I know a couple of dealers quite well and they have all said they think it's a great idea. They also think it was a good time to do the change with 2009 coming up.
With respect, I have heard differently from everywhere...in varying degrees of vehemence. I imagine some dealers alter their story depending on who they are talking to.
I don't think any harm was meant Phil. Certainly, we are all gentlemen enough to call Mr. Morgan whatever he wishes to be called. Can you check on that? Most naturally
assume that with his grandfather enjoying the moniker of "HFS" and his father "PM", that he was pleased with "CM".
I have always called him Charles and he seems to be Ok with that. I have never heard him reffered to face to face as CM.
I think "Charles" is more appropriate when face-to-face and in the context of your close relationship. However, eMog has 14 Charles and I wouldn't want to get into habits that cause confusion. How about "Mr. Morgan". There is only one now and that works. Is that ok?
On what you call jibes..that is a simply a function of how we both see the proper expression Morgan love. Some owners express it as a deep loyalty and desire to protect fellow owners first and foremost. Others feel the same love is best expressed by seeing no fault in the company or its management and being intolerant of any comment of either save praise. Of course, the affection of both groups for the car is without question. I have no problem watching either reaction....
Be careful as it I could be taken as devisive of you to say that owners form themselves into such 'groups'.
We can't pretend that divisions are not there. I have found it easier simply to recognize that all sorts of groups and divisions exist and accept and acknowledge all of them.
Speaking for myself I see elements of both 'groups'in my own attitude.
That's good. (smile) I have never met anyone who didn't think of themselves as a balanced moderate. Me too!
What disturbs me about many of the comments made which I describe as anti MMC 'jibes' is they are often not backed by facts. This logo thread (as I said earlier somewhere) is a case in point.
Phil, I agree completely. Too often emotion mixes with the inaccurate and unresearched to produce a very sad (even vicious) result. It is no secret that I am constantly fed fact from scores of sources. (I am not that smart all by myself!) If an item interests me, I try to sift it for misinformation and then go for looking for confirmation from unrelated sources. Even then, if it seems too unhappy or inopportune, I keep it discrete...often permanently.
Where judgmenets were made upon the reasons for it without anybody apparently having any facts as to why from the MMC themselves.
I am afraid that history, experience and business suggests that yours is not a totally realistic (or fair to them) approach here. Though I have consulted with the MMC administration, I am aware that they have the company's interests to protect and nurture above all else. That loyalty often compromises complete frankness. I respect this position fully as I do with anyone in other businesses in the same position. However, one must search for objective sources to ensure reliability.
What I also perceive is a few people consistenly following either overtly or covertly a line of loyalty to other owners and not the MMC and indeed everything the MMC now does is seen in a negative light.
Do you feel that our primary loyalty should be to the MMC rather than to other owners? Again, as gently as I may, do you think that the MMC feels their primary loyalty is to you and other owners?
That deeply disturbs me as to why people are so. Once again if there were loads of facts as to why then someone please present them here for discussion.
We all have an opinion but the anti MMC jibes are becoming a 'self fulling prophecy' and people are being influenced to believe that everything the current MMC does is bad without real facts behind this.
Please don't tempt me. (GRIN!) It has been made very plain that type of discussion is not wanted. I have no problem with that whatsoever. Frankly, the only reason to present unpleasant facts to one's brethren is in hope it will protect them, assist them or helps the company to change for the best. Even with all that, it is no fun doing it.
However, if you feel any remarks or opinions critical about the cars, the company, or its management (since May 2006 Charles Morgan officially shares the vote on all executive decisions with Matthew Parkin, Tim Whitworth and Steve Morris) are improper and unwelcome,we can refrain from offering them.
No never stop offering your opinon that would be censorship and I don't belive that TM exists to control what people can and cannot say on it.
Best is to try to avoid suggesting anything to discourage the voicing of any opinion. Discussion groups thrive on discussion. If we all agreed, we'd just be toasting each other all day and that gets very boring. (smile)
NOW, what would you like facts on??!!!
Lorne
(Most people are interested in the cars and not in any logo.)