SBFII essentially admit to NOT being a NPO

It has come to my attention that a member of the SBFII Board has commented:

"We do not have any problems with our NPO status and we do not need advice from former members who own rival websites."

I have bolded the important wording there - 'RIVAL websites'.

It appears that in a moment of 'weakness', a Board member has basically admitted what we suspected all along - that SBFII considers any other Susan Boyle fansites (non of which are run for any kind of profit, including SusaHumor) to be 'rivals'. But, if SBFII were genuinely a 'non-profit organisation', why would other websites be considered 'rivals'? I can only assume they consider other websites to be 'rivals' because they think such sites would take revenue away from them? But, again, why would that matter if they are supposed to be a non-profit site? If they consider other sites to be 'rivals' then I would have to suggest that SBFII is not a NPO at all.

Admin wrote:

It has come to my attention that a member of the SBFII Board has commented:

"We do not have any problems with our NPO status and we do not need advice from former members who own rival websites."

I have bolded the important wording there - 'RIVAL websites'.

It appears that in a moment of 'weakness', a Board member has basically admitted what we suspected all along - that SBFII considers any other Susan Boyle fansites (non of which are run for any kind of profit, including SusaHumor) to be 'rivals'. But, if SBFII were genuinely a 'non-profit organisation', why would other websites be considered 'rivals'? I can only assume they consider other websites to be 'rivals' because they think such sites would take revenue away from them? But, again, why would that matter if they are supposed to be a non-profit site? If they consider other sites to be 'rivals' then I would have to suggest that SBFII is not a NPO at all.

Yes, I believe you are spot on with this. I was thinking about it last night. That board member, with his quick temper and big fresh mouth, gave it all away in that one sentence and then quickly edited his telling comment.

Well - anyone who's not 'them' is the enemy, dotcha know. Can't have anyone thinking there might be more open-minded ways of running a forum; after all, members who are permitted to think for themselves might get the smarty-pants idea to leave. And when members leave, membership numbers drop (oh wait - is that happening already??); when membership numbers drop, the site's claim to be 'the biggest' (and therefore somehow the most influential) Susa-site in the known universe becomes suspect; and when the site's claim to be most influential is jeopardized, they might find their free 'n easy access to Susan to be curtailed. So you see, can't have any of that happening, must nip it in the bud, starting with anything resembling free thinking or free speech. This is All Very Important Stuff, after all.

Lovin' Every Minute wrote:

Well - anyone who's not 'them' is the enemy, dotcha know. Can't have anyone thinking there might be more open-minded ways of running a forum; after all, members who are permitted to think for themselves might get the smarty-pants idea to leave. And when members leave, membership numbers drop (oh wait - is that happening already??); when membership numbers drop, the site's claim to be 'the biggest' (and therefore somehow the most influential) Susa-site in the known universe becomes suspect; and when the site's claim to be most influential is jeopardized, they might find their free 'n easy access to Susan to be curtailed. So you see, can't have any of that happening, must nip it in the bud, starting with anything resembling free thinking or free speech. This is All Very Important Stuff, after all.

Okay, LEM this is a definite:

*EXCELLENT POST* *EXCELLENT POST* *EXCELLENT POST*

janakimack wrote:

Lovin' Every Minute wrote:

Well - anyone who's not 'them' is the enemy, dotcha know. Can't have anyone thinking there might be more open-minded ways of running a forum; after all, members who are permitted to think for themselves might get the smarty-pants idea to leave. And when members leave, membership numbers drop (oh wait - is that happening already??); when membership numbers drop, the site's claim to be 'the biggest' (and therefore somehow the most influential) Susa-site in the known universe becomes suspect; and when the site's claim to be most influential is jeopardized, they might find their free 'n easy access to Susan to be curtailed. So you see, can't have any of that happening, must nip it in the bud, starting with anything resembling free thinking or free speech. This is All Very Important Stuff, after all.

Okay, LEM this is a definite:

*EXCELLENT POST* *EXCELLENT POST* *EXCELLENT POST*

I have to agree here. Excellent Post!

Here is a funny one. Someone who is ALWAYS on a high "horse" over there says that membership numbers are going UP! Membership number does NOT matter! What DOES matter is the ACTIVE membership number! That has gone from 1700 to 891 in 18 months!!! If she thinks that means improvement by her administration, then I have a horse racing track to sell her---CHEAP!! They have had 50,000 register for membership, what percentage STAY and POST??? That is what matters!!

fudgemeister wrote:

Here is a funny one. Someone who is ALWAYS on a high "horse" over there says that membership numbers are going UP! Membership number does NOT matter! What DOES matter is the ACTIVE membership number! That has gone from 1700 to 891 in 18 months!!! If she thinks that means improvement by her administration, then I have a horse racing track to sell her---CHEAP!! They have had 50,000 register for membership, what percentage STAY and POST??? That is what matters!!

Active membership goes down, full stop.

And membership goes up because it was stated that no one can leave (I will have to find that post...)

Another prominent member says that the"forum is well under control". THAT is the name of their game!

Hey, SBFII board---what IS SO IMPORTANT about these new bylaws that they MUST BE PASSED?? Democracy SUCKS--people just KEEP ON asking questions! The nerve of them, when YOU KNOW what is best for them (or is it best for you?????)

In one post Kalua tells Airemom that she cannot recommend how people can vote; yet in one post Stevieboy tells everyone they should vote yes on the new bylaws. How come he did not get the same warning? Maybe because he is on the side of the admin? This is what I have always complained about--the obvious bias for one side over another. How much more obvious does it need to be?

It is amazing how CanadianBill answers MUCH more questions than ANY board member. Is he ON the board?????? One would CERTAINLY think so!!

fudgemeister wrote:

It is amazing how CanadianBill answers MUCH more questions than ANY board member. Is he ON the board?????? One would CERTAINLY think so!!

I don't think he's even on this planet!

CB is like the energizer bunny--he keeps going and going and going and going and going! If only he would be GONE!!! And THIS is the guy who accused me of being repetitive!!