RE: Stuart strikes again - history is altered!

I object most vehemently to your comments. The 5 founders of IIUG were - Cathy Kipp, Lester Knutsen, Walt Hultgren, Carlton Doe, and Malcolm Weallans (the real me :-)) At that time only Cathy was in the process of writing a book, and Carlton's book came much later. And all of us at that time were REAL users trying to do a real job. When we set up IIUG we had no funding from Informix - and indeed for the first few years we had to pay our own expenses to attend the worldwide user conferences. I personally paid my own expenses for 4 conferences and gave up many weeks of my time each year to try to make IIUG a user group that we would all be proud of. We were never in it for what we could get out of it, in fact we had many heated debates on the financing of IIUG as none of us really ever wanted to be beholden to the company. The only reason that we ever took money from Informix was to fund the travel that was necessary for the board meetings that were necessary to get a multi-national organisation set up. The IIUG did however need some funding for maintaining the membership list, running web-sites etc. Without getting into the ramifications of international finance we were finding it difficult to fix a fee for membership which was when we became subsidised by Informix. During that time we set up many programs aimed at getting the user voice known to Informix. This included a very active advocacy program, a permanent home for cdi, and a permanent home for the software repository. I suggest that you should publish a personal apology to the 5 founders of the IIUG and to the board members who grew a fledgling organisation into something that was a model for how a user group could be financed by the company and yet remain fiercely independent. Malcolm Weallans -----Original Message----- From: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org [mailto:informix-list-bounces@iiug.org] On Behalf Of Double Echo Sent: 18 May 2006 20:24 To: informix-list@iiug.org Subject: Re: Stuart strikes again - history is altered! me wrote: > Well - the board apparently doesn't care if the president publishes > details about his career that aren't true - just to help his own > cause. He's not the first to use the IIUG for their own gain. Sheesh, stand in line, the first wave had authors on board who basically were just cheerleaders. > If they do - we will see some action. I mean really - TWO articles > that are not accurate? The fact that someone would say these things > knowingly, and that doesn't reflect on their character, AND the board > "blesses it" by lack of concern - amazing. > What character? :-) Quick--don't google it--give the name right now of the president of the IDUG, or Sybase's user group, or Oracle's user group. Who are they? You most likely don't know because you don't run in those camps. The IIUG is big in _your_ mind only because you see it as important. But the reality is that the IIUG is not really important, they don't exist unless you use Informix and want to associate with the IIUG because of whatever reasons you choose to do so. The IIUG is occasionally important when occasionally quoted in trade magazines, but hardly relevant because Informix is hardly relevant. The board of directors is just a political body. When Informix is important the IIUG will be important. Until then you're wasting your time. What are they going to do? Fire the guy? He's cheerleading for free! _______________________________________________ Informix-list mailing list Informix-list@iiug.org http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list

Malcolm, Obviously it's a touchy subject, but you don't have to be ashamed of making a little gain off of the IIUG. I did say, for what it's worth, just my .02, nothing wrong with that. What's the issue? It's all about the image, the presentation, if it looks like what it is, then maybe that's what it is. We live in capitalistic societies, and people are ambitious. No big deal. But consider the obvious picture you paint in peoples' minds when they see what is happening--or what happened. You discovered your folly taking money from Informix, and thusly tainting and poisoning your position. Yes, it costs money to run an organization, but you can't have a user group with pure intentions taking money from the very company that you are supposedly representing users for. Does that make sense to you? If you really wanted to, you could have found other ways to fund your situation. Again, not blaming you for the way things have gone, the point is that if your organization takes money, people will question your motives when they discover where the money is coming from. Like I said you can't make a pig something else just by putting lipstick on it. The other issue, putting Informix employees on the board was also a big mistake, but there were good intentions behind it to help build credibility. It had the reverse effect to a lot of people, they saw Informix in your pocket and saw an organization that is really just an extension of the company. There were probably good intentions for everyone concerned but let's not muddy the water when it really gets down to it, taking money from IBM or Informix dilutes your position, and you can never be as objective or have a really strong position in anyones mind as long as you do that. When the IIUG speaks, the message is loaded with hidden motives. That's all I'm saying. Now, go write a book about Informix and cash out. malcolm weallans wrote: > I object most vehemently to your comments. The 5 founders of IIUG were - > Cathy Kipp, Lester Knutsen, Walt Hultgren, Carlton Doe, and Malcolm Weallans > (the real me :-)) At that time only Cathy was in the process of writing a > book, and Carlton's book came much later. And all of us at that time were > REAL users trying to do a real job. > > When we set up IIUG we had no funding from Informix - and indeed for the > first few years we had to pay our own expenses to attend the worldwide user > conferences. I personally paid my own expenses for 4 conferences and gave > up many weeks of my time each year to try to make IIUG a user group that we > would all be proud of. > > We were never in it for what we could get out of it, in fact we had many > heated debates on the financing of IIUG as none of us really ever wanted to > be beholden to the company. The only reason that we ever took money from > Informix was to fund the travel that was necessary for the board meetings > that were necessary to get a multi-national organisation set up. The IIUG > did however need some funding for maintaining the membership list, running > web-sites etc. Without getting into the ramifications of international > finance we were finding it difficult to fix a fee for membership which was > when we became subsidised by Informix. > > During that time we set up many programs aimed at getting the user voice > known to Informix. This included a very active advocacy program, a > permanent home for cdi, and a permanent home for the software repository. > > I suggest that you should publish a personal apology to the 5 founders of > the IIUG and to the board members who grew a fledgling organisation into > something that was a model for how a user group could be financed by the > company and yet remain fiercely independent. > > Malcolm Weallans > > > -----Original Message----- > From: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org [mailto:informix-list-bounces@iiug.org] > On Behalf Of Double Echo > Sent: 18 May 2006 20:24 > To: informix-list@iiug.org > Subject: Re: Stuart strikes again - history is altered! > > > me wrote: >> Well - the board apparently doesn't care if the president publishes >> details about his career that aren't true - just to help his own >> cause. > > He's not the first to use the IIUG for their own gain. Sheesh, stand in > line, the first wave had authors on board who basically were just > cheerleaders. > >> If they do - we will see some action. I mean really - TWO articles >> that are not accurate? The fact that someone would say these things >> knowingly, and that doesn't reflect on their character, AND the board >> "blesses it" by lack of concern - amazing. >> > What character? :-) > > Quick--don't google it--give the name right now of the president of the > IDUG, or Sybase's user group, or Oracle's user group. Who are they? You > most likely don't know because you don't run in those camps. The IIUG is > big in _your_ mind only because you see it as important. But the reality is > that the IIUG is not really important, they don't exist unless you use > Informix and want to associate with the IIUG because of whatever reasons you > choose to do so. The IIUG is occasionally important when occasionally > quoted in trade magazines, but hardly relevant because Informix is hardly > relevant. The board of directors is just a political body. When Informix > is important the IIUG will be important. Until then you're wasting your > time. What are they going to do? Fire the guy? He's cheerleading for free! > > _______________________________________________ > Informix-list mailing list > Informix-list@iiug.org http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list >

I resent the infernece that I ever made a penny off of the IIUG. I should be very careful if I were you making such allegations. -----Original Message----- From: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org [mailto:informix-list-bounces@iiug.org] On Behalf Of Double Echo Sent: 19 May 2006 13:19 To: informix-list@iiug.org Subject: Re: Stuart strikes again - history is altered! Malcolm, Obviously it's a touchy subject, but you don't have to be ashamed of making a little gain off of the IIUG. I did say, for what it's worth, just my .02, nothing wrong with that. What's the issue? It's all about the image, the presentation, if it looks like what it is, then maybe that's what it is. We live in capitalistic societies, and people are ambitious. No big deal. But consider the obvious picture you paint in peoples' minds when they see what is happening--or what happened. You discovered your folly taking money from Informix, and thusly tainting and poisoning your position. Yes, it costs money to run an organization, but you can't have a user group with pure intentions taking money from the very company that you are supposedly representing users for. Does that make sense to you? If you really wanted to, you could have found other ways to fund your situation. Again, not blaming you for the way things have gone, the point is that if your organization takes money, people will question your motives when they discover where the money is coming from. Like I said you can't make a pig something else just by putting lipstick on it. The other issue, putting Informix employees on the board was also a big mistake, but there were good intentions behind it to help build credibility. It had the reverse effect to a lot of people, they saw Informix in your pocket and saw an organization that is really just an extension of the company. There were probably good intentions for everyone concerned but let's not muddy the water when it really gets down to it, taking money from IBM or Informix dilutes your position, and you can never be as objective or have a really strong position in anyones mind as long as you do that. When the IIUG speaks, the message is loaded with hidden motives. That's all I'm saying. Now, go write a book about Informix and cash out. malcolm weallans wrote: > I object most vehemently to your comments. The 5 founders of IIUG > were - Cathy Kipp, Lester Knutsen, Walt Hultgren, Carlton Doe, and > Malcolm Weallans (the real me :-)) At that time only Cathy was in the > process of writing a book, and Carlton's book came much later. And > all of us at that time were REAL users trying to do a real job. > > When we set up IIUG we had no funding from Informix - and indeed for > the first few years we had to pay our own expenses to attend the > worldwide user conferences. I personally paid my own expenses for 4 > conferences and gave up many weeks of my time each year to try to make > IIUG a user group that we would all be proud of. > > We were never in it for what we could get out of it, in fact we had > many heated debates on the financing of IIUG as none of us really ever > wanted to be beholden to the company. The only reason that we ever > took money from Informix was to fund the travel that was necessary for > the board meetings that were necessary to get a multi-national > organisation set up. The IIUG did however need some funding for > maintaining the membership list, running web-sites etc. Without > getting into the ramifications of international finance we were > finding it difficult to fix a fee for membership which was when we > became subsidised by Informix. > > During that time we set up many programs aimed at getting the user > voice known to Informix. This included a very active advocacy > program, a permanent home for cdi, and a permanent home for the > software repository. > > I suggest that you should publish a personal apology to the 5 founders > of the IIUG and to the board members who grew a fledgling organisation > into something that was a model for how a user group could be financed > by the company and yet remain fiercely independent. > > Malcolm Weallans > > > -----Original Message----- > From: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org > [mailto:informix-list-bounces@iiug.org] > On Behalf Of Double Echo > Sent: 18 May 2006 20:24 > To: informix-list@iiug.org > Subject: Re: Stuart strikes again - history is altered! > > > me wrote: >> Well - the board apparently doesn't care if the president publishes >> details about his career that aren't true - just to help his own >> cause. > > He's not the first to use the IIUG for their own gain. Sheesh, stand > in line, the first wave had authors on board who basically were just > cheerleaders. > >> If they do - we will see some action. I mean really - TWO articles >> that are not accurate? The fact that someone would say these things >> knowingly, and that doesn't reflect on their character, AND the board >> "blesses it" by lack of concern - amazing. >> > What character? :-) > > Quick--don't google it--give the name right now of the president of > the IDUG, or Sybase's user group, or Oracle's user group. Who are > they? You most likely don't know because you don't run in those > camps. The IIUG is big in _your_ mind only because you see it as > important. But the reality is that the IIUG is not really important, > they don't exist unless you use Informix and want to associate with > the IIUG because of whatever reasons you choose to do so. The IIUG is > occasionally important when occasionally quoted in trade magazines, > but hardly relevant because Informix is hardly relevant. The board of > directors is just a political body. When Informix is important the > IIUG will be important. Until then you're wasting your time. What are > they going to do? Fire the guy? He's cheerleading for free! > > _______________________________________________ > Informix-list mailing list > Informix-list@iiug.org > http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list > _______________________________________________ Informix-list mailing list Informix-list@iiug.org http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list

"Double Echo" <doubleecho@your.com> wrote in message news:iJibg.40569$by3.6247@fe16.usenetserver.com... > Malcolm, > > Obviously it's a touchy subject, but you don't have to be ashamed of > making > a little gain off of the IIUG. I did say, for what it's worth, just my > .02, > nothing wrong with that. What's the issue? I think that now it is you who is not reading the mails properly. He, and I, both said that we did *not* make any financial gain from being on the IIUG Board. Whether or not you think it would have been OK if we had done so is irrelevant. We didn't. So could you give this one a rest please? thx Neil

Neil Isn't it funny how these people who hide behind false names and false email addresses are the ones who make these accusations. I often wonder what their real function is in hanging around the newsgroup. And yes, that applies to all of you who are too ashamed to admit who you are! Malcolm -----Original Message----- From: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org [mailto:informix-list-bounces@iiug.org] On Behalf Of Neil Truby Sent: 19 May 2006 14:10 To: informix-list@iiug.org Subject: Re: Stuart strikes again - history is altered! "Double Echo" <doubleecho@your.com> wrote in message news:iJibg.40569$by3.6247@fe16.usenetserver.com... > Malcolm, > > Obviously it's a touchy subject, but you don't have to be ashamed of > making > a little gain off of the IIUG. I did say, for what it's worth, just my > .02, > nothing wrong with that. What's the issue? I think that now it is you who is not reading the mails properly. He, and I, both said that we did *not* make any financial gain from being on the IIUG Board. Whether or not you think it would have been OK if we had done so is irrelevant. We didn't. So could you give this one a rest please? thx Neil _______________________________________________ Informix-list mailing list Informix-list@iiug.org http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list

malcolm weallans wrote: > I resent the infernece that I ever made a penny off of the IIUG. I should > be very careful if I were you making such allegations. > I never alleged or inferred you or anyone made a penny off the IIUG. Read what I said a bit more carefully. It's in standard English. I would be surprised and a bit confused why you would not want something out of it, but it doesn't mean you got cash for your time. And so what if you did, who cares. The point I made, lost again, was that there is nothing wrong with that, but it does raise eyebrows from people __if__ and __where__ the reward is coming from. We're all motivated by something, I could not possibly believe you would work for nothing, so the reward could be in many forms, not just cash. The nexis to this whole argument is that the IIUG was an independent body, but once Informix supplied financing, and employees to the board, the independence was lost, the objectivity tainted, and the credibility in the toilet. I hope not to belabor this point again, try to see it from outside the IIUG box, and it will become crystal clear. I will most likely not respond to this thread further, obviously you are not able to see my point, and further discussion on it is impossible. I _was_ hoping to see someone suggest a financing model for the IIUG that would help them out and give them more credibility but obviously you folks are taking this way too personal. Bye now! > > -----Original Message----- > From: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org [mailto:informix-list-bounces@iiug.org] > On Behalf Of Double Echo > Sent: 19 May 2006 13:19 > To: informix-list@iiug.org > Subject: Re: Stuart strikes again - history is altered! > > > Malcolm, > > Obviously it's a touchy subject, but you don't have to be ashamed of making > a little gain off of the IIUG. I did say, for what it's worth, just my .02, > nothing wrong with that. What's the issue? It's all about the image, the > presentation, if it looks like what it is, then maybe that's what it is. We > live in capitalistic societies, and people are ambitious. No big deal. But > consider the obvious picture you paint in peoples' minds when they see what > is happening--or what happened. > > You discovered your folly taking money from Informix, and thusly tainting > and poisoning your position. Yes, it costs money to run an organization, > but you can't have a user group with pure intentions taking money from the > very company that you are supposedly representing users for. Does that make > sense to you? If you really wanted to, you could have found other ways to > fund your situation. Again, not blaming you for the way things have gone, > the point is that if your organization takes money, people will question > your motives when they discover where the money is coming from. Like I said > you can't make a pig something else just by putting lipstick on it. The > other issue, putting Informix employees on the board was also a big mistake, > but there were good intentions behind it to help build credibility. It had > the reverse effect to a lot of people, they saw Informix in your pocket and > saw an organization that is really just an extension of the company. > > There were probably good intentions for everyone concerned but let's not > muddy the water when it really gets down to it, taking money from IBM or > Informix dilutes your position, and you can never be as objective or have a > really strong position in anyones mind as long as you do that. When the > IIUG speaks, the message is loaded with hidden motives. That's all I'm > saying. Now, go write a book about Informix and cash out. > > > malcolm weallans wrote: >> I object most vehemently to your comments. The 5 founders of IIUG >> were - Cathy Kipp, Lester Knutsen, Walt Hultgren, Carlton Doe, and >> Malcolm Weallans (the real me :-)) At that time only Cathy was in the >> process of writing a book, and Carlton's book came much later. And >> all of us at that time were REAL users trying to do a real job. >> >> When we set up IIUG we had no funding from Informix - and indeed for >> the first few years we had to pay our own expenses to attend the >> worldwide user conferences. I personally paid my own expenses for 4 >> conferences and gave up many weeks of my time each year to try to make >> IIUG a user group that we would all be proud of. >> >> We were never in it for what we could get out of it, in fact we had >> many heated debates on the financing of IIUG as none of us really ever >> wanted to be beholden to the company. The only reason that we ever >> took money from Informix was to fund the travel that was necessary for >> the board meetings that were necessary to get a multi-national >> organisation set up. The IIUG did however need some funding for >> maintaining the membership list, running web-sites etc. Without >> getting into the ramifications of international finance we were >> finding it difficult to fix a fee for membership which was when we >> became subsidised by Informix. >> >> During that time we set up many programs aimed at getting the user >> voice known to Informix. This included a very active advocacy >> program, a permanent home for cdi, and a permanent home for the >> software repository. >> >> I suggest that you should publish a personal apology to the 5 founders >> of the IIUG and to the board members who grew a fledgling organisation >> into something that was a model for how a user group could be financed >> by the company and yet remain fiercely independent. >> >> Malcolm Weallans >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org >> [mailto:informix-list-bounces@iiug.org] >> On Behalf Of Double Echo >> Sent: 18 May 2006 20:24 >> To: informix-list@iiug.org >> Subject: Re: Stuart strikes again - history is altered! >> >> >> me wrote: >>> Well - the board apparently doesn't care if the president publishes >>> details about his career that aren't true - just to help his own >>> cause. >> He's not the first to use the IIUG for their own gain. Sheesh, stand >> in line, the first wave had authors on board who basically were just >> cheerleaders. >> >>> If they do - we will see some action. I mean really - TWO articles >>> that are not accurate? The fact that someone would say these things >>> knowingly, and that doesn't reflect on their character, AND the board >>> "blesses it" by lack of concern - amazing. >>> >> What character? :-) >> >> Quick--don't google it--give the name right now of the president of >> the IDUG, or Sybase's user group, or Oracle's user group. Who are >> they? You most likely don't know because you don't run in those >> camps. The IIUG is big in _your_ mind only because you see it as >> important. But the reality is that the IIUG is not really important, >> they don't exist unless you use Informix and want to associate with >> the IIUG because of whatever reasons you choose to do so. The IIUG is >> occasionally important when occasionally quoted in trade magazines, >> but hardly relevant because Informix is hardly relevant. The board of >> directors is just a political body. When Informix is important the >> IIUG will

Every Board member had his motivations for joining the Board, either official motivations or his own agenda; anyway, he/she gives an awful lot of time and it might be a lot cheaper to get it by buying it... Do we need IBM's money to support our programmes? Yes, we do. Did we seek other sources of revenue? Yes, we did and succeeded. Can we live without IBM? We could but we do not want to. Are we doing a poor job? It's up to you, but mails from real people, and people we physically meet say otherwise. Are we IBM's fiends or henchmen? I don't think IBM would like us to be! And we are not! Are we friends with IBM? There are a few people within IBM I consider friends and hope they have the sam feelings for me. I don't have IBM shares, I run a Dell, I use Eclipse (thanks Bernie!), I love Java and kind of start dating with PHP and most of my fellows Board member live exactly the same with or without IBM. Is Stuart lying? I have worked with him for quite some years now, and I can tell you he is not a lier. He likes to tell stories, and despite some of them are hard to believe, you finally find out that they are true after all! He is an incredible guy, with a nature you either like or dislike, a nature that brings him to so many places and so many different situations that he actually is in the heart of a lot of things and if you are one of his friend, he's the kind of guys that tells you these stories. Is Stuart inaccurate in some of his sayings or writings? A lot of Europeans make fun about the US, but before juding someone, in the US, you must make proof he's guilty and I've seen nothing like that here. And about inaccuracy, simply, who is not? Do you want to know my motivations for being 4 years on the board? Well, I have no desire telling you. jgp > -----Original Message----- > From: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org > [mailto:informix-list-bounces@iiug.org] On Behalf Of Double Echo > Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 19:23 > To: informix-list@iiug.org > Subject: Re: Stuart strikes again - history is altered! > > malcolm weallans wrote: > > I resent the infernece that I ever made a penny off of the IIUG. I > > should be very careful if I were you making such allegations. > > > > I never alleged or inferred you or anyone made a penny off > the IIUG. Read > what I said a bit more carefully. It's in standard English. > I would be > surprised and a bit confused why you would not want something > out of it, but > it doesn't mean you got cash for your time. And so what if > you did, who > cares. The point I made, lost again, was that there is > nothing wrong with > that, but it does raise eyebrows from people __if__ and > __where__ the reward > is coming from. We're all motivated by something, I could > not possibly > believe you would work for nothing, so the reward could be in > many forms, > not just cash. The nexis to this whole argument is that the > IIUG was an > independent body, but once Informix supplied financing, and > employees to > the board, the independence was lost, the objectivity tainted, and the > credibility in the toilet. I hope not to belabor this point > again, try > to see it from outside the IIUG box, and it will become crystal clear. > > I will most likely not respond to this thread further, > obviously you are not > able to see my point, and further discussion on it is > impossible. I _was_ > hoping to see someone suggest a financing model for the IIUG > that would help > them out and give them more credibility but obviously you > folks are taking > this way too personal. Bye now! > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org > [mailto:informix-list-bounces@iiug.org] > > On Behalf Of Double Echo > > Sent: 19 May 2006 13:19 > > To: informix-list@iiug.org > > Subject: Re: Stuart strikes again - history is altered! > > > > > > Malcolm, > > > > Obviously it's a touchy subject, but you don't have to be > ashamed of making > > a little gain off of the IIUG. I did say, for what it's > worth, just my .02, > > nothing wrong with that. What's the issue? It's all about > the image, the > > presentation, if it looks like what it is, then maybe > that's what it is. We > > live in capitalistic societies, and people are ambitious. > No big deal. But > > consider the obvious picture you paint in peoples' minds > when they see what > > is happening--or what happened. > > > > You discovered your folly taking money from Informix, and > thusly tainting > > and poisoning your position. Yes, it costs money to run an > organization, > > but you can't have a user group with pure intentions taking > money from the > > very company that you are supposedly representing users > for. Does that make > > sense to you? If you really wanted to, you could have > found other ways to > > fund your situation. Again, not blaming you for the way > things have gone, > > the point is that if your organization takes money, people > will question > > your motives when they discover where the money is coming > from. Like I said > > you can't make a pig something else just by putting > lipstick on it. The > > other issue, putting Informix employees on the board was > also a big mistake, > > but there were good intentions behind it to help build > credibility. It had > > the reverse effect to a lot of people, they saw Informix in > your pocket and > > saw an organization that is really just an extension of the company. > > > > There were probably good intentions for everyone concerned > but let's not > > muddy the water when it really gets down to it, taking > money from IBM or > > Informix dilutes your position, and you can never be as > objective or have a > > really strong position in anyones mind as long as you do > that. When the > > IIUG speaks, the message is loaded with hidden motives. > That's all I'm > > saying. Now, go write a book about Informix and cash out. > > > > > > malcolm weallans wrote: > >> I object most vehemently to your comments. The 5 founders of IIUG > >> were - Cathy Kipp, Lester Knutsen, Walt Hultgren, Carlton Doe, and > >> Malcolm Weallans (the real me :-)) At that time only Cathy > was in the > >> process of writing a book, and Carlton's book came much > later. And > >> all of us at that time were REAL users trying to do a real job. > >> > >> When we set up IIUG we had no funding from Informix - and > indeed for > >> the first few years we had to pay our own expenses to attend the > >> worldwide user conferences. I personally paid my own > expenses for 4 > >> conferences and gave up many weeks of my time each year to > try to make > >> IIUG a user group that we would all be proud of. > >> > >> We were never in it for what we could get out of it, in > fact we had > >> many heated debates on the financing of IIUG as none of us > really ever > >> wanted to be beholden to the company. The only reason > that we ever > >> took money from Informix was to fund the travel that was > necessary for > >> the board meetings that were necessary to get a