either sniffing out a Public Adjuster or Kryptonite again.
StatMan you need to let us know if you are (1) a disgruntled insured (2) a public adjuster or (3) the dark face of evil in the form of CC's nemesis?
StatMan, excellent topic and coverage situation regardless of who you are and what role you play in the scenario. Please let us all know how it all plays out.
******
Posted - 11/25/2003 : 15:57:33 By Ghostbuster
Clayton, I am weary of your paranonia as to who is who that posts here. Why must you see phantoms scurrying around every corner? Are you having constant nightmares about Jim Flynt?
I consider this to be a disturbing character trait, probaly due to some Canadian syndrome where the winter causes one to be cooped up for long periods of time resulting in episodes of mental turmoil.
Perhaps a move to a warmer climate with a varied culinary selection may induce a positive psychosis. I did notice the hut down the street from Kile is up for sale. And...the seller will throw in the gators for free!
Because we care, with you we share...
********
Posted - 11/25/2003 : 20:56:11 By Johnd
Could it possibly be that Clayton and Jim Flynt are one and the same person. Maybe this is true and this person has a split personality and is driving himself insane posting here.
Just a remote possibility..... I know Jim, and I think he has been to Canada..
******
Posted - 11/25/2003 : 21:15:22 By CCarr
Chez/Ghost, gentlemen enjoy your Thanksgiving holiday, and remember the day for what it is, and all the good things edible and otherwise that it brings you; that will more than outweigh the in-laws and sisters in-laws sitting at the table with you, or that rogue brother inlaw that sucks up all your good whiskey.
But please, as you read about the StatMan's raison d'etre in his latest post; don't be so quick to criticize me in the future.
Ghost, you were right about my concern for who posts here, I don't apologize for it, but I am sorry that you find it a disturbing trait.
John, I didn't expect that type of comment from you.
I leave you all to enjoy the puzzle man, and to run with him at will in his analytical fields of correlation.
Why of why, do we let these types of people in, to romp in our sandbox?
******
Posted - 11/25/2003 : 21:47:06 By Buster Cherry
Clayton, the simple answer to your last question is for the same reasons we let you in. Believe it or not, we're all in this together.
And my simple question to you is: what's wrong with that?
PS: John D., I like the way you think.
******
Posted - 11/25/2003 : 22:11:54 By CCarr
Buster, I understand what you are saying, except for your uncalled for reference to John's comment. But, before the backdoor gets closed on our off topic direction, I guess my thoughts center on the "we"; whether it be the "we" that lets me or you in or the "we" that are all in this together. Who is the "we"? I say 'the we', because clearly I think that we can agree that is Roy. But, who are the "we"? Is it not meant to be or thought to be a community of people involved in or associated with general insurance and insurance claims?
I can understand others coming into this website looking for an answer or an opinion to a problem related to general insurance or claims. But, when they come seeking those things and attempt to shield or disguise their intent or relationship to the situation and later disclose it to be an occupational game within their field of endeavor; I think that is wrong and I choose not to play that game.
Hopefully, my honest answer explains what is wrong with that.
*********
Posted - 11/25/2003 : 22:20:21 By Buster Cherry
Clayton, am I missing something? What, in fact does CADO (CAT ADJUSTER dot organization) stand for? I thought that CADO had something to do with "cat adjusting" or am I missing something? I don't understand nor do I have a clue about your comments about "general insurance and insurance claims". One of us must be sleeping in the dark?
*********
Posted - 11/25/2003 : 22:32:29 By Carr
Buster, I'm uncertain why you choose to try and throw my quote totally outside the realm of CADO with some vigorish.
I refer you to Roy's welcome on the home page of this website, ".... CADO is a site devoted to both independent adjusters and staff insurance adjusters and the claims handling industry, slanted towards catastrophe adjusting ....".
I think my intent of the quote you brought forward falls within that parameter, and I don't understand why you chose that to get sarcastic about.
********* |
Roy Cupps -
CatAdjuster.org :: Contact\Feedback :: Adjuster Roster :: Current Forum |
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2003 : 08:09:45
|
Yeah, but...Clayton, our clubhouse, while populated by others of our ilk, is wide open to the whole rest of the Cosmos. If some triple breasted space alien from the inter-galactic adult entertainment industry wants to put forth with a query that relates to the indemnity industry, why shouldn't she? There is no better place for it, and dare I say, there is no other place I know of than CADO.
I consider the thread about the demarcation between policy periods to be highly relevant and interesting. Whatever the motives of the Statman are, is not relevant to the validity of the question nor our discussion. To introduce an adversarial bent to the matter as to identities makes no sense other than to raise the ire of the assembled mob...again! We have had it up to here, (No, a little higher, Kile.), with the rancor. It is time to turn off the heat and let the pot of chili cool off.
But, if you want to play with the burners, go ahead and make the tortillas. That would be productive. |
 |
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2003 : 10:47:13
|
First, I want to thank Roy for gathering up these tid bits - keeping the beef drippings away from the turkey gravy - and placing them in a pot of their own to hopefully mature into something worthy of community consumption.
Second, to Ghost, although it is difficult in a post mortem hindsight sense to explain, there was no intent or attempt to introduce an adversarial bent to the coverage thread in question. Clearly, you missed the mark, with your suggestion of "flyntism" paranoia on my part; that was not in my thought process at all when I noted my concern.
I looked at the opening coverage thread post with some interest and developed the notion that an "insured" was looking for input for a troubling situation. "We", the community, should feel humbled, when someone outside our community seeks our input; on a matter related to our industry.
However, at a certain point in the presentation of the coverage scenario, it became clear in my mind, that the presenter was not a concerned "insured", nor likely had any direct financial consequence from the scenario; and that was later supported in my mind by the presenter's revelation of his intent of the thread. That is just my opinion, and at this point it doesn't matter to me how factual it may be.
What raises my ire are the people who attempt to masquerade around their true identity, their true intent of their questions, their true relationship to the issues being discussed. I don't understand the need for it, and I find it distasteful as a thread unfolds that a presenter's actual interest, intent or identity shifts with the flow of the thread.
Yes, this website is open to the world, through both the front and back doors. If one does a Google search on many varied topics loosely associated with the contents of the threads here in CADO; a CADO link will be available from Google into the relevant forum/thread.
However, it is at the front door of CADO that I think should have a stronger screen door acting as a more meaningful filter. I've given my yatta yatta on that subject before, in the General forum, currently on page 7, "Who are our CADO members?", and on page 1 "The anonymity anonymous playground"; therefore it would be redundant to repeat it here.
These are just my opinions Ghost, I recognize that I am not the agent of change, and it is not my intent to be the agent of inflammatory comment, and I recognize that these opinions are not favored by some; or perhaps whoever 'Buster Cherry' is, he wouldn't have come looking for his pound of flesh last night. Was that the type of rebuttal from 'Buster' that is an example of the raised ire of the assembled mob, to which you refer?
When I choose to communicate through any medium - face to face, phone, written, or in CADO - I want to / I'd like to know with whom I am communicating with. Perhaps that is a trait of my generation, or something imbedded in me from years in the claims industry.
For example, when 'Buster' got on edge last night, the first thing I did was to go to his 'user profile', then to the CADO roster and resume sections, trying to find out more about that poster. Nothing was available to help in that regard in the user profile, other than to note he came into CADO in mid September 2003; and no entry was found for that user name in the roster or resume sections. So who am I dealing with? Can you really say it is not important? Can you really say it is of no value to know who we are dealing with and communicating with? It is not my intent to insight 'Buster', but I use this as a timely example to try and illustrate my point. |
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2003 : 12:25:37
|
Okay, and my point remains that it is the actual post that is important, not the face behind the chosen mask. In the thread on Roofs & Safety, I have posted a controversial missive and Goose is taking exception. I say, Good!, because this brings forth interaction of ideas, opinions, and discussion. The focus is on the topic. We, (Goose & I), do not care who we are, only what we see in front of our bloodshot eyes on the screen. I respect what he says, (I assume that he is a he, but if she's a she, that's okay too.), just as I respect you for what you write here.
We 'know' each other only here in the clubhouse. Here we bicker, snipe, peck and carp like the barracks buddies we are. The fundamental underlying truth is, we are birds-of-a-feather roosting here in our clubhouse and our identity, our essence, our character, can only be reflected in the prose we put forth in these forums.
What's in a name? Not all that much. What's in a paragraph? Your soul. |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2003 : 15:58:31
|
I reciprocate my respect for what Ghost writes, it is well earned, and I further respect what he has brought to CADO for more years than I have roosted here. Also, it is always a good read, isn't it, even if I don't always agree with the content or the message.
However, is there anyone in the community whose 'user name' is their name; that has a comment on the issues in this thread?
Am I really in such a small minority on these issues? |
|
|
|
Steve_One
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2003 : 18:28:34
|
Well........I don't see a problem with the use of a user name, after all that's the only way we're permitted to log on to this site, so to blame one for being creative with the names used is not fair.
Regarding ones right to either offer up information about themselves, or not, is still ones right regarding privacy issues. This is a forum of written ideas and other stuff! So if you don't know who you're responding to, then......don't respond, duh!
If what you're sharing is in good faith, and in the right so far as you think or belive, then it shouldn't matter who you're writing to, unless you would write something differant if you only knew who you were writing to. Then of course your ideas should be held suspect, if they're not going to be consistant through-out. |
|
|
|
khromas
USA
103 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2003 : 18:40:55
|
I agree with Clayton in the premise that the identity of posters to this site should be readily available. It is a viable and important ingredient in the overall credibility of issues and discussions taking place here. I, for one, give little credance to someone who only wishes to cast stones or create controversy and then hide behind a pseudonym. If you believe strongly enough in your position, then have the intestinal fortitude to stand behind your position.
When I am not on the road, I officate high school basketball here in the Houston area. I equate the loud-mouth in the stands who hides behind the crowd to someone here who seeks to remain anonymous. In basketball, most of the time they have never read a rulebook and don't know what they are talking about anyway. Maybe that is what is taking place here as well. |
Kevin Hromas |
|
|
|
Amber
USA
23 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2003 : 18:56:46
|
| The other side of this coin Clayton & Kevin.... What about the person who is concerned about safety (personal or because children are in the house)? It may not be a huge issue for you men; but, there are sickos and stalkers out there. These boards & membership directories are publicly available to anyone who wants to wander this way. Just my two cents.... |
Edited by - Amber on 11/26/2003 18:59:09 |
|
|
|
ChuckDeaton
USA
373 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2003 : 15:04:18
|
| There are two sides to safety, one is to attempt to hide and the other is just the opposite. As I post under my name, obviously, I chose the opposite. Occasionally I get a message which I attribute to a sicko or stalker, because they fail to identify themselves. |
|
|
|
olderthendirt
USA
370 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2003 : 18:50:05
|
| While I support the use on pen names, I also have no problem if there is a requirement for the true identity to be posted with Roy and the Moderators. I would not be surprised if there are staff people who do not feel free to make comments or express ideas under their real names. |
|
|
|
Gale
USA
231 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2003 : 23:18:37
|
This discussion has been going on for years and I guess it will continue as long as Roy keeps the site up. In the past things seem to come to a head and then fade away for a season. While I typically I no longer concern myself who are or are not behind a string of post I guess it seems to be a major concern for others for some reason.
There is so much that could be done to improve the industry but it seems like some prefer to act as a rumor mill likened to a group of middle school girls for some reason. Being one with a nature to argue I see how others can thrive on it but if we will focus on the issues that are good for the entire industry and ignore the other types of post then CADO can become more effective.
While adjusters will never organize any better than farmers have on a large scale I do think CADO fills a real need and will continue to gain clout in the industry.
Roy has but one choice and that is to follow what he feels is right for CADO and ignore the noise of a few if CADO is to grow. A few are working to kill CADO by trying to get Roy to turn it into a private club of bitter, whining men by their actions. Having an open forum will by nature always attract those that are on the fringes. This is true of other web forums, churches, clubs, etc that have more or less open memberships.
While most post for the good of the industry a few always will use CADO as a personal soap box where they can post and then enjoy reading their own post. There will always be those that mainly seek to pick fights that serve no real purpose outside of meeting their own personal needs.
Let us try to take the position there will always be 1 – 3 posters that will try to keep trying to work against the goals of Roy and accept it is better to put up with them then limit who can read or even post on CADO so CADO has a chance to naturally evolve into what it needs to become. In the scheme of things the site is not all that old.
|
|
|
|
MysteryCat
USA
23 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2003 : 12:42:34
|
| I see nothing wrong with posting some things anonymously. Sometimes I want to say something that I feel, but I know it may be taken the wrong way by some or held against me by others, namely, employers. I think that by limiting the posts to identifiable posters would definitely limit the number of posts and prohibit the openings of many very interesting topics that may need delving into. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Who should be allowed "In"
Forum Locked
