More Money More Instruction

DMS General
#172

Bravo! Eloquently said. (I wish I could do that without putting my foot in my mouth)

And to add, I’m only doing 2 classes this month (that’s 2 more than at least 1500 others) but that’s because all the necessary classrooms are FULL (that’s great!). But I’m mentoring 3 students these first two weeks alone with personal projects on the HAAS on my own time. That’s on top of getting the bandsaw working again, and keeping the shop clean. I didn’t need Mo money to do that.

I’m not a saint - I’m not above doing one-on-ones for profit. But that likely takes me away from my business and the cost would have to replace that income which will definately run into 3 digits for a two hour instruction.

4 Likes
#173

Yes, you did in fact confirm my argument that classes alone don’t pay for new tools. All kinds of funding is used to pay for tools.

#174

Your original statement is above. Your attempt to claim victory is for an entirely different argument. In logic, this is called equivocation and is a form of logical fallacy. David addressed your original and fallacious argument.

P.S. Electronics just acquired a new microscope, at my request, paid for entirely by the honorarium revenues created by the classes I taught. Which counters your attempt to change the meaning of your first argument. This is not the first time something like this has occurred.

6 Likes
#175

Sometimes classes buy tools; sometimes other funding buys tools. That classes are the only moneys used to buy tools is not correct. That no money from classes is not correct.

If I say I was not correct, will you still tell me I’m wrong?

#176

Again, your attempting to use equivocation. As said above, your original statement was ENTIRELY wrong. David corrected you. Let it stand at that.

#177

This back and forth is not unlike the argument which got Richard Alexander banned from the forum.

Richard Alexander: The Board never gave the Science Committee any money.
Andrew LeCody: Science makes money from honorariums.

Both were technically correct…

6 Likes
#178

Interesting.

Maybe @wanderson and I can come up with a correct statement that pleases everyone regarding classes and funding tools.

#179

Someone needs to say it: DMS is an incredible success and the current business model is working great!

It is not perfect and never will be. Even if all the suggestions were implemented well, it will not be the ideal situation for everyone. We need to continue to evolve with carefully considered options and volunteer support. There is competition and that’s great. Lots of options available.

To those that continue to demand that their wishes be implemented immediately I would say, “What you see is what you get!”

7 Likes
#180

I totally agree with the Old Members Frustrations. I’m a medium member, I’m guessing 4 years now. I have waited for classes, not complained, I’m not complaining about classes now.and am willing to wait, so this has little to do with me. What I am saying is, it should be a committee’s responsibility, the group’s responsibility, the one’s who use the machines in the group - I’m not talking about the committee chair, or one or two people being forced to quit their job, take leave from wok, or any other such suggestions. If a lot of people are using machines, that should be a pool of potential teachers. If it not a valid assumption for a starting point, then I got nothing else I can think of for a solution
Edit: changed “those in the great”, to “those in the group.”

2 Likes
#181

One would think so.

2 Likes
#184

I don not know what else, but he teaches a lot of laser classes.

1 Like
#185

I think that was a call to others to train, just building on Tommy’s statement.

2 Likes
#186

I’m not sure who it was directed to, but it i completely agree. It is the simplest solution to the problem. I usually do a laser basics every week. I’ve added a couple this week. The one yesterday was full, the one tonight I think is full. In fact, it starts in 4 minutes.

#187

That’s the point Raymond. It was put to bed. I don’t see why the details of how it was resolved should be made public especially since it was quite deliberately settled privately with the people actually involved.

#188

Because concentrated efforts were made by the stakeholders at the time to handle it privately and move it out of a public forum. Also, I have more things to do than rehash old petty behaviors by another member. If you want more information feel free to request it from the chair or the vice chair of the committee. I respect both of those people and if they wanted the outcome made public I’m pretty sure they would have made it public.

That’s all the troll snacks I’ll be handing out this evening and the last time I’ll address it. Suffice to say as one of those stakeholders I’m quite satisfied with the outcome. If another one isn’t tough noogies because the dead horse is well in it’s grave.

1 Like
#189

What I and others have taken from this is: people should be very aware that they will get stuck with printing bills if someone leaves jobs in the queue on the large printers. Buyer beware.

This is what is still unclear.

1 Like
#190

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

#191

The general policy is that if you are responsible for the costs associated with any and all prints made under your login…regardless of if you’re personally satisfied with the results and you’re responsible for monitoring the prints as they run. You’re also responsible even if you didn’t run the prints because you forgot to log off. We cover a “preflight” process printers should do every time they start a new session that alert you to equipment issues and we also discuss how to stop a print in progress if you notice it’s not up to snuff. The reminder to log off was posted on the annex wall last I checked. Hopefully between the three people get prints they’re satisfied with for their money.

If you have a Yabut or Whatif question regarding the policy and want clarification on a unique circumstance beforehand I’d check with a committee head since they’re the ones that decide resolutions when members are suspected of flaking on their fiscal responsibility and the ones that escalate into the BOD for discipline if needed.

What you and other members should take from the other thread is if you have an issue with a print and feel a previous user is at fault the committee prefers you contact them direct and handle it discretely. People can also take from it that if the member you have a problem with is me (in any capacity) doing passive agressive posts without trying to talk to me about it first is :100: likely get you the direct opposite of whatever you wanted from me.

1 Like
#192

But how was it resolved? Asking again because you keep saying a lot without say who paid for all the extra eclipse prints left in the queue. No doubt the secret resolution set a precedent, and if it should happen again to someone else, they will want to know how it will be handled. I suspect CA got stuck with the bill, but I think it’s reasonable that everyone know.

Of course now that means that if you have a mess up on the wide-format printers, then it’s OK to stick CA with the bill. At least I hope so. I’d hate to think that as a volunteer membership some people at DMS are treated differently than others.

#193

Gosh I’m sure glad you’re back and being just as positive, helpful, and constructive as always.

9 Likes