Teacherman

[MikeJanis]

Did you follow the EXACT same protocol that you do with every other RO when trying to get an event, or did you short cut something just to "show him"? If you shortcutted it...mind sharing?

No short cut at all.

However, I did learn today that TM amy be under the impression that I did. But that's simply not the case. If you read back through my responses to TM you may see why.

Also, there is no exact same protocol for every room we approach. We divide rooms into several different categories and approach them based on the category they fit into. A lot of it depends on haow many tables they have, do they have a pro shop/sales area, do they have food and liquor.


Mj

 

[jjinfla]

I know what it is that Mike did that has Teacher and Watchez so up in arms and quite a few others here on the site also know.
Mike

Well hells bells Mike, spit it out, and let us all know what he did.

Surely it can't be that he just asked another pool hall to hold the tournament.
Even if he gave the owner a reduced rate.

If he did something shady or illegal, and you involved yourself in this thread, and you know about it, then you owe it to the members to let them know the details.

Jake

 

[watchez]

What I did to TM ? It's nothing that wasn't posted. I did exactly what I said I would do. I asked a room that is his closest competitor if they would like to hold a Viking Tour event. I sent them our information and they responded with a yes. I'm sorry if this PO'd anyone but I still have to do business. The Viking Tour is very interested in having many different venues in the St. Louis market place and it's my job to try and get as many rooms involved as possible.

I tried my hardest to accomodate TM but nothing I did or said seemed to be good enough. We simply just disagreed on some points that had validity to each of us.

I hope the above answers any questions regarding this matter.

Re: TM being banned, SH!$ happens. I myself was banned from the BD site because I wouldn't follow the requests of the admin. I was warned several times but I just kept FCkng-Up and they banned me. It was a hard lesson learned but I now see that I deserved it.


Mj

I spoke to Mike Janis on the phone today. Seems like a reasonable guy even if I know he doesn't much care for me. I guess the confusion arises between Mike Janis the tournament director & Mike Janis the tournament salesman. He explained to me, and I fully understand this, that what other 9 ball tours have negatively done towards previous poolrooms makes his tour a hard sell. And I think from our conversation Mike Janis has a genuine interest in pool. That being said, I still think Mike Janis should be more upfront when speaking of his tour, especially to pool room owners. A play on words such as 'free tournament' meaning the room owner puts up his money and then gets product back equal or greater than his money still doesn't sit well with me. From experience as I owned a retail store for 7 1/2 years and could sell ice to an eskimo, you don't have to give a knowledgable customer a sidestep to sell a product. Give them all the info and then let them make a decision. If what you are selling is worthwhile, they will buy. If not, they will see through you. If you have to act like a kirby vacuumn salesman to make a sale, then I can guarantee your customer will go away with a poor feeling afterwards with buyers remorse.
Okay, enough on this subject. GOOD LUCk to the Viking Tour and Mike Janis.

 

[FLICKit]

Based on the number of posts YOU'VE made on the last two pages alone, the number of words typed, and the vehement conviction that you have towards Teacherman or anyone else that's had some positive things about what he was saying...is EXACTLY the same as what Teacherman was demonstrating with Mike Janis.

You're not even making sense.

As was said, "It's the bad attitude, disregard, and disrespect of others, that went over and beyond what is acceptable for civil discourse". That's why Teacherman got banned and deservedly so. Teacherman hijacked most every thread, with his exact same, old news self praising thoughts of him great, everyone else in the pool world sucks. It got old. Very old. It's great to see him go!

Even Blackjack understands that.

Teacherman also decided not to follow those rules and believe it or not, took his banishment from this site like a man. He knew it was coming, and when it happened he took it on the chin.

Mike Howerton had the honor of having to make a decision that to many of us seems unjust to Teacherman, yet sensible for what Mike Howerton is doing with this forum. He can't make all of us happy all of the time. To me its a settled, dead issue.

Very well stated. Only difference I'd have is that many of us say Teacherman got just what he deserved. But the rest of your statement is dead on.

It's a dead issue... Move on...

 

[chefjeff]

(snip) All of his "yes men" are already expressing their own opinions more. Keep it up... look forward to hearing more from you all.

I wondering if you're counting me as one of his "yes" men?

Jeff Livingston

 

[FLICKit]

I wondering if you're counting me as one of his "yes" men?

Jeff Livingston

Do you wanna be?
I'll add you to this list.

 

[chefjeff]

Do you wanna be?
I'll add you to this list.

Not necessarily...it depends on your feelings, not me. I'm just trying to understand why some here are so against TM's postings yet the thread grew to over 8,000 views. hmmm...Why do so many upset themselves on purpose, I wondered?

Then I'm thinking that some here probably figure that I'm defending TM the person, when I'm trying to simply defend honest thinking, no matter what the source. The post I made about Reason vs. Emotion was for Mike Janis, all of the people who were complaining about TM's style, those who put TM on ignore and missed out on the facts, AND it was for TM, too, for him to contemplate on his whether his style was reasonably based or emotionally based. (Oh, and it was for me to affirm to myself so I didn't let my own emotions get out of hand.)

I came to the conclusion from the posts by people who know him personally that his style was reasonably based and he was consciously "manipulating" emotions as a tool to illustrate his point better (it worked!). So I was mainly trying to show others that TM canNOT manipulate anyone who doesn't let him do so. Each of us CHOSE to be upset or not, as evidenced by the various reactions to him.

And it is because of those things that I think he should not have been banned.

Jeff Livingston

 

[watchez]

Not necessarily...it depends on your feelings, not me. I'm just trying to understand why some here are so against TM's postings yet the thread grew to over 8,000 views. hmmm...Why do so many upset themselves on purpose, I wondered?

Then I'm thinking that some here probably figure that I'm defending TM the person, when I'm trying to simply defend honest thinking, no matter what the source. The post I made about Reason vs. Emotion was for Mike Janis, all of the people who were complaining about TM's style, those who put TM on ignore and missed out on the facts, AND it was for TM, too, for him to contemplate on his whether his style was reasonably based or emotionally based. (Oh, and it was for me to affirm to myself so I didn't let my own emotions get out of hand.)

I came to the conclusion from the posts by people who know him personally that his style was reasonably based and he was consciously "manipulating" emotions as a tool to illustrate his point better (it worked!). So I was mainly trying to show others that TM canNOT manipulate anyone who doesn't let him do so. Each of us CHOSE to be upset or not, as evidenced by the various reactions to him.

And it is because of those things that I think he should not have been banned.

Jeff Livingston

TAP TAP jeff

 

[FLICKit]

Not necessarily...it depends on your feelings, not me. I'm just trying to understand why some here are so against TM's postings yet the thread grew to over 8,000 views. hmmm...Why do so many upset themselves on purpose, I wondered?

Then I'm thinking that some here probably figure that I'm defending TM the person, when I'm trying to simply defend honest thinking, no matter what the source. The post I made about Reason vs. Emotion was for Mike Janis, all of the people who were complaining about TM's style, those who put TM on ignore and missed out on the facts, AND it was for TM, too, for him to contemplate on his whether his style was reasonably based or emotionally based. (Oh, and it was for me to affirm to myself so I didn't let my own emotions get out of hand.)

I came to the conclusion from the posts by people who know him personally that his style was reasonably based and he was consciously "manipulating" emotions as a tool to illustrate his point better (it worked!). So I was mainly trying to show others that TM canNOT manipulate anyone who doesn't let him do so. Each of us CHOSE to be upset or not, as evidenced by the various reactions to him.

And it is because of those things that I think he should not have been banned.

Jeff Livingston

LOL...

Teacherman was an annoyance. He violated the rules. He displayed bad taste and bad conduct. Teacherman got banned for his childish acts, and knew that he deserved to be.

The board manager explained that such juvenile acts will not be tolerated. He then backed up his words and acted accordingly by banning Teacherman. That's how a good forum is supposed to be run. Kudos for doing what had to be done.

Enough said, let it go... You can exist on your own without Teacherman - really you can. You can provide your own critical point of view to the numerous other topics that are out there. We look forward to hearing your voice on those other topics. It'll be a much needed improvement over the dead-end line of talk that Teacherman always exuded (Teacherman perfect - everyone else and everything else sux). Give him time, maybe he'll learn his lesson, wisen up, and amend the errors of his ways.

Until then, we look forward to your views on those other topics.

Move on... Give it some time...

 

[DaveK]

Not necessarily...it depends on your feelings, not me. I'm just trying to understand why some here are so against TM's postings yet the thread grew to over 8,000 views. hmmm...Why do so many upset themselves on purpose, I wondered?

Then I'm thinking that some here probably figure that I'm defending TM the person, when I'm trying to simply defend honest thinking, no matter what the source. The post I made about Reason vs. Emotion was for Mike Janis, all of the people who were complaining about TM's style, those who put TM on ignore and missed out on the facts, AND it was for TM, too, for him to contemplate on his whether his style was reasonably based or emotionally based. (Oh, and it was for me to affirm to myself so I didn't let my own emotions get out of hand.)

I came to the conclusion from the posts by people who know him personally that his style was reasonably based and he was consciously "manipulating" emotions as a tool to illustrate his point better (it worked!). So I was mainly trying to show others that TM canNOT manipulate anyone who doesn't let him do so. Each of us CHOSE to be upset or not, as evidenced by the various reactions to him.

And it is because of those things that I think he should not have been banned.

Jeff Livingston

This is all well and good, and I tend to agree with your analysis, BUT, the action of PMing a whole bunch of members is a form of spamming that I'm sure Mike does not want. I can see how that action alone would cause repercussions, and it was, in my mind, the straw that broke the camels back. His techniques definitely brought out a variety of reactions from members, which indicates to me that his techniques were not working that well in the forum. His message was very often lost in the telling.

Dave, who thinks that TM is likely lurking, no way to control that very easily !

 

[watchez]

This is all well and good, and I tend to agree with your analysis, BUT, the action of PMing a whole bunch of members is a form of spamming that I'm sure Mike does not want. I can see how that action alone would cause repercussions, and it was, in my mind, the straw that broke the camels back. His techniques definitely brought out a variety of reactions from members, which indicates to me that his techniques were not working that well in the forum. His message was very often lost in the telling.

Dave, who thinks that TM is likely lurking, no way to control that very easily !

In the words of Mike Janis, "Please don't misquote'. Teacherman never sought out someone to PM. It was just the reverse. He just let it be known that people were PMing him but were too scared to voice their opinions for the masses to be heard. And Teacherman never did copy/paste these PM's as I would have been tempted to do.

 

[chefjeff]

LOL...

(snip)

Enough said, let it go... (snip)

Move on... Give it some time...

I'll never let "it" go. Until there is understanding of what "it" is, and why "it" is paramount to a happy pool shot. I've given "it" over 25 years of effort---and still counting...

Jeff Livingston

 

[DaveK]

In the words of Mike Janis, "Please don't misquote'. Teacherman never sought out someone to PM. It was just the reverse. He just let it be known that people were PMing him but were too scared to voice their opinions for the masses to be heard. And Teacherman never did copy/paste these PM's as I would have been tempted to do.

OK, perhaps I misunderstood what AzHousePro meant by the following quote from his first post in this thread :

I got reports from people that had nothing to do with that thread that they received his PM and asked me what it was all about.

I got the impression from this quote that multiple non-participants (non-combatants ?) got unsolicited PMs. Like I said, maybe I misunderstood.

My points stands though, the Teacherman method of communicating was incendiary to many, and his message was lost as a result. His bannishment also followed closely on the heals of the PM incident, so that action just might be the last straw. This is the way I see it, from a simple members viewpoint, not that it really matters that much.

Best Regards,

Dave