Can someone enlighten me, please? I am/was under the impression this email list or forum was rescued from being dissolved by Kurt. (thank you Kurt) I was also under the impression this site was not part of or controlled by POCA.. Is this true? Thanks IndyDave Dave, You missed someone's good explanation of the list history. It was started long ago, and when it was time for the guy to move on, he allowed POCA to 'manage' it under certain conditions. Then recently MS decided it should be killed, favoring the POCA Board-like forum. Kurt Byrnes (sp ?) took responsibility and restarted it. Now, the list is 'freed from POCA'... THANKS Kurt! To use the POCA forum requires membership ($75 annually), it is censored for anti-POCA content, is no better than the GREAT (and free) PI Forum, actually much LESS than the PI Forum, and thus is not really used. And when newly-freed spirits discuss things 'here' some POCA people feel compelled to answer. Perhaps the POCA propaganda machine should re-evaluate their communications method. Or maybe Dave, you are adding your commentary too subtly for me (big grin). (Read between the lines ?!? What lines ?!? GRIN) Now... What caught my attention was a statement was made by the POCA-propaganda machine (PPM) regarding evaluation of alternate printers. How this was presented did seem reasonable (at first!). Yet Judy DeRyke (and/or others) commented on how the decision was actually made. This was refuted by the PPM. So someone felt it necessary to post just how POCA makes its decisions (well how Michael Shortt makes decisions for ALL POCA members) using an actual e-mail message as the fact/source/evidence. What better way to form an opinion than with facts, right? The posting of the facts was made by a non-POCA officer. He was then threatened with censure and being kicked out of the club for posting the evidence. WOW ! First, I do not believe the person posting the facts can or should be punished. He did not sign a statement or agree to ANY terms that he is in violation of. Challenging a lie is the right thing to do. If Mr. Shortt wants to try to punish anyone, it should be himself for not conveying the truth in the first place. While I am not passing judgment on any one suggestion for improvement of POCA, I do object to HOW things are done, and HOW people are being treated. More specifically how people who are not in full agreement with the current POCA president are being treated. Let everyone focus on that >one< issue. Correct that problem first, otherwise it will taint any and all (otherwise possibly good) suggestions for change within POCA. With the leak of this document, POCA members and non-members alike have been given insight into just how POCA is currently being run. How the PPM will respond will also be enlightening! Sad, quite sad. Here is an idea mentioned to me recently, perhaps if POCA wants to respond to statements, they could do so, but on their own website, and from their elected Public Relations guy (only), isn't that what the PR job entails? (Sorry to poke at Ed Mendez the current POCA PR guy, as he must have a REALLY tough job, being elected to be the official POCA voice, but having less-than-accurate statements made by the current POCA president as IF he is the sole POCA voice.) What a mess for the PR guy to be stuck with... Chuck