New Association blues

New Association blues

Post by R. Anne Maye » Tue, 25 Jan 2000 04:00:00


I understand there is a relatively new American Widgetmakers Association
for those craftsmen  who make widgets.

To become a member the prospective applicant sends the association a
widget, made by the applicant, along with a check for $300 to cover the
first years dues and a check for $100 to cover the cost of mailing the
applicant's widget to each of the five board members for their
subjective inspection.

Each of the board members inspect the widget for general appearance,
straightness, paint job, how well the glistiten (if any) matches to the
rest of the widget, how well the flather mates to the fluther, how well
the inlays (if any) fit, and the absence of "buzzes", rattles, clicks,
etc. The membership committee will not judge the "widgehit". The only
criteria for acceptance is workmanship.

After the committee inspection the applicant is sent an acceptance or
rejection letter replete with suggestions for improving his widget and
in the case of a rejection notice, the $300 annual membership fee is not
refunded. However, the applicant may reapply again every 90 days for an
additional $100.

If the Applicant is accepted, he will (in the not too distant future)
have the honor of being categorized by the board as:

Near-God-Like Widgetmaker (Only a handful of American widgetmakers will
qualify for this prestigious honor)
Master Widgetmaker
Advanced Widgetmaker
Mediocre Widgetmaker
Almost Mediocre Widgetmaker
Bottom of the Heap Widgetmaker
and last but not least - Just barely made it into the Association
Widgetmaker on Probation

The new widgetmaker member can proudly display their assigned category
on all their advertising and everyone who visits the AMA's website can
see the members category. Wouldn't it be great to be in one of the last
three categories? Other membership benefits include a 10 % discount on
"selected items" from a widgetmaker parts supplier and, upon payment of
the booth fee, a booth in an area assigned to AMA members at an annual
trade show.

(At the trade show - NGLW's are nearest the entrance followed by
MasterW's, AW's, MediocreW's, ... and JBMAWP's are in the back.)

I am assuming there must be some sort of criteria {longevity?} to
determine how a widgetmaker fits into each category {good old boy?}.
Although I'm not sure what that criteria {popularity?} may be. So I'm
thinking - maybe I'll become a widgetmaker, so I can pay an annual fee
to get abused by peer widgetmakers - does this make me a ***?

Just wondering, Annie O, in flame retardent PJ's

--
Annie O's Billiard Pro Shop http://SportToday.org/
WPBA Tour Player Last Ranked 23rd - Retired Dec 1996

  amayes.vcf
< 1K Download
 
 
 

New Association blues

Post by Ken Bou » Tue, 25 Jan 2000 04:00:00

I suggest going for it, Annie.  They may be desirous of having a female
widgetmaker (for a host of reasons including political correctness) and you
may just be catapulted up that pecking order ...  to the glass ceiling, that
is, which is probably just below Master Widgetmaker.

--
Ken Bour
Sterling, VA
http://SportToday.org/



Quote:
> I understand there is a relatively new American Widgetmakers Association
> for those craftsmen  who make widgets.

> To become a member the prospective applicant sends the association a
> widget, made by the applicant, along with a check for $300 to cover the
> first years dues and a check for $100 to cover the cost of mailing the
> applicant's widget to each of the five board members for their
> subjective inspection.

> Each of the board members inspect the widget for general appearance,
> straightness, paint job, how well the glistiten (if any) matches to the
> rest of the widget, how well the flather mates to the fluther, how well
> the inlays (if any) fit, and the absence of "buzzes", rattles, clicks,
> etc. The membership committee will not judge the "widgehit". The only
> criteria for acceptance is workmanship.

> After the committee inspection the applicant is sent an acceptance or
> rejection letter replete with suggestions for improving his widget and
> in the case of a rejection notice, the $300 annual membership fee is not
> refunded. However, the applicant may reapply again every 90 days for an
> additional $100.

> If the Applicant is accepted, he will (in the not too distant future)
> have the honor of being categorized by the board as:

> Near-God-Like Widgetmaker (Only a handful of American widgetmakers will
> qualify for this prestigious honor)
> Master Widgetmaker
> Advanced Widgetmaker
> Mediocre Widgetmaker
> Almost Mediocre Widgetmaker
> Bottom of the Heap Widgetmaker
> and last but not least - Just barely made it into the Association
> Widgetmaker on Probation

> The new widgetmaker member can proudly display their assigned category
> on all their advertising and everyone who visits the AMA's website can
> see the members category. Wouldn't it be great to be in one of the last
> three categories? Other membership benefits include a 10 % discount on
> "selected items" from a widgetmaker parts supplier and, upon payment of
> the booth fee, a booth in an area assigned to AMA members at an annual
> trade show.

> (At the trade show - NGLW's are nearest the entrance followed by
> MasterW's, AW's, MediocreW's, ... and JBMAWP's are in the back.)

> I am assuming there must be some sort of criteria {longevity?} to
> determine how a widgetmaker fits into each category {good old boy?}.
> Although I'm not sure what that criteria {popularity?} may be. So I'm
> thinking - maybe I'll become a widgetmaker, so I can pay an annual fee
> to get abused by peer widgetmakers - does this make me a ***?

> Just wondering, Annie O, in flame retardent PJ's

> --
> Annie O's Billiard Pro Shop http://SportToday.org/
> WPBA Tour Player Last Ranked 23rd - Retired Dec 1996


 
 
 

New Association blues

Post by R. Anne Maye » Wed, 26 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

> I suggest going for it, Annie.  They may be desirous of having a female
> widgetmaker (for a host of reasons including political correctness) and you
> may just be catapulted up that pecking order ...  to the glass ceiling, that
> is, which is probably just below Master Widgetmaker.

> --
> Ken Bour
> Sterling, VA
> http://www.erols.com/kbour

Interesting you should mention that - it seems they have no female widgetmakers
as members and I believe I would be the first woman full time widgetmaker in her
own business.  Not too sure about breaking that glass ceiling though but I'm
sure with an all male membership there must be a pecker order.

Annie
--
Annie O's Billiard Pro Shop http://www.annieosproshop.com
WPBA Tour Player Last Ranked 23rd - Retired Dec 1996

  amayes.vcf
< 1K Download

 
 
 

New Association blues

Post by Derek S. R » Wed, 26 Jan 2000 04:00:00



Quote:

>> I suggest going for it, Annie.  They may be desirous of having a female
>> widgetmaker (for a host of reasons including political correctness) and you
>> may just be catapulted up that pecking order ...  to the glass ceiling, that
>> is, which is probably just below Master Widgetmaker.

>Interesting you should mention that - it seems they have no female widgetmakers
>as members and I believe I would be the first woman full time widgetmaker in her
>own business.  Not too sure about breaking that glass ceiling though but I'm
>sure with an all male membership there must be a pecker order.

Apparently, while browsing their Full Color Brochure, you misread the
position entitled "Full Time Midget ***er."  Reports directly to the
president/chairman.. =)

-- Derek

Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music.
It only stopped them hearing the distractions.

 
 
 

New Association blues

Post by Mark » Wed, 26 Jan 2000 04:00:00

LOL!!!!



Quote:



> >> I suggest going for it, Annie.  They may be desirous of having a female
> >> widgetmaker (for a host of reasons including political correctness) and
you
> >> may just be catapulted up that pecking order ...  to the glass ceiling,
that
> >> is, which is probably just below Master Widgetmaker.

> >Interesting you should mention that - it seems they have no female
widgetmakers
> >as members and I believe I would be the first woman full time widgetmaker
in her
> >own business.  Not too sure about breaking that glass ceiling though but
I'm
> >sure with an all male membership there must be a pecker order.

> Apparently, while browsing their Full Color Brochure, you misread the
> position entitled "Full Time Midget ***er."  Reports directly to the
> president/chairman.. =)

> -- Derek

> Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music.
> It only stopped them hearing the distractions.

 
 
 

New Association blues

Post by gideon_ » Wed, 26 Jan 2000 04:00:00

I must be slow.  I assume that this is a reference to the American
Cuemakers' Assoc.  However, nowhere on their website do I see anything
regarding various gradations of membership (other than merchants, who
don't make cues, and probationary, who haven't been approved yet).
Have I missed something?

I don't know about the politics involved, but the people associated
with the ACA give the organization credibility to me, and would
certainly give me some comfort in considering a previously unknown
cuemaker.

Regards,

Gideon

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

 
 
 

New Association blues

Post by R. Anne Maye » Thu, 27 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

> I must be slow.  I assume that this is a reference to the American
> Cuemakers' Assoc.  However, nowhere on their website do I see anything
> regarding various gradations of membership (other than merchants, who
> don't make cues, and probationary, who haven't been approved yet).
> Have I missed something?

You did not miss anything. The ACA does not currently group their membership in
various levels/gradations. Two of their members have informed me that as many as
five levels are currently being considered for near future implementation.

I do want to go on record as being in favor of an organization such as the ACA.
Especially if that organization works to help inform, educate, and guide their
membership toward better cue building, quality, and customer service. I think
such an organization benefits both the public and cuemakers.

My comments were intended to be a comic wake up call. I think separating their
membership into categories of proficiency at the public level will be the
instrument of their demise as the organization would then only be of financial
benefit to those members they place on the pedestal.

Quote:

> I don't know about the politics involved, but the people associated
> with the ACA give the organization credibility to me, and would
> certainly give me some comfort in considering a previously unknown
> cuemaker.

I agree - an association should engender such feelings with the buying public.
If the public views the organization and its Board as above reproach and
credible, and if their membership requirements and testing are measurable and
credible, the public probably would be comfortable in accepting any one of their
member's products as being of good quality.

If however their product inspection is purely subjective, and their are no
measurable standards by which the applicants sample cue is judged, then the
public essentially has nothing to believe in and must accept on faith that the
judging panel did a good job. Makes you grateful that UL labeled products have
to meet measurable standards..eh?

I think the ACA is still in the growing process and I feel they can become a
great organization for the benefit of both cuemakers and the public. I just feel
this categorization effort is destined to failure.

Annie
--
Annie O's Billiard Pro Shop http://www.annieosproshop.com
WPBA Tour Player Last Ranked 23rd - Retired Dec 1996

  amayes.vcf
< 1K Download
 
 
 

New Association blues

Post by donald tee » Thu, 27 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Perhaps the Better Business Bureau's of this world would be a better model.
An organization can provide an ombudsman's service and forward references
(both good an bad) without taking a subjective view.  There is no need for a
rating system to attain that.

Quote:


>> I must be slow.  I assume that this is a reference to the American
>> Cuemakers' Assoc.  However, nowhere on their website do I see anything
>> regarding various gradations of membership (other than merchants, who
>> don't make cues, and probationary, who haven't been approved yet).
>> Have I missed something?

>You did not miss anything. The ACA does not currently group their
membership in
>various levels/gradations. Two of their members have informed me that as
many as
>five levels are currently being considered for near future implementation.

>I do want to go on record as being in favor of an organization such as the
ACA.
>Especially if that organization works to help inform, educate, and guide
their
>membership toward better cue building, quality, and customer service. I
think
>such an organization benefits both the public and cuemakers.

>My comments were intended to be a comic wake up call. I think separating
their
>membership into categories of proficiency at the public level will be the
>instrument of their demise as the organization would then only be of
financial
>benefit to those members they place on the pedestal.

>> I don't know about the politics involved, but the people associated
>> with the ACA give the organization credibility to me, and would
>> certainly give me some comfort in considering a previously unknown
>> cuemaker.

>I agree - an association should engender such feelings with the buying
public.
>If the public views the organization and its Board as above reproach and
>credible, and if their membership requirements and testing are measurable
and
>credible, the public probably would be comfortable in accepting any one of
their
>member's products as being of good quality.

>If however their product inspection is purely subjective, and their are no
>measurable standards by which the applicants sample cue is judged, then the
>public essentially has nothing to believe in and must accept on faith that
the
>judging panel did a good job. Makes you grateful that UL labeled products
have
>to meet measurable standards..eh?

>I think the ACA is still in the growing process and I feel they can become
a
>great organization for the benefit of both cuemakers and the public. I just
feel
>this categorization effort is destined to failure.

>Annie
>--
>Annie O's Billiard Pro Shop http://www.annieosproshop.com
>WPBA Tour Player Last Ranked 23rd - Retired Dec 1996

 
 
 

New Association blues

Post by Ken Bou » Thu, 27 Jan 2000 04:00:00

I agree with you, Annie.  I spent over 23 years in a humongous corporation
(over  300K employees at its peak), replete with its reliance on pre-1950's
approaches to management, and I have never seen a rating/ranking system,
applied to social creatures, that did not create substantial hate and
dysentery among those upon whom it was inflicted.

I run my own small company now and have abolished all formal performance
appraisals, ratings/rankings, and punishment/reward systems.  I have not
noticed that we have missed out on anything except the backstabbing, petty
interpersonal jealousies, intramural squabbles, and other adverse forms of
social backlash associated with being treated like children or, more
accurately, animals.

Now, I'll use pool in a sentence to keep it relevant.  (That counts, doesn't
it?).

--
Ken Bour
Sterling, VA
http://www.erols.com/kbour



[SNIP]

Quote:
> My comments were intended to be a comic wake up call. I think separating
their
> membership into categories of proficiency at the public level will be the
> instrument of their demise as the organization would then only be of
financial
> benefit to those members they place on the pedestal.

 
 
 

New Association blues

Post by donald tee » Fri, 28 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

>I agree with you, Annie.  I spent over 23 years in a humongous corporation
>(over  300K employees at its peak), replete with its reliance on pre-1950's
>approaches to management, and I have never seen a rating/ranking system,
>applied to social creatures, that did not create substantial hate and
>dysentery among those upon whom it was inflicted.

>I run my own small company now and have abolished all formal performance
>appraisals, ratings/rankings, and punishment/reward systems.  I have not
>noticed that we have missed out on anything except the backstabbing, petty
>interpersonal jealousies, intramural squabbles, and other adverse forms of
>social backlash associated with being treated like children or, more
>accurately, animals.

<laughing like hell>
Ken, now all you have to do is apply what you believe professionally to the
pool table.  Professionally, you have chucked all the formal analysis, and
reverted to instincts based on 23 years of practice.

I am reminded of a mentor that I had when I was in my twenties. He was a
gold analyst, one of the top in the world, and handled billions of dollars.
He was a chartist, and had a team of about ten PhD mathies analysing and
charting the prices of everything. His office was covered in graphs, with
millions of colour-coded lines.

I asked him, one day, to explain to me just how he analysed those charts.
"Ted, like, what line tells you what?".  "How do you use all those charts?".

He said: "Oh, that is all just bullshit.  There is no line that tells you
anything".

Rather astonished, I asked "Then why do you spend thousands of dollars doing
all that work?".

He said: "Well, if you want to develop instincts, you have to have a formal
method of approaching the problem.  What the method is is irrelevant. The
key is that it is just a method of getting things organized so your brain
can look examine them".

I think you need some exercises that help you *stop* thinking about your
shooting before you get to the 23 year mark.

;<)

 
 
 

New Association blues

Post by St. Brendan's Isle, Inc » Fri, 28 Jan 2000 04:00:00


Quote:
> I have never seen a rating/ranking system,
> applied to social creatures, that did not create substantial hate and
> dysentery among those upon whom it was inflicted.

<SNIP>

Man, I'll bet that place REALLY stunk...

Tom