Setting the record straight SCLR

[ptschram]

LOFL!

First off, I can't remember why it was that I didn't like Chapman at first. For some reason, either he has mellowed, or I have begun to look at him and his comments in a different lgiht.

Secondly, it is so nice to see John back with his comments. I've missed them.

W/R/T alcohol on the trails, I look at it just like I do guns on the trail. If you don't see that I'm armed, it does no one any injury. If a person is waving a gun or displaying a sidearm in a holster or shoulder rig, folks are gonna get uncomfortable. Similarly, if a person has a beer in a big covered cup, nobody's gonna be any the wiser. If that person gets puking drunk, everybody's gonna know it, just as though they were displaying their sidearm on their hip.

As for the DUI offroad, several years ago, there was a fatal wreck out on a farm field where a bunch of good ol' boys decided to go wheelin' after a keg party. They rolled a truck, a person got killed, the driver went to prison for vehicular manslaughter/DUI. In Indiana, you can get a seatbelt ticket driving on your farm. Sheriffs don't seem to be discouraged from driving across a field to cite folks for driving infractions in fields or in the woods. In Michigan, the sheriffs and DNR Ranger Nazis have H1 and ATVs to go after folks wheeling or snowmobiling while impaired, the precedent has been st many times.

Clubs-I do not get overly involved in clubs because I know I'll get upset with management, usually just as I start to get overly involved. It's happened with trap/skeet clubs I've belonged to and it happened when I was an officer in the Legion (but that involved criminal behavior and I had many reasons to get out). I much prefer to wheel with a few close friends, rather than a big bunch of folks where the ONLY thing in common is wheeling or Land Rovers

 

[jhmover]

What I can't fathom is a) why is he whining about it? and b) what the problem would be having an alcohol ban in trail runs?

First, even if it exceeds state law I can't fathom anyone suing you over it. I mean is someone going to sue a club because they couldn't have beers on the trail, endanger people's lives and make the club look bad because they were tanked and acting like an ass? I think they'd get laughed out of any courtroom in the country.

Second, it's a private club, you have to join, they have their own rules, as long as they're not in violation of any state or federal laws, I'd think you can pretty much do whatever you like, if people don't like it they don't have to join or remain members.

 

[Blueboy]

Secondly, it is so nice to see John back with his comments. I've missed them.

wholeheartedly agree!!

In Indiana, you can get a seatbelt ticket driving on your farm.

what happened to private property rights?


Jaime

 

[ptschram]

what happened to private property rights?


Jaime

The seatbelt laws apply to any motor vehicle moving forward.

 

[ArmyRover]

The seatbelt laws apply to any motor vehicle moving forward.

So if they drive in reverse they're ok:rofl:

 

[ptschram]

So if they drive in reverse they're ok:rofl:

You're not the first smart ass to make that comment:smilelol:

 

[ArmyRover]

You're not the first smart ass to make that comment:smilelol:

I lived there so nothing on the law books would surprise me in the least

 

[Blueboy]

The seatbelt laws apply to any motor vehicle moving forward.

continuing the hijack - this also applies to tractors (that are moving forward)?


Jaime

 

[kellymoe]

continuing the hijack - this also applies to tractors (that are moving forward)?


Jaime

And to further hi jack this thread, Blueboy, how long have you had your 109? I almost bought one from a elderly man back east I think it was up state New York and it looked just like yours. It had some writing on the front doors and I believe a snowplow attachment. You have a very nice truck.

 

[D Chapman]

Damn, this thread went lame fast.

 

[discobuddy]

Ho and I will not let you post on our BBS? That's an interesting way to frame it.

Can you post on our BBS? No, you cannot. But the reason is not because we've banned you or are trying to keep you silent. Keeping people silent is your thing, not ours. The reason you cannot post on our BBS is simple. The reason is because you're not a registered user. Try registering first. It really is that simple. Once you register, you can post whatever you like. In fact, I encourage you to post. It would be nice to have discussions on this SCLR alcohol topic without the posts getting deleted and edited they are on the SCLR BBS.

Because you've posted here on DiscoWeb, I'll reply to you here. But don't start crying about how EE will not let you post on the EE BBS.

John, please check you records. I was registered on your site.

You just don't get it, do you? The reason this issue is still discussed is because it's such an important issue. Do you understand that? It's the same way the issue kept getting discussed on the SCLR BBS even after you deleted the threads concerning alcohol on the trail. The SCLR Board of Directors may have been finished discussing the issue. But that doesn't mean everybody else was done discussing the issue.

You seem to have the belief that because the Board of Directors made its decision, that the issue is now closed and swept under the rug. Not so. The condoning of drinking alcohol on the trails is a big issue. No matter how you try to sweep it under the rug, people are going to talk about it.

Really. Swept under the rug. If that is true, why do you think I posted it here, on a BBS of this size?

Do you remember our conversations? Do you remember when you invited me to join the Board of Directors and my response was, "you don't want me on your Board"? Do you remember when I said that I didn't want to be on the Board because I felt it was an inherent conflict of interest for a vendor to be on the Board?

Please read this paragraph from your post.

Do you remember when I told you that I was agreeing to be on the Board only because I had made such a stink about the alcohol at RR7 that I felt I had no other choice but to be on the Board? Do you remember these things? If you do remember these things, you conveniently omitted them from your post.

Don't you remember when, after you invited me to be on the Board, I warned you that I would be posting on the public sections of the SCLR BBS about my feelings that SCLR should adopt a no-alcohol policy? Do you remember when I also told you that I would post publicly what other Board members said to me about their positions on the alcohol question?

Did I tell you not to? Have I ever asked you to stop? Did I ask you to remove it from your BBS?

Do you think I'm such a moron that I would allow myself to get into such an untenable position?

I have never called you or anyone else names. I have always stated that I respected your opinion and decision. I have no problem with discussions. Discussions.

Again, I did not choose not to run for the empty board position. Once you told me the Board's decision, I told you that I refused to be on the Board of a club that condones drinking on the trail.

The board position was open prior to the policy decision.

You say you "do not agree" with the negative comments. This is interesting. Do you not agree with the content of the negative comments? Or, do you not agree with the very existence of the negative comments? I think the latter. I think you have a beef with the very fact that people are airing their views (because they are negative) about SCLR.

Do you agree when people make negative comments about your business, your choice of vehicle, your choice of watches? Of course I do not agree with these negative comments. This is the very reason I started this thread.

I daresay if these same negative comments you alluded to were aired by SCLR members on the SCLR BBS, they would disappear.

I will go ahead and address the post deleting issue here. We removed the thread because it contained comments and language that is not permitted on the BBS. By editing posts, we were accused of editing content.
The noise makers were silenced? You have stated that comments continue in regards to this policy on other BBS's. Do you truly believe that the SCLR club members live such a sheltered life that they only look at the SCLR site?
The club's BBS will not tolerate personal attacks or foul language.

Unwilling to step up and make their voice heard? You're kidding me, right? Unwilling to step up. You said that. Are you for real?

Let me ask you; are you for real? At the annual club meeting, the issue was brought up. To my surprise, not a negative comment was issued. The "noise makers" were not there. If the overwhelming majority of the club did not like the policy, then why was there no one there to represent this?

Pot shots. Nice. We're posting in a public forum that anyone can read and these are what you refer to as "pot shots". You and the rest of the Board of Directors make decisions behind closed doors, discuss club issues in a closed forum that club members cannot read, and edit/delete postings by club members when you disagree with them.

Exactly my reason for bringing this here. No one can claim that this is swept under the rug. No one can claim their post was edited or deleted because someone did not "like" it or "agree" with it. We can argue the issue here in the open.

 

[discobuddy]

For the record, I do not condone alcohol use on the trail. I do not condone going to a bar, having a few drinks, and driving home either.

 

[D Chapman]

All things considered, who really gives a flying fuck? Sounds like SCLR lost some members - boo mother-fucking hoo. Get over it.

 

[discobuddy]

D Chapman, its not really about lost members. If they don't want to be a part of the club, that is fine.
If you don't care about it, thats fine too. I am sure you don't care as it does not pertain to your club (if you are affiliated with one).
If you have had the endurance to read through some of the post, the issue boils down to the fact that some feel this was swept under the rug and many were not allowed to speak their opinion. This is the best uninhibited forum to air those opinions.

 

[traveltoad]

Whatever the reason for the thread editing and deleting, it was handled poorly. Nathan overstated and over stepped his authority to delete/edit posts on the board. Furthermore I remember him editing/deleting because of the tone of the post, not due to specific language (although some posts may have contained inappropriate language as well). I would also argue that if there is inappropriate language in a post then the language can be deleted, or a note from the webmaster that a post has been deleted due to language is the correct way to handle it, not just making a post or a thread disappear.

I also disagree strongly with how the BOD decision making process was moved behind closed doors. No national security issues were involved here, why the members of the club couldn’t at least view the BOD debate over the issue is beyond me. On such a divisive issue it all should have been transparent. I would argue that a club meeting should have been called for all concerned members to voice an opinion and an open vote called. None of this happened.

I did voice my opinion strongly regarding the SCLR alcohol policy. I still feel strongly that no alcohol should be consumed on the trail (until camp is established and vehicles are parked for the night) on a club sanctioned event. It makes sense for safety reasons and it makes sense for public relations reasons. The safety reasons are obvious and I find it hard to believe that there are not club liability reasons associated with this as well (but I am not a lawyer). The public relations reasons indirectly effect everyone who travels off highway in a 4-wheel drive vehicle. My driving a Land Rover and being local to SCLR potentially has a direct effect on me and other things I do with my Disco.

When the closed door BOD meeting(s) resulted in an alcohol policy that I did not agree with and I felt could be a detriment to other things I do with my LR so I left the club. (Actually, my membership was due and I did not renew.) I did not run away, I voiced my opinion, the BOD disagreed and with a secret vote allowed alcohol on the trail.

The membership of SCLR have every right to make this decision (within the confines of the law). However, I disagree strongly with the decision. I do not want to be associated with a club that I feel will have a detrimental impact on off highway 4-wheel travel with this policy. Should I have renewed my membership to continue to fight for a no alcohol policy? I don’t think so. Presumably, the BOD listened to the majority of the membership (I don’t know this for a fact) and if the majority of the SCLR membership feel that it is ok to openly drink on the trial, I do not feel that it is my place to crusade for a new policy. Further, if a majority of the club feels that it is ok to travel off highway while drinking, it is very unlikely that I will be join the club on any runs and thus my membership has no value.

 

[kellymoe]

Presumably, the BOD listened to the majority of the membership (I don?t know this for a fact) and if the majority of the SCLR membership feel that it is ok to openly drink on the trial, I do not feel that it is my place to crusade for a new policy. Further, if a majority of the club feels that it is ok to travel off highway while drinking, it is very unlikely that I will be join the club on any runs and thus my membership has no value.

Aaron,

The BOD never listened to the majority of the club. That is why I chose to distance myself from the BOD. The memberships opinion was pretty clear IMO. If you recall there was a un official vote on the SCLR site and it was clear that the majority wanted NO ALCOHOL on the trail until as you say the trucks are parked for the night. Regardless of what a lawyer said i still think it is a poor policy to put it mildly.

I recently chose to remain a member because there are still folks who I enjoy hanging out with and I hope that in the future the policy will change. If I had the time or energy I would be more involved but as people may have read on other forums like Exp. Portal, I have more than my share of problems to deal with at this time which make all this seem extremely petty.

BTW, thank again for helping me out with the PTA stuff.

 

[traveltoad]

BTW, thank again for helping me out with the PTA stuff.

Any time.

FD stuff too if you ever need it.

 

[kellymoe]

Any time.

FD stuff too if you ever need it.

I may take you up on that. We need some coffee mugs for the station. I'll come up with some artwork and see if I can get a vote from the guys on it.

 

[etcatmeat]

1. I completely agree with having a no alcohol policy on the trails, any other way is just reckless in my opinion.

2. I also agree that posts from club members on their own "roverboard" should NOT be censored, that is THE place where it should be discussed. If people are worried about that "family" environment on the internet then they should consider installing parental controls on their computers to fix the problem.

I try to be as neutral as possible with most things (even when john and jack hate on my old P38 .......I actually took many of their harsh comments as constructive critisism and completely changed they way I look at land rovers and modifing them. In a way, thanks I guess!) , but the 2 above I have a pretty stong and solid point of view.

 

[capntom]

might be a dumb question but here goes. Can you get a DWI if your operating a vehicle on private property?