You acknowledge it and you try to steer it the appropriate way, which is what we’ve done.  I haven’t asked anyone to join in and I’ve tried to remind people of the important relationship we have with GM.  We have only posted it here, not on FB itself (which would have been quite a bit closer to where it’s happening, and could have promoted more participation).

But the de-facing of GM’s site is simply embarrassing.   Steven, you are basically endorsing it with this post.  Intentionally littering another companies site is the equivalent of a 3 year boy holding his breath until he gets what he wants.

Saab should hold a higher standard than tacitly endorsing this behavior.

While I agree with you that dumping articles on the site is beyond counterproductive without commentary, I can’t write for everyone on the site nor edit their articles without pissing them off, so I end up as despondent as you. It’d be great if we were able to have a singular focus with one or two writers as Steven did back in the day to shape discussion around one’s particular view, but with so many writers, there’s almost no chance of that happening. I get it, and it’s frustrating. I agree with you that most of the articles that are posted on SU now are complete crap. When you have something important to reflect on but someone decides to quickly dump an article and then 50 comments have already been written before you can hit publish, it’s not a pleasant feeling. But to say that any of us were or are objective in any way is a compete fallacy. 

Even though Steven did a great job trying to present the news without taking sides, we all had a common enemy in GM. The Let Saab Go movement certainly brings back those passionate feelings of rooting for the underdog and praying that Saab would find salvation in the hands of a capable investor. But the situation is also very different, and though it’s tempting to think that GM is playing the same role this time around, their objections in many ways are forcing safeguards to remain in tact for Saab’s (and their own) future. 

If you look back at Steven’s postings even days before the announcement that Spyker and GM reached an agreement, he was posting articles much in the same way the crew does now. Sometimes you post whatever scraps you can, just because if you don’t and they end up somewhere else, people feel as if they’re not getting the full picture of media coverage. The downside of course is as you suggest, that the website simply becomes a repository of any Saab media articles that hit the wire. 

Like Steven says, this situation is about a few businessmen with access to capital sitting in boardrooms, hotel bars, and offices banging out a deal. While it would be nice to sit on the sidelines and all we can do as Saab fans is sit on the side. Had he still been writing for SU I can guarantee that he’d be just as paralyzed as he is now, there’s literally nothing that can be communicated about the inner workings of the deal without compromising it. 

No doubt, your voices are missed at SU, but I don’t blame you for not posting anymore. I’m just as frustrated that things haven’t been resolved. We had plans at SU to start up new campaigns and posts, but the uncertainty surrounding the brand makes it almost impossible to have a serious discussion without the enormous shadow over our heads. Whereas in the first sale, there was this feeling that Saab was somehow wronged for so long by GM and had the right to stand on its own, this one is far more painful. Saab tried to stand up but its own mistakes and suppliers took it down. It’s going to take an incredible amount of work to get the brand back on its feet, and at this point I’m going to save my energy for that time when there’s a clear outcome to work on fixing the problems that exist at SU. Hopefully you can have us back, in the meantime we’re both glad we still have Steven reminding everyone why Saab should survive.

-Jeff