nwoods said:
I do not claim, nor have I ever claimed to own the RR event. In fact, I clearly delineated in this thread the scope of my duties, which frankly, exceeded what I was willing or wanting to do before it all started. It was a unwanton burden I do not care to repeat.
No, you have not explicitly claimed to own Rover Rendezvous. But your actions speak louder than your words. Even though this is your first Rover Rendezvous, you act as if you own the event. You make judgments on others' actions. Not just Jack's, but on Ho's and mine.
So, you do not care to repeat your duties next year. I'm going to hold you to that. Good riddance.
nwoods said:
EE's long time support is valued and appreciated, not just by the clubs hosting the event, but by the individual participants, myself included. I was totally hoping to win that PowerTank! That was an awesome donation!
I'm not quite sure which is the more annoying--your wannabe High Road demeanor (when we know that you are Mr. Low Road) or your politician speak. You write paragraph upon paragraph but but say so little. It's annoying as hell. And I'm not the only one who can't stand it. Whether you realize it or not, you are the talk of SCLR.
Forget the Power Tank. You claim on the one hand to appreciate our participation in the Rover Rendezvous and then immediately claim that Ho and I willfully violate the rules and spirit of Rover Rendezvous. Which is it? Your vernacular is an exercise in obfuscation. Again, it's annoying as hell.
nwoods said:
As you may also recall, I processed yours and Ho's registrations, and called you to thank you. You needn't worry about my not recognizing your proper and well handled entry. In fact, both of your entries were of the very few entries that didn't need revisions along the way, and so for that fact alone, I thank you! Because this has become a very public debate, I should correct you on your comment “Ho and I both registered and paid…” as it is not completely accurate. As sponsors, you were both comp’d. Again, your sponsorship is valued and welcomed. Comp’ing your entry is one of small ways that we have of showing our appreciation.
Forget the correctness of our registrations. That's more obfuscation and politician talk from you. These false compliments are just more bullshit.
The point is that Ho and I both registered. And yes, we did pay. The vendors were comped later on. Ho and I both were willing to do the online registration and give our credit card information before we knew that the vendors were going to be comped this year. Bill Goodman had told me that the vendors would not be comped this year when he called to solicit our raffle entry. But we registered and paid anyway. Only later on did we realize we would be comped. Get your story straight before you go writing about comping.
And if you want to talk about comping, the minimum raffle entry was $200. We could donate something that costs $200 and get comped. But we didn't. We donated a $500 Package B. If we did what the other vendors do, we could have donated a pile of tee shirts and EE mugs and other stuff to add up to the $200. But we didn't. We donated a real prize. So don't talk to me about comping.
Also, get your story straight about the raffle tickets. Your story is that nobody received free raffle tickets. That is patently untrue. I personally know several people who received free raffle tickets. Some received five. Some received three. But the number is unimportant. The fact is that some people received free raffle tickets. Again, the number is unimportant. I offer the free raffle tickets only to impeach you when you claimed that nobody received free raffle tickets. That is patently untrue. Again, get your story straight before you go mouthing off.
nwoods said:
As for hating Jack, no. Those are your words, not mine (well, yours and Ho's). What I said was, "I have always been impressed with Jack’s apparent skill and abilities, as well as his visible embodiment of the ideals EE holds dear: Namely, embracing premium equipment being used properly, with purity and a passion for doing things to the highest standard of care. The person in the photos is inspiring. The self reliance, competence, preparedness, and passion for the best is inspiring. I have a great respect for that." I don't hear too much hatred in a statement like that. It is a candid and honest statement.
Bullshit. You can quote all you like from your interpretation of Jack's positives. That is not to say you do not hate Jack. No, you did not use the actual word "hate". You are too much of a politician for that. But again, your actions speak louder than your words.
Clearly, you have grown up in a household where everyone bullshitted one another. I can tell that it's second nature for you. It's patently apparent. The bullshit spews from your mouth as easily as your exhaled breath.
nwoods said:
As for my opinion on Jack's unsuitability for membership in SCLR, Yes. I hold that point of view. There is overwhelming evidence on this forum of his intolerance of others. Membership in a small group requires tolerance, the extension of respect, and a desire to get along. These are qualities that in my opinion, based on the evidence in these public forums, and certainly in my own personal online experience, that Jack is lacking.
And you alone get to make that call, right? As I stated previously, you are merely an SCLR member. Just as you do not own Rover Rendezvous, you do not own SCLR. SCLR is a club. There are many people in SCLR whom I can't stand either, but I am not calling for their ejection from the club. That's not my call. But you are so self-righteous that you feel as if you alone can rightfully make that call.
And let's look at why you think Jack is unsuitable for SCLR membership. Why do you hate him? Because he exposed you for the fourwheeling rookie that you are. Jack exposed you as the person with lots of book knowledge but zero understanding. You didn't even know the difference between a gas engine and diesel engine. All the stuff on the LR3 that makes it such a capable trail vehicle, your Imperial Stormtrooper LR3 lacks. You claim to know a lot about the LR3, but apparently you missed buying what makes the LR3 such a great trail truck. And yet you were telling Les that he didn't know as much as you did about the LR3. And no, please don't come back with more obfuscation that you do in fact know more about the LR3 than Les does. You don't. The difference between a gas engine and a diesel engine is foundational. If you don't know that, your knowing about the minutiae about LR3's stability control systems or 27 different onboard computers is meaningless.
You're trying to take the High Road and claim that Jack is intolerant of others and thus unsuited for SCLR membership. Come on. Get real. This is just more bullshit from you. Let's get to the real reason why you don't want Jack in SCLR. Because he exposed you. And you hate him for it. It really is that simple, your attempts at obfuscation to the contrary. It's too patently obvious for you to deny. To claim otherwise is quite pathetic and completely untenable.
nwoods said:
Quite frankly, I don't see it as a problem, because Jack himself has stated that he has no intention or desire to join the club, so this conversation is rather academic and unnecessary.
Oh, so Jack's joining SCLR is purely a hypothetical exercise. Then why on earth did YOU bring it up in the first place? Whw did you walk over to Ho at the Race Track and say, "Jack will never be a member of SCLR so long as I'm a member"?
You think you're such a clever person. Now that you've lost, you claim that the discussion is academic and unnecessary. I will say it again so that it will penetrate your thin skin and your thick skull: you are the one who brought it up in the first place. You cannot now declare the discussion an exercise in futility now that you are shown wrong.
nwoods said:
But I will tell you, that as part of the leadership of SCLR, there is a duty of stewardship imparted upon us that requires us to make decisions of this nature. As a businessman, I think you understand this responsibility. It is no surprise that EE is extremely selective on what they will sell. Your products reflect your company, just as our members reflect on our club.
Again, that is not your call to make. If you want to petition the other officers, they as a group can make that call. But you alone cannot. It doesn't work that way.
And why do you keep bringing EE into this?
nwoods said:
As for your demand for a retraction. I am unable to satisfy your demand.
It's a miracle. We have a clear statement from Nathan Woods.
If you're not going to retract your statement, that's your call.
nwoods said:
I made a statement in private to your business associate. It was his choice, not mine, to make it public. I am entitled to direct any comment to you I may wish, in private.
OK, let's get this straight. There is more than one moderator of DiscoWeb. Ho is not the only moderator. Your message went to all of the moderators of DiscoWeb. What is so hard to understand about that? Yet you're such a rookie that you think Ho is the only moderator of DiscoWeb. Unreal.
nwoods said:
It is not defamation, libel or slander when done in that fashion.
Oh, so you're an attorney now? You know the differences between defamation, libel, and slander? You know nothing.
Libel and slander are both forms of defamation. Libel is written defamation. Slander is verbal defamation. Do you understand that? Of course you don't. If you did, you would not even have mentioned slander, because it doesn't apply in this situation.
Do you know what "publication" is in the defamation sense? If I were to write a private note to Ho that "Nathan Woods is a child molester" and the truth is that you're not a child molester, than I am liable for libel. It matters no that my note to Ho was private and not public. Your "private" distinction is wholly incorrect. The note itself is publication. Your writing what you did to the moderators of DiscoWeb, even though not public on the boards, is publication.
Stay quiet on things you know nothing about. I realize that's difficult for you because you're a know-it-all, but please try.
nwoods said:
Your business associate, as this forums moderator, may edit the content of his post, but I cannot. If we are unable or unwilling to edit the posting of my private message, then I will expand on my comment and clarify it, and perhaps that will help.
Again, more obfuscation. I'm not asking you edit the boards. I'm demanding a retraction. You are more than capable of writing "I retract my statement about EE" and hitting the "Submit Reply" button.
You can't be that stupid, can you? You have to realize that all you have to write is "I retract my statement about EE". It really is that simple, but you go on and on about editing the boards and how you are incapable of editing the boards. More obfuscation.
nwoods said:
Before I do that though, your demand for a retraction seems to solidify the relationship that JSQ represents Expedition Exchange, does it not? I don't know. I am unclear on that issue, but it's worth thinking about. Perhaps you can explain that better to me, or all of us, now that this discussion is in the public domain.
So my demand for a retraction solidifies the fact that Jack represents EE? Again, you cannot be that stupid. Or can you? I will lay it out for you in case you really are that stupid.
To clarify, Jack does not represent EE. EE is composed of two people--Ho Chung and John Lee. Nobody else represents EE, for the simple reason that nobody else is EE. It's just Ho and I, and nobody else. Not Jack. Not you. Nobody else.
Jack shows up to Rover Rendezvous without registering or paying, and somehow you bring EE into it? You claim that EE willfully violates the rules and spirit of Rover Rendezvous because Jack shows up to Rover Rendezvous without paying. I respond that Jack does not represent EE. Jack is his own man. He can do whatever he wants. If you have a beef with what Jack does, take it up with Jack. EE neither condones or recommends such behavior. In fact, EE encourages people to join SCLR and register for Rover Rendezvous.
How much clearer can I make it? Are you really so stupid that you cannot see this? Or is your position so untenable and you have nothing else to go on except more obfuscation and politician talk?
nwoods said:
By EE clique, I am referring to the usual group of people regularly portrayed in your online galleries, participants of the coveted Iron Chef events, etc… Jack, by your own admission, is an undeniable member of that clique. As I stated in my private message, these people showcased on your site, are demonstratably competent, respectable individuals that project what I perceive as Expedition Exchanges core values. In fact, those core values (how EE was created) was described to me some time ago by Ho, so it’s more than a perception, it’s a statement.
By my own admission, Jack is a member of the "EE Clique"? I defy you to find where I admitted such a thing. I cannot admit such a thing because there is no "EE Clique". Those are your lame ass words, not mine. The pathetic word "clique" is not even in my vernacular. I cringe every time I hear that word.
Again, I will repeat it, because it appears you need to be repeated to. Jack does not represent EE. Jack is not an owner of EE. Jack is not an employee of EE. Jack is his own man. EE is owned and represented only by Ho and me. Nobody else. What Jack does is his own business. If you find fault with Jack's actions, take it up with Jack. Don't drag EE into this.
nwoods said:
My question to Ho was, how does Jack’s publicly admitted behavior in keeping with those core values?
I will say it again to try to get it into your thick skull. Ho is not the only moderator of DiscoWeb. Your message went to the DiscoWeb moderators. Can you understand that? Is this registering with you? Like greater than one? Perhaps you have heard of the number two?
nwoods said:
It was a caution to Ho, and now to you, that I relate JSQ to EE and vice versa. Your comments above seem to solidify that relationship. If his actions are proudly stated in this forum as knowingly in conflict with the stated policies of Rover Rendezvous, what does that imply about EE, which seems to be condoning his behavior by allowing him to join your group on the trail runs?
How do my comments solidify the relationship between Jack and EE? I said in my previous post not to bring EE into your war with Jack. I also said that EE has supported Rover Rendezvous from the very beginning. We have donated raffle prizes. We have encouraged other people to join SCLR and to register for Rover Rendezvous. I said that EE neither encouraged nor condoned Jack's non-registration for Rover Rendezvous. How do these statements "seem to solidify" the relationship between Jack and EE?
Yet again, you can't be that stupid. Nobody is. You are reading what you want to read, just as stupid people hear what they want to hear.
So Ho and I wheeled with Jack at Rover Rendezvous. Big deal. Remember, Death Valley is public land. There is no requirement for registration in Rover Rendezvous to enjoy Death Valley from April 20-22, 2007. Jack has as much right to use and enjoy Death Valley as you do. You may disagree, because you seem to think that you own Death Valley for that weekend. But you are wrong. Jack has as much right to be there as you do. I'm not going to refuse to wheel with Jack that weekend on a non-event trail run because he didn't register for Rover Rendezvous.
Remember that Jack didn't fourwheel in one of the "official" Rover Rendezvous runs. He didn't take manpower away from other registered Rover Rendezvous participants. He wheeled on his own. He stayed to himself. You may not like that but you don't get to prohibit him from using Death Valley National Park that weekend.
Now, if you want to know my personal take on Jack's attendance at Rover Rendezvous without registering, I completely disagree with it. If Jack wants to use and enjoy Death Valley the very weekend of Rover Rendezvous, he should register for Rover Rendezvous. It's because of people like Jack that the National Rally has required nametags for participants to enjoy the trail groups and group activities officially put on by the Solihull Society. If there were no people like Jack, then these nametags would not even be necessary.
However, that is not to say that I will say that you, as a registered participant of Rover Rendezvous 2007, have a greater right to enjoy Death Valley than Jack does on the weekend of Rover Rendezvous. It's public land. He has every right to use and enjoy that land, just as you and I do. I'm not going to refuse hit the trail with Jack, on a non-official trail run, just because he didn't register for Rover Rendezvous.
Again, you don't own Death Valley. As obvious as that statement seems, I believe you need to sit down and think about that. It appears to me that you believe to the contrary.
nwoods said:
So no, I am not making an accusation that EE per se is violating any rules. But I am drawing a connection between EE condoning illegitimate actions of one of your associates. If you were to post here about how you told Jack to join a club, pay the registration, and then chastised him publicly for crashing the event, we would not be having this discussion. Instead, you have the temerity to demand an retraction from me!
There you go again with "Jack represents EE". He doesn't. He never did.
And yes, I have the "temerity" to demand a retraction from you regarding a false statement about EE. The statements you made were completely false and should be retracted. You said you refuse to retract your false statements. That's your call. Be prepared for the consequences.
nwoods said:
John, I appreciate both you and Ho, personally and professionally. I have been encouraged, counseled, and inspired by your values, experience and wisdom.
Well, you may appreciate EE and have been encouraged by EE and its values. But I cannot say the same of you. In my opinion, you are a chump. I have seen your type before and I doubt you will be the last.
You're just like Justin Dermody with the Disco2 and Steve Young with the Freelander, but you're the champion of the LR3. You try to be the Black Belt Grand Dragon authority on the LR3. You saw an "in" with the LR3, because basically it's a new model and basically nobody else who fourwheels cared about it. You saw your chance to be the authority on the LR3 and you certainly took it. You have little to no offroading experience, but that didn't stop you. I know there will be another chump championing the LR2 in the next few months.
I've seen your posts over the past few months and cracked up, but refrained from posting. I could have torn you to shreds too but didn't. Now I regret not having done so. You certainly deserved it. Jack tore you to shreds and exposed you for the rookie that you are and now you're so bitter you lash out at anyone you perceive is associated with Jack. That makes you a chump.
nwoods said:
But I do not understand your position on supporting JSQ and his spiteful, rude, childish antics on this forum.
If you weren't such a rookie, you would know that every board has its own personality and tenor. DiscoWeb is unlike many of the boards in that flame wars and calling people on their bullshit or ignorance is actually encouraged, not discouraged or prohibited. Again, if you weren't such a rookie you would know this. If you post some bullshit or something stupid on DiscoWeb, be prepared for the consequences. If you don't like the tenor of DiscoWeb, then why do you hang out here?
Of course you don't know all of this because you are so lost.
nwoods said:
Perhaps is it incorrect to consider JSQ as an associate of yours, but I have seen no evidence to the contrary, thus I have no reason to change my viewpoint.
So it is incorrect to consider Jack as a representative but EE but you have seen no evidence to the contrary so you are sticking to your story? Think about stupid this sounds. I'm serious. Think about it. Think about how your vernacular is chock full of obfuscation and bullshit. Think about how you write paragraph upon paragraph but you say nothing.
nwoods said:
Feel free to call me directly to discuss this further if you wish. You have my phone number, I am a satisfied customer of yours.
Why would I want to call you on this? You're the one who made this public. Let's keep it public. Don't you have any semblance of the rules?
So you won't retract your statement. That's your call. Just remember that when the dust settles, you're the one who threw the first salvo. I emphasize that point if only so that you don't try deny it later on with more obfuscation.
