Where the ITA is today!

Brenda at Eye Pro · 05-16-2002, 06:05 PM

The "bashing the ITA" thread was getting a little long, so pardon me for starting a fresh topic with the ITA theme.

Don suggested that the ITA should have contituency meetings so the various groups such as salon owners and distributors could discuss their best interests.

GUESS WHAT?? THE ITA JUST ADDED SECTOR MEETINGS FOR THE INDUSTRY SECTORS.

Don suggested that the constituencies should meet several times a year.

GUESS WHAT???? THE ITA JUST ADDED MEETINGS DURING VEGAS FOR THE SECTORS AND THE ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP.

Robbie and Greg suggested that salons are key to the industry and should have the biggest voice.

GUESS WHAT???? THE ITA JUST GAVE EACH SALON BOARD MEMBER TWO VOTES. EVERY OTHER SECTOR GETS ONE!

GUESS WHAT??? THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITA IS A SALON OWNER!

The ITA is listening and acting! What do you think of them apples??

HERE'S MY CHALLENGE: WILL SHEILA, ROBBIE, DON AND GREG SHOW UP FOR THEIR OWN INVENTIONS? STAY TUNED!

Brenda
The ITA girl with her ear to the ground

_________________

[ This Message was edited by: Don Smith on 2002-05-18 10:42 ][ This Message was edited by: Don Smith on 2002-05-18 17:01 ]

BooBop · 05-16-2002, 06:30 PM

Thanks for the info Brenda. Question, can anyone go to the ITA meeting in Vegas? Like me for instance.

tangirl · 05-16-2002, 07:27 PM

I'll be there whether they want me there or not. Someone may need to bring to duct tape to keep my mouth shut.

Robbie · 05-16-2002, 11:46 PM

Brenda,

I’m anti-sector, anti-double votes—but I’ll be there.

Looking forward to seeing you again
Robbie

BooBop · 05-17-2002, 10:10 AM

Oh no Tangirl, no duct tape. You will have full voice.

Don Smith · 05-18-2002, 08:47 AM

Brenda:

Since I suggested the "improvements" you mention BEFORE ITA "came into being" and have done so repeatedly since, I can hardly disagree with these badly needed changes.

My problem with ITA is that they do not (1) speak out at scientific meetings (they were silent at the February 7 & 8, 2002 meetings; and, (2) they are unwilling to publicly state their opinion on issues of importance to the indoor tanning industry (like Amendment 3 - Definition of a Manufacturer).

So, Miss Brenda, IF you want to "spam" the benefits of ITA here, how about getting them to set forth the "official" ITA position regarding Amendment 3 - Definition of a Manufacturer!

Ask Don has been "warning" tanning salon owners for two years that this Amendment has the potential to "force" them to buy replacement parts (including sunlamps) ONLY from the manufacturer if is left to the manufacturer to define the "performance" of a sunbed. If that happens, prices for replacement parts will go through the roof creating an economic "windfall" for manufacturers at the expense of tanning salon owners.

Since you haven't attended previous meetings, you didn't have the opportunity that a few of us have had to hear certain manufacturers advocate a policy that would favor themselves at the expense of tanning salon owners.

Thus, there is still time for ITA to come here and publicly state their "official" position regarding "Amendment 3 - Definition of a Manufacturer. IF they do not want to lower themselves to "associate" with us "rif raff" here on http://www.tantalk.com, then they should "post" their "position" on their own website. FAIR IS FAIR!

I will be discussing the forthcoming TEPRSSC meeting during the "Ask Don" portion of the Sunday Night Super Chat and so ITA can use this forum to let us know their opinion.

So, Brenda, the "ball" is in their court.

Tell them that inquiring minds want to know their position on Amendment 3 - Definition of a Manufacturer!

Don

PS: If you want to read "Ask Don's" opinion regarding Amendment 3 - Definition of a Manufacturer, go to http://www.naatso.org/frameset_events.htm and then click on the listing titled "UVR-RI/TSO Response To Amendment 3 - Definition of a Manufacturer". This document has been sent to both FDA and TEPRSSC and I will present them next week in person. Thus, these opinions are "out there" in plain sight where everyone can read them. Shouldn't ITA do the same if they want to speak for the industry?

[ This Message was edited by: Don Smith on 2002-05-18 07:57 ][ This Message was edited by: Don Smith on 2002-05-18 08:00 ]

Don Smith · 05-18-2002, 11:33 AM

Brenda/ITA:

I know that it is Saturday, but we don't have much time left before the meeting next week.

Therefore, PLEASE respond (or have someone with ITA respond) with the official ITA position regarding "Amendment 3 - Definition of a Manufacturer" ASAP!

Or could it be that ITA doesn't have a "position" on Amendment 3 - Definition of a Manufacturer?

Or could it be that ITA, in fact, DOES have an opinion on Amendment 3 - Definition of a Manufacturer but they don't want tanning salon owners to know what it is?

As mentioned above, IF the ITA wants to speak for the indoor tanning industry, it is MANDATORY that they PUBLICLY STATE their position on this important Amendment.

We're waiting.....

Don

Brenda at Eye Pro · 05-18-2002, 04:37 PM

Don,

Whoa!

First of all, you changed my post topic header, and I don't think that's fair. That's changing my post and misrepresenting me. (The parenthesis and text inside are not mine). Please delete my post or post it the way it was. You can, of course, start your own post, with any topic header you choose, and quote my text in your message. I have no problem with that. But don't put words LITERALLY IN MY MOUTH. Thanks.

Two, I did not post on behalf of ITA. I am speaking as Brenda, an ITA member. I'm not on the board, I'm not on any committees, I don't have "anyone's ear". I had read your thread "It's Stupid to Bash the ITA" and found it funny that the biggest complaints made in the thread had already been changed by the ITA--information I read on their website, www.theita.com. My post was just to point up that much of the bashing was due to lack of information and that a quick tour of the ITA website or a phone call to them would have solved some concerns. Just looking to hold everyone to INFORMED reporting.

Thirdly, speaking of informed reporting, I am not privy to anyone at the ITA to gain any information on Ammendment 3 or any other ITA details. As you know, they are hosting a meeting at TEPRSSC and I'm sure we will hear their opinion, if any, then. I am sure you are much more informed of who, if anyone, at the ITA is involved in tracking scientific meetings and can make the call on your own behalf. No sense having a third uninformed party (me) muddle it up for you.

Finally, help me out with some informed reporting, Don. I can't find any reference from the FDA or TEPRSSC on their websites. I just see a notation they are having an informal discussion on tanning. Can you direct me to a formal document that indicates what will be discussed? The wording now in question on Ammendment 3 as well as the regs they want to rewrite? I've asked several other industry people attending the meeting (none ITA officials) and they don't have any documents either. I know you've talked with Dr. Cyr, is this our only source?

Brenda Fishbaugh
ITA Allied Member

Brenda at Eye Pro · 05-18-2002, 04:53 PM

Don,

I just went back to your "It's Stupid to Bash the ITA" post. You posted that you thought it was stupid to bash the ITA for real or imagined sins of ommission or commission. I'm wondering, do you feel your posts in this thread fall in that category?

You also posted that your problem with the ITA is that they don't speak at scientific meetings and then you ask them to post an opinion about a scientific meeting! Huh?
Clearly, if they have made a decision to not speak at scientific meetings, as you suggest (I have absolutely no information on this--as you point out, I've never been to a scientific meeting), then they would not be in a position to post an opinion!

The ITA is a young organization and cannot be all things to all people. The board is made up of volunteers from every facet of our industry spending their own $ to improve our industry. I resent that you said I am "spamming" for them,when I just responded with some facts from their website about what they were doing about issues posted in the thread. If you felt it was spamming, and not offering legitimate information to your readers, you absolutely have the right to delete the thread.

I absolutely mean no disrespect to you or your forum with my posts. You and Pat are also working diligently to improve the industry, and understood your first post "It's Stupid to Bash the ITA" to indicate that you have more in common with the ITA than not. Did I misunderstand that?

Brenda at Eye Pro · 05-18-2002, 05:02 PM

Buntanner,

You asked if non-members can attend the ITA sector and general assembly meetings in Vegas and Nashville. I don't know the answer to that question, its not posted on their website.

Tangirl,

I've been to two ITA meetings and after the main presentation, they passed around a microphone to the assembly so that anyone could ask questions. There have been some hard-hitting questions, and they have been asked in a respectful manner. I'm sure as long as you ask intelligent questions in a professional manner, the board and assembly would love to hear from you.

They've taken tons of questions and comments from Robbie and Bruce Schoenfelder, among others, so I think the duct tape won't come out when you talk!

_________________
[ This Message was edited by: Brenda at Eye Pro on 2002-05-18 16:07 ]

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
More Sunscare on Today Show	Tans R Us	Open Forum	11	05-26-2005 10:58 PM
Today is my birthday!!!!!	Teresa	Say What ?????	13	01-31-2003 10:29 AM
DON SMITH BOTOX WAS APPROVED TODAY	fungirlz	Open Forum	9	03-08-2002 11:21 PM

05-16-2002, 06:05 PM	#1 (permalink)
Brenda at Eye Pro Join Date: Jun 29 2001 Location: Fort Wayne IN Posts: 234 Rep Power: 8	The "bashing the ITA" thread was getting a little long, so pardon me for starting a fresh topic with the ITA theme. Don suggested that the ITA should have contituency meetings so the various groups such as salon owners and distributors could discuss their best interests. GUESS WHAT?? THE ITA JUST ADDED SECTOR MEETINGS FOR THE INDUSTRY SECTORS. Don suggested that the constituencies should meet several times a year. GUESS WHAT???? THE ITA JUST ADDED MEETINGS DURING VEGAS FOR THE SECTORS AND THE ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP. Robbie and Greg suggested that salons are key to the industry and should have the biggest voice. GUESS WHAT???? THE ITA JUST GAVE EACH SALON BOARD MEMBER TWO VOTES. EVERY OTHER SECTOR GETS ONE! GUESS WHAT??? THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITA IS A SALON OWNER! The ITA is listening and acting! What do you think of them apples?? HERE'S MY CHALLENGE: WILL SHEILA, ROBBIE, DON AND GREG SHOW UP FOR THEIR OWN INVENTIONS? STAY TUNED! Brenda The ITA girl with her ear to the ground _________________ [ This Message was edited by: Don Smith on 2002-05-18 10:42 ][ This Message was edited by: Don Smith on 2002-05-18 17:01 ]

05-16-2002, 06:30 PM	#2 (permalink)
BooBop I love Derf!! Join Date: Apr 5 2001 Posts: 9,497 Rep Power: 13	Thanks for the info Brenda. Question, can anyone go to the ITA meeting in Vegas? Like me for instance.

05-16-2002, 07:27 PM	#3 (permalink)
tangirl Join Date: Jul 6 2001 Posts: 2,184 Rep Power: 8	I'll be there whether they want me there or not. Someone may need to bring to duct tape to keep my mouth shut.

05-16-2002, 11:46 PM	#4 (permalink)
Robbie Join Date: Sep 1 2001 Posts: 103 Rep Power: 8	Brenda, I’m anti-sector, anti-double votes—but I’ll be there. Looking forward to seeing you again Robbie

05-17-2002, 10:10 AM	#5 (permalink)
BooBop I love Derf!! Join Date: Apr 5 2001 Posts: 9,497 Rep Power: 13	Oh no Tangirl, no duct tape. You will have full voice.

05-18-2002, 08:47 AM	#6 (permalink)
Don Smith Join Date: Feb 25 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 1,619 Rep Power: 10	Brenda: Since I suggested the "improvements" you mention BEFORE ITA "came into being" and have done so repeatedly since, I can hardly disagree with these badly needed changes. My problem with ITA is that they do not (1) speak out at scientific meetings (they were silent at the February 7 & 8, 2002 meetings; and, (2) they are unwilling to publicly state their opinion on issues of importance to the indoor tanning industry (like Amendment 3 - Definition of a Manufacturer). So, Miss Brenda, IF you want to "spam" the benefits of ITA here, how about getting them to set forth the "official" ITA position regarding Amendment 3 - Definition of a Manufacturer! Ask Don has been "warning" tanning salon owners for two years that this Amendment has the potential to "force" them to buy replacement parts (including sunlamps) ONLY from the manufacturer if is left to the manufacturer to define the "performance" of a sunbed. If that happens, prices for replacement parts will go through the roof creating an economic "windfall" for manufacturers at the expense of tanning salon owners. Since you haven't attended previous meetings, you didn't have the opportunity that a few of us have had to hear certain manufacturers advocate a policy that would favor themselves at the expense of tanning salon owners. Thus, there is still time for ITA to come here and publicly state their "official" position regarding "Amendment 3 - Definition of a Manufacturer. IF they do not want to lower themselves to "associate" with us "rif raff" here on http://www.tantalk.com, then they should "post" their "position" on their own website. FAIR IS FAIR! I will be discussing the forthcoming TEPRSSC meeting during the "Ask Don" portion of the Sunday Night Super Chat and so ITA can use this forum to let us know their opinion. So, Brenda, the "ball" is in their court. Tell them that inquiring minds want to know their position on Amendment 3 - Definition of a Manufacturer! Don PS: If you want to read "Ask Don's" opinion regarding Amendment 3 - Definition of a Manufacturer, go to http://www.naatso.org/frameset_events.htm and then click on the listing titled "UVR-RI/TSO Response To Amendment 3 - Definition of a Manufacturer". This document has been sent to both FDA and TEPRSSC and I will present them next week in person. Thus, these opinions are "out there" in plain sight where everyone can read them. Shouldn't ITA do the same if they want to speak for the industry? [ This Message was edited by: Don Smith on 2002-05-18 07:57 ][ This Message was edited by: Don Smith on 2002-05-18 08:00 ]

05-18-2002, 11:33 AM	#7 (permalink)
Don Smith Join Date: Feb 25 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 1,619 Rep Power: 10	Brenda/ITA: I know that it is Saturday, but we don't have much time left before the meeting next week. Therefore, PLEASE respond (or have someone with ITA respond) with the official ITA position regarding "Amendment 3 - Definition of a Manufacturer" ASAP! Or could it be that ITA doesn't have a "position" on Amendment 3 - Definition of a Manufacturer? Or could it be that ITA, in fact, DOES have an opinion on Amendment 3 - Definition of a Manufacturer but they don't want tanning salon owners to know what it is? As mentioned above, IF the ITA wants to speak for the indoor tanning industry, it is MANDATORY that they PUBLICLY STATE their position on this important Amendment. We're waiting..... Don

05-18-2002, 04:37 PM	#8 (permalink)
Brenda at Eye Pro Join Date: Jun 29 2001 Location: Fort Wayne IN Posts: 234 Rep Power: 8	Don, Whoa! First of all, you changed my post topic header, and I don't think that's fair. That's changing my post and misrepresenting me. (The parenthesis and text inside are not mine). Please delete my post or post it the way it was. You can, of course, start your own post, with any topic header you choose, and quote my text in your message. I have no problem with that. But don't put words LITERALLY IN MY MOUTH. Thanks. Two, I did not post on behalf of ITA. I am speaking as Brenda, an ITA member. I'm not on the board, I'm not on any committees, I don't have "anyone's ear". I had read your thread "It's Stupid to Bash the ITA" and found it funny that the biggest complaints made in the thread had already been changed by the ITA--information I read on their website, www.theita.com. My post was just to point up that much of the bashing was due to lack of information and that a quick tour of the ITA website or a phone call to them would have solved some concerns. Just looking to hold everyone to INFORMED reporting. Thirdly, speaking of informed reporting, I am not privy to anyone at the ITA to gain any information on Ammendment 3 or any other ITA details. As you know, they are hosting a meeting at TEPRSSC and I'm sure we will hear their opinion, if any, then. I am sure you are much more informed of who, if anyone, at the ITA is involved in tracking scientific meetings and can make the call on your own behalf. No sense having a third uninformed party (me) muddle it up for you. Finally, help me out with some informed reporting, Don. I can't find any reference from the FDA or TEPRSSC on their websites. I just see a notation they are having an informal discussion on tanning. Can you direct me to a formal document that indicates what will be discussed? The wording now in question on Ammendment 3 as well as the regs they want to rewrite? I've asked several other industry people attending the meeting (none ITA officials) and they don't have any documents either. I know you've talked with Dr. Cyr, is this our only source? Brenda Fishbaugh ITA Allied Member

05-18-2002, 04:53 PM	#9 (permalink)
Brenda at Eye Pro Join Date: Jun 29 2001 Location: Fort Wayne IN Posts: 234 Rep Power: 8	Don, I just went back to your "It's Stupid to Bash the ITA" post. You posted that you thought it was stupid to bash the ITA for real or imagined sins of ommission or commission. I'm wondering, do you feel your posts in this thread fall in that category? You also posted that your problem with the ITA is that they don't speak at scientific meetings and then you ask them to post an opinion about a scientific meeting! Huh? Clearly, if they have made a decision to not speak at scientific meetings, as you suggest (I have absolutely no information on this--as you point out, I've never been to a scientific meeting), then they would not be in a position to post an opinion! The ITA is a young organization and cannot be all things to all people. The board is made up of volunteers from every facet of our industry spending their own $ to improve our industry. I resent that you said I am "spamming" for them,when I just responded with some facts from their website about what they were doing about issues posted in the thread. If you felt it was spamming, and not offering legitimate information to your readers, you absolutely have the right to delete the thread. I absolutely mean no disrespect to you or your forum with my posts. You and Pat are also working diligently to improve the industry, and understood your first post "It's Stupid to Bash the ITA" to indicate that you have more in common with the ITA than not. Did I misunderstand that?

05-18-2002, 05:02 PM	#10 (permalink)
Brenda at Eye Pro Join Date: Jun 29 2001 Location: Fort Wayne IN Posts: 234 Rep Power: 8	Buntanner, You asked if non-members can attend the ITA sector and general assembly meetings in Vegas and Nashville. I don't know the answer to that question, its not posted on their website. Tangirl, I've been to two ITA meetings and after the main presentation, they passed around a microphone to the assembly so that anyone could ask questions. There have been some hard-hitting questions, and they have been asked in a respectful manner. I'm sure as long as you ask intelligent questions in a professional manner, the board and assembly would love to hear from you. They've taken tons of questions and comments from Robbie and Bruce Schoenfelder, among others, so I think the duct tape won't come out when you talk! _________________ [ This Message was edited by: Brenda at Eye Pro on 2002-05-18 16:07 ]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)