Neil, you have asked

[Ancient Priest]

that your side of this email exchange not be made public. I will respect that. But I choose to publish my side here, because it is everyone's business:

>Neil -

I am really reluctant to labour you further with this nonsense. You surely have better things to do.

But, how do you reconcile

>Costa leaving was not a money issue with the company.(Neil G.)<

with

>The decision to leave was not mine, however, considering today’s uncertain economic climate, sacrifices had to be made, I guess.< (Costa M.)

?????

Are these two ships passing in the night? From which does one get the true signal?

It is very possible that the two of us are not destined to work together in the future. We are on two sides of a gulf. On one side, words like 'sincerity' and 'respect' are commonly used as formalities; on the other, a spade perceived as a spade is called by that name. Neither of us will be the master, then, and neither the slave... Mutual dislike is not altogether a bad thing. During my formal education, I learned significantly and fast from individuals who I hated.

My suicidal streak, which you referred to, has persisted with me for more than seventy-five years. I have been knocked down lots, but have always (so far) gotten back up. Nothing lasts for ever, but I plan to get up for another good while. And I plan to do some knocking down. It is great exercise.

I asked originally how long should be that reworked piece you expressed interest in on the phone. I didn't get an answer. The carcase of it will therefore keep in my outbox. I asked also on what scale you planned to pay. That too was ignored. Do I see a New Yorker style of game-playing going on here? I rather prefer my life to be simple.

The New Yorker, recommended for me to read, caters and pertains to a city containing upwards of ten million people. (Together with some others who, for unaccountable reasons, hanker to be there.) How will this style of presentation make a hit with some rural and suburban Canadians, whose preoccupations are entirely other?

Peter Priest<

[TimP]

And at the risk of exposing my own suicidal streak, I'm wondering what the point of this thread is.


I choose to publish my side here, because it is everyone's business:<[/B]

Um, ok, I'm not sure why, though. Who asked for this? How does this jibe with the usual threads? Especially when:


You surely have better things to do.<[/B] I know I do.



But, how do you reconcile

>Costa leaving was not a money issue with the company.(Neil G.)<

with

>The decision to leave was not mine, however, considering today’s uncertain economic climate, sacrifices had to be made, I guess.< (Costa M.)

?????

Are these two ships passing in the night? From which does one get the true signal?<[/B]

My read is they're both accurate reflections, plausible explanations of unfortunate circumstances. If there's another reason then it's safe to presume it's none of our business. Unless you can make a case for your need to know, let it go.



I plan to do some knocking down. It is great exercise.<[/B]

No, it isn't. In fact it's often pointless and disquieting to bring personal beefs into the public domain. This isn't exactly whistle-blowing, is it?

Some threads are fun, some are invigorating, some rightly wither and die because there was no point to their birth and less point to their sustenance. I hope I haven't nourished this one.

[Ancient Priest]

I wonder if the people who created this forum know what they created. I wonder if, four or five years ago, they could see where it might lead.

Back in the day when getting in touch with a member of the editorial staff was a rare happening, readers sometimes wrote letters to the editor. But seldom. Find some paper. Find a pen which doesn’t leak. Or a typewriter. An envelope. A stamp. Address it to the editor and hope that he gets it. Then if the editor chooses to print it, that’s because his magazine has space on its pages. And because he finds something agreeable in the letter. If not, then not.

(Then not, then not, then not. Effort wasted. A four-cent stamp down the drain. That’ll teach ya. Who’d you think you are, trying to contact the editor?)

That was then: now is now. Things have changed. Now there is a forum, and you can write what you like there, just so it isn’t insulting. But your letter gets printed. Other people can read it, and almost instantly. They are witnesses to the fact of your letter, and to the question asked, or to the comment made. That’s different.

Suddenly - accountability!

What’s also different is that control has shifted. Now the kiddies at their desks in the classroom can actually speak and be heard. They don’t have to just listen. And they can be as critical as they want about the information transmission. Short of being impolite, they can report the quality of what they see.

And, really, why not? The kids at their desks are the ones who are paying the shot. They are for whom the taxes are being paid for the process they are a part of. Just as the readers of a magazine, the subscribers, are the ones for whom the thing is being printed. No readers - no buyers - no magazine. No magazine - no buyers - no readers. Three components, consensually dependent. Three involved in a contract. A contract undertaken by subscription.

Etcetera… Blah, blah, blah… At this point in this very pedestrian argument, some frustrated little half-educated schoolmarm from Montreal is going to come in with, “Rarely have I read such … nonsense”. Right! Does she think I like writing it?

If there is any point to this, and I claim that there is, it is that the majority of readers who express themselves here have declared in favour of a job well done, and honestly. If the job is not well done, there is bound to be at least one reader who will post, “That editorial has the look of one which was phoned in. A collection of quotes which took no time or thought at all…” We have seen such.

And honesty. Let’s get it out in the open. There was recently a shuffle in the editorial office. And a couple of contrary explanations as to why. One (on record) from the guy who got canned. Another, from The Contrarian who replaced him.

The set up is now this (as one perceives it): Neil G. is in there at a cheaper price. Uwe ( a competent and a hard-working writer) will assist him. Neil will meanwhile gather up copy from wherever it is available, at as low a cost as possible. That way, the two of them will do the mag in future. Where it was formerly three. That way, the 'bottom line' will be fatter and healthier for those suits in Montreal who employ them. Whoopee, what’s in it for the readers?

If you, reader and possibly writer, are inclined to feel grotty feeding into this, THEN DO NOT SUBMIT ANY COPY. As much as you might have had ambitions to appear in print in your favourite magazine, it is that no longer.

[TimP]

My father used to retell an old saw about the difference between knowledge and faith. He told this story at my wedding, and after a moments pause to figure out just what the hell he was talking about, the room erupted in laughter and applause. Sort of what my life was like with that grand old man. He stood up and said "My boy, when a man speaks of his children, that's faith. When a woman speaks of her children, that's knowledge." (I don't know who he was quoting, but I'm sure it didn't originate with him.)

Your thread seems to me to be based in faith. You have faith, not knowledge, that Costa was treated unfairly, Neil and Uwe burdened for reasons of crass commercialism and the readership's enjoyment of the product threatened by the corporate decisions you imagine must have taken place. You may be proven right, but you don't know. You cannot know because you weren't privy to the information, the process or the decisions that have led to this outcome. So far as I know. See? We're both acting on faith. Faith is not the problem, acting on it is.

Lashing out in the dark may be fun for a while, and if your intent is to protect those presumably harmed I'm sure they welcome your support. But I also suspect that they've all been down this road before and understand that the outcome of the cut and thrust of working life is not always fair, not always pleasant, but normally of good intent. I have to believe that. I have to have faith that the corporate objective is to improve the magazine, not to cause it harm, while not knowing how the powers that be came to the conclusion that maintaining the status quo put that objective at risk. Somebody with the authority to make a difficult decision made it with the full knowledge that they would be held accountable by you, by me, and every other subscriber to the magazine. That's how it should work.

Encouraging others not to submit copy to the magazine, however, must also be held up to the light of accountability. What is this if not an assault on that which you claim to hold dear? What if you're successful? What then? Who would you rail against if Neil and Uwe turned to each other and said "This Priest guy's nailed it. The rag's toast. Let's go join Costa down the pub"?

By all means continue to be vigilant, support what you admire and criticize what you dislike. Make those catering to you recognize your needs. Be an astute consumer, but don't foment dissent that's unwarranted. You'll end up with a choice of Fast Bikes, Easy Riders or nothing.

[Ivor biggin]

I hope that Costa`s dismissal can be discussed with respect even though any opinions given are mere conjecture. I could be stating that which is blatantly obvious but here is my take on the subject.
Citing financial reasons for the editorial change doesn`t hold water. Judging from last months issue advertising revenue is still there and readership is not declining. If Heritage Canada funding is still in place whats changed?
Costa was canned for telling a reader/subscriber to fuck off on an open forum.
I.B.

[metalredneck]

I will hold judgement on the whole coup d'etat until a few issues end up on my bathroom floor.
I doubt Costa was axed over the whole "PeterGate" affair, but that would be an entertaining thought. If motorcyclists were admonished for swearing at each other, we'd all be doing time. (Or boring.)

If the management would like some articles from a skewed and technically experienced point of view, send me a PM, and I will try to wax prosaic.

Until then; y'all fuck off. And kill that groundhog for me, it's freezing here today!

[Smiley]

no need to break your crayons.

[Sidecar Bob]

Things have changed. Now there is a forum, and you can write what you like there, just so it isn’t insulting. But your letter gets printed. Other people can read it, and almost instantly. They are witnesses to the fact of your letter, and to the question asked, or to the comment made. That’s different.

Suddenly - accountability!
That's not when accountability came along.

Do you remember when, shortly after the previous version of this forum was imposed on us and not long after LC Media took control of CC, I posted something that the "gentlemen" at LC didn't like and they had it removed by the lackey who was looking after the forum at that time?
Costa, when I sent him an e-mail about it, was appalled. He sent me the e-mail address of his boss so that I could complain directly and made sure that, when I posted a link to it at the Internet Wayback Machine (http://www.archive.org/web/web.php), that wasn't removed too.

That's when accountability started, but it didn't fully arrive until Uwe was hired and took responsibility for the forum.

[Paddy]

I suspect that finances at Cycle Canada DID have something to do with it, considering every publication and syndicate in the world seems to be teetering on the brink. And that Costas' unfortunate public castigation of Mr. Priest was used as a convenient excuse to cut costs, and maybe take CC in another direction.
It's too bad the Costa/Priest conflict went public, since it appears it was never really anything but a private beef that should have been kept private BY BOTH SIDES!
I'm sorry to see Costa go but maybe we should encourage him to set the record straight when he feels ready. In the meantime we can get back to bikes fer chrissakes.

[metalredneck]

You mean this isn't the chatroom for webcam naked duplicate bridge? Crap, where'd that link go...