Kristin:Why is it an "attack" to answer the question people keep asking about why CASAA isn't endorsing doing it? I keep seeing misinformation and conjecture about CASAA's motives for not endorsing it, should we not say why?
It's an attack by the words you used to describe it.
Have you not seen the reports that the page was hacked and people were puting porn and pictures of kittens in as their signature and that was showing up on the "Thank you" page? Wouldn't it be a good idea not to print those out and send them to the FDA and Congress? I wasn't suggesting the organizers were doing that.
I was likely the first to report it. They were taken down. But that doesn't constitute a 'hack'. People could do the same on the CASAA site. Perhaps it was from some CASAA members who didn't like someone else horning in on the monopoly. I said it was likely ANTZ, but it could have been anyone.
Good point, but why would people take the trouble to do multiple CTAs and follow CASAA's guidance only to screw around with it? They are obviously doing it with the FTV form.
I don't see it. There's a few questions and a box to fill in ANY response - not like the form letter that CASAA had.
The form letter part is checking the boxes,
You don't even know what a form letter is then. A form letter is something written along the lines of what CASAA put out, where the letter says this:
"I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension..." when in fact it is 'CASAA is writing as a group' to request an extension'. See the difference. I'm not saying this isn't a good ploy - just that a box where the only suggestion is to write how the regulations will affect you, vs. what CASAA put out - that CASAA is more like a form letter.
which do not address the questions asked by FDA nor make any specific request to Congress. The CASAA CTA is suggested commentary also designed to help inform the vapers who wil be submitting the form by providing the facts. DO you realy think most people using it will make 6,000 word comments beyond their own story? Based on what we've seen over the past few years, it's unlikely. Is the FDA asking for personal stories? Will is even care?
I think many vapers have informed themselves, here and elsewhere by what I read on the web, where they are informed on the regulations and how they will affect themselves and their vendors. Sure there are some, even here, who don't have the whole picture.
Here's what the FDA says:"A single, well-supported comment may carry more weight than a thousand form letters."
Yet if people are so stupid as you suggest, then they'd end up using your form letter without 'making it their own' (since they wouldn't know enough to do so) and the FDA would end up with a bunch of form letters which, as they say there, would carry less weight.
I said it was my opinion.
We AREN'T telling people not to do it. I've been just explaining why CASAA isn't doing it (and why I'm not doing it), because the speculation I've been reading has been way off base. How do I do explain why CASAA isn't doing it without pointing out the issues we have with it?
Simple. Tell people that FTV isn't CASAA and that they have the ability to communicate in any way they want. Just that it is CASAA's position that people who want CASAA's help should wait for the CTAs. But you've degraded yourself by becoming embroiled in what really wasn't that controversial until you/other CASAA members got involved trying to dissuade people, starting with Phil, it appears.
Here's another thing that didn't help your cause - CASAA's screwup on CTA#2 where the 'wrong title' was posted and it was suggested that without the new title - posted by Bill via Roly HAD to be used - which if true, likely invalidated thousands of comments of people who didn't see the 'correction' in time - some of whom posted that they didn't see it until too late:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...casaa-fda-call-action-2-a-6.html#post13268265
post#60 and for 5 pages after that of people wondering if their comments went through.
It's an attack by the words you used to describe it.
Have you not seen the reports that the page was hacked and people were puting porn and pictures of kittens in as their signature and that was showing up on the "Thank you" page? Wouldn't it be a good idea not to print those out and send them to the FDA and Congress? I wasn't suggesting the organizers were doing that.
I was likely the first to report it. They were taken down. But that doesn't constitute a 'hack'. People could do the same on the CASAA site. Perhaps it was from some CASAA members who didn't like someone else horning in on the monopoly. I said it was likely ANTZ, but it could have been anyone.
Good point, but why would people take the trouble to do multiple CTAs and follow CASAA's guidance only to screw around with it? They are obviously doing it with the FTV form.
I don't see it. There's a few questions and a box to fill in ANY response - not like the form letter that CASAA had.
The form letter part is checking the boxes,
You don't even know what a form letter is then. A form letter is something written along the lines of what CASAA put out, where the letter says this:
"I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension..." when in fact it is 'CASAA is writing as a group' to request an extension'. See the difference. I'm not saying this isn't a good ploy - just that a box where the only suggestion is to write how the regulations will affect you, vs. what CASAA put out - that CASAA is more like a form letter.
which do not address the questions asked by FDA nor make any specific request to Congress. The CASAA CTA is suggested commentary also designed to help inform the vapers who wil be submitting the form by providing the facts. DO you realy think most people using it will make 6,000 word comments beyond their own story? Based on what we've seen over the past few years, it's unlikely. Is the FDA asking for personal stories? Will is even care?
I think many vapers have informed themselves, here and elsewhere by what I read on the web, where they are informed on the regulations and how they will affect themselves and their vendors. Sure there are some, even here, who don't have the whole picture.
Here's what the FDA says:"A single, well-supported comment may carry more weight than a thousand form letters."
Yet if people are so stupid as you suggest, then they'd end up using your form letter without 'making it their own' (since they wouldn't know enough to do so) and the FDA would end up with a bunch of form letters which, as they say there, would carry less weight.
I said it was my opinion.
We AREN'T telling people not to do it. I've been just explaining why CASAA isn't doing it (and why I'm not doing it), because the speculation I've been reading has been way off base. How do I do explain why CASAA isn't doing it without pointing out the issues we have with it?
Simple. Tell people that FTV isn't CASAA and that they have the ability to communicate in any way they want. Just that it is CASAA's position that people who want CASAA's help should wait for the CTAs. But you've degraded yourself by becoming embroiled in what really wasn't that controversial until you/other CASAA members got involved trying to dissuade people, starting with Phil, it appears.
Here's another thing that didn't help your cause - CASAA's screwup on CTA#2 where the 'wrong title' was posted and it was suggested that without the new title - posted by Bill via Roly HAD to be used - which if true, likely invalidated thousands of comments of people who didn't see the 'correction' in time - some of whom posted that they didn't see it until too late:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...casaa-fda-call-action-2-a-6.html#post13268265
post#60 and for 5 pages after that of people wondering if their comments went through.
