| Author |
 Topic  |
|
LarryW
USA
126 Posts |
 Posted - 03/26/2004 : 03:50:22
|
| Linda, Your lecture was off topic as far as I am concerned, |
Larry Wright |
 |
|
|
LarryW
USA
126 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2004 : 04:05:04
|
| Linda: Your lecture is completely off topic. These threads have a continuity, even if you don't follow it. If I reply to a previous post and three others post during the time I am composing that response, then I suppose it won't follow the way you might want. So deleting "harmless posts without the one above it or below it", as you put it, which make no sense to you, just means you don't really have any comprehension of the way this thing works. Hell, I give up, you post everything you want everyone to read. Maybe someone will read it. |
Larry Wright |
|
|
|
LarryW
USA
126 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2004 : 04:15:25
|
| ROY: We really need to stop the censurship here. We are defeating the the whole purpose of the phenomenal concept you envisioned when you started this mess. |
Larry Wright |
|
|
|
jlombardo
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2004 : 05:40:51
|
| ROY & LINDA......I'm with Larry W........ |
|
|
|
Johnd
USA
110 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2004 : 10:19:26
|
Roy, Linda, et al
I agree with LarryW !!! In FACT the post(s) made by JimF had COMPLETE AND ABSOLUTE bearing on this thread. If someone is on this forum trying to "pull the wool over our eyes" and someone is smart and diligent enough to sleuth out the truth and present the facts then, WHY NOT.......
There was actual continuity to the total discussion going on and the complaint was more of an; "OOP’s, I have been found out" than a valid complaint.
Read this entire thread... Who pays for pictures, the original presentation was STUPID. Almost like, "Someone spit on my sidewalk, what should I do?" I think this was an attempt to draw adjusters into a contrived conversation and maybe curry favor with a few of them in hopes of being accepted by the CADO family after having been previously castigated from CADO.
Linda, I know you are working hard at adjusting and part time monitoring of CADO forums, BUT you should consider letting someone else do this job if you continue with your idea of comprehensive posting(s).
|
John Durham
sui cuique fingunt fortunam |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2004 : 11:25:19
|
For those who read and followed the discussions under this thread prior to the removal of certain posts, I would like to share the following:
As many of you know, I am thorough as well as careful in any investigation of the facts of a situation, and became suspicious with a poster under this thread, who made claims in either their posts or their posted CADO Profile, which did not make any sense, to put it bluntly.
When confronted with inconsistencies in this person's story through posts I made last night, this person's story constantly changed, or as my friend John Durham asked last night, as if their story was being made up on the fly.
This person also complained to the Moderator and posted a warning to me "to stay away from me" as if I were stalking them. My only concern with this person, was to identify inconsistencies, and as it became more obvious, their mendacity and subterfuge was more and more glaringly obvious.
I have to admit, nothing in the world makes me angrier than a person lying. Close to that, is the person who would participate or affiliate with fraudulent acts or actions designed to lure naive adjusters into scams which could or would deprive adjusters who visit here of their rightfully earned claims billings and service fees.
It was obvious to me last night, and even more today, that while there was and is a connection to the name of the poster, there was instead another posing behind these posts, from a person not being who they claimed to be. (I know this may not make sense to some of you, but for those who were here last night prior to the removal of certain posts by Moderators, hopefully it will).
I post here only to say that this morning I called the South Carolina Department of Insurance Adjuster Licensing Division, and they advise me that the poster claiming to be an adjuster in South Carolina is NOT LICENSED there AND that this person has made no application whatsoever to reapply or reinstate an adjuster's license.
Despite claims to the contrary by the poster, no papers or application are at the SC Department of Insurance in this person's behalf awaiting some pending action. The South Carolina DOI also advises me as well, that if this person/poster is indeed handling claims in SC at this time, they are indeed in violation of the laws of the great State of South Carolina.
I smelled subterfuge and mendacity last night.
This morning, that subterfuge and mendacity was confirmed by the South Carolina Department of Insurance.
I think most of us around here are smart and savvy enough to smell a rat. To see a scam coming a mile down the road. And to sense the scoundrel's hand at work in deception.
It is after all, part of the adjuster's responsibility to retain a healthy dose of scepticism in dealing with those who would defraud insurance companies and insurance adjusters.
I simply did not and do not want the same harm to come to others as befell 3 of my cat adjuster friends who were hoodwinked by the lies of a person claiming to be something they were not up in Hurricane Isabel. The same person posting here in deception to their spouse by identity theft, or else, by their own admission, married to that same scoundrel.
There are just some people in the world so immune to the truth, decency, honor and honesty, that by their very words and deeds of deceit and contempt for civilized standards of business behavior and ethical guidelines, that they simply have no place among us.
My posts last night were simply to suggest that such a person claiming to be something they are not, simply isn't welcome here among us. They have forfeited the right to be considered a decent honest professional among a group of cat adjuster professionals.
If Roy needs to remove this thread or my post, I take no offense. I do know that Roy walks a fine line between wanting us to be able to share discussions of the harms which are in our path, with consideration for decency and accuracy in our postings.
Good luck to all of you, keep your eyes open for the scoundrels in the world, and ya'll all have a wonderful weekend! |
Edited by - JimF on 03/26/2004 11:40:54 |
|
|
|
whatco
USA
9 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2004 : 14:34:52
|
OK, so I am just going to jump in here and cover my head and ears. I see where I can agree with Judi, Linda, and the other participants within this thread.
Yes, so we deviate a little. Most of the comments and observations appear to relate in some way or another. And yes, why censor our posts unless they are degrading to others, abusive or contain fowl language. However, I feel Judi is correct in noticing many of these threads are wandering a little off course and are perhaps not giving her the answer she is seeking.
The later few posts seem to have nothing to do with Judi’s topic, but rather with blasting the “censor squad”. Yes, I do feel we have a right to object when there is too much censoring, otherwise, we might as well just sit back and let the censor squad do all the posting without any of our input.
But in all fairness to Judi, if we want to raise objections to being censored, perhaps one post with directions leading to another thread that deals with complaints about our rights would be in order.
To Judi. You sound like a good person to either work with or for as you sound committed to your adjusters. Unusual in this business anymore. Unfortunately, I am seeing more and more vendors who are “testing the waters” with adjusters to see how much they can get away with. Is your example considered normal? I can only reply yes for some vendors and no for others.
Examples: I have worked for one vendor who tells the adjusters that they are not paid for photos only to turnaround and bill the company themselves for our photos. They keep the photo money! In another scenario, I worked for a vendor whose storm schedule said it pays $.xx per mile over “x” amount of miles. When I showed up on the storm site, I qualified the mileage radius. I was told from the office. But when I traveled 1 ½ hours (one way) to one of my losses and billed the file, it was kicked back to me with the vendor stating it is not going to pay mileage. How is that fair? I just said OK and left without making a fuss because we are beat into submission or told to go elsewhere if we do not like it.
Unfortunately, there is a trend of declining fee schedules due to vendor competition that includes more and more “freebies” forcibly contributed by the adjuster and not from the vendors. Again, if we do not submit, we do not get called back. I say that it that particular vendor does not furnish enough work to offset the photo loss, then the adjuster should place them on his “black list” and tell everyone he can.
There is a section on CADO for Employer Rating and I would like to see more attention and experiences contributed to that category.
Good luck to both you and your adjuster.
|
|
|
|
katadj
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2004 : 16:31:43
|
For whatever it's worth, this highly paid employment of moderator (0.00) per anum is no picnic.
IMHO, if anyone wants the job apply for it, I do not.. |
|
|
|
alanporco
USA
112 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2004 : 16:39:07
|
While things may have gotten a little heated yesterday, the thread should not have been censured. Threads do have a way of evolving. This is due to the way the human brain processes data. Our brains cross reference information in a manner that scientists have not really been able to unravel. This is why the development of Artifical Intelligence has been so elusive. So let things evolve.
JimF did all of us a great favor. I now know one vendor I'll avoid like the plague. |
|
|
|
Wes
USA
62 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2004 : 17:13:57
|
| I like mushrooms in my spaghetti. |
|
|
|
Gale
USA
231 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2004 : 19:22:05
|
What happened this time? Jim did you bubble over again?
While Alan's post is not on the subject of paying for photo's I do think it is on a good subject. Maybe we need to start a tread called, "Why we get off subject" so we do not have to talk about why we get off subject on a subject most of us can do nothing about to begin with perhaps.
While I missed what happened here I do want to say thanks to all that help make CADO what it is today. I am impressed that CADO got mentioned in a major paper today and how CADO played a role in getting NFIP reviewed. Since we know people from all walks of life now visit here maybe we can all rethink what we want the world to view on this sight since we control the content that gets posted. |
Edited by - Gale on 03/26/2004 19:36:55 |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2004 : 19:26:58
|
I would just like to say to everyone here, that the Moderators and Roy do an exceptional job in keeping this Forum operating efficiently for everyone's benefit. To an outsider, we must at times seem like the gang who can't shoot straight or an unexplained group of escapees from the loonie bin.
Linda is a friend of mine, and a fine lady of great intelligence, wit, charm and at least several other dozens of positive adjectives that I can think of easily. While we may selfishly see removal as a form of censorship (and it can be), many times it is necessary in order to allow posters an opportunity to "cool off" (myself included).
While I might suggest that an alternative to removal be simply to "lock" a thread until cooler heads prevail, clearly last night the discussion was disintegrating and devolving into chaos and beyond, and then and now, I can honestly say, that I took no offense at the removal of some of the posts by one of our esteemed Moderators. Quite frankly, had I been in Linda's shoes and doing the job as well as her, I would have likely done the exact same thing which she did.
I ask only that the Moderators consider locking threads for a night or 24 hour period to allow cooler heads to prevail, but regardless, I applaud and appreciate the wonderful job that each of you volunteer to do, and are doing.
Perhaps we should all contribute to a fund to have Roy take the whole group of esteemed Moderators out for a steak and lobster dinner and drinks, and let us show our appeciation by picking up the tab!
Thank-you Moderators for a job well done and the wonderful work you all do! |
Edited by - JimF on 03/27/2004 06:41:14 |
|
|
|
Tom Toll
USA
154 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2004 : 22:30:13
|
As a moderator, I will not tolerate profanity or the putting down of any individual, or name calling. Posts sometime get off topic momentarily, thats just a part of the process. Linda has a fine brain sitting on her shoulders and made the comment in good faith. It is best to keep the post on topic, as the flow of comments make better sense. I don't know who Judi is, and better yet, could care less. She does have a right to protest and to suggest to the moderators to consider deleting certain posts. As moderators, we can do that after careful consideration as to content and validity of statements. As previously said, it is best to stay on the topic presented and not start talking about alligators in Louisana.
I know that Jim Flynt does a good deal of research before posting, and yes, sometimes he gets a little carried away, but so do a lot of other posters. As long as it does not endanger the reputation of others, I personally will allow the posts to continue. I cannot speak for the other moderators, however. |
Edited by - Tom Toll on 03/26/2004 22:31:11 |
|
|
|
LarryW
USA
126 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2004 : 22:56:29
|
| I like your style Tom. What ruffled my feathers was that a moderator deleted an inoccuous post and then reposted it (or part of it) under their own name. |
Larry Wright |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2004 : 08:47:09
|
Might as well change the name of this thread.
I've tried hard to avoid posting to this thread since reading the comments from Friday morning onward. Started to last night, but thought better of it.
I've previously tried to make my thoughts about "off topic" posts clear. It just seems quite easy to start a new thread, when the post is no longer relevant to the title or issue. But, I admit, it is easier to flow with a thread where the issues sway 90 degrees or less either way from the title or opening issue.
Why do we have the various forums, and the many varied threads within each forum; if there is no intent to try and categorize our subject matter? It is a 'free-for-all' chat room environment otherwise. What do others think the various forums are for? Does the attempt to have specific threads not benefit the collection of information in identified pockets?
Anyway, that is not what happened Thursday night, that caused posts to be removed, and I'd rather not get started on that issue or of the veiled orations that followed.
However, what finally caused me to comment on the 'events', is Tom Toll's final two sentences of his post late last night.
I recognize that the job of moderating this crowd is not as easy as it may seem, and that it is a thankless pursuit; notwithstanding the current compensatory offer on the table. But, there is no consistency in the manner in which moderation is applied; and Tom's last sentence bears that out, and the online activity of moderators Thursday evening and other nights supports that.
This thread took a U turn Thursday with the revelations and accusations made. Did those posts (that were later removed by other than Tom), have any relationship to Tom's personal guideline comment; ".... as long as it does not endanger the reputation of others ...."?
Was the reputation of a spouse endangered Thursday? Those that have a hard copy of the posts that were removed, can see how the printed word can be quite harsh.
I would revel if I was ever "branded" by the qualities of my spouse - beauty, kindness, her particular career expertise, a fashion plate, and basically an unwavering impeccable disposition. But, it is no secret, I am not that, and really don't want to be "branded" as that. I'll settle for, "how did she ever last with him for 30 years"? "Branding" a person based on their association with another, can when it is in a negative way, endanger the reputation of another person.
There was one or more threads that were dormant, but whose titles more closely dealt with the revelations raised and later removed.
However, I'm troubled by some of the comments in this thread, but wanted to focus my comments around the inconsistent styles of moderation. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Who pays for pictures?
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
