". just like maurice did about his own hof problem."
Bruce, just what kind of hof problem did Maurice Anderson ever have? Not a hof problem at all, but one of character assassination in the media. Of all the posts I've read that Reece has made, never, not one time did he ever refer to his induction to the hof as being one of his desires. (As a point of interest, he might find it hard to even accept an induction, but he can speak for himself).
He did take offense at being blind sided by one of his supposedly (sic) friends who almost single handedly destroyed his reputation.
The term "victims" continuously was brought up in the correspondence. What victims? There were no victims as was finally revealed by Bradshaw in his public statement here on the Forum. Why did he make that a public statement, probably because of civil litigation, and you and most of the folks on this Forum are aware there was one.
With Bradshaw's public statement, he absolved Reece, all MSA execs, etc of any wrong doing. Do you think he made that statement and didn't mean what he wrote? In other words I think Tom lost the argument and this was probably one of the items in the out of court settlement. What do you think?
Too, most of the Forum participants, who are not informed, think that Reece was the instigator of the lawsuit. I'm sure he was the plaintiff, but I know for a fact he didn't want to sue anyone. I have in my possession an email from Tom Bradshaw to Reece Anderson, with a cc. to me, where Tom not only asks Reece to put him in court, but in my opinion, begs Reece to do so. He got his wish, but only after Reece tried everything possible to keep from doing that. These are the facts, and everyone should know them.
I'm really tired of seeing this situation brought back up for a dirty laundry air out, and that's the only reason for this post. If you don't have the truth, and present it as fact, you, like some other folks, might have some black feathers sticking out of your mouth.
Nuff said and I'm through with this publicly. You want to carry it on, send me an email. IMHO Julian Tharpe, Reece Anderson and several more should be inducted into a real steel guitar hall of fame
fred
------------------
The spirit be with you!
If it aint got a steel, it aint real
"Again, institutions and organizations can set any standards by which to judge membership in any of it's branches and the verbage of said rules will be interpreted by the individuals on the judging commitees according to their preferred point of view. The SGHOF is no different, ..just people."
Yeah, my point exactly.
Cripes, I don't go to any awards, I don't watch any, and they have relatively little bearing on my life.
However, this whole thing kicked off with someone griping about the injustice of it all.
Fair enough, if you don't like the current way things are going then perhaps those interested can make a submission with a whole new set of criteria for the HOF, although it woulf have to be a proper report to be taken with any level of seriousness.
It would take a subtle and numble individual with organisational skills, and I reckon there'd be more than a few qualified people of the HOF.
Ed Packard, I still think you might find that your example, eg: "Hank Williams, Bob Wills, were kept off the Grand Ol' Opry," have next to no bearing here.
Now, if you had originally posted that hey, despite being characters with some questionable lifestyle choices (of course you might say that being an alchaholic is a disease not a choice) Bob Wills and Hank Williams are in the country HOF.
But that's not what you wrote, so don't go around getting all high and mighty on that one guys.
If someone had started comparing the different criteria of various Halls of Fame, then this would have been a rather different discussion from the get go, rather than the grubby little witch hunt it descended into.
Although when Bill starts off the topic with a reasonable intro, then descends into an attack on Scotty, this had to happen.
Sorry guys, but you took so long to get to the point.
Why didn't you use the comparitive thing from the start Bill?, if you want the HOF to be like every other one it would have been nice if you'd made that point.
Yeah, I'm out to destroy all things sacred in country music, that's it Bill, good on you mate.
We've all digressed, and everyone's starting to spend more time (including me) remarking on what may or may not have been said about them.
Maybe a new topic with the theme, Why isn't our HOF using the criteria of all other HOFs that we can think of?.. example pending.
<I>> Should a player be kept out of the SGHOF solely because of his indescretions. That is what this is all about, not whether or not Tom accused me of dishonesty.
</I>
well, you could of fooled me... your posts sure made it sound like it WAS about tom accusing you of dishonesty.
my answer to your questions is: yes... as long as you acknowledge that 'indiscretions' includes ripping off people.
<I>> You can say whatever you want to about me, I don't give a crap. You say in your post that someone making a remark about your "smike" name is disrespectful but then you use a snide comment of "mommy,liar" towards me and that is just fine with you right?? You get to have it BOTH ways right?
</I>
bill -
james (who has since edited his post.. thank you) called me a schmuck... at its nicest, 'schmuck' means a fool... but in german it means (literally) 'decoration'; it morphed over time in yiddish into meaning the male genitalia, i.e., he was calling me a 'dick'...
that was a direct, PUBLIC personal insult... not just a disrespectful remark about my name. you really can't tell the difference?
> because no one really knows the REAL reason behind why this man, or ANY other deserving candidate is not in the HOF
there are TWO issues for me... hof standards, and responding to those who continue to ignore facts offered by those who DO know the real reasons why 'deserving' candidates are not inducted into the hof.
you are not the one who defines 'deserving', even if you have strong emotional investments in certain candidates... which means you are just stating (and re-stating) your opinion(s), with no real hope of changing anything.
whatever.
bruce<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by smike on 05 November 2004 at 08:22 PM.]</p></FONT>
I am a relativley new member and an amatuer
steel player. My Instrument is trombone of which I have played with Nelson Riddle,Billy May and a few others.
My observation over the past few years on this Forum and according to the opinion of my mentor who you all know is a solid and positive opinion that I have to offer.
After listening to this gentlemans music and hearing the positive comments from my friend
and mentor, I agree wholeheartedly that Mr.
Maurice Anderson should be inducted into the Steel Guitar Hall Of Fame.
Shame on those who keep him from what is due
this great musician.
Great players are acknowledged for their talent and nothing else and those who keep Mr. Anderson from this honor should be ashamed.
Are those who keep him from being inducted keeping something from this Forum? It is they
who are guilty of keeping a talent such as this man from being honored. If it were me in his position I would want no part of being
inducted after all the time and waste that I have read on this subject.
I may not be a steel player as such,but I am
a human being and there is something really wrong somewhere and those know who and where
that somewhere is.
Greg Sullivan
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Greg Sullivan on 06 November 2004 at 06:10 PM.]</p></FONT>
I am a relativley new member and an amatuer
steel player. My Instrument is trombone of which I have played with Nelson Riddle,Billy May and a few others.
My observation over the past few years on this Forum and according to the opinion of my mentor who you all know is a solid and positive opinion that I have to offer.
After listening to this gentlemans music and hearing the positive comments from my friend
and mentor, I agree wholeheartedly that Mr.
Maurice Anderson should be inducted into the Steel Guitar Hall Of Fame.
Shame on those who keep him from what is due
this great musician.
Great players are acknowledged for their talent and nothing else and those who keep Mr. Anderson from this honor should be ashamed.
Are those who keep him from being inducted keeping something from this Forum? Why do those who keep this man from being inducted come forth and show their faces? or are they hiding in the shadows of GUILT.?
Accidently I have posted my comments 2 times
I will not ask to be edited,maybe those who are ignorant to the facts of life will read my comments twice and hopefully it will sink
in.
This is redundant and sickening.
Mr Anderson..Sir you are a bigger man than those who judge you.Let he who is without sin & guilt cast the first stone. Im waiting. I doubt they who are the guilty will surface from their hiding places.<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Greg Sullivan on 06 November 2004 at 07:38 PM.]</p></FONT>
I wish to commend Fred Shannon for his efforts on behalf of
a forgotten group of steel guitarists. When Maurice
Anderson revealed on the Forum that a number of the old MSA
firm's depositors had never gotten their money back when
the original MSA folded in the early '80s, Fred stepped
forth and proceeded to verify the losses of two of those
depositors. They were Dave Tunnicliffe in New Zealand
($2007.00) and Ken Harrington in Wortham, Texas ($1697.00).
Fred's efforts led to these two depositors getting double
their money back after over 20 years of being deprived of
it. That was about half of what they should have received,
but something, regardless. Thus, I commend Fred for taking
the initiative in their behalf. I wish Fred had continued,
back then, with his verification investigation. It may
have led to the dozens of others getting compensation also.
Regardless, "hat's off" to you Fred.
In reading Fred's current postings, it now appears that he
wishes to assist again. He is asking for public disclosure
of all of the known depositors. I have sent him a list of
them. I am hoping that he will again show the concern he
did for Dave Tunnicliffe and Ken Harrington by conducting
another inquiry that will hopefully lead to the current MSA
firm providing all the remaining compensation to all those
remaining depositors, compensation they expressed a
willingness to provide over 2 years ago.
If others wish to have the information regarding the
identities of those old depositors, and perhaps help in the
recovery of their deposits, that would be commendable also.
Just ask for the list from me. I also have a summary of
my history with the old MSA firm in my advocacy in behalf
of all those depositors. For those wishing to know that
history, just drop me an email request and I will supply
that information. Again Fred, here in New Zealand you are
our hero.
I'll bet that most of the guys on the board consider themselves Christians. Their decision to dis Reese and Julian must be an example of this compassion and forgiveness that I've heard so much about.
I hope they know that holding a grudge is like drinking poison and hoping the other guy dies.
I serve on a Board of Directors overseeing one million dollars of assets and elected by 1000 members. Anytime that we have any business with a member that requires that we take a vote, ANY person on the board that has a personal relationship in the present OR in the past with that member that might in ANY way influence his vote is required to "RECUSE" himself, because that board member could never give the person voted on a fair vote. This happens no matter how serious or how light the subject is. This is fair and is done on virtually every official committee.
It is clear that there are members of the board who as one has stated here that he could NEVER vote for Julian Tharpe because of a personal past relationship . As I stated in the opening to this thread the board members forgiving Tharpe would be the right thing to do. Morally and spiritually this is the right thing to do. To REFUSE to do this is a direct reflection on the moral and spiritual attitude of a person. To refuse to recuse himself from the voting process is also not right.
If this is what a board member on the HOF decides to do then there is not much we as the steel guitar community can do, as we are not included in the voting process, ONLY the nomination process. This is also what I alluded to in my opening post--that the HOF board is the only deciding body and in doing so elects the candidates that only THEY see fit.
The HOF board makes reference to a "steel community" but in its actions it negates the very spirit of that community by not allowing it to fully participate in the HOF process.
I personally believe that the steel community as a whole reflects a spirit of incredible positivity. I don't believe that the members of this community would continue to kick a fellow player when he was down or after he had passed.
"forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us"--that's the spiritual basis of my opinion.
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Bill Hatcher on 08 November 2004 at 07:09 AM.]</p></FONT>
But seeing as how we live in a very small community of steel players, I should think it's quite possible that EVERYBODY on the board would know certain steel players? If ALL of the members know Lloyd Green and recuse themselves what does that do for the vote? No Lloyd Green in the HOF?
Only if your personal relationship with a player makes it such that you cannot make an impartial vote. Just because a board member "knows" a candidate that is not a reason for recusement. When you have been in a business dealing gone wrong, or a personal feud, with the candidate or member in question, then that is when you are recused from the board meeting and the rest of the impartial members make the decision. In situations of recusement, the board member usually is included in the discussions of the circumstanses. His opinions are heard and are taken into consideration by other members. In instances where the circumstances are ongoing, the board member is recused before any discussions occur.
In this particular situation, a board member has publicly stated that he would NEVER vote for Julian Tharpe because of circumstances that happened in his personal relationship with Tharpe. This is NOT an impartial board member and has no business voting at all when it comes to Tharpe. You ever go into court and watch them pick a jury? You are not allowed to serve if you are shown to be not be impartial. In this case, the HOF committee also is acting as a jury since it is deciding issues of personal conduct of candidates.
Fred Shannon is a fine, upstanding and honorable man. Whether or not he contacted any depositors of the MSA company that discontinued business over twenty years ago, I don't know. But, Fred had nothing whatsoever to do with any depositors of that company receiving anything.
The new company that was formed in 2002 had no responsibility for any matters concerning that former company. Nonetheless, because we wanted to, the principals of the new company sought out and made mutually satisfactory arrangements with those respondents who had (1) deposited funds with the former company but who did not receive a guitar as a result of that company discontinuing operations, and (2)conformed to the simple rules of the process known as the RESOLUTION Process. That formal process was concluded quite some time ago. The process was carried out by the principals of the new MSA.
As you know, sometime in the past few days Tom Bradshaw forwarded your “information” to Fred along with your suggestion that Fred post it on the Forum. I have no idea why you tried to prevail on Fred to become complicit in your nefarious scheme. In fact, as you know, he inquired as much of you and Tom Bradshaw.
I'm sure you know by Fred's reply that he has no intention of posting your “information” on the Forum. Your post on here is seemingly merely another one of your attempts to cause mischief and, apparently this time, to also embarrass Fred because he wouldn’t go along with your scheme.
Simply put, the “information” of which I have a copy and which you propose to provide to requestors is riddled with falsehoods. In a recent previous set of "information" you have sent to many people you indicate that we compensated only three people and detail how you believe those people were compensated due to your influence. You haven't had anything to do with anyone receiving anything.
Your recent writing still suggests that only three were compensated. That is simply false. You note that we dropped one person from the process. It is true that one person was irrevocably dropped from the RESOLUTION process because he apparently preferred to make defamatory remarks about the new company and its owners rather than receive compensation. We provided that information on this Forum over a year ago.
When we concluded the RESOLUTION process we neither asked anyone to make any public comment nor asked anyone to refrain from doing so. Further, we made no agreement that we would refrain from disclosing the results- though we have had no
intention to do so. We have believed that anyone who wished to say anything would, and those that didn't presumably preferred that their involvement was kept private. The mere fact that people won’t confide in you, if they won’t, is no evidence of anything except, perhaps, that they don’t want to confide in you.
It is noteworthy to mention that anytime the Steel Guitar Hall of Fame becomes a subject of discussion; you come slinking around with your false "information" so as to attempt to discredit Reece. You simply want to keep him from being inducted and you will apparently make up any "information" to further your case. Insofar as I know, he rarely, if ever, talks about the HOF but my guess is that you would have a much more difficult time trying to drag him into the Hall of Fame than the considerable effort you have expended in keeping him out.
In any event, as I noted above, we maintain that a huge portion of the "information" you wish to pass out to Forum members and others is false "information."
So, we have a proposition for you. If you really believe the "information" that you are passing out, you can prove the veracity of your information to this Forum and to others. We don't have any interest in divulging data about those who participated in the RESOLUTION if they haven't chosen to divulge it themselves. However, if there is some overarching good to be achieved, we are not restricted from doing so.
We propose that if you have the courage of your convictions you can make your point once and for all. We can have a mediation of sorts. The current MSA principals will put up an amount; we'll say a minimum of $50,000. We will place that money in a national bank in Dallas in an escrow account. You and yours can deposit a like amount in such account. We will select a licensed mediator who will examine your “information” and the facts that we provide and who will determine whether or not your information contains misstatements of fact.
We will allege that your information contains misstatements of fact particularly as it relates to those who were or weren’t compensated and with whom accords were reached in the RESOLUTION Process. (As I mentioned, we have a copy of your recent writings and those will be the basis of the mediation.) You and your collaborators, if any exist, can take the position that all of that which you have written in that writing is true. You can get anyone who believes you to put up some of the funds and join you. I doubt if you’ll get many takers, but if you can, so be it. As a matter of fairness, I caution others to be careful about joining you since I know your “information” contains missatements of fact.
If the mediator determines that we are correct that your “information” contains misstatements of fact, then he or she will return to us the amount we put in escrow and award to us the amount you placed in escrow. Conversely, if the mediator concludes that your “information” does not contain misstatements of fact, he or she can return your escrow money and award to you the money we escrowed. The result can be made subject to appeal in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Should we be the “winner,” we will donate to this Forum 50% of the amount awarded to us, and 25% of the amount awarded to us will be put in a fund to go to a charity selected by the members of this Forum. The fund can be administered by whomever this Forum chooses. If it is determined by the mediator that your "information" is all true and accurate, you can do whatever you want with any money awarded to you by the mediator. The “loser” will pay the mediator’s fees.
Now, here is your chance to prove to the world that what you say is true and to get rich in the process. Our guess is that you don't have the testicularity to agree to such an arrangement. But, if you are willing, we can immediately proceed to make the necessary arrangements. If you are unwilling, that should serve to speak volumes about you and your motives.
<SMALL>Should we be the “winner,” we will donate to this Forum 50% of the amount awarded to us, and 25% of the amount awarded to us will be put in a fund to go to a charity selected by the members of this Forum. The fund can be administered by whomever this Forum chooses.</SMALL>
It may sound reasonable to you, Dave, but as owner of the Steel Guitar Forum I would prefer not to get involved in this. I provide a virtual place for people to engage in discussions. I don't provide financial services.
And while I have everyone's attention, I'd like to remind you that this topic is supposed to be about Julian Tharpe, not MSA. If anyone wants to start a topic about MSA (a subject that's been covered many times before), they're free to do so.
And finally, a warning to all: the Steel Guitar Forum is not intended to be a conduit for libel. Please temper your comments with some respect for all parties involved. Personal attacks serve no useful purpose.
Bill, I agree and disagree with you. In jury selection, you are recused if you have either positive or negative feelings/dealings with the accused. That's sort of the point I was trying to make, if you want to recuse those who have had negative dealings with Mr. Tharpe, ya gotta take out those with the positives too. I'm guessing, for example, most if not all of the board had dealings with Buddy Emmons before he was voted in. So in a jury of his peers, if we use the courts rule of thumb on jurors, I don't think there would have been anyone to vote. I'm not sure there can ever be a truly impartial vote on any of the members who have been or will be up for vote into the HOF. <FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Chris Forbes on 08 November 2004 at 11:02 AM.]</p></FONT>
P.S. The reference to Dallas in my previous post refers to Dallas, Texas, USA.
b0b,
We didn't intend to involve you other than as a beneficiary. Additionally, we thought that certain members, on their own, might be interested in administering a fund But, if you are uncomfortable with that, we completely respect your position and this post simply modifies the foregoing to say that we would donate the amount that would have gone to the Forum as noted above to a charitable cause instead.
Maybe the jury analogy was not the best route on my part since you are correct in that both + and - get you thrown off, but you have to take under consideration that there are two parties involved with jury selection, the plantiff AND the defendent. A plus for one is a minus for the other and vice versa.
OK scratch that jury stuff and give me your opinion on ONLY the recusement in dealing with a board member that is not able to display the ability to make a clear impartial vote as a result of personal NEGATIVE dealings with a candidate.
Well, I guess Mr. Horner's post means put up or shut up. Because my name has been brought into this discussion I provide you with the following:
My first post was made because of some questions relative to whether Julian had been nominated or not. I am personally knowledgeable of Julian Tharpe's being formally nominated in accordance with the SGHOF's posted rules. I did so.
That was all I wanted to say about it because I already had knowledge of the reason Julian has not been inducted. I have a copy of the email sent by Mr. Bradshaw to an individual stating exactly why.
My second post was made only after a post by Mr. Bradshaw saying "Julian Tharpe has never been "formally" nominated." I knew better.
It was evident my posts weren't taken seriously because later Bobby Lee posts, "It's my understanding that Julian Tharpe has never been nominated."
I posted again only after Paul Franklin's eloquent entry and one of his quotes stated, "I would submit, in a heart beat, a nomination for Reece and Julian if I believed it would ever see the light of day. The board can always nominate from within itself." I thought this and Tommy White's query about "victimization" were very pertinent to the discussion and on target as to rationale.
I was not taken aback when I read Smike's--Bruce's statements when he brings up such items as, "I bet most of the 'tharpe/reece/whoever' conspiracy claimers aren't even familiar with most of the people who ARE in the SGHOF... nor do they know the reasons those folks were so honored." This is one of his typical "shotgun blasts" he is famous for each time the HOF induction process comes up for discussion. A search of his name vs. his posts on the Forum will provide you with that answer. I overlooked it, without comment, again. But with his later comment in another post he says,"you are welcome to your opinions, and Bradshaw is welcome to his... the difference between you, though, is that he kept his private... at least until you opened the door (i.e., pandora's box)... just like Maurice did about his own hof problem," and there was no caution relative to topic maintenance, nor personal discredit issued from anyone in the Forum, I took it on myself to set the record straight again. I make note here that Smike, Bruce or whoever he is did not answer one single item of my post. Special notice, I will take offense every single time items like this are brought up denigrating a player without proof of wrongdoing.
I also am amazed that no other Board member, other than Bradshaw ever sees fit to enter a discussion about HOF inductees.
Sometime after my last post I received an email from Tom Bradshaw saying because Jim Molberg had tried to get in touch with me but his, Jim's, ISP server was preventing it, he Bradshaw was forwarding it. I marvelled at Jim's capability of reading the Forum posts but was astounded that he couldn't reach me by email, because I have over 40 emails I received during that time frame, relative to the guitar sale for donation of funds to a deserving player.
Attached to that email from Tom was a "Plethora" (love that word) of folks he thinks I didn't contact in some research I did for an article I was writing for a magazine contract. I suspected the crap was gonna' hit the fan again, so I took the liberty of sharing it with my good friends at MSA. And they are my good friends and I'm damn proud to say that. That, perhaps, just might have had "something" to do with Mr. Horner's post, I certainly hope so.
Jim Molberg's post crediting me with being a "hero in New Zealand" is the biggest joke ever posted on this forum in my opinion. I could care less about New Zealand except to wish the people there all the luck in the world if someone attacks them. They might be glad to see one of our Nuclear Subs then.
Further, for Mr. Molberg's information I have never spoken or corresponded with Mr. Tunnicliffe in any way shape or form. I did have a conversation with the man Molberg mentions in Worthan Texas, but it's really not Wortham but Waxahachie, Texas. Hell, Jim You even got that wrong. This was the man that told me he had a "cancelled check" that proved he had not received his guitar from MSA. He also told me he had not received any stock as a good faith jesture and not for repayment of the funds, and in his next breath said, "My wife had the stock checked out with a broker and the damned stuff is worthless." Did he really say that? It's for certain he did, I have it on tape. Bad habit I have, you know. BTW Jim I notice your website has a picture of you playing a MSA. Buy that second hand, did you? None of my business of course, I'm just being sarcastic and funny. Don't you think that's hilarious?
However I am just sick and tired of all the sniping and back biting that has transpired from MSA's restitution process. If you ain't got a dog in the hunt it might be best you just "listen" like a lot of us have done, and only bark if you're tail is stepped on.
Too, as some of you might or not be aware, I earned my living for some years as a professional journalist in the Dallas area. Many times, as a very active investigative reporter I was forced to use a pseudonym for self protection, primarily because I was on the "Scum Beat" with trips to such sophisticated places such as Columbia, Bosnia, and the land of entertainment Somalia. I later became the Senior Columnist for a Dallas area newspaper.
My first dealings I ever had with the SGHOF had to do with Fund Raisers--for which I gladly participated, steel shows, etc. Later I contracted to write a piece for a well known magazine which led me to the MSA fracas. My long time personal friendship with Reece Anderson brought me to him for information on the PSG development. Only after an extended period of time did I find he was not a member of the HOF and I was astounded, considering his standing as a player, teacher, and manufacturer in the steel guitar community.
In short, subsequent to being made aware of this, I started a research into several items surrounding the SGHOF, the induction process being one of them. Because of the failure for some folks to step up to the plate and swing the bat, I feel it necessary to provide some of the pertinent documents exchanged during that research to a website for any and everyone to read, digest, and puke out if you don't like them. Therefore, I'll contract a builder and have a website constructed and provide a chronological sequence of pertinent events for which I have a record. Not meant to hurt anyone, but to show the "real facts" as I found them. There will be very little opinion stated by me, but there will be reams of documents accumulated by me during that time frame. You can read them, cuss them, email me with questions, arrive at any conclusions you wish or tell Aunt Nellie about it, but I will not answer any flames. Depend on it.
Julian Tharpe, man that he was, was a personal friend of mine and regardless what someone alleges, he always was straight up with me and I feel he never shirked his duty as a steel guitar impressario. You can say what you want, but his steel guitar entrepeneurship was immaculate. That's damned sure on topic. Nuff said.
fred
.
------------------
The spirit be with you!
If it aint got a steel, it aint real
