The Steel Guitar Forum

To all I say this. Don't read this. Choose some other topic. Close it now. If you are wanting to get upset, run outside and slam the car door on your hand. So, just click back to another topic. I'm not soliciting you to read it. If you do, you're on your own, and with no help from me. I don't even want a reply here. Let this topic just fade into the archives of cyberspace. But if it disappoints you and you must try to "kill the messenger" I guess you can go for it, but I will not respond. I don't give a rat's one way or another. I don't plan to ever post on this subject again (Do I hear clapping?).

My "choo choo" post was locked before I could address some of the posters, and I had this all done before I discovered that.

To my dear friend, Fred Shannon (11-29-04 post): Yes I did see every email Scotty sent you. And I know that nowhere in them did he tell you to keep the information in them confidential. You should have clarified your posts on the Forum and limited the divisiveness that withholding that information created by your silence. If you were concerned about the negative impact withholding that information would cause, you should have promptly asked Scotty to allow you to explain on the Forum the fact that you had received clarifying information and wanted to set everything straight. You didn't. I believe you didn't want others to know that you misled them for 2 weeks. I think you just wanted to practice avoidance, because you enjoyed kicking this dog. Had the situation were revered, however, I know you would be skewering me here and loving every minute of it. Bless you Fred.

Andy Greatrix' 11-29-04 post: The Board knows Julian's background well, in terms of his playing and his relationships with other steel player. Being a fine player is a small part of a nominee's accomplishments. There are hundreds of excellent and even "great" players of this instrument all over the world. It takes more than just what adoring fans appreciate in a person's playing skills to qualify for HOF induction.

b0b's 11-29-04 post: Your observation is absolutely correct. You can't say someone is nominated unless you know that the folks who consider that nomination ever received the nomination form you are convinced you mailed to them, but maybe dropped along the way. Fred knew the Board had not received his letter for 2 weeks, but didn't see fit to clarify the situation here on the Forum until your post alerted him that someone else knew about his missing letter.

Dan Tyack's 11-29-04 post: Your reply of 11-29-04 mentions "bias" several times. Every person on this planet is biased. Every Board member has to be biased if they get 15 nominations each year and only induct two. Without bias, nothing would ever get done. You expressed bias in your conclusions toward me. There is no such thing as impartiality, neutrality, objectivity, or other words that imply bias. These are goal-words. You strive to get close to behaving as these words seem to direct you, but you can never measure up to them. People who have to make decisions need all of these words in order to make tough decisions. Even flipping a coin to make a decision is being biased toward making a decision or taking action. Interestingly, there is also no such thing as "Judge not unless you be judged". That very statement is a judgement. You reference Anderson. I've told Reece directly, 5 years ago, how he can remove my opposition to voting for his HOF induction. He knows it isn't a secret. He just chooses not to do it. Also, I could easily abstain from voting for him (if it ever came to a vote). I have no problem doing that. Would Reece then be inducted? Would Tharpe then be inducted? Both would still need to receive 4 votes. So, I guess I control 4 other votes, right? Man I am one powerful scumbag! I probably bring a gun with me to the Board meetings in order to get my way. You need to ask yourself, "Could the Board know more about these individuals than Bradshaw knows, so they don't care about Bradshaw's feelings anyway?" You know, I should look into that possibility, huh?

Lonnie Portwood's 11-29-04 post: Your wisdom is obvious. I believe if you were constantly attacked as I have, you might decide to defend yourself. But, don't stop practicing your steel.

Rick McDuffie's 11-29-04 post: You stated that the issue is "political and means nothing". The "art of the compromise" is the operative definition of "politics." It is obvious that for the past 26 years there has been no compromise on the Board's part regarding this subject. Therefore, "politics" is not an issue or the appropriate word. "Steadfast," "Loyalty to conviction", and "resolute" seems to be the operative words. However, your "… means nothing" portion of your sentence appears important to a few Forumites. However, considering that there are over 4,000 members here, and maybe 40 have posted on this subject, that is less than 1% of the membership. So, I'd say you are absolutely correct.

Mike Cass's 12-1-04 post: It is gratifying to see your recollection of words I wrote 33 years ago in Guitar Player magazine (which you paraphrased). Apparently what I wrote back then they stuck with you. The complete line was "They are outspoken, picky, pushy and opinionated as they glean through the infrequent tidbits of published material about steel and steel players." Looks like you are living by those words.

Paul King's 12-1-04 post: Paul, you and I have been friends a long time. Your kind remarks are appreciated. I read a post you made awhile back. You explained in much detail about entrusting Reece with a guitar and never got the guitar back or your money. Is that still true? Seems to me that if it is still true, any way you slice it you must feel stiffed.

Fred Shannon's 12-1-04 post: Fred dear Fred. You pose several questions for me to answer. I fail to see the relevance any of them have to your not informing everyone that you had known for 2 weeks that your nomination for Julian was missing? But, I'll give you the answers. Yes I did furnish alcohol to the resistive girl steel player in the back seat of my '29 Ford (with '32 frame, fenders and gas tank-boy do I miss that rod). I was 17, my testosterone was flaming and…. Oh, enough of that. Yes, I succumbed to peer pressure and smoked a cigarette behind the gym with this girl steel player. Yes, I did take my parent's car before I was licensed and gave a ride to that same hot steel player and we … oh Tom, quit reminiscing. Yes I got busted in a bar with another gal-steeler before I became interested in boys, and all were underage players. I have more answers to questions if you have them. These life-experiences should confirm that "… a person who wrongs another steel player wrongs us all". Funny, the gals and guys never complained and I've admitted my indiscretions to a ton of steelers, including Bobbe Seymour. He only drooled and wanted a girl by girl descriptions of events. No one has told me I wronged them by wronging those girls.

Your questions imply that making amends doesn't count. I apologized to them all and they couldn't understand why. But for every mistake I've made I've corrected. As I said in my original post (now locked), find a steel player I've wronged and not righted. For every mistake I feel bad about, I've corrected it and felt good (Abe Lincoln said almost the identical thing-look it up!). I've turned all my mistakes with my fellow steel players into accomplishments. Therefore, if you feel that my mistakes prove that " . . . a person who wrongs another steel player wrongs us all" is accurate in my case, spread my admissions to the world. Then on the other side of the coin, I've felt wronged by a lot of people, including you. Did you wrong me by keeping quiet while, knowing that I knew nothing about Julian being nominated? You will surely deny that I had been wronged. Therefore, you're right, right?

Dear, dear Fred, I'm proud of you. But I'd be even more proud of you if you righted every wrong you did. But I know that's impossible because you don't err in any form whatsoever. As I wrote in my Forum post (now locked), to err is human. I also know that it is more human to blame it on someone else. What close friend do you have that blames his errors on someone else? If he corrects those mistakes before he departs this planet, he may be forgiven. If he doesn't, he takes them with him and the reputation that goes along with being a deadbeat. So, best correct all your mistakes before you depart. One departed steeler didn't. I'm not going to honor him for neglecting to do that. He didn't do me any harm. Thus, I have no authority to forgive him. Those who were victimized are the ones to offer forgiveness, not I. Funny, I think I forgive you now that I realize how insignificantly I've been wronged. Go in peace my friend.

Dan Tyack's 12-1-04 post: What "unsolicited emails" are you referring to? I have seen people on the Forum post some questions and concerns about many things. I've dropped them a note asking them if they want to hear my point of view. If they don't respond, no problem. If they say they want to know, I tell them. Several times they were very disappointed in learning what I told them, then complained bitterly in a Forum post. Why the hell did they ask me? Were they expecting me to lie to them? I was the messenger. I delivered the message they asked for. They didn't say, "I only want to know if I'm going to like the answer." Then, they want to strangle me for answering their question. Isn't that the age-old act of "killing the messenger"?

Dan, I know that Fred Shannon once got a copy of some material I sent him that I copied from a computer file by simply going to the "Edit" icon and clicking on "Select All." In that file was another topic. He has raised hell with me ever since, claiming I sent him "unsolicited" information. Wow! Doesn't he know how to use the Delete button? Therefore, I'm amazed that when someone gets something they didn't expect, that shatters their illusions and disappoints them, the message becomes an ugly "unsolicited" email. Had I sent them an email saying their name had been picked at random from my database and they had won a new volume pedal, would they have complained about getting an "ugly" unsolicited email? Not on your life, even you!

You then talk about "public partisanship" as disqualifying me for Board membership. Wrong! It qualifies me! Without being partisan to one or all HOF nominee's qualifications, I couldn't make a decision and would offer nothing as a Board member. I'd become a non-participant (something you feel should happen, right?) and would result in one of your heroes being inducted in the HOF, right? Most likely that conclusion would be wrong again. It takes 4 votes for induction. I can't control the outcome by abstaining.

While reading this Forum, I see examples of partisanship in every post from every steel player. Factionalism, bias, warped thinking, and fanatical obsessing are all synonyms for partisanship. The very fact that you have a point of view makes you partisan to that point of view. And you certainly have a point of view toward me, right? I'm OK with that and with any position contrary to mine. I'm not even upset that you posted an "unsolicited" response to my Forum post. Read it, I didn't even solicit a response from anyone. Boy, did I get them. Am I upset?

One last item: Fred, in one of your posts (12-1-04) you referenced a letter I wrote "to a gentleman in Louisiana, in which he made serious derogatory remarks and unproven allegations about a well known steel player. In that letter he plainly stated his position as being a member of the SGHOF board." Who could this be Fred? Are you fearful of saying my name? For goodness sake, by now, aren't we all close friends? You wouldn't be talking about the great Jinx Carmen would you? Spit it out.

Regardless, here is the letter I suspect you are referencing. I think I'm quite pointed and explicit in it. What I expected of Reece in my 1993 letter that he sent to me in 1999, is the same expectation I've had for 20+ years now. I told you he knows what I want. If you were one of those old depositors, I think you would want it to. And finally, would you, Fred, buddy, old pal, stop asking me to do your work for you? If you have emails I sent to you, and the ones Gonzales got from me, you and he post the damn things yourself. Cool down Tommy, now. You know how to type. If you feel that information belongs on the Forum, get with it; post it. I don't give a rat's. I'm not ashamed of anything I've ever said to anyone or about anyone in an email. You think that embarrasses me? Get real!

Oh, the letter you describe as derogatory:

1-26-93

Calvin Phelps
P.O. Box 230
Winnfield, LA 71483

Dear Dr. Phelps:

The letter that you wrote to Scotty, proposing the induction of Mr. Maurice Anderson into the Steel Guitar Hall of Fame was forwarded on to me by Scotty (as it probably was to every other member of the Steel Guitar Convention Board), who selects the recipients of the H. of F. award each year.

Mr. Anderson was on track to become an inductee of this award back in the '70s. Although that would have been premature at that time, had it been mentioned by any of us then, we would have probably said it would happen at some time in the future (there are many players today that we would surely make the same comment about if that were brought up).

Want occurred in the early '80s with the MSA guitar company and the involvement of the executives of that Company, has most likely placed a permanent damper on any discussion of an induction for Mr. Anderson. When the interest in the purchase of new MSA pedal steel guitars diminished (along with the separation of a business relationship of MSA with the Norlin Company-distributors of Gibson instruments and a host of other musical products), MSA found itself in a desperate business condition. The firm began selling directly to customers. They offered special discounts on their guitars if the total cost of the instruments was forwarded with each order. The predictable outcome of all this was that many customers ended up advancing the firm many hundreds of dollars for guitars that they never received, nor did they receive a refund. The executives of MSA took the position that such a situation was simply a case of a business falling on hard times and that happens all the time in many businesses. The members of the Board of the H. of F., have never "bought" that excuse and have a list of "victims" who don't buy it either. We have fellow steel players who were promised guitars ("Your guitar is sitting on the freight dock just awaiting shipment if we get the balance owing on it.), with no shipment received after such a verbal promise was made. In a discussion once with Mr. Anderson, he told me that "only" $35,000 was lost to customers whose guitars were never shipped. That insensitive comment still rings in my ears. Actually, the Convention Board members feel that the loss to fellow steel players far exceeded the figure that Mr. Anderson mention to me. But, any amount should have been eventually refunded.

Beyond what the MSA executives provide as an excuse for the failure of their business is the fact that the firm never declared bankruptcy, but their fixtures and even guitar parts were sold after the company did "go under." I have a letter here from a steel player who wrote me just this past year advising that he had contacted Mr. Anderson who was willing to sell him one of the leftover cabinets to an MSA SS model steel guitar. The fellow was asking if I would have any of the other parts available so he could fabricate a "new" MSA since he would have a new cabinet. Just this year, an old customer of MSA in New Zealand (who lost over $2200.00) in advance money for a new MSA had an executive of the company tell him that it was he who owed MSA that money. The arrogance and outright lies of that Company's past executive reveals the intent to minimize the terrible fraud perpetrated on the steel guitar player (if you wish to write the man, I can supply you with his address).

I do not speak for the rest of the H. of F. board Members, but before any consideration (from me) for Mr. Anderson's induction into the Hall of Fame could ever occur would be for all the past victims of dealings with the MSA Company to be made whole again. I have no belief that that will ever occur. The damage in this single area alone is sufficient to overshadow any contributions made by Mr. Anders that might justify his membership in the Steel Guitar Hall of Fame.

Sincerely

Tom Bradshaw
Cc: Convention Board Members

Fred old friend: Please remember that Maurice distributed this letter to at least 30 people, people who were my friends. He included a 15-page letter of excuses for why he had not reimbursed those depositors. Thus, Maurice made this letter a public document.
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Tom Bradshaw on 02 December 2004 at 05:55 PM.]</p></FONT>

Of course everybody has an opinion, and a set of biases. The issue is public display of bias when an individual is in a role where they are then expected to vote in an evenhanded way. I have no problem with you making a public case against Reece, nor with you serving on the HOF board, it is the combination of the two that doesn't feel right to me.

FWI, I did recieve a quite detailed letter from you regarding Reece, and I definitely didn't request it.

I'd still like to hear an answer to these questions: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><HR><SMALL>4. Have you been the defendant in, required to participate in, or settled out of court, a legal proceeding brought by the action of a prominent steel guitar player, relative to your not paying monies for materials you reproduced and marketed?

5. Have you been a defendant in, required to participate in, or settled out of court, a legal proceeding based upon your written and oral wrongful derogatory accusations and remarks made about a prominent steel player and his business activities, where you later admitted publicly on this forum that you had been wrong ?</SMALL><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no right to take this time to post something such as this. I am grieving over the loss of my wife and best friend. To read this makes me wonder. Have you nothing better to do than to start all of this again?

I have had my expieriences with Fred and Reece and Tom Bradshaw. My induction to the the Hall of Fame was quite an honor,but when I see things like this it makes me wonder if it was worth it.

I think Tom Bradshaw knows what I am making reference to. dont ya Tom?

I miss my wife but I dont miss threads like this. Im sorry but I have my own convictions regarding the character of these three people
Reece,Fred and TB. My opinions are my own.

The hole gets deeper the longer the shovel digs
in. Its a waste. Sorry for interfering.

The Hall Of Fame is a great Honor. But knowing the friends on this Forum is a bigger honor than a plaque hanging on a wall.

Sorry.

Tom,

The Christian thing to do is to Forgive and ask forgiveness. You are harboring malovence against REECE over something that happened 25 years ago.
The whole world has moved on....you should too.
It is not good to hold a grudge of this magnatude for this many years.
This can cause health problems from the bitterness you hold deep inside.

Tom...I don't mean to sound disrespectful here....and reading this back...it could look that way. Believe me, that is not my intention. I have the upmost respect for most all forumites and the HOF board...and REECE.

Some bad things happened a few years ago...
some things were made right...some may not have been. Forgive and forget bro.
Sounds like you have the Forgive part down....or so you say....but the FORGET part is just as important. It is BIBLICAL!

God forgives AND forgets...why can't you?

I apologize in advance if I have offended you here Tom. ..again, that was not my intention. Nevertheless, what I said here, needed to be said. (Christian's View).

Thank you for your time.

b




------------------
MSA Millennium D10, Walker Stereo Steel, Stone Tree Custom Tele, LINE 6 Vetta II and POD XT PRO

I have never hidden the fact concerning my claim with Reece and MSA. I did indeed post a rather lengthy story concerning my case with MSA over a steel that was left before the company went belly up. I was disqualified from the process which I expected. I made a comment on another forum that if I was dishonest I would have filed a claim that I never received a new steel. The next morning I had an email from Kyle Bennett apologizing for the way they had handled my claim. Kyle made me an offer from the company that was in line with what others had been offered. I have stated I thought that did show some character from MSA to have disqualified me then make me a offer toward the purchase of a new steel. I would have rather had the cash but MSA did not see my case as the others. They claim they had no record of me leaving the steel in their possession. I told Kyle that I would accept the offer he made me. I do not know what others have accepted or how many depositors have received any compensation. My taking Kyle up on the offer I believe settles my dispute with MSA. As far as Reece being inducted into the Hall Of Fame I have mixed feelings myself. I personally am not an individual to hold a grudge after an effort has been made to satisfy my claim even though I would rather have had the cash. I have know Tom Bradshaw for years but I do not believe he alone has kept Reece or Julian from being in the Hall Of Fame. I do not know how the board votes, if it is a unanimous decision or majority wins. I do not even know what Julian has done that some feel he should not be in the Hall Of Fame. I have stated the board has done a great job down through the years and I feel like these two men will get their due in time.

if reese is wrong let him make it right w/ the one's that did not get the guitars or what ever, reese make it right and everyone will be happy,you are one great player so set evryone straight or make it right and you will make it to the steel guitar h.o.f. someday.

thanks tom you are one straight man, and stick to your guns and let no one change your mind! enought said on this!

It is a very sad thing to see a man so consumed with hatred that he is destroyed by it. That is the real storyline here, as far as I'm concerned.

Tom is it getting a bit close back in that corner? I see you're still at it, and I don't know why. I was ready to give it up with the other thread but I can see your determined to keep it up. The jig's up. Just answer the questions truthfully. Baffle 'em with BS forget the facts. You can put all this to rest simply by answering those six questions on the other thread truthfully. You won't do that because you know these guys will
finally realize that maybe what you say ain't what you meant, and damned sure not how you've treated some folks. Don't you agree? You make fun of the questions' contents by posting your little simple attempt to be funny, but you still haven't answered one single question that is pertinent to your activities with respect to some steel players. Everyone makes mistakes. I've made
many but I haven't ever wronged an individual purposefully or made unsubstantiated derogatory comments about people's character or reputation with respect to a position I held that could void their honored induction to a Hall of Fame. All I can say to you is
this should give you another opportunity to set it straight. Just answer the damned questions.

Here's some answers to your 'novellette' questions you posed above.

**Unsolicited emails? How about these next two. I certainly didn't ask for them.**

From: "Tom Bradshaw" <tbradshaw@california.com>
To: <fjshannon1@cox.net>
Subject: Forward request.
Date: Friday, November 05, 2004 10:00 PM
Fred: I received the following message from Jim Molberg.
It is self-explanitory.
Dear Tom: I read Fred Shannon's post on the Forum. It
looks like he wants to see a list of the depositor/victims
of the old MSA firm. I have tried to send it to him, but
my server keeps returning it as undeliverable. If you are
able to communicate with him, would you pass it on.
Perhaps he would like to post this information on the
Forum, in view of his desire to make things public.
Thanks, Jim Molberg.

**This was all bs I was receiving emails all day long because I was working on the guitar sale for one of the forum members
---------
**Here's one unsolicited email from you I bet you wish you hadn't sent. You asked for legal action. Sometimes we know not what we ask for. Folks notice that my email was a forwarded email and it came from Mr. Scott. I didn't send it to Bradshaw, and I certainly didn't ask for him to send me anything.**

From: "tom bradshaw" <bradshaw@california.com>
To: "Reece Anderson" <msareece@flash.net>
Subject: Re: Statement!!!!
Date: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 8:03 PM
Hi Maurice: You and I don't have a problem at all. I'm puzzled that
you view it that way. Your problem is with:
Jan Visser
Janne Lindgren
Helge Johannesen
Dave Tunnecliffe
Mac McLendon's heirs
Glenn Tackett
Randall Harrington, and surely many more victims that will emerge over
time.
You need to settle your differences with these people, not with Tom
Bradshaw. I am a messenger, not one of the victims. It has been your
victims who have accused you. I have simply championed their cause; a
worthy cause of which I am proud to be a part.
It is obvious that you have come to grips with the fact that I'm going
to take our conflict to the Internet. I'm simply going to provide all
the letters and documentation that your victims saved over the years.
You should recall that I suggested this approach in my memorandum to you
of 7-8-99. That is when you contacted your attorney and he sent me the
threatening letter. It didn't deter me from my cause then, and nothing
will deter me from it now.
If you have a problem with the complete story going on the Internet, why
not contact your attorney again? Tell him to file suit in Federal Court
and get an injunction to delay my publishing of all the documentation.
Have him get a trial date. Have the trial lead to a judicial finding.
I have read many of your letters where you have asked to be confronted
by your accusers. A court of law seems like the perfect way to achieve
what you have been demanding. For all you really know, I may be
bluffing. Perhaps I really don't have all your personal letters
admitting to everything I mentioned in those "Installment Reports" I
sent to you (and to the 25+ other people you circulated your 15-page
letter to (of May 12, 1999). So, in the words you have used with me on
several occasions, "The ball is in your court."
Incidentally, I received a forwarded e-mail from a Fred Shannon. He
represents himself as an "investigative journalist." You know him. You
showed him my letter to Dr. Phelps. He mentions that he is "also a
retired Senior Columnist for the Ellis County Press, Texas Press
Association, and a member of The Society of Professional Journalists."
I may be given the task of responding to his letter to the Convention
Board. However, it has occurred to me, why not have him use his
investigative prowess to cover the trial? In his letter, he made some
"presumptions" about you, me, and the Board, and at the same time,
indicated that presumptions were "fatal errors." They are and will
prove to be with him. I will send him a copy of this message to you,
since I know you received a copy of his message. I look forward to
having him view the evidence on the Internet or in court if you choose
to take it there.
Regards, ...Tom
P.S.: Who wrote your current message to me (below)? You would never
lower yourself to write such a suck-up letter like that to me or
anyone. Your style is nowhere to be seen in that tome of conciliatory
nonsense. You know that such placating tactics will never deter me from
my goal of restitution to your victims. So, make that message your
last. I don't intend to respond again. You can read what I have to say
on the Internet.

Cc: Fred Shannon and others as is appropriate.
------------------
**Forumites this is the "header" of one of Mr. Scott's emails to me. Care to comment Bradshaw?**

From: "Scotty" <scotty@scottysmusic.com>
To: "Fred Shannon" <fjshannon1@cox.net>
Subject: Reply
Date: Monday, November 29, 2004 8:12 PM
Hi Fred,
Once again, this entire email is private between you and me and not for print on the forum

-----------------
**Forumites this is an email to me stating that Mr. Scott was going to enter the privacy information on the other thread. It never
was put on. **

From: "Scotty" <scotty@scottysmusic.com>
To: "Fred Shannon" <fjshannon1@cox.net>
Subject: Scotty
Date: Monday, November 29, 2004 9:57 PM
Fred,
I haven't forgot you wanting me to post something on the forum in your defense about the article by Tom. I'm trying to word it. I
will get back to you soon.
Scotty
Scotty Music, Inc.
9535 Midland Blvd.
St. Louis, MO. 63114-3314
Phone: 314-427-7794
Fax: 314-427-0516 www.scottysmusic.com
scotty@scottysmusic.com
------------
**Forumites this is the notorious Bradshaw to Gonzales email about Julian Tharpe. Bradshaw asked that I post it so here it is. I cleared this with Richard Gonzales again today. This one probably clears up two of the questions, you only have 4 more to go.**

From: tom bradshaw <bradshaw@california.com>
To: RICHARD GONZALES <rfgonz@conconinc.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: Julian Tharpe
Richard: This is the standard response I give to anyone who asks my personal opinion about about Julian's chances for HOF induction. That is the reason some of the information is information you already know. They usually ask the question, "What might be holding up Julian's induction into the SGHOF?"
This is an easy question to answer and it applies to every nominee. When any person is considered for HOF induction, it takes 4
votes out of 7 (a simple majority) to get the award. This answer might sound like an excuse to avoid providing you with the information you want. Not so. I just want to begin by emphasizing that everyone on the seven-member Steel Guitar Convention Board has a vote. I am just one of those votes.
Being a member of the HOF "committee" (the official name is actually Steel Guitar Convention Board), requires that all
discussions at meetings be confidential. Therefore, there is no way I will say anything in this message to you that will violate that rule. If I'm going to be a member of a group, I either accept the group's rules before I become a member, don't join in the first place, or withdraw from it if I have a conflict with the rules. Should anyone of us withdraw from such a group, departing means taking nothing with us. This kind of integrity is common, and every member of every group similar to ours complies with the group's rules. Otherwise, the group should expel them.
All the Board members are independent thinkers and aren't afraid to take a stand on any issue or discuss any subject pertaining
to their responsibilities as Board members. These guys are forthright and can't be pushed around. I'm often in awe at how dedicated, business-like and knowledgeable they are. There is no "power person" in the group, believe me. [Incidentally, and contrary to occasional comments on the Steel Guitar Forum, there is no "black balling" of a nominee, meaning a single "no" vote suspends all consideration.]
But to your question about Julian: Never at a meeting that I've attended has there been any discussion of Julian. Before last year, his name has never come up in any discussion regarding the HOF that I've attended. I wasn't able to attend last year's meeting,
so I wasn't there to hear whatever discussion might have been had, if any.
Julian was a friend of mine. He and I were together a lot on one of the many trips I made to the D.J. Convention in Nashville
during the '70s.
of5
8/1/01
Page 2 of 5
Besides that, I had several contacts with him in the '80s. I really liked the guy. He was fun to be around and obviously a very
original player. Now however, he isn't around to defend himself, so I am not enjoying the answer I'm going to give you to your
inquiry. If he were alive, I'd probably confront him about the issues I'll detail here, but he isn't. This is like talking behind someone's back, and I don't like that. But, I can't think of a reason for not telling you what I know about his situation and how it surely impacts the prospects for his HOF induction. However, my concerns about his induction would be the same even if I
weren't a Board member. Some may feel that these concerns don't count and are not relevant to what hoe accomplished sitting
behind his steel. I donut see it that way, but that's just my position and it may not be the position of any or all of the other Board
members. They can think and talk for themselves if his name comes up at some future meeting. But they know all about what I'm about to reveal to you here.
During the '70s, a group of steel players in and around Nashville formed the Nashville Steel Guitar Club. They nominated and elected club officers, including a treasurer. The club operated for a brief time, collecting dues and increasing their membership by
allowing people outside of the Nashville area to join. I sent in my dues and became a member. They published a Newsletter and held benefits and shows, subsequently accumulating a treasury reported to have been several thousand dollars. Unexpectedly, the club disbanded. Although I was a member, I didn't receive a notice about the disbanding. However, I did hear the rumor back then, that they shut down because their treasurer, who was a signatory to the club's bank account, drew all the money out of the club's account, bought a car, and moved to Florida. It was only quite recently that one of that club's members confirmed the rumor I had heard about 25 years ago. The person revealed to me that the treasurer was Julian Tharpe. Is it true? Following this revelation I contacted another current Nashville area player that I knew had been a member of that club. He confirmed that
Julian was the responsible treasurer. He indicated that Julian had also taken a number of amplifiers and guitars that had been
entrusted to him as sale consignments. I have been provided with a list of a number of other prominent steel players who were
involved with the club and still reside in and around Nashville. I have been told to contact them if I need more confirmation. I
don't intend to do that. I believe that the two people who provided me with the information knew what they were talking about.
In the late '70s I began publishing Steel Guitarist magazine. I immediately became the hub of more rumors and "interesting"
stories than you can imagine. Back then, it seemed that everyone thought I knew everything, or wanted to clue me in on
everything that was going on in the steel community. I was told by somebody (I can't recall who), that during the time Julian was
on the road with various bands, players would approach him and talk steel. During the course of those conversations some
would mention that they wanted to buy another steel, but couldn't find anyone to sell their old one to. Julian would mention (and
8/1/01
Page 3 of 5
probably truthfully) that many people approached him while on the road, wanting a steel to learn to play, or wanting to upgrade
the steel they already had. They would ask_.how they could obtain a used steel. Julian would tell them that if they would entrust their steel to him, he would sell it and send them the money he got for it (or give them some agreed upon amount that the player was wanting for it). This story seemed reasonable to me. Frankly, Julian didn't make much money then (or maybe ever), and it was easy to conclude that anyone in Julian's situation might want to supplement their income by doing this, and also help a fellow
steel player at the same time. Whatever Julian's good intentions were, I was told that some of the people never got their money
or their guitar back! I didn't know if this was true, so I just stored that information in my memory, never feeling it would mean
much. I figured if people chose to give him their guitars, they surely knew the risk. That, however, didn't excuse Julian for what is alleged to have occurred. When I went to the steel guitar convention following Julian's death, I got in a discussion with one of the other Board members (but not at a Board meeting). I mentioned that I had heard that Julian was murdered (struck in the head
with a hammer). That Board member confirmed this and said someone he ripped off may have caught up with him! That statement got my attention. It was then that I was told the same story that I had heard in the late '70s, but now from a person who said he had talked fae to face with several of the victims. Thus, there was confirmation to a rumor that I had heard, maybe 25 years before that time. I know that Board member very well and know he would not have told me the story unless he had talked to the victims personally, and believed them. I chose not to mention the following story to that person at the time he told me his.
While at the same convention, I was talking to another Board member (again, not at a Board meeting) and Julian's name came up. I mentioned to him that Julian had called me about 3 weeks before he died, asking if I was interested in buying all his albums. Julian told me he was offering me full ownership of the albums at $500.00 each, and would give me the master tapes. He said he really needed money to help with his medical bills. Julian told me someone had tried to kill him by hitting him in the head with a hammer. Little did I know that that injury would result in his death. I told him I couldn't come up with that kind of money ($2500). Frankly, none of his albums ever sold that well and I felt it would take me years to recover my money. Upon hearing this, the Board member I was explaining it to became quite agitated. That was because, as I learned at that moment, he owned all but one of Julian's albums (and had release rights to the remaining one: "Take Your Pick"). Had I thought about it when Julian initially called me, I might have been suspicious and should have asked him how he gained ownership of all his albums. I had
always believed that Julian owned half interest in "Take Your Pick" (with Blondie Calderon), but again, ownership of his
other albums didn't even enter my mind during the telephone call. My
8/1/01
Page 4 of 5
friend and I were both struck by the fact that Julian was going to rip him off, and stiff us both by selling something he didn't own.
Can you imaaine how I too would have been "aaitated" if I had bouaht those aIUUIII~, l/lt::rl It::arrlt::U taler IrlaI JUlian naa soia me someone elses property? By the time I would have discovered this, Julian would have been in the ground! I then told that person the story of the other .,.;+"".+;, [2,,+ f..,.,...I.,I" ,.", I ,.".", j.,...II;~~ h:~ I ~,...~~,...,.J j.h~j. h~ ~I~~_,.J~. knew about it.
Now, with at least 3 Board members knowing about Julian's compunctio for stiffing his fellow steel guitar "brothers," what would you expect will be discussed if Julian's name comes up for HOF induction? Is this something I should keep quiet about? Should I button my lip at such a Board meeting, only speaking up if someone else brings up these matters? Do you think that this group of people would want to impugn, diminish and tarnish the image of the highest award a player can obtain from his steel guitar playing peers, by risking the undercurrent of resentment that would surely surface later if Julian's misconduct became generally known? There may already be hundreds of steel players who have heard of Julian's behavior in these matters. The three situations I've mentioned here may be the only incidents, but what if other similar forms of misconduct toward people
involved with the steel guitar came to light?
When the Board is considering inducting anyone, I strongly feel that they have an obligation to consider the consequences, now
and in the future, of a decision that could be looked upon as ill advised, grossly inept, or ignorant of the facts. I would expect
any award-giving group to consider the potential of such terrible outcomes to the prestige involved in an award given, as well as its impact on the stature of previous and future inductees. Should anyone in the steel guitar community expect anything less of
this Board? I don't think so.
Perhaps some Board at some future date will induct someone that victimizes his fellow steel players or engages in some kinds of
conduct toward others actively connected to the steel guitar or its community of enthusiasts. Such a possibility is unpredictable, naturally. I can't even say whether the current Board would not do that. But I'm confident it hasn't happened yet. But then, something may come up later on (as it did in another HOF venue) that would make everyone shake their heads in disgust and
embarrassment, to learn something awful about one of their HOF inductees.
But, to continue. Misbehavior not associated with the instrument isn't what I'm talking about here. Failure to pay child support,
passing bad checks, a terrible driving record, etc. are not what I, personally, would consider. It is misbehavior directly related to the instrument and the image of those associated with the instrument and the award, or is detrimental to the instrument's
community of players and enthusiasts. Naturally, this is just my personal position, but is quite
8/1/01
Page 5 of 5
clear to me. I could not vote for anyone with this kind of "baggage" in his/her background. There are 6 other Board members
and I will never facts. r"'_J.L-_J.I__'__J." I~_J.I"~ " 'r ", "'-" with the HOF Board, even though all of the current Board surely
have some knowledge of Julian's baggage, and perhaps other issues I'm ignorant of, Like I said, I've never been involved in a
discussion about Julian at any meeting where his induction was under consideration Unfortunately, Julian isn't here to defend
himself. Maybe he didn't stiff any of those people and those who circulated the stories just fabricated them for reasons I will
never know about. If Julian really were responsible for this misconduct and had he lived, perhaps he would have redeemed
himself by paying back every one of those victims. Maybe he would have changed his mind about selling me the albums he didn't
own. I don't know. He died and no one will ever know what would have happened. There is no way he can redeem himself. But
short of proof, it is too risky for me to consider voting for his induction.
Additionally, other matters may surface, and what I already know may be just tips of that proverbial iceberg of misconduct that
could come to light in future years.
Regarding the many HOF issues recited on the Forum, I have grown tired of viewing the "cat and mouse" games played by many posters. The issue has become clear to me. If I am asked a question that doesn't violate the confidentiality of a discussion at a HOF Board meeting, I don't intend to lie and say I don't know anything. That kind of avoidance creates distrust and actually hatred of the Steel Guitar Convention Board. I don't want to see this state of affairs continue to fester. It creates perceptions like the "black balling" talk and other salacious innuendoes that simply aren't true. However, if Julian's background were revealed on the Forum, it would hurt a lot of people.
Particularly, it could be devastating to Julian's family. I would really hate to see that happen. I know that several of them have
already contributed posts to the crusade for Julian's HOF induction. Julian's family doesn't deserve that kind of public humiliation for behavior by Julian that they may be unaware of. If I were to reveal what I have to you, but on a Forum post, I would be
criticized to no end, and justifiably so. So, what is the correct approach? Remain silent and allow the Board to be demonized, or
speak up and surely be condemned? If it is correct that "the truth sets you free," then I feel compelled to state it as I know it, should I be asked about Julian.
Tom
8/1/01


I wasn't going to post the Julian item but you asked for it and because you don't give a rat's whatever you shouldn't care. I'm through now Tom, blaze away. But I see a bunch of "Maybe's" in your email above. Any of these allegations been legally proven? Darn sure something to think about? I notice, too, this email about Julian looks a lot like your letter you posted to Dr. Phelps.

fred
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Fred Shannon on 02 December 2004 at 09:29 PM.]</p></FONT>

Jim wrote

<SMALL>It is a very sad thing to see a man so consumed with hatred that he is destroyed by it. That is the real storyline here, as far as I'm concerned.</SMALL>

Amen

There is a world of difference between bias and bad blood.

What I want to know is, WHO GIVES A FAT RAT'S BUTT??? THIS THREAD OUGHTA BE CLOSED, BEFORE MIKE CASS CHALLENGES THE FORUM AND HALL OF FAME TO A CAGE MATCH. YEAH, I KNOW WHO CASS IS----ALWAYS HAVE.
JUST SHUT UP ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THESE TWO GUYS GET IN THE HALL OF FAME----AT LEAST FOR A WEEK OR TWO.
buncha little girls...

".... youre living it"

Tom, get a new writer man, I gave you much better potential flame targets than that to hit back with, and quit plagarizing me plagaraizing you. My posts were intended to show you how it feels to be intensly disliked,chastised and otherwise hung out to dry as youve so carelesslely done over the decades(!)to others. Obviouly my message was lost on you.........sigh!

Not trying to offend anyone here in the least -- believe me.

I've been observing these various threads over the past several days, as I'm sure many have. I've been admittedly clueless as to the entire subject matter (up until now) of this whole issue, save for a few vague memories of having read a tidbit here and a tidbit there in the past.

So, at the very least, these threads have shed some light as to what the heart of the issue is.

However, what I don't understand is the animosity shown toward Mr. Bradshaw. From what I can see:
1) the Julian Tharpe nomination letter was either not received by the convention board, or was lost. Mr. Scott apparently confirmed this as did the board secretary(?) Mr. Layman;
2) From various bits of evidence one can pretty much see what Mr. Bradshaw's position is in regard to Mr. Anderson as well as how and why he maintains that position;
3) From various other bits of evidence one can pretty much see what Mr. Bradshaw's position is in regard to Mr. Tharpe as well as how and why he maintains that position;
4) Mr. Bradshaw is but one (1) of seven (7) voting board members, of which seven votes, four (4) must be received by a nominee to gain admission into the SGHOF.

Maybe I'm blind, but I just don't see the reason for the animosity shown toward Mr. Bradshaw. I don't see any evidence that Mr. Bradshaw is unreasonably biased (or biased at all, really), nor do I see any evidence that he has some sort of hidden agenda or that he is out to get anybody for any reason. And, unless I missed it, nobody is accusing Mr. Bradshaw of making anything up.

I only see that he has developed his own opinions that are reasonably based on what he considers to be reasonably reliable information. Notwithstanding any of that, he's only 1 of 7 votes, of which only 4 are required for induction.

I just don't get it. Where's the beef? Could someone please explain to the rest of us the reason for all the fighting?

--edit-- before anyone starts flaming me, realize that I'm not on anyone's side. I don't necessarily agree with anyone, nor do I necessarily disagree with anyone. All I'm saying is that I don't see the reason for all the arguing. Maybe I'm missing an important piece of the puzzle. If so, maybe someone could explain it.
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 02 December 2004 at 10:11 PM.]</p></FONT>

Tom Olson, I completely agree with you. If Mr. B. heard extensive rumors of a candidates generosity towards fellow steelers, shoudn't he use that "bias" to push for that persons induction to the HOF? Or would you all prefer that he not take that(the good stuff) into consideration?! It's a subjective evaluation. Which of you guys thinks he could do it better? JP

B0b! This whole debate is going nowhere. Perhaps now is the time to consider closing or removing it. Just think if all these players spent all this time playing our wonderful instrument instead of this silly talk how much better players they would be. Are we that short of gigs that this is what it has come to? Perhaps the perpetrators need to be put on probation and cautioned or suspended from the forum for a while. I want to learn more about the steel guitar not the ugly side of human nature. B0b, it is your call!

What I see is repeats of rumours.
Or repeats of hearsay...

In the public press it is usually demanded that there be coroberation by at least 2 sources.

And at least one 1st hand account in most courts.

I see some sour grapes being used as coroboration vs Reece.
Some were not going to come to terms when offered ,
in some cases because of festering bad feelings.
But this is old news, we have long known there are a few who were never statisfiable.
Period, full stop.

And no 2nd and 3rd party coroberation vs Juilan.
Just hints that it exists....

If what is stated above is proved true, or at least properly coroberated,
then I would say, no he doesn't deserve being in.
Regardless of his chops and advancment of the instrument.

But on the other hand that means trashing the dead in public,
and many kinder hearts are loath to do that,
for his memory, his family and others sakes.
I can see why some who truely liked Julian while knowing he had some big faults, would want to stay silent.

I don't know enough about his playing to have an opinion in the historical context,
only his album with Zane Beck.

But I do find the whole thing monumentally saddening.
This thread, and dredging up this tripe again,
and again, and again.

Don't read this, don't say this, don't see this
just put it to bed....<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 03 December 2004 at 04:31 AM.]</p></FONT>

I have no opinion on this matter or at least I don't think I do. CC

Tom Olson, Jim Peters,

The letter that Bradshaw posted above about Maurice Anderson was written, I believe, in 1993. In September of 2002 Bradshaw wrote the following and, on this Forum, provided a website link to it:

To Whom it May Concern:
During the last several years, a conflict between me, Maurice Anderson and his former steel guitar company, known as MSA, led me to make inaccurate statements. I publicly accused Maurice Anderson and his former business associates, including Jerry Anderson and Stan Bennett of misappropriating deposit money from the old MSA entity, which had received funds from individuals who had ordered steel guitars, about the time the entity failed in the 1980s.
Recently, Maurice Anderson, Jerry Anderson and Kyle Bennett, who is one of Stan Bennett's sons, formed a new MSA entity, which is known as MSA Pedal Steel Guitars. As a good faith gesture, these individuals have caused the new MSA entity to proceed on a path that will provide full reimbursement to all those past affected individuals. Despite their commitments to an equitable resolution for those depositors, I concluded that their motives and actions were insincere. I was mistaken. I now believe their actions to be sincere. My misguided beliefs may have led many to conclude that these individuals are dishonest and disreputable, which has discouraged others from doing business with their new company, MSA Pedal Steel Guitars.
I now understand that my statements regarding Maurice Anderson and his colleagues, including Jerry Anderson, Stan Bennett and Kyle Bennett, and the MSA entities, were inappropriate. I now believe that these individuals - specifically Maurice Anderson - never misappropriated any funds belonging to others. I also believe that my statements, which might have discouraged others from doing business with MSA Pedal Steel Guitars, were inappropriate and emotionally driven.
I deeply regret my comments, conclusions and actions concerning the Andersons, the Bennetts and the MSA entities - particularly Maurice Anderson - who has been hurt the most by my actions and statements.
Furthermore, I wish to apologize to the steel guitar community at large and assure all that I will strive for the rest of my life to avoid similar situations, as well as rectify this one.
Tom Bradshaw

_______________________________

Dave

I am mentioned in Toms previous lengthy thread as a reference point to the start of this HOF topic. If you read the last part of my original "Julian Tharpe not nominated" post you will see what I hoped to accomplish by submitting it--a hope that something positive would come of all this discussion. With every post, I personally see more positive than negative in the fact that the truth is finally coming out on this issue as to why Tharpe ,and Reese, are not in the HOF. Most of the things that are both right AND wrong with the HOF protocal in regards to candidate selection and voting have finally been aired now for all to see. I was not the first person who questioned this. Over the years there have been several posts as to why Tharpe was not in the HOF, but not much in depth discussion about it. This time it has been different and the true sentiments of the steel community have reached the top of the pecking order on the HOF board. Either the board is its own entity and operates with no regard to the opinions of the SG community or it operates in tandem with the community and mirrors the opinions and demeanor of that group. Fred Shannon will send in his "formal" nomination for Julian Tharpe again. All that has been said here on this fine forum will be at the disposal of the HOF committee for each member to think about. If the board members vote ONLY on their own with no regards to what we think, then they might as well take all those plaques and divide them up among themselves and put them in their own basements. If the HOF board truly represents the steel community then the opinions of that community cannot be ignored. All the opinions of all of us must be weighed pro and con. This time when they vote, they can be held accountable. I hope the musicianship and the esteemed contribution of Julian Tharpe to the instrument that the HOF organization endears will outweigh the trite and petty personal feelings that are held against him by certain board members. Maybe the board could put on a recording of Tharpe while they deliberate on him. It could speak for Tharpe in a way that he cannot.

This is all about a personal grudge---it is wrong--and on any respectable committee it would not be tolerated because of the fairness standard that must permeate all committee dealings when a board member makes decisions that are a reflection of the group that he represents.

This might be the best opportunity that Julian Tharpe will ever have to be elected to the HOF. I hope he will be treated with a standard of excellance that is on par with his musicianship.

If Julian Tharpe is elected to the Steel Guitar Hall Of Fame, I pledge to donate $100 to the HOF for the expense of his award. Others might want to consider donating any amount they wish. This would be a fitting tribute from us in showing a positive community effort in this affair to show that we as the steel community support the instrument and honor players based on their contributions to that instument.

Dave H. I am aware of that letter, and also why it was written, but what is your point? Should a person make decisions, for or against any issue, based on what he feels in his heart? I'm not really taking a side for or against Mr. Anderson or Tharpe. I have received e-mails from both sides of the MSA issue, and cannot honestly "pick a side". The issue here is the SGHOF, and Mr. Bradshaw is only 1 vote. Should a man vote his conscience or not? JP

Jim Peters,

Maybe you should read that letter again. My point is that Bradshaw absolved Reece of any wrongdoing.

What's your point?

Dave

Jim P. I've read a lot of your posts on this forum and I respect your views on all. Integrity is the theme in nearly all I've read. But let me pose a thought; is this really about the SGHOF or is it more about Dignity, Honor, Trustworthiness, Integrity Dependability, Courtesy, Courage, Friendship, Ethics, etc.?
The SGHOF only came into play, in my opinion, simply because of the 1993 Bradshaw letter to Dr. Phelps. The fact that there was not enough honor to have the courtesy to send it to Reece also at that time leads me to believe it was an underhanded gesture on the writer's part, and a possible ulterior motive involved. Because I've taken the time to research this mess from the start, and also the fact that Reece Anderson is one of my best friends--which I'm proud to own up to, I've questioned this motive from the very beginning with respect to why that letter was written. I've got a record of numerous conversations & communications held with the SGHOF folks in an effort to have people think of changes that would make such chaotic crap like this from happening. I don't believe it wise for example to allow a single member of the board to be able to dispose of an individual's nomination letter in the manner in which the 1993 letter to the good Doctor, who by the way loved the steel guitar, was accomplished. Just not too ethical it seems. Further Jim, and in all due respect, the Bradshaw letter of apology, regardless of the reason it was posted on the forum, either was genuine or not. If not genuine, a man of conviction certainly would not have posted it. If posted only because of legal action then it's not worth the paper it was written on if it was not sincere, but in any event the truth of the matter is in either case, Bradshaw admits wrongdoing to a fellow steel player and former friend. As you know this is a land of laws still. If one doesn't like the law one should work to have the law changed. If your dog craps on my front door step I would probably only be able to either sweep it off or kick the dog until he doesn't think it worthwhile to make the trip, but if someone can be proven to utter scandalous remarks or write libelous matter publicly, I have a remedy prescribed by law. It's a guaranty, and because I choose to use that remedy, does that make me the bad guy? Lawsuits settled out of court are usually done because of some legal advisor's realization that one of the parties can't win, and financially it's better to take the easy way out. Just a few thoughts that might make for a different outlook on this entire matter, don't you agree.


fred

I stated in an earlier post I did not know how the board voted a player into the Hall Of Fame. Someone stated that majority wins, 4out of 7 votes. That being said, that shows me Tom Bradshaw has not kept Reece or Julian out of the Hall Of Fame by himself. There has to be at least 4 votes against the two men to keep them out. It seems right now there has been a tremendous error in whether the ballot even got to the board. Tom may have an ax to grind with these issues and sure has the right to feel and say what he wishes which is granted under the freedom of speech. Why is Tom and Herb taking a lashing over this issue? I do not know how Herb votes but I do know he is a fantastic steel player and is highly respected. I wish the other board members would respond to these issues and let us know how they feel. We all know Tom probably has voted against these two men but he alone cannot keep them out of the Hall Of Fame. Regardless of what has been done or said we all seem to forget what Tom has done for the steel guitar as well. I sure wish all of this would get settled so we can go on and enjoy this forum. I will say that I do not know about any compensation to other players from MSA. No one has sent me an email stating that they have or have not been compensated. Really it is none of my business. I do know MSA mad me an offer and I received the offer thus settling my dispute with Reece and MSA. I still believe these two men will get their due in time. I guess we will wait and see what happens next year.

Fred and Dave, I truly respect your opinions, but still cannot agree with you. You feel that Mr. B. has a personal vendetta of sorts against Reece and Julian, and said vendetta should disqualify him from voting. My view is that Mr.B can vote anyway that his conscience allows, within the framework of the SGHOF.He is only one vote, and if the other members thought he was not living up to his committment, they could remove him, I'm sure. I don't know anybody here, and only after reading this for days did I open my own big mouth. But again,I respect a different opinion.JP