a note for myself
to remind me to always remain humble
and to never hold grudges
blog maia, regulai maia
| 2006 | - 3 major "pasimuno" planned putting up the "thing". but needed 2 fillers. "type" needs atleast 5 people to be qualified as that "type" |
| Dec 2006 | - first project |
| Feb 2007 | - (1) = US |
| May 2007 | - official and legal and registered. (1) + (2) + (3) part-time |
| 2007 | - (2) quit day job/became full time. (1) + (3) still part-time |
| Mar 2008 | - (3) quit day job/became full time. (1) still part-time |
| Oct 2008 | - (1) booted out. reason: not in the same location as (2) & (3). can't full time. need full time peeps coz things are getting hairy. |
| 2008 | - suggestion: meeting before deciding anything. dont surprise attack coz its an unfair treatment. |
| suggestion: hire people if things are already getting too hairy so nobody needs to quit day jobs. | |
| suggestion: make outline for clear delegation of tasks for equal distribution | |
| suggestion: AND always keep "people" in the loop about projects so task distribution is easier | |
| question: why follow ups/inquiries/balikbayan projects gets ignored. answer: plan of booting out is in progress | |
| 2010 | - hired people (finally) - US (3) |
| - question (3) = US will (3) be booted out? why? answer: ofcourse not. politics. - question: did (1) helped in the foundation? is (1) the most well-travelled & well experienced in organizing/managing projects at that time. answer: yes and yes - question: when did (1) started organizing "projects"? answer: 2004 for pexersLibotPinas - question: (1)'s credentials? answers: TLRC's how to set up your own "txxxxl agency" and 2nd course on "airline booking, reservation, creating txxr packages" - question: so why booted out? answer: the "thing" is becoming famous, it's up and running, it's stable. they got what they needed from (1) so they don't have use for (1) anymore. oh. and (1) is in d US, they say (1) abandoned them. - question: abandoned? emails/chats/video conference don't count? answer: apparently, no. have to be physically there. - question: (2) & (3) changed their mindsand offered (1) 5% of the "thing", right? (1) should be thankful for that. answer: (1) felt insulted. plus after all the "drama" that transpired, joining them again will be awkward. plus it would be suicide. - question: why do they have to remove (1)? cant they just have (1) + (2) + (3) + (4) plus 2 fillers? answer: good question. because too many people will have to share the pie? because (1) is in the US and they don't like it that (1) is getting both worlds (US & owning a business). i dont know. - question: does (1) knows how much the "thing" is earning answer: no. never saw the books. never tried to because i trusted them. - question: did (1) got anything after 2 years?buy out?salary? answer: none. just heartaches. - question: you think they'll get mad when they see this? answer: yes. as far as they're concerned they did nothing wrong. for them, just telling someone by email that you just got the sack and they don't need you anymore without a warning, a meeting and voting is absolutely the correct and most humane thing to do. and as far as they're concerned (1) is the bad guy because (1) shouldn't let anyone know about what happened and should never complain about their decision. plus it's bad publicity. - question: bad publicity. so why does (1) still had to post this answer: freedom of speech. blog maia, regulai maia. i'm sure "they" say things about (1) too. plus (1) is not mentioning names. - question: ur plan? answer: no comment. i like to surprise people - question: does (1) hate 2 & 3? answer: nah. just indifferent. - question: how about (4) & (5), does (1) hate them? answer: it's mainly all (2) & (3)'s fault. im sure (4) didn't brain-washed them to kick (1) out. i hope. - question: what will (1) do if (1) sees (2) & (3) & (4) face to face? answer: smile and give them a friendly nod and continue walking. | |
0 comments:
Post a Comment