RRF Editorial

[Brady Barrows]

I have written an editorial on the RRF at this url >

http://www.rosaceans.com/html/rrf.html

[Rick]

Brady,

I certainly give you full credit for suggesting the need for an alternative to the NRS and for digging into the NRS finances.

But isn’t this ongoing crusade against the RRF conflicting with your role here as moderator?

I must say I find it amusing that the moderators apparently have a script that preprocesses any post and remaps any occurrence of “indy_star” to “disney”, any reference to “tiny_url” to “microsoft”, and any reference to “seed_wiki” to “disney”. (Sorry, I had to use the underscores to defeat the script.)

I apologize if I have missed any other translations of unacceptable topics. But, not too worry, all links to your site work just fine.

Rick

[Brady Barrows]

Brady,

I certainly give you full credit for suggesting the need for an alternative to the NRS and for digging into the NRS finances.

But isn’t this ongoing crusade against the RRF conflicting with your role here as moderator?

I must say I find it amusing that the moderators apparently have a script that preprocesses any post and remaps any occurrence of “indy_star” to “disney”, any reference to “tiny_url” to “microsoft”, and any reference to “seed_wiki” to “disney”. (Sorry, I had to use the underscores to defeat the script.)

I apologize if I have missed any other translations of unacceptable topics. But, not too worry, all links to your site work just fine.

Rick

Rick,
The role of moderators is to moderate according to the values established in the policy. Our policy is published and you can read it for yourself. I have not violated this policy and if you could point out where you think I might have done this, please point out the phrase or statement. r-s has a published policy that the moderators there follow and make a practice of not pre-approving posts that will will go public which is the same practice here, but of course, with different values and standards. We don't pre-approve, but when one thinks a post is inappropriate, you may click the small button with the exclamation mark near the top right and make a comment that the moderators will consider if the post is inappropriate, which you didn't do, but chose instead to make this public. If one is displeased with a rosacea support group, a person can find another, which has happened over the history of online rosacea support groups for many years. In fact, you could form your own group yourself and publish what posts you deem worthy and see if you can gather over 500 rosaceans together into a group within five months like this one did. It should be noted that this group is less than a tenth the size of r-s and I wonder if my editorial on the RRF would be discussed there? I noticed you placed a link to the editorial at r-s, which is interesting, but we shall see if this gets discussed among the r-s group.

One wonders why this tiny group compared to the size of the r-s is noticed at all? Could it be that rosaceans want an alternative to the NRS? The RRF which was formed originally because rosaceans wanted an alternative. Now the RRF joined with the NRS. That is a disappointment, which is what this editorial is about. You seem to be confusing an editorial on the RRF with another matter which we have not allowed to be discussed. As to our php guru webmasters who make those banned urls turn into disney magic, our policy on this matter is firm. The reason this forum was formed in June 2005 was due to the mess happening at r-s. The mess spilled over later into ESFB. After looking at what happened at both r-s and ESFB, you can see why this forum grew to 500 rather quickly. Some rosaceans want an alternative. Growth proves the moderators here are listening to rosaceans who do not want the mess that happened to spill over here. My editorial on the RRF alludes to the mess as a problem that occured in June 2005. Everyone knows what happened who wants to know anyway. I am merely pointing out why the RRF originally was formed and how it is so ironic that it ends up supporting the NRS when its history is recalled.

[Rick]

Brady,

I assume you have raised these issues directly with Sam Huff, the President of the NRS? What was his response?

Rick

[Brady Barrows]

Brady,

I assume you have raised these issues directly with Sam Huff, the President of the NRS? What was his response?

Rick

Rick,
No, I have not. I have founded the RRDi. Apparently Sam Huff can legally be the owner of Glendale Communications, Inc and receive over the last seven years $3,368,592 as an independent contractor and at the same time be the President of the NRS. If this is illegal it should be stopped, but apparently the prestigious medical advisory board of the NRS and the RRF have no qualms about Glendale Communications and Sam Huff's relationship. It appears to me to be a conflict of interest but there is no known conflict of interest policy stated on the NRS website, and maybe their policy allows Sam Huff to do this. Maybe the IRS allows Sam Huff to do this. I have done my homework and read every Form 990 that the NRS has reported to the IRS and concluded that the RRDi needed to be formed as an alternative for rosaceans to the NRS. That was exactly the reason the RRF was formed as well. That is what my editorial is about. Sam Huff can read my editorial since it is public knowledge and the Form 990s that Sam Huff signs and sends to the IRS are also public knowledge subject to editorials. Have you read any of the Form 990s available for you to read that the NRS reports to the IRS? You can make your own judgement and post your own editorial or write Sam Huff yourself. If I have read the Form 990 wrong, please correct me.

[Warren]

while we are there:

source (http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:KFxTkKHOsEsJ:www.prsa.org/_Publications/redbook/2004redsrch3.asp%3Find%3DK%26indus%3DHealth/Medical%26type%3DDUS+%22Glendale+Communications%22 +huff&hl=en&client=firefox-a)
Glendale Communications Group, Inc.
800 S. Northwest Highway
Barrington, IL 60010
Tel: (847) 382-7404
Fax: (847) 382-5567
Email: glendalecomm@aol.com
Year founded: 1987
Num of Employees: 22
Member(s): Sam Huff, Pres

Industrial Specialization
Health/Medical
Non-Profit
Pharmaceutical
Real Estate

Practice Specialization
Full Service
Marketing PR
Product Publicity


-----------------------------------------------------

whois glendalecommunications.com

Whois Server Version 1.3

Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.

Domain Name: GLENDALECOMMUNICATIONS.COM
Registrar: OMNIS NETWORK, LLC
Whois Server: whois.omnis.com
Referral URL: http://domains.omnis.com
Name Server: NS1.OMNIS.COM
Name Server: NS2.OMNIS.COM
Status: ACTIVE
Updated Date: 22-sep-2005
Creation Date: 29-sep-2003
Expiration Date: 29-sep-2008


>>> Last update of whois database: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 02:26:27 EDT <<<

NOTICE: The expiration date displayed in this record is the date the
registrar's sponsorship of the domain name registration in the registry is
currently set to expire. This date does not necessarily reflect the expiration
date of the domain name registrant's agreement with the sponsoring
registrar. Users may consult the sponsoring registrar's Whois database to
view the registrar's reported date of expiration for this registration.

TERMS OF USE: You are not authorized to access or query our Whois
database through the use of electronic processes that are high-volume and
automated except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or
modify existing registrations; the Data in VeriSign Global Registry
Services' ("VeriSign") Whois database is provided by VeriSign for
information purposes only, and to assist persons in obtaining information
about or related to a domain name registration record. VeriSign does not
guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a Whois query, you agree to abide
by the following terms of use: You agree that you may use this Data only
for lawful purposes and that under no circumstances will you use this Data
to: (1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass
unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail, telephone,
or facsimile; or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
that apply to VeriSign (or its computer systems). The compilation,
repackaging, dissemination or other use of this Data is expressly
prohibited without the prior written consent of VeriSign. You agree not to
use electronic processes that are automated and high-volume to access or
query the Whois database except as reasonably necessary to register
domain names or modify existing registrations. VeriSign reserves the right
to restrict your access to the Whois database in its sole discretion to ensure
operational stability. VeriSign may restrict or terminate your access to the
Whois database for failure to abide by these terms of use. VeriSign
reserves the right to modify these terms at any time.

The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .EDU domains and
Registrars.

Omnis Network, LLC's WHOIS data is provided for information and reference
only. Omnis Network, LLC makes no guaranty or warranty that the data
available is accurate. You agree that the data will not be used under any
circumstances to allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission by
email, telephone, or facsimile of mass, unsolicited, commercial
advertising or solicitation. You agree not to enable high volume,
automated, electronic processes that submit queries to Omnis Network, LLC
or send data to the systems of any Registry operator or ICANN-Accredited
registrar. Compilation, repackaging, dissemination or other use of the
WHOIS database in its entirety, or of a substantial portion thereof, is
not allowed without prior written permission of Omnis Network, LLC. By
submitting this query, you agree to be bound by these terms.
Whois Output for: glendalecommunications.com

Domain Name Owner:
me3dia.com
1515 W. Arthur Ave. #3
Chicago, IL 60626
US

Administrative Contact:
me3dia.com
Huff, Andrew [AH-147]
1515 W. Arthur Ave. #3
Chicago, IL 60626, US
Phone: 773-368-6137
Fax: 847-382-5567
Email: a.huff@ftnetwork.com

Technical Contact:
Omnis Network
Network, Omnis [ON-1]
3655 Torrance Blvd Suite 230
Torrance, CA 90503, US
Phone: (310)316-2744
Fax: (310)316-4991
Email: nicreg@omnis.com

Billing Contact:
me3dia.com
Huff, Andrew [AH-147]
1515 W. Arthur Ave. #3
Chicago, IL 60626, US
Phone: 773-368-6137
Fax: 847-382-5567
Email: a.huff@ftnetwork.com

Record Information:
Domain Record Created: September 29, 2003 00:00
Domain Record Updated: September 22, 2005 11:12
Domain Record Expires: September 29, 2008 00:00

DNS Information:
Name Server: ns1.omnis.com
Name Server: ns2.omnis.com

bash-2.05b$

------------------------------------------------------
www.pharmalive.com/News/index.cfm%3Farticleid%3D273771%26categoryid%3D51+% 22andrew+huff%22+glendale&hl=en&client=firefox-a]Another (http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:nNqRUwYxqhgJ:[url) link to something[/url]
------------------------------------------------------
Source (http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:cRDFHl3qcj4J:www.tcag.com/whatis/staff/brisson.asp+%22Glendale+Communications+Group,+Inc. %22&hl=en&client=firefox-a)
Prior to joining TCAG, Deb worked at Glendale Communications Group, Inc., a full service public relations firm in the Chicago area. There she oversaw the production and distribution press releases, maintenance of client websites and provided media relations for a variety of clients, ranging from emerging pharmaceutical companies to well-known Chicago restaurants. She also represented her clients at national tradeshows and conferences across the country.
---------------------------------------------------
So what I found was that Glendale communications is a public relations firm in the Chicago area with 22 employees. The president is Sam Huff but there is also another employee called Andrew Huff. They also have a website with nothing there yet.

[Brady Barrows]

According to cyberdriveillinois here is the info on Glendale Communications Group, Inc., >

http://tinyurl.com/drszb

The above lists the old corporation name as Sam Huff & Associates. Inc.

My editorial on the NRS >

http://www.rosaceans.com/html/nrs.html

[adyus]

Hello everybody.
I am curious, as anyone tried to contact a representative of NRS?
Actually, the question should be: Since this is, probably, the most active rosacea group and the NRS represents the interest of rosacea sufferers, why haven't they made any contact with this group?
The issues that Brady Barrows presented about the NRS are very disturbing, I wonder if they fall under the incidence of the law.
The way things are going, it will take the NRS 10 years to do for rosacea what the Psoriasis organization will do for psoriasis in 1 year.

Best wishes,

Adrian

[Brady Barrows]

Hello everybody.
I am curious, as anyone tried to contact a representative of NRS?
Actually, the question should be: Since this is, probably, the most active rosacea group and the NRS represents the interest of rosacea sufferers, why haven't they made any contact with this group?
The issues that Brady Barrows presented about the NRS are very disturbing, I wonder if they fall under the incidence of the law.
The way things are going, it will take the NRS 10 years to do for rosacea what the Psoriasis organization will do for psoriasis in 1 year.

Best wishes,

Adrian

Adrian,

During the next ten years with the RRF helping the NRS increase its rosacea research we have a change. Note how David and Sam are now communicating about increasing rosacea research at this url >

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/rosacea-support/message/76775

Dave and Sam are going to change the face of rosacea research, now that they are one. I still find this relationship odd but I too am an odd duck when you consider rosacea research. But I still think rosaceans will want an alternative during the next ten years and the RRDi is there for them to have a choice.

Let's see, you want the NRS/RRF or the RRDi? The next ten years will be interesting....

[adyus]

Hello Brady.
Thank you for your reply. I've just read the thank you note from the NRS. It seems interesting that it answers almost all concers that you raised regarding the NRS. Note how it evens speaks about the conflict of interest regarding Glendale and the NRS. Maybe part of this letter should have been directed to you.
I don't know how much influence can David have, but their colaboration( if it exists beyond this one grant) is a step forward.
As for the matter between the RRDi and the NRS, you will notice that I have joined the RRDi. So....how can I help?

Yes indeed, the next years will be interesting....

Best wishes,

Adrian

[Brady Barrows]

Hello Brady.
Thank you for your reply. I've just read the thank you note from the NRS. It seems interesting that it answers almost all concers that you raised regarding the NRS. Note how it evens speaks about the conflict of interest regarding Glendale and the NRS. Maybe part of this letter should have been directed to you.
I don't know how much influence can David have, but their colaboration( if it exists beyond this one grant) is a step forward.
As for the matter between the RRDi and the NRS, you will notice that I have joined the RRDi. So....how can I help?

Yes indeed, the next years will be interesting....

Best wishes,

Adrian
Adrian,
Thanks for joining and the top priority is we need physicians on the MAC so you might want to ask your dermatologist if he would volunteer to advise the board of directors on rosacea research for the RRDi.

As to the 'NRSThankyou.pdf' you mention, the sad thing is that very few rosaceans like you will take the time to read it. While the research for 2004 was indeed 15% of the total funding received according to the Form 990 sent to the IRS, the other figures cannot be verified by Form 990. For instance, "71% of the public donations for scientific research" is impossible to confirm with Form 990 and is nonsense. Saying that spending $3,368,592 over seven years to Glendale Communications Group, Inc., of the total of $5,569,108 funding isn't a conflict of interest
according to 'independent oversight' may be good enough for Dr. Chuck Young and David Pascoe, it isn't good enough for me. What if the IRS investigates the bookkeeping of the IRS and finds this organization not up to what the 'U.S. Better Business Bureau Standards for Charity' says it should be? Maybe a letter to the IRS might begin the process? Maybe a letter to the Better Business Bureau might get the attention of someone? At any rate, it is possible that David and Chuck are good friends with Sam since they sent them some undisclosed amount of money from the RRF to the NRS for rosacea research. Maybe David and Chuck will be invited to the 'NRS workshop' so that they can have some input.