Spring Posted March 16, 2008 Author Share Posted March 16, 2008 CMON JERRY!!!!! U NO THAT CRAPS HILARIOUS!!!! WE LIVE IN THE SAME TOWN TOGETHER AND YOU NO ITS TRUE!! I JUST WISH WE HAD AUNT BEA COOKIN FOR US EVERY YEAR AT THE TATER FESTIVAL!!!!!!!!! Irish Dad is NOT Jerry! I can absolutely guarantee you on that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irish_Dad Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 Irish Dad is NOT Jerry! I can absolutely guarantee you on that! Actually I can guaruntee it as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irish_Dad Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 (edited) Did you know that your statement is completely false, and that brother Vescomi was also incorrect in saying so! It is liscensed by Ford and owned by Robert Lane. Do you really think if it was owned and controlled by Ford that International reps would have come here to debate the contract. If it was owned by Ford they would have shut it down during contract time when they saw that we were reading and debating GM's contract! (end quote) I'm pretty sure that prior to 1996 it was posted on this web site , by Robert, that Ford and Robert had come to a finacial agreement that gave Ford part ownership of the site. As far as why they would allow us to debate a pending contract; they would stand to gain more from the information posted than we would by posting it. Think about it, they would know exactly what the few people who posted here thounght was important and what we did not care about. Pretty valuable information if you are in negatiations. Edited March 16, 2008 by Irish_Dad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 (edited) I'm pretty sure that prior to 1996 it was posted on this web site , by Robert, that Ford and Robert had come to a finacial agreement that gave Ford part ownership of the site. As far as why they would allow us to debate a pending contract; they would stand to gain more from the information posted than we would by posting it. Think about it, they would know exactly what the few people who posted here thounght was important and what we did not care about. Pretty valuable information if you are in negatiations. You don't know what your talking about, a financial agreement is not the same as ownership! Robert had the knowledge that Ford did not posess, Ford wanted to market to the public and saw oppertunity. This sight is owned and controlled by Robert Lane period. As for the contract our communication was fueled by a sight they (Ford, and the UAW had no control over) Otherwise it would have been shut down. Why don't you IM Robert and ask him yourself, rather than making assertions about agreements you have no knowledge of? Edited March 16, 2008 by Furious1Auto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereswaldo Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 We're not all screwed up! The assemblers have their sh-t together it's the poloticians with their......... I dunt noe...Id bet moest allya r scrood upp bout az mutch as me spelin...... And to think I had Ohio on my flowback sheet. Whew , that was too close.LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irish_Dad Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 (edited) You don't know what your talking about, a financial agreement is not the same as ownership! Robert had the knowledge that Ford did not posess, Ford wanted to market to the public and saw oppertunity. This sight is owned and controlled by Robert Lane period. As for the contract our communication was fueled by a sight they (Ford, and the UAW had no control over) Otherwise it would have been shut down. Why don't you IM Robert and ask him yourself, rather than making assertions about agreements you have no knowledge of? First off you are right a financial agreement does not always mean ownership. However in this case I believe it was suppossed to lead to a joint effort on this web page. If it isn't let Robert come on this thread and explain the arrangement. Why are you so invested in this anyway? All of a sudden it is YOUR contract for communication? wassup wit dat?? Edited March 16, 2008 by Irish_Dad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 (edited) First off you are right a financial agreement does not always mean ownership. However in this case I believe it was suppossed to lead to a joint effort on this web page. If it isn't let Robert come on this thread and explain the arrangement. Why are you so invested in this anyway? All of a sudden it is YOUR contract for communication? wassup wit dat?? You made an erroneous statement and I called you on it, now if you want further correction then contact Lane otherwise shut up! The second half of the post is deflection! Your not going to change the subject, you are incorrect plain and simple! Most of the proceeds generated by this sight are do to small Google adds and it is self sustaining whithout Ford. There are several unliscensed Ford sights also, and they are also self sustaining! Follow this LINK to he first "unofficial" Ford forum I participated in! I do admit when I'm wrong, and you? Edited March 16, 2008 by Furious1Auto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irish_Dad Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 (edited) You made an erroneous statement and I called you on it, now if you want further correction then contact Lane otherwise shut up! The second half of the post is deflection! Your not going to change the subject, you are incorrect lpain and simple! Most of the proceeds generated by this sight are do to small Google adds and it is self sustaining whithout Ford. There are several unliscensed Ford sights also, and they are also self sustaining! Follow this LINK to he first "unofficial" Ford forum I participated in! I do admit when I'm wrong, and you? You called no one on anything. You made a contrary statement offering no proof of your allegations. There are at least two posters to this site that remember Roberts announcement about a new joint era with Ford. You say that isn't true, but what proof do you offer?? Nothing at all. Furthermore, Who the hell do you think you are to tell me or anyone else to shut up. Do you own the site? Do you pay my wages? Are you married to me? If the answer to any of these is yes you may have some imagined authority over me and my actions, otherwise you are nothing more than another mouth on the web page. Edited March 16, 2008 by Irish_Dad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 (edited) You called no one on anything. You made a contrary statement offering no proof of your allegations. There are at least two posters to this site that remember Roberts announcement about a new joint era with Ford. You say that isn't true, but what proof do you offer?? Nothing at all. Furthermore, Who the hell do you think you are to tell me or anyone else to shut up. Do you own the site? Do you pay my wages? Are you married to me? If the answer to any of these is yes you may have some imagined authority over me and my actions, otherwise you are nothing more than another mouth on the web page. Here is a LINK to Robert Lane's inbox! Ask him for yourself what the arrangement is and who "Owns" BON/BOF! Otherwise......... Edited March 16, 2008 by Furious1Auto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irish_Dad Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 Here is a LINK to Robert Lane's inbox! Ask him for yourself what the arrangement is and who "Owns" BON/BOF! Otherwise......... Wasn't sure he got the first one so I sent it again. This may be a repeat message, but as it doesn't show in my sent messages I feel that I need to try again. I am trying to dtermeine the extent to which Ford Motor Co. is engaged in the BON web site. I remeber some big announcement you made awhile ago regarding the fact that you and they were now partnering in the web site. I would like to know if they, or thier reps, have administrator rights. Do they provide content for this page? To what extent do they influence content. Can tehy access user information beyond that avaiable to a logged in user? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emily Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 HEY, DON'T THIS THING HAVE A SPELL CHECK!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertlane Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 HEY, DON'T THIS THING HAVE A SPELL CHECK!!!! When you are typing a reply, anything that is not spelled correctly will be underlined in red. As for the ownership on BON: This site is independently run - Ford has no stake in it at all. I do not own the site either, rather I have a long term lease on it. Outside of Google, there isn't any commercial advertising on it either. Hope this helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 (edited) When you are typing a reply, anything that is not spelled correctly will be underlined in red. As for the ownership on BON: This site is independently run - Ford has no stake in it at all. I do not own the site either, rather I have a long term lease on it. Outside of Google, there isn't any commercial advertising on it either. Hope this helps. Hey Rob, if you would ever like to get out of the Biz I may be interested in Leasing BON/BOF. I'll also take on RJ and the rest of the Moderator team! Hey Irish dad, do you see that the almighty FoMoCo does not own and control everything on this planet now? You guys just staked claim to this sight, because as a courtesy it's creators added an employee section! I guess I was also wrong Lane doesn't own it (he only has total control of it) while it is independant from Ford, and the UAW! Read your UAW grievence hand book, there is a section that says never bluff. Well all in all you had the testicular fortitude to fact check, too bad it was after making the erroneous statement! :P HEY, DON'T THIS THING HAVE A SPELL CHECK!!!! Follow this LINK to download a browser with spellcheck! Once you have Mozilla downloaded instead of clicking on your current browser icon (internet explorer, DSL, AOL) click on the Mozilla icon to connect to the net anytime you come to this sight. Mozilla has built in spell checkers and surfs the net more efficiantly. Unfortunatly Mozilla stopped working on my P.C. because I caught a dibilitating virus from downloading music. Everything else works. My computer just will no longer support Mozilla, and as far as spelling I'm flying blind! Altough For the time that I had spell check, my spelling improved greatly! I do have to say I really had to concentrate when reading your posts, but I never said anyting because I could eventually read it. Besides knocking someones grammar and spelling is a cheap shot. It's much more fun to bash them because they are ignorant! :shades: Edited March 18, 2008 by Furious1Auto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irish_Dad Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 Wasn't sure he got the first one so I sent it again. This may be a repeat message, but as it doesn't show in my sent messages I feel that I need to try again. I am trying to dtermeine the extent to which Ford Motor Co. is engaged in the BON web site. I remeber some big announcement you made awhile ago regarding the fact that you and they were now partnering in the web site. I would like to know if they, or thier reps, have administrator rights. Do they provide content for this page? To what extent do they influence content. Can tehy access user information beyond that avaiable to a logged in user? Quote from Robert Lane As for the ownership on BON: This site is independently run - Ford has no stake in it at all. I do not own the site either, rather I have a long term lease on it. Outside of Google, there isn't any commercial advertising on it either. Hope this helps. It appears as if Furious was correct in part. Robert assures us that Ford has no stake at all in the site. For clarification this is the article I was referring to Published in Dearborn, Michigan. Hometown of Henry Ford. Ford, BlueOvalNews to work together 01 May 2005 Dearborn, Michigan. The staff at BlueOvalNews has continually recognized a need for useful and insightful information regarding Ford Motor Company and its products and of relevant news regarding the automotive industry in general. Our mission is to provide Ford owners and enthusiasts with a more focused coverage of pertinent material than is typically found with non-specific media outlets. We couldn't be more pleased to have established a congenial and accommodating relationship with Ford and its dedicated staff so that we may be more informed and better able to cater to our readers in a professional and detailed manner. Ford's own staff is willing to work with us and answer any questions we present to them so that we may nurture a relationship of goodwill, benefiting all parties including Ford, BlueOvalNews and Ford enthusiasts alike. As Ford Motor Company enthusiasts, we are now more equipped to share our passion with those who also share a similar dedication to Ford and its many brands of quality cars and trucks. Finally, we would like to take this opportunity to thank everybody at Ford. We look forward to a strong and prolific affiliation. This clearly states that the Ford staff is working with the BON staff. My question regarding ownership is resolved. It is up to each user to determine if their posts are appropriate lnowing that Ford staff does have access and is a partnered in the site Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 (edited) Everyone has access to this sight, it's a public forum and anyone can register with a ISP E-Mail address as long as they were not previously banned. Ford is providing up to date information to them along with some other independent auto analysts that frequent this sight while they run their own web sights. What Ford does not have in relation to this sight is control of what and who posts here or the content. On the other hand the posts must not breech the user agreement otherwise the actions could result in post being deleted, accounts being temperarily suspended, or as a last resort the user permanatly banned from having access to this sight! We all know everyone in the (and I mean it litterally) "WORLD" can see what we post! There are members of the CAW that frequent this sight also! We also know that people from up north, union and managment alike regularly veiw this sight. I would suggest if you are ashamed of what you have to say, or what others may read to think whether your position or comments are even worthy to post. Personally I have nothing to fear, I call it how I see it and if I am in error I also have no problem taking responsibility! I'm a good employee, with a steller work history. No disciplines, no attendence problem, I do my job. I want the best for our plant, and it is important that you all know that no matter who wins this upcomming election that the future of our plant remains in the hands of those who build our product. Not some people aspiring to be a poloticians, while they are mearly arrogant assembly workers! Last Irish Dad I had no doubt that there was some sort of statement made, but my arguement was one of ownership and control. I assure you that it is better this way because most other manufacturer sponsord sights have such control that there is no room for dessent. If there is no dessent then there is no debate, if their is no debate there can be no improvement. I have engaged in debate with some very, very intelligent people here. I've won some, and I've lost some but from both outcomes have learned a great deal. I encourage all of you to participate in other threads, don't confine your selves to local polotics! Not to sound like a broken record, but you guys don't fully understand the power in being able to communicate with this tool. If you guys used it properly all of our district reps would have accounts to discuss issues either openly or through private IM's which ever you feel most comfortable with! I don't have a problem discussing anything openly. There are issues that arise on a daily basis that could be discussed, while everyone could state their opinion. The biggest problem with BOF for this purpose is that the server can be accessed by anyone. I have addressed this with the I-Reps that also participate here, hopefully we will have a more approriate forum of our own in the future. One that is out of the veiw of people who should not be veiwing our dirty laundry. I see were it is necessary to be aired, but not here, not with the whole world watching! If the International does not take action volentarily than a motion has to be made at the next convention! Not all of us make it to the meetings, but nearly all of us have a computer! Edited March 18, 2008 by Furious1Auto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
level Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 (edited) I assure you that it is better this way because most other manufacturer sponsord sights have such control that there is no room for decent. If there is no decent then there is no debate, if their is no debate there can be no improvement. Hey Furious, I know how you like to beat up on some for spellcheck, so I couldn't resist brother. Although I agree with what you say even though it is not what you meant!!!! We all need to be more decent with less dissent!!! decent Main Entry: de·cent Pronunciation: \ˈdē-sənt\ Function: adjective Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin decent-, decens, present participle of decēre to be fitting; akin to Latin decus honor, dignus worthy, Greek dokein to seem, seem good Date: 1539 1archaic a: appropriate b: well-formed : handsome 2 a: conforming to standards of propriety, good taste, or morality <decent behavior> b: modestly clothed 3: free from immodesty or obscenity <decent language> 4: fairly good : adequate, satisfactory <decent wages> 5: marked by moral integrity, kindness, and goodwill <hard-working and decent folks> <it's very decent of them to help> dissent 2 entries found. dissent[1,intransitive verb]dissent[2,noun] Main Entry: 2dissent Function: noun Date: 1585 : difference of opinion <heard voices of dissent at the meeting>: as a: religious nonconformity b: a justice's nonconcurrence with a decision of the majority —called also dissenting opinion c: political opposition to a government or its policies <attempts to suppress domestic dissent> Edited March 18, 2008 by level Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 (edited) I don't bash anyone for spelling errors smarta-s. Normally they post something stupid enough to warrant attack. My damn Mozilla browser is not working, along with spellcheck! Now I have to cover up the evidence. Hey OHAP say what's up to your I-Rep. Level I don't know if you caught it, but you may want to address this matter! Hazing the new hires and low tier LINK! None of us can afford to tolerate this! So what's up man, do we get a secured UAW Forum? Edited March 18, 2008 by Furious1Auto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
level Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 I don't bash anyone for spelling errors smarta-s. Normally they post something stupid enough to warrant attack. My damn Mozilla browser is not working, along with spellcheck! Now I have to cover up the evidence. Hey OHAP say what's up to your I-Rep. Level I don't know if you caught it, but you may want to address this matter! Hazing the new hires and low tier LINK! None of us can afford to tolerate this! So what's up man, do we get a secured UAW Forum? Not sure "if" or "when" yet, great idea though, really. You know I had to mess with yah! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 (edited) Not sure "if" or "when" yet, great idea though, really. You know I had to mess with yah! That's cool bro, I have big shoulders. Hey if you have an E-Mail address to the proper parties then IM the adresses to me and I'll also state my case for a UAW forum to them directly! I caught another member saying that he never votes as the UAW tells him, I did not have time to address this issue and have not been able to find the post again yet. He needs to understand that the only political power a union has is through speaking in unity. It is a matter of conveying to the membership why we support said candidate. I've heard pundants during our national election determining what the signifigance of a unions endorsement means. It means nothing if we do not speak in one voice. They were trying to cite that the union's support was insignificant, I guess that's all up to it's members huh? Who are we supporting for president? Edited March 18, 2008 by Furious1Auto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
level Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 That's cool bro, I have big shoulders. Hey if you have an E-Mail address to the proper parties then IM the adresses to me and I'll also state my case for a UAW forum to them directly! I caught another member saying that he never votes as the UAW tells him, I did not have time to address this issue and have not been able to find the post yet. He needs to understand that the only political power a union has is through speaking in unity. It is a matter of conveying to the membership why we support said candidate. I've heard pundants during our national election determining what the signifigance of a unions endorsement means. It means nothing if we do not speak in one voice. They were trying to cite that the union's support was insignificant, I guess that's all up to it's members huh? Who are we supporting for president? That's easy. The Democrat! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psychodaveone Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Definitely Democrat. The Clintons passed NAFTA through, i realize this: that's why I myself am pulling for Mr. Obama...I have read that he is pretty much anti-the "NAFTA superhighway" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psychodaveone Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Definitely Democrat. The Clintons passed NAFTA through, i realize this: that's why I myself am pulling for Mr. Obama...I have read that he is pretty much anti-the "NAFTA superhighway" just wanted to add, if by some chance Hillary wins the nomination...by all means still vote the Democrat. I can't stand 8 more years of Republicanism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 (edited) Definitely Democrat. The Clintons passed NAFTA through, i realize this: that's why I myself am pulling for Mr. Obama...I have read that he is pretty much anti-the "NAFTA superhighway" You have to keep in mind that While Bill Clinton signed NAFTA just after taking office, it was negotiated by George H.W. Bush! Bush confesses it is his agreement in this video! The only way Hillary can get the nomination now is if it is a brokered convention, Obama leads in popular vote and delegates. If it is stolen it will cause civil discoarse. This current controversy is an attemp to steel the nomination from Obama at the convention. I'm supporting Obama but as long as we can pass the UAW supported state health care legislation, then there is no reason to fear Hillary! If we can't get it passed and Hillary becomes president, you will sucomb to the demands of insurance companies! Edited March 19, 2008 by Furious1Auto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psychodaveone Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 You have to keep in mind that While Bill Clinton signed NAFTA just after taking office, it was negotiated by George H.W. Bush! Bush confesses it is his agreement in this video! True. So there you have it. Besides the obvious evidence of the economy"s performance every time a Republican is in office.(down times for us....up times for the top 20% or so in income) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowcat Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 That's cool bro, I have big shoulders. Hey if you have an E-Mail address to the proper parties then IM the adresses to me and I'll also state my case for a UAW forum to them directly! I caught another member saying that he never votes as the UAW tells him, I did not have time to address this issue and have not been able to find the post again yet. He needs to understand that the only political power a union has is through speaking in unity. It is a matter of conveying to the membership why we support said candidate. I've heard pundants during our national election determining what the signifigance of a unions endorsement means. It means nothing if we do not speak in one voice. They were trying to cite that the union's support was insignificant, I guess that's all up to it's members huh? Who are we supporting for president? People should vote with there conscience and beliefs not on what there political party or union say they should vote for I for one think for my self and never will let the union dictate who or what I vote for. Vote John McCain for a safe and free america! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.