OK - fine Ray starts with one example and certainly there are tons of others out there. Now lets lead this discussion to comments made at association meetings. Do we need to go there too? Shall I pull a few storys out of my list of comments made against NACHI members bashing other assocaitions. When will all of this craziness stop!
But for the records, myself or my business partners do not receive one cent for endorsing or not endorsing an association. So there is no hidden agenda or paid endorsements. Ethically, it is not right to act unprofessionally. So why favour one group over another. But perhaps if any person regardless of the training venue bad mouths another association it is either personal opinion, or it should be dealt with and reported to the training provider. The same applies at association meetings, and equally as well right here on this forum. A lot of the discussions are laced with ill-will. Some feel until NACHI feels the need to reel in some of their biggest association and naming personal name bashers - that battle will continue. Who will take the lead?
Would that not seem to be a logical first proactive step in cleaning up trashing the other association. Someone has to be smart enough and big enough to say enough is enough. But it often appears that to stop this trash talking serves only one purpose.
Certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that is what separates the true professional instructors and leaders from those that think they are instructors or leaders.
The real concern I have here is that Nick’s invitation leads to the potential blacklisting or more to the point a direct opinion publicly posted threat as he states “We are going to put our best efforts into knocking NACHI-unfriendly schools out of business, kill their attendance, give their customers (students) better, less expensive options, or at least make it very unprofitable to hire biased instructors.”
Call it what you want - but this is a threat - that could be definitely dealt with much more diplomatically. The offer to give more for less - is palatible and tolerable, but parts of this statement certainly borders on the intent to monopolizing the education market, and only widening the gap between fostering true professionalism and credibility for our industry.