ORIGINAL: RCKen
Ok guys, I'm going to step in here for a second as there seems to be some people taking issues here with this thread. Littlecrankshaf's original post was very clear about what he wanted to discuss
<div id="TixyyLink" style="border-bottom: medium none; text-align: left; border-left: medium none; background-color: transparent; color: #000000; overflow: hidden; border-top: medium none; border-right: medium none; text-decoration: none">What does each member (position) of the EC get for an expense account?
A posting member of another AMA forum site stated that $17,000 is allocated for all (collectively speaking) of the VPs and their respective AVPs, yet another responder, that is actually running for Dist X, seemed to indicate $17.000 per each VP and their AVPs. The discrepancy has gone unanswered...Looked through AMA's website and couldn't find the info...
Oh BTW...it really should go without saying... but this is a topic for discussion, so the usual “call AMA” cry is misplaced here...the intent is for discussion of what the more knowledgeable here know so we can all learn...not just for someone making a call...so, what do you guys know? Anyone???
</div>
I have included his ENTIRE original post because some people seem to want to selectively quote his post, and his intentions. I have highlighted the pertinent parts of his post. It is very clear that he wants to get into a discussion with other members in order to find out WHAT the general AMA public knows on this subject. Yes, he could call AMA to get a definitive answer to his question. However that is not his goal here, he wants to find out how many people in the AMA know the answer. This is an entirely different issue than simply trying to find out the answer to how much is allotted (although I have a suspicion that he already knows what that amount is).
Because of that actions of a few here I'm going to have to step in. If you want to answer "call the AMA" or you want to argue about his motives here then I would suggest that you refrain from posting here, as any more posts along those lines will be removed. However, if you would like to discuss the issue as laid out by the original poster than by all means you are welcome to join in. But the "troll" accusations will stop now.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Ken
I'm a little slow so please humor me.
Tounderstand his/your intent correctly then .................
He/you do not want the
answer to the question but only want
discussion about what the answer might be?Are we looking for someone in particular (one such person that he flushed out gave him an answer and is taking a browbeating for it).
Can we take a look ata part of your bolded text?"
intent is for discussion of what the more knowledgeable here know so we can all learn...not just for someone making a call." Could that be taken as; "Intent isfor discussion ofwhat themore knowledgeable here know so we can all learn....not just for gettingthe facts."
I reallydon't get how this can be construedin any way other than for what you have, disturbingly, come to his defense. Feel free to zap this post as i realize, and readily admit, that it is in violation of the LCS Protection Directive.