Responding to some of the Ecumenicon Conference Feedback
I’ve decided to respond to some of the feedback that I’ve received from folks at Ecumenicon regarding my review of the conference I attended in March of this year. I’m not participating in their e-list discussion about myself and my viewpoints, but I do have some things to say and will continue to say as long as the flame war continues. And since this is a public journal, I have a right to say what I please on it for the world to see. And when people do search for Ecumenicon on the web, my site will pop up because I have a decent google ranking.
Someone says:
“a) I agree that a person is entitled to there own opinion, however, putting
something in the public form opens it to those that are either effected or
affected by it. Therefore the public is know entitled to their own opinions.
She should be aware of this and in some since be aware that this could have
happened.”
I do not have a problem with the fact that my review was found. I’ve been coding websites since 1994 so I know the context of the internet pretty well.
Someone says:
” b) If this young lady is on this list and is the one responsible for how it
was set up I find it hard to understand that she does not have posting rights.
Even if she doesn’t in her own words she understands the web well enough that
she should know how to send something to the administrator for posting, and/or
knows that she is able to respond to anything that is written on the site. So
that she is reading all of this an unable to respond is wrong.”
What? It’s a yahoo list, I have nothing to do with it. I fixed the Ecumenicon Website at Charles’ request. These are two entirely separate entities. I don’t have posting access because I’m not on the list, and never have been. You can’t post to Yahoo e-lists when you’re not on them.
Someone says:
“c) I understand she might feel a little hurt by some of what is written but if
she thought she could post something on a public form without feed back is
wrong.”
See the answer to your point A above. Everyone on this list is entirely misunderstanding this whole ordeal, which is not surprising since the information was falsely presented in the first place. I will reiterate again: I do not care that my review was found. It was posted as a public review, knowing full well it was a public review. It’s the snarky ignorant comments and assumptions about my character without any further investigation, that are the problem. I really can’t explain it any better than that.
Someone says:
“f) Your own comments are fundamentalists in nature them self thinking that
she she the right to say what ever she please and no one has the right to
comment on it. What about my right to public debt what about my right to free
speech what about my right.to question.”
If all of the comments were indeed comments on the source of my viewpoint in my review that would be one thing. Calling me a snob does not exactly fall into the same category.
Somene says:
“i) If she is such an important part of the organization I would hope that she
would be able to appropriately explain to them what all of this is about.”
I’m not an important part of the organization, but if I was, my response here would be: maybe an explanation would have occurred if I was given the opportunity by the leadership of Ecumenicon. But alas that didn’t happen. Instead of asking for clarification, the leadership falsely presented the review and started bashing it. There are no answers when no questions are asked.
Someone says:
“Personally, I just think this person is a snob. So they didn’t get a
lot out of the classes, due to teaching styles or uncomfortable chairs
or whatever. To her, I would say..”Whoopie. Move along…”I think this person likes people to believe she is more knowledgeable
and “above it all” than she is.”
I’m a snob and unintelligent because I posted a review about a conference -I- attended? How can you make these types of assumptions without knowing a thing about me? It’s like reading a newspaper article and saying “That report is a complete f’in idiot” when you don’t even know them, and they have a degree and 12 years experience in the subject at hand. Because I had issues with the conference, I suddenly think I’m above people? I really don’t understand the logic here. Is this the tolerance of the Interfaith Community?
Most of these people spoke before thinking because they are passionate about protecting the namesake of Ecumenicon. I can understand that, but it doesn’t add any credit to what you say, if anything it damages it because you never took the time to look behind the red lenses enough to really research what you were ranting about. There’s no basis behind those feelings beyond the initial anger.
Someone says:
“I disagree that the people
putting on the conference should be the ones to cater to any individuals needs.
With any learning experience you it is up to you to find out what is being
offered and READ the literature that is being provided I feel that the class
descriptions and the teacher BIOS that were provided did a wonderful job of
that. I feel that this person was very critical of things she did not seem to
find out about before coming to the con. If she had specific questions or needed
answers to how and why things were set up the way they were she should have
asked. Going to a public web site and blasting a con. that she came to free of
charge (I am sure the individual the provided her the chance felt real good about) is wrong. It is quite clear that her
idea of what a con. is is wrong as well. Most conferences tend to inspire and
direct rather than teach. Yes it is true there is some learning but someone
come to and class thinking they are going to know everything when they leave is
just plan stupid.”
I shouldn’t have come there expecting to be taught anything, instead that I should expect just an intro to certain subjects? Well I’ll have to agree that I didn’t know what to expect then, because when you list people as “teachers” on the website, then I’m expecting them to “teach” me something. If I wanted an intro on a subject to learn what it was about, I can google or wikipedia it myself and not have to pay $90 (and that’s just for registration) for it.
Despite this, I -did- learn things from Ecumenicon. The Palmistry, Herbalism, and Basic Runecasting teachers did a fantastic job of teaching me things, so I know that it’s -possible- to be taught at a conference. Nowhere in my review did I -ever- state that I expected to walk away an expert on any subjects. Again this is just someone pulling things out of thin air.
I’d also like to note that it -is- Ecumenicon’s job to cater to the students when there is a concern. Your students are paying for the damn thing.
Somone says:
“My bottomline is you get out of something what you put in, if you put nothing
into something you cannot expect to get anything back. ”
Another thing was mentioned that I should have been more appreciative of the fact that I was given a free ticket to the conference. What? I did over $300 worth of work for Ecumenicon’s website (probably a lot more but there’s no “basis” for charging web development), and I didn’t ask for any money back. If anything they should be appreciative that someone agreed to do the work that -they- came to -me- and asked -me- to do. Not to mention I voted for my Grove to “sponsor” Ecumenicon which is another $300. That is a $600 deal that Ecumenicon got out of this.
But no one bothered to find out these things. Instead they read that I had some issues with the Conference and then thought “Well OBVIOUSLY she doesn’t know what she’s talking about and is such a snob for having any issues with the Conference.” Do you not see the problem here?
Ironically the most mature responses I have received about this entire ordeal were from the teachers that my review targeted. Everything else appears to be coming from people that either 1. Weren’t at the conference this year or 2. Didn’t bother to actually read and understand my review. So I give many kudos to all of the teachers that bothered to look into my review, and would love to go to one of their classes again and support them for that reason.
Despite a huge rant from some folks that was directed at myself, I could honestly care less what your credentials are. Your actions are what I’m going to base my opinions on, and the fact is, you clearly made no attempt to correct the wrong assumptions you created (and in fact kept forwarding my personal emails to the entire list). The fact that you are taking the stance you have only concretes my opinion more, and certainly doesn’t do any damage control, but instead adds fuel to a fire that you started.
My only response is :
1. Expect negative feedback and learn to take it in gracefully. None of this was directed at you personally, but you took it that way, and that’s your problem not mine. -You- assumed the review was directed at Ecumenicon (without asking for any clarification), and it wasn’t.
2. It’s very easy to tell someone who isn’t running things to step up and start, and use that as an excuse for flaws in leadership. But I did more than pay for my expenses at Ecumenicon with volunteer work AND money, and I’ll say what I damn well please about it (even though I have yet to bash -anyone-).
The funny thing is, despite all this bullshit, I’ll still probably go to Ecumenicon again. Certainly not because of its leadership, to which I am severely disappointed. But because the teachers have been more than awesome.
Entry viewed times. Posted in Religion and Spirituality
