There's got to be more negative energy generated around the subject of nominees to the Steel HOF than in anything else in the steel guitar community. Lawsuits, threats, mysterious emails (I know I have received more than a few). For me (and for many other players) it has tainted the entire award. This should not be. There are so many amazing musicians in the HOF. They should be honored and revered, and not be affected by the ongoing controversy around the internal politics of the board.
Maybe it's time for the whole board to say enough is enough, and resign. I know that there are enough potential board members out there who have the respect of the vast majority of the steel community, and who are not seen as partisan players in this ongoing soap opera.
Maybe this is too extreme, but I know that something needs to be done to eliminate this ongoing battle. Probably the best, most honorable thing would be is for those board members who are seen as being partisans in this battle to resign. For the good of the HOF and for the steel guitar community. I don't know any of the board members personally, and I think it is quite possible that those members who are widely perceived as being partisan are in fact capable of objective, open minded deliberation. But what's poisoning the HOF is the perception that there are board members who are blindly excluding nominees, based on subjective judgement.
By resigning a position to heal the HOF process because of *perceived* bias isn't dishonorable. On the contrary, it's a profoundly honorable, moral decision. It's an example of sacrifice (of one's pride) for the greater good. I for one would applaud any board member who decides to resign to help heal this current nasty situation. (I say current, but it's been going on for a long time now, and looks to be heating up).
------------------
www.tyack.com
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Dan Tyack on 10 November 2004 at 12:12 AM.]</p></FONT>
Steel Guitar HOF board
Moderator: Shoshanah Marohn
-
Jeff Lampert
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: 8 May 2000 12:01 am
- Location: queens, new york city
That's a tricky matter, Dan. The HOF board member or members may feel that they are taking principled (though unpopular) positions. I don't think someone who believes they are fighting for a principle would consider it "honorable" or "moral" to give up that fight. Quite the contrary, anyone who has withstood an onslaught over the years because of their beliefs feel they are already doing the honorable and moral thing and taking any other action would not be so. History has taught us that it is only in the future that we learn whether the unpopular position was the wrong or right position. I don't see that resigning over controversy solves anything accept make some people feel happy and others even angrier. I wish all the posters who have shown their rage on these HOF threads channelled that energy into finding ways to increase the exposure and use of the steel guitar in the musical world. The limited visibility of the steel guitar in all musical genres (other that country pop) is what enrages me. Now that is truly a battle worth our time and energies to fight.
------------------
Jeff's Jazz
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Jeff Lampert on 10 November 2004 at 03:43 AM.]</p></FONT>
------------------
Jeff's Jazz
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Jeff Lampert on 10 November 2004 at 03:43 AM.]</p></FONT>
-
Chris Forbes
- Posts: 1545
- Joined: 2 Jan 2002 1:01 am
- Location: Beltsville, MD, USA
If, for the sake of arguement, some board members resigned and others took their place, the same old arguments would start anew. There will ALWAYS be someone somewhere INSISTING "it's a crime that so and so isn't in the HOF, those jerk board members have to have some kind of grudge!!!" Then we're all right back at square one, someone is asking that the new members resign and have others take their place. I have a hard time believing there will ever be a truly impartial vote because we all live in such a small community and so many of us know each other so well.
-
CrowBear Schmitt
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: 8 Apr 2000 12:01 am
- Location: Ariege, - PairO'knees, - France
- Contact:
-
Bill Hatcher
- Posts: 7252
- Joined: 6 Nov 1998 1:01 am
- Location: Atlanta Ga. USA
Dan.
The problem is that the HOF board is shown to be a group seemingly controlled by one person. Any time you have a situation where one person rules everything, then you are totally at the mercy of that one person. The moral/ethical/ spiritual climate of the board is controlled by that person.
Then you branch out to the HOF members some of which have shown that they are biased beyond acceptability. One has been shown in the discussions here on this forum to be totally out of bounds as he made a claim of no nomination and then a person posted the very nomintion that the HOF member denied. In a public situation that carried accountability with the position he would be dismissed. There seems to be no accountability with the SGHOF.
I am personally glad that this issue has had its strongest debate I have ever seen on the forum. I don't think the HOF board really had a clue as to how strong people feel on this issue. The reason is simple. A Steel Guitar Hall of Fame has been created and has given the illusion of being done so for the edification of the inductees AND for the enjoyment/involvement of the steel guitar community. The steel guitar community is finding out that the actions of the board have negated the sentiments of the community and some on the board have been shown to be acting in a manner that imposes THEIR will on that community using a system of judgement and values that are self serving and non forgiving.
A board that has members acting out their responsibilites predicated on a "grudge" is a tainted board.
I agree with you Dan that at least a HOF board shake up is in order.
Maybe what could be hoped for is that the members of the HOF board that have been following this debate would decide not to participate on the board due to the issues that have come up and what their association with this board now implies.
The problem is that the HOF board is shown to be a group seemingly controlled by one person. Any time you have a situation where one person rules everything, then you are totally at the mercy of that one person. The moral/ethical/ spiritual climate of the board is controlled by that person.
Then you branch out to the HOF members some of which have shown that they are biased beyond acceptability. One has been shown in the discussions here on this forum to be totally out of bounds as he made a claim of no nomination and then a person posted the very nomintion that the HOF member denied. In a public situation that carried accountability with the position he would be dismissed. There seems to be no accountability with the SGHOF.
I am personally glad that this issue has had its strongest debate I have ever seen on the forum. I don't think the HOF board really had a clue as to how strong people feel on this issue. The reason is simple. A Steel Guitar Hall of Fame has been created and has given the illusion of being done so for the edification of the inductees AND for the enjoyment/involvement of the steel guitar community. The steel guitar community is finding out that the actions of the board have negated the sentiments of the community and some on the board have been shown to be acting in a manner that imposes THEIR will on that community using a system of judgement and values that are self serving and non forgiving.
A board that has members acting out their responsibilites predicated on a "grudge" is a tainted board.
I agree with you Dan that at least a HOF board shake up is in order.
Maybe what could be hoped for is that the members of the HOF board that have been following this debate would decide not to participate on the board due to the issues that have come up and what their association with this board now implies.
-
Dave Horner
- Posts: 95
- Joined: 25 Feb 2002 1:01 am
- Location: Heath, Texas, USA
-
Rick Schmidt
- Posts: 3258
- Joined: 4 Aug 1998 11:00 pm
- Location: Prescott AZ, USA
-
Jim Palenscar
- Posts: 5857
- Joined: 4 Aug 1998 11:00 pm
- Location: Oceanside, Calif, USA
- Contact:
Jim, I think your wife is right. I suspect that if this soap opera continues, the HOF will just become irrelevant for more of us. ("who cares", indeed). I know I was very pleased hear about Bobby Black's induction this year, but avoided reading the coverage, because I didn't want to hear any more of this crap.
------------------
www.tyack.com
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Dan Tyack on 10 November 2004 at 09:58 AM.]</p></FONT>
------------------
www.tyack.com
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Dan Tyack on 10 November 2004 at 09:58 AM.]</p></FONT>
-
Herb Steiner
- Posts: 12505
- Joined: 4 Aug 1998 11:00 pm
- Location: Spicewood TX 78669
- Contact:
Perhaps it's the recent trend worldwide to fundamentalism,... whether religious, political, or social... that causes people to demonize and vilify others holding opposing opinions to their own, regardless of the contributions to the greater good those perceived adversaries have accomplished.
The frustration and anger must be tremendously exacerbated when you desire a particular outcome and your perceived adversaries (ones who have no issue or bone of contention with you personally), or some of them anyway, seem to stand in the way of your desires and you are essentially powerless in the situation, short of public condemnation and ridicule.
These adversaries have opinions differing with your own, and so their integrity must be lacking. They're obviously operating without value or moral justification. They have to go.
I am the newest member of this Board, though I'm only one member and one vote along with 5 other friends of mine, some that I consider very close friends. Our seventh member, Jeff Newman, recently passed away tragically. The inner workings of the Board are kept confidential, as is our right as a private organization. However, in 3 years of working with these men, I can assure you that discussions are never one-sided. We do not always monolithically make choices, opinions are voiced, listened to with respect by all present... a respect that I see frequently lacking here on THIS forum, BTW..., and votes are taken. I'm not specifically referring to the Anderson or Tharpe issues at all, I'm speaking about the many nominations the Board receives each year.
These Board members that I have joined are men that have literally helped create the steel guitar community that exists today. Some of these men have invested their lives and a great deal of their own money in providing information and products to steel guitarists. Losing lots of bucks and years along the way, incidentally, due to the non-support of the steel guitar "community." They've created venues for people to see musicians that they would never have been able to see had that person not devoted a great amount of time and energy to the event.
Damn them if you will, but without Scotty, Jeff Newman, Tom Bradshaw, and Bob Maickel, most of this "community" would never have HEARD of Maurice Anderson, Julian Tharpe, or many, many other steel guitarists who are now playing the dozens of steel guitar shows across the country, let alone those who are enshrined in the Hall of Fame now. and in the future. Without Scotty, Jeff Newman, Tom Bradshaw and Bob Maickel, this community would be MUCH smaller, and still laboring in the Middle Ages, education-wise. These men expanded the number of steel guitarists exponentially, due to their efforts in education.
I know how and why I vote one way or the other on ALL nominees, and my vote is secret. And my vote may or may not be what you'd expect from a group supposedly dominated by one man. And I live my life and make my decisions individually. And Mr. Hatcher, I don't have to defend my integrity to you or anyone else here on this forum. I don't know about the feelings of the other Board members when we're painted with broad brushes like you and some others seem to publicly want to do. But I can tell you this, when my integrity is challenged by someone who doesn't know me, or have information at his disposal that others more informed might have, my initial response is "oh yeah? Well, whoever taught you you'd get a response you like from someone by insulting them did you a great disservice, sir."
From your writings I assume that, for you and perhaps many others, the SGHOF must hold little if any validity now. So what's the big deal then? Why seek an induction into a flawed organization whose values you no longer support or respect?
Shouldn't you, in that case, create your own HOF? Find another board with the credentials you'd support. Open the decision making up to the public, then have elections. Elections which would have to be tabulated, of course. And audited for recounts. Tabulations and auditing that would have to be paid for, not to mention the time spent away from your profession that earns your living. Then go to the expense of designing plaques, finding an artist, proofing, etc. Oh, and paying for the plaques incidentally, which cost thousands of bucks each. And finding a place to house the plaques (I suggest using "the old barn," if Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney are through with it). Of course, if the nominations and inductions are open to general election by the community, you might want to think about the potential for lawsuits.
And public assaults on your character, let's not forget that one.
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Herb Steiner on 10 November 2004 at 10:39 AM.]</p></FONT>
The frustration and anger must be tremendously exacerbated when you desire a particular outcome and your perceived adversaries (ones who have no issue or bone of contention with you personally), or some of them anyway, seem to stand in the way of your desires and you are essentially powerless in the situation, short of public condemnation and ridicule.
These adversaries have opinions differing with your own, and so their integrity must be lacking. They're obviously operating without value or moral justification. They have to go.
I am the newest member of this Board, though I'm only one member and one vote along with 5 other friends of mine, some that I consider very close friends. Our seventh member, Jeff Newman, recently passed away tragically. The inner workings of the Board are kept confidential, as is our right as a private organization. However, in 3 years of working with these men, I can assure you that discussions are never one-sided. We do not always monolithically make choices, opinions are voiced, listened to with respect by all present... a respect that I see frequently lacking here on THIS forum, BTW..., and votes are taken. I'm not specifically referring to the Anderson or Tharpe issues at all, I'm speaking about the many nominations the Board receives each year.
These Board members that I have joined are men that have literally helped create the steel guitar community that exists today. Some of these men have invested their lives and a great deal of their own money in providing information and products to steel guitarists. Losing lots of bucks and years along the way, incidentally, due to the non-support of the steel guitar "community." They've created venues for people to see musicians that they would never have been able to see had that person not devoted a great amount of time and energy to the event.
Damn them if you will, but without Scotty, Jeff Newman, Tom Bradshaw, and Bob Maickel, most of this "community" would never have HEARD of Maurice Anderson, Julian Tharpe, or many, many other steel guitarists who are now playing the dozens of steel guitar shows across the country, let alone those who are enshrined in the Hall of Fame now. and in the future. Without Scotty, Jeff Newman, Tom Bradshaw and Bob Maickel, this community would be MUCH smaller, and still laboring in the Middle Ages, education-wise. These men expanded the number of steel guitarists exponentially, due to their efforts in education.
I know how and why I vote one way or the other on ALL nominees, and my vote is secret. And my vote may or may not be what you'd expect from a group supposedly dominated by one man. And I live my life and make my decisions individually. And Mr. Hatcher, I don't have to defend my integrity to you or anyone else here on this forum. I don't know about the feelings of the other Board members when we're painted with broad brushes like you and some others seem to publicly want to do. But I can tell you this, when my integrity is challenged by someone who doesn't know me, or have information at his disposal that others more informed might have, my initial response is "oh yeah? Well, whoever taught you you'd get a response you like from someone by insulting them did you a great disservice, sir."
From your writings I assume that, for you and perhaps many others, the SGHOF must hold little if any validity now. So what's the big deal then? Why seek an induction into a flawed organization whose values you no longer support or respect?
Shouldn't you, in that case, create your own HOF? Find another board with the credentials you'd support. Open the decision making up to the public, then have elections. Elections which would have to be tabulated, of course. And audited for recounts. Tabulations and auditing that would have to be paid for, not to mention the time spent away from your profession that earns your living. Then go to the expense of designing plaques, finding an artist, proofing, etc. Oh, and paying for the plaques incidentally, which cost thousands of bucks each. And finding a place to house the plaques (I suggest using "the old barn," if Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney are through with it). Of course, if the nominations and inductions are open to general election by the community, you might want to think about the potential for lawsuits.
And public assaults on your character, let's not forget that one.
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Herb Steiner on 10 November 2004 at 10:39 AM.]</p></FONT>
-
Jim Phelps
- Posts: 3421
- Joined: 6 Sep 2002 12:01 am
- Location: Mexico City, Mexico
- Contact:
I'm editing this because originally I was not as respectful as I should have been.
Herb, the main thing I don't understand is the adamant denial of Tharpe's nomination when it's clear he was nominated at least once.<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Jim Phelps on 10 November 2004 at 11:16 AM.]</p></FONT>
Herb, the main thing I don't understand is the adamant denial of Tharpe's nomination when it's clear he was nominated at least once.<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Jim Phelps on 10 November 2004 at 11:16 AM.]</p></FONT>
-
Herb Steiner
- Posts: 12505
- Joined: 4 Aug 1998 11:00 pm
- Location: Spicewood TX 78669
- Contact:
Jim
I cannot explain that, since I don't know the answer. I've only been a member for 3 years. And by agreement with the other 6 members of the Board when I joined, I must keep our conversations in meetings on the level of " in executive session," and therefore kept confidential.
I wasn't discussing the Tharpe issue anyway, really. I was talking about the public vilification of the Board members.
"Defendants?" Is there some sort of trial I don't know about?
Maybe I am "blustering." I can be verbose at times. I wrote my own personal feelings, and not any official statement of policy by the SGHOF Committee. I could have just as easily said "Bill, I resent your challenging my integrity. Why don't you just start your own damn HOF?"
Now I'm done with this topic, thank you.
------------------
Herb's Steel Guitar Pages
Texas Steel Guitar Association
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Herb Steiner on 10 November 2004 at 10:55 AM.]</p></FONT>
I cannot explain that, since I don't know the answer. I've only been a member for 3 years. And by agreement with the other 6 members of the Board when I joined, I must keep our conversations in meetings on the level of " in executive session," and therefore kept confidential.
I wasn't discussing the Tharpe issue anyway, really. I was talking about the public vilification of the Board members.
"Defendants?" Is there some sort of trial I don't know about?
Maybe I am "blustering." I can be verbose at times. I wrote my own personal feelings, and not any official statement of policy by the SGHOF Committee. I could have just as easily said "Bill, I resent your challenging my integrity. Why don't you just start your own damn HOF?"
Now I'm done with this topic, thank you.
------------------
Herb's Steel Guitar Pages
Texas Steel Guitar Association
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Herb Steiner on 10 November 2004 at 10:55 AM.]</p></FONT>
-
Jim Phelps
- Posts: 3421
- Joined: 6 Sep 2002 12:01 am
- Location: Mexico City, Mexico
- Contact:
Isn't that pretty much what you ARE saying, when it's all boiled down?<SMALL>I could have just as easily said "Bill, I resent your challenging my integrity. Why don't you just start your own damn HOF?"</SMALL>
I see you edited your post. No, no trial I know of, I thought it would be obvious that my use of the word "defendants" was figurative, and I think you know that.
Don't misunderstand me, I have a lot of respect for Scotty, Tom, you too Herb, just about all the great steelplayers and everyone on the board, and I believe that Scotty has a right to set whatever rules he believes in for a HOF that he created, whether we like them and agree with them or not. If we don't like it, then someone SHOULD start another HOF with their OWN criteria. BUT, the one thing that really bugs me is the adamant denial of Tharpe's nominiation, when it's clear he was nominated at least once. That seems to me an obvious lie. Rules and criteria are one thing, bald-faced lies are another.
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Jim Phelps on 10 November 2004 at 11:17 AM.]</p></FONT>
Bill wrote:
Herb's response is right on. If the SGHOF is illegitimate in your eyes, start your own hall of fame. You can't expect people to resign from something that they've spent most of their lives creating and nurturing. It's simply not going to happen.
I'm imagining what my response would be if someone called for me to resign from the Steel Guitar Forum because they didn't like some of my decisions. It could be summed up in two words that are unprintable here.
------------------
<img align=left src="http://b0b.com/b0bxicon.gif" border="0"><small> Bobby Lee</small>
-b0b- <small> quasar@b0b.com </small>
System Administrator
I have never seen any evidence the the HOF board is controlled by one person. The statement is so off-base that I can't even figure out which member you're talking about.<SMALL>The problem is that the HOF board is shown to be a group seemingly controlled by one person. Any time you have a situation where one person rules everything, then you are totally at the mercy of that one person. The moral/ethical/ spiritual climate of the board is controlled by that person.</SMALL>
Herb's response is right on. If the SGHOF is illegitimate in your eyes, start your own hall of fame. You can't expect people to resign from something that they've spent most of their lives creating and nurturing. It's simply not going to happen.
I'm imagining what my response would be if someone called for me to resign from the Steel Guitar Forum because they didn't like some of my decisions. It could be summed up in two words that are unprintable here.
------------------
<img align=left src="http://b0b.com/b0bxicon.gif" border="0"><small> Bobby Lee</small>
-b0b- <small> quasar@b0b.com </small>
System Administrator
It sounds to me like there may be a semantic argument about what constitutes an "official" nomination. If a board member receives all the paperwork done by a "civilian", proposing someone for the HOF, does that constitute an official "nomination"? Or must the board member himself place the person's name in "nomination", using the research and petition submitted by the civilian? If the former, then I could see how it would be possible for someone to believe that they "nominated" a player (because, hey, they sent in the letter), but for a committee member to say "no, they were never (officially) nominated." Personally, I think that would be a somewhat disingenuous position to take, but I wonder if that's the basis for the controversy. Perhaps it would be okay for Herb or Tom to clarify this point?<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Jim Cohen on 10 November 2004 at 11:19 AM.]</p></FONT>
-
Bill Hatcher
- Posts: 7252
- Joined: 6 Nov 1998 1:01 am
- Location: Atlanta Ga. USA
Herb.
I said that maybe the other board members might not want to be associated with this board any more since the implication NOW proven that one of your fellow members has very possibly not been forthcoming on a previous nomination and the evidence has been presented here on the forum to back this up.
Go back and look at my last sentence---you see the word "now". If I may explain to you what that word means so you will see that I NEVER said anything about you personally, "now" means in light of information bought to light on the forum, members of the committee might want to reconsider serving on the HOF committe since NOW we ALL know that there are mitigating circumstances that certainly render it flawed.
"NOW"----- from this day forward.
If you want to continue serving on this board after now knowing that many in the steel community NOW know about how it operates and how it passes judgement on candidates then that is your business.
Suggesting that I start my own HOF?? Come on!
Would you care to address the issue of your fellow board member denying Julian Tharpes nomination existed and then your fellow steel guitar community member Fred Shannon (who you as a board member represent in the selection of HOF nominees)posting a copy of the nomination dated 2003 for all to read and also having made reference to submitting Tharpes nomination other times.
A person of integrity as yourself surely must want to see the truth surface in all of this, but then again, you make mention of the fact that the HOF board is a "private organization" and the internal workings are "kept confidential".
Do you have anything to say about this matter to the "public" that this "private organization" wouldn't mind you saying?
I said that maybe the other board members might not want to be associated with this board any more since the implication NOW proven that one of your fellow members has very possibly not been forthcoming on a previous nomination and the evidence has been presented here on the forum to back this up.
Go back and look at my last sentence---you see the word "now". If I may explain to you what that word means so you will see that I NEVER said anything about you personally, "now" means in light of information bought to light on the forum, members of the committee might want to reconsider serving on the HOF committe since NOW we ALL know that there are mitigating circumstances that certainly render it flawed.
"NOW"----- from this day forward.
If you want to continue serving on this board after now knowing that many in the steel community NOW know about how it operates and how it passes judgement on candidates then that is your business.
Suggesting that I start my own HOF?? Come on!
Would you care to address the issue of your fellow board member denying Julian Tharpes nomination existed and then your fellow steel guitar community member Fred Shannon (who you as a board member represent in the selection of HOF nominees)posting a copy of the nomination dated 2003 for all to read and also having made reference to submitting Tharpes nomination other times.
A person of integrity as yourself surely must want to see the truth surface in all of this, but then again, you make mention of the fact that the HOF board is a "private organization" and the internal workings are "kept confidential".
Do you have anything to say about this matter to the "public" that this "private organization" wouldn't mind you saying?
I was wrong, I do know at least one board member personally (hey Herb, I didn't know you were on, good choice!).
Which shows how much this ongoing soap opera has caused me to avoid reading threads on the HOF as much as possible.
I became 'involved' in the issue of Reece being passed over, presumably because I posted on some of those threads. And I became innundated with mail from both sides of this issue, including email from at least one HOF board member, taking a very partisan position .
On second thought it's unreasonable, and a bad idea, for the whole board to resign. But it just doesn't make any sense to have a board member making a public campaign against a potential nominee. Whatever a board member says in closed session is up to him and the board, and he should give the strongest possible argument to support his position. In private. But (IMHO) having a board member making a public campaign against a nominee is completely inappropriate, and taints the HOF board by giving the appearence of bias.
I think I am ready to sign off of this one now....probably should have kept my mouth shut.<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Dan Tyack on 10 November 2004 at 11:37 AM.]</p></FONT>
Which shows how much this ongoing soap opera has caused me to avoid reading threads on the HOF as much as possible.
I became 'involved' in the issue of Reece being passed over, presumably because I posted on some of those threads. And I became innundated with mail from both sides of this issue, including email from at least one HOF board member, taking a very partisan position .
On second thought it's unreasonable, and a bad idea, for the whole board to resign. But it just doesn't make any sense to have a board member making a public campaign against a potential nominee. Whatever a board member says in closed session is up to him and the board, and he should give the strongest possible argument to support his position. In private. But (IMHO) having a board member making a public campaign against a nominee is completely inappropriate, and taints the HOF board by giving the appearence of bias.
I think I am ready to sign off of this one now....probably should have kept my mouth shut.<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Dan Tyack on 10 November 2004 at 11:37 AM.]</p></FONT>
-
Dave Horner
- Posts: 95
- Joined: 25 Feb 2002 1:01 am
- Location: Heath, Texas, USA
-
Jim Palenscar
- Posts: 5857
- Joined: 4 Aug 1998 11:00 pm
- Location: Oceanside, Calif, USA
- Contact:
-
Herb Steiner
- Posts: 12505
- Joined: 4 Aug 1998 11:00 pm
- Location: Spicewood TX 78669
- Contact:
Bill
Even though I thought I'd be through commenting on this post, I will answer some of your concerns about me, personally.
My posts above refer to the very public challenges, by far not all of them yours, to the integrity and honesty of the Board members. I did not mention in any significant way the specific issues regarding Maurice or Julian. I'm not Jim Molberg, and I'm not Dave Horner.
By the way, I neglected to mention in my earlier posts Winnie Winston and Bobby Caldwell, who are also Board members. My apologies for the omission.
I don't have a personal axe to grind, and I don't have an agenda, unlike crusaders in the community for one particular player or another. I listen to everything I can and I make my decisions based on what is presented to me. That's all I can do and all I chose to do.
As far as Tom's statements regarding the completeness of Julian's nomination or lack thereof, this forum is the first time I've heard about it, as I implied in my response to Jim Phelps. Since Tom brought it up, I feel it okay to mention that I'll listen to what he has to say, read the messages from Fred and Scotty, and make my own personal choices in the matter. I don't let the SGHOF committee, or what other people think of the SGHOF committee, control my life or my decisions. <FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Herb Steiner on 10 November 2004 at 04:23 PM.]</p></FONT>
Even though I thought I'd be through commenting on this post, I will answer some of your concerns about me, personally.
My posts above refer to the very public challenges, by far not all of them yours, to the integrity and honesty of the Board members. I did not mention in any significant way the specific issues regarding Maurice or Julian. I'm not Jim Molberg, and I'm not Dave Horner.
By the way, I neglected to mention in my earlier posts Winnie Winston and Bobby Caldwell, who are also Board members. My apologies for the omission.
I don't have a personal axe to grind, and I don't have an agenda, unlike crusaders in the community for one particular player or another. I listen to everything I can and I make my decisions based on what is presented to me. That's all I can do and all I chose to do.
As far as Tom's statements regarding the completeness of Julian's nomination or lack thereof, this forum is the first time I've heard about it, as I implied in my response to Jim Phelps. Since Tom brought it up, I feel it okay to mention that I'll listen to what he has to say, read the messages from Fred and Scotty, and make my own personal choices in the matter. I don't let the SGHOF committee, or what other people think of the SGHOF committee, control my life or my decisions. <FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Herb Steiner on 10 November 2004 at 04:23 PM.]</p></FONT>
I hope the Board of the HOF continues to take the responsibility for taking character into account.
It appears that they indeed do.
People to whom character matters are often in much more turmoil than people to whom it doesn't.
It's worth it.
I'm glad I learned it from a guy that had a lot of it.
Thanks Dad.
EJL
It appears that they indeed do.
People to whom character matters are often in much more turmoil than people to whom it doesn't.
It's worth it.
I'm glad I learned it from a guy that had a lot of it.
Thanks Dad.
EJL
-
Bobbe Seymour
- Posts: 7418
- Joined: 12 Jan 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Hendersonville TN USA, R.I.P.
- Contact:
Interesting thread! Now what is this HOF thing, what does it pay? Seems like everybody wants some of it, it must really be good! Does it really improve the quality of living a lot? Is it as great as sex?
I wish I could understand all the great turmoil concerning who gets into it and who doesn't. It really must be the greatest thing in the world. All the anger and controversy proves it! Wow, it must really be awfully important.
Now lets see, I know some guys that are in it, how has it improved their life? Well lets see, they drove the same car afterwards, same house, didn't seem to work anymore or less afterwards, didn't get any tax deductions, same clothes after being inducted, man, somebody tell me what this deal is, am I missing something here? How much better off are these selected inductees than the rest of the population? How much better off would Julian be in it than he is now? Gene O'neal, Gary Hogue, Stu Basore and so on.
The moral of what I'm trying to say is: Let up guys, let these very nice eight board members make their choices, remember, they don't have to be there at all, but they are, and they are there for you and I and the for the love of steel guitar. No one is being hurt by NOT being in the HOF, correct?
The "Steel Guitar Hall of Fame" is for all of us to honor the steel players that undisputedly deserve it. Some that you may think should be in it may not be there, ever, but that really doesn't mean you can't love them also. Just because these very fine gentelmen "board members" choose the folks they like and not who you may like, doesn't mean the folks they choose shouldn't be there. After all, the choice is totally up to the board. It's their HOF. If we don't like it, we can always start our own and put everybody in it! Ha!
I hate to see folks getting angry over something this unimportant to our daily lives. The Hall Of Fame is a fun thing, lets enjoy it! Honor it, and if you want to, laugh at it, but lets don't get mad because of it.
Lets put it a little stronger, DON'T TAKE THIS THING SO SERIOUSLY!.
What if the board members get so much flack that thet decide it isn't worth the trouble? What if they decide to do away with the HOF just to keep trouble down?
Would that make anyone happy? No!
Support these board members and the HOF. I know them all personally and think they are some of the finest, most intelligent people in the steel guitar industry. I'd vote for every one of them to be on this board. Do I agree with all their choices? Who cares, I don't have to, but I might!
Lets have fun.
Now read this before I delete it! Just some fun thoughts. Keep it light guys, we are a family and really all love each other, right?
Bless you all,
bobbe
sorry aboput the editts, I sphel phunnie at timez
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by BobbeSeymour on 10 November 2004 at 06:53 PM.]</p></FONT><FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by BobbeSeymour on 10 November 2004 at 07:00 PM.]</p></FONT>
I wish I could understand all the great turmoil concerning who gets into it and who doesn't. It really must be the greatest thing in the world. All the anger and controversy proves it! Wow, it must really be awfully important.
Now lets see, I know some guys that are in it, how has it improved their life? Well lets see, they drove the same car afterwards, same house, didn't seem to work anymore or less afterwards, didn't get any tax deductions, same clothes after being inducted, man, somebody tell me what this deal is, am I missing something here? How much better off are these selected inductees than the rest of the population? How much better off would Julian be in it than he is now? Gene O'neal, Gary Hogue, Stu Basore and so on.
The moral of what I'm trying to say is: Let up guys, let these very nice eight board members make their choices, remember, they don't have to be there at all, but they are, and they are there for you and I and the for the love of steel guitar. No one is being hurt by NOT being in the HOF, correct?
The "Steel Guitar Hall of Fame" is for all of us to honor the steel players that undisputedly deserve it. Some that you may think should be in it may not be there, ever, but that really doesn't mean you can't love them also. Just because these very fine gentelmen "board members" choose the folks they like and not who you may like, doesn't mean the folks they choose shouldn't be there. After all, the choice is totally up to the board. It's their HOF. If we don't like it, we can always start our own and put everybody in it! Ha!
I hate to see folks getting angry over something this unimportant to our daily lives. The Hall Of Fame is a fun thing, lets enjoy it! Honor it, and if you want to, laugh at it, but lets don't get mad because of it.
Lets put it a little stronger, DON'T TAKE THIS THING SO SERIOUSLY!.
What if the board members get so much flack that thet decide it isn't worth the trouble? What if they decide to do away with the HOF just to keep trouble down?
Would that make anyone happy? No!
Support these board members and the HOF. I know them all personally and think they are some of the finest, most intelligent people in the steel guitar industry. I'd vote for every one of them to be on this board. Do I agree with all their choices? Who cares, I don't have to, but I might!
Lets have fun.
Now read this before I delete it! Just some fun thoughts. Keep it light guys, we are a family and really all love each other, right?
Bless you all,
bobbe
sorry aboput the editts, I sphel phunnie at timez
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by BobbeSeymour on 10 November 2004 at 06:53 PM.]</p></FONT><FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by BobbeSeymour on 10 November 2004 at 07:00 PM.]</p></FONT>
-
Andy Greatrix
- Posts: 1561
- Joined: 4 Aug 1998 11:00 pm
- Location: Edmonton Alberta