discobuddy said:
It is truly amazing that you can read my mind!
No, I cannot read your mind. I never claimed as much.
I do have eyes though. I can see the sequence of events. You posted here on DiscoWeb and not on the SCLR site. You didn't want the issue raised again on the SCLR BBS. It was too hot for TV there. So you posted here on DiscoWeb.
It was only after Matt Kendrick made you the fool for posting here in the first place that you posted on the SCLR BBS and posted a link to this thread. You knew Matt was right. The SCLR BBS was the best and most logical place for you to post what you did. But you chose DiscoWeb because you didn't want further SCLR member comment on the club's alcohol policy. Only when Matt made you look like a chump did you post to the link to this thread on the SCLR BBS, as if to say, "oh no, I have no problem with the SCLR membership discussing this issue further".
When you posted here on DiscoWeb, you wanted to lay to rest the alcohol issue. When you realized that was not going to happen, you posted on the SCLR board and invited comment to make it look as if that were your intention all along.
Yeah, go ahead and deny it again. The record shows otherwise.
discobuddy said:
You really think I did not see this coming? I am sorry that you think so lowly of me. However, everyone is entitled to their opinion and I do enjoy watching someone have a good laugh.
You can deny this all you like. You can jest about this all you like. You can claim that your posting on DiscoWeb was planned. Perhaps it was. But there's no doubting that it was a miscalculation on your part. These words are so telling:
discobuddy said:
I truly hope this lays to rest the issue that SCLR supports drinking on the trail.
Keep on hoping. You opened the door to more discussions. You didn't lay to rest anything. Live with it.
discobuddy said:
It is obvious that the issue for you is not the alcohol policy, but a few choice individuals. The more you post, the more evident it becomes.
Oh really?
It's true, I hate Nathan Woods. I think he's a total dirt bag. I also hate Joe Nosal. I think he's a low-life. Nathan is the worse of the two, because I think Joe Nosal knows deep down inside that he is in fact a dirt bag. Nathan, however, thinks he's Mr. High Road. Just as OJ Simpson convinced himself that he didn't kill his ex-wife and Ron Goldman, I think Nathan has convinced himself that he did nothing wrong and he's Mr. High Road. He truly believes it. He can convince himself of anything and everything. I freely admit that I can't stand either Joe Nosal or Nathan Woods. That's why I voted for both of them in the 2008 board of director elections. I voted for them multiple times. I hope my multiple votes made a difference.
I don't think you're a low-life like Joe Nosal or Nathan Woods or Adam Spiker or John Gadd. I think you just just lacked judgment and you chose the wrong side. You let your friendship with these people cloud your judgment as the then-President of SCLR. Your problem was more weakness than malice or deceit. At least that's how I see it.
What problem did I have with you before you posted here on DiscoWeb and you accused me of not willing to step up and make my voice heard? What problem did I have with you before you accused me of deciding to stay behind the keyboard and taking pot shots at the club? The reality is that you and I never had any problem before. Not at all. But now we do.
When you write stuff like that and spurious claims like that, I am going to respond. When you deny that you silenced the opposition to the club's alcohol policy, I'm going to respond. When you defend what you did to the record on the alcohol discussions, I'm going to respond. I'm going to quote you on what you say. I'm going to go back to whatever little of the record exists (only because you couldn't "archive" it because it existed on other sites) and I'm going to impeach you on what you claim.
discobuddy said:
Throughout this discussion here and on the SCLR BBS, people are voicing their opinions and siting past occurrences, evidence, research, etc. WITHOUT name calling or personal attacks. This is the way a discussion should go for such a sensitive topic.
Oh really? No personal attacks? No name-calling? You're kidding, right?
What about this one?:
Joe Nosal said:
SCLR management is letting useless non-member rhetoric and garbage infiltrate our daily voolunteer activites and become a discussion once again.
Useless non-member rhetoric and garbage. Lovely. How are these words any less attacking in nature than the words I use? They're not. They just agree with your position, so you conveniently choose to ignore them. They're still up on the SCLR BBS.
Randy Banis said:
I urge members not to take a vitriolic moment on DiscoWeb so you can avoid such drivel as this:
>Reasonable people no longer want to be a part of SCLR.
A vitriolic moment on DiscoWeb? Drivel? So Randy Banis disagrees with me. But isn't what Randy writes more than "I disagree with what John writes". He ridicules it. I have no problem with that. That's the way I play, so I can hardly complain. But don't tell me that's not a personal attack. If what I write is name-calling and personal attacks under your way of looking at things, then so is Randy's statement. But it's still up on the SCLR BBS.
Brian Cogswell said:
so if i feel strongly..... really strongly that a club i belong to makes a decision that i dont agree with then i can
A: Accept it
B: Leave the club
not to continue the dribble. sorry but it is dribble.
what is next? only kosher meat on the trails? (is that an EE thing already?).
(At least I think his name is Brian Cogswell.)
Kevin keeps posting his opposition to the current alcohol policy and Brian Cogswell refers to Kevin's comments as "dribble". (I think he meant drivel.) If I had written that you would have edited my statement to say something else. But Brian Cogswell's statement remains.
Is kosher meat on the trail already an EE thing? That statement is still up as well. This is not unlike that time SCLR board of directors member Tyler Winslow posted something to the effect of, "where can I buy a Truetrac differential and not from Expedition Exchange?". That statement stayed up on the SCLR BBS as well, even though the official club policy is to prohibit personal attacks. Remember when Matt Kendrick posted on that thread to the effect of, "cheap shot, Tyler"? I remember that. Even then, Tyler's comments stayed public.
Javier Velador, also an SCLR board of directors member, also posted in that same thread about what assholes the people at Hornburg Land Rover were. That statement also stayed up on the SCLR BBS, even though the official club policy was to prohibit personal attacks.
The SCLR BBS moderators eventually deleted that thread started by Tyler Winslow and posted in by Javier Velador. That thread and those comments are now gone. But when did the SCLR BBS moderators see fit to delete the comments? I'm sure you remember but I'll refresh your recollection anyway. The SCLR BBS moderators deleted the thread only after David Lara of Hornburg Land Rover posted in Hornburg Land Rover's defense. It was only after David Lara posted in Horburg's defense did the SCLR BBS moderators deem it fit that the thread should get deleted. Before David Lara defended Hornburg Land Rover, all of the personal attacks against EE and Hornburg Land Rover stayed up on the SCLR BBS.
The timing there was very interesting. I'd link to the thread but it's also "archived" into oblivion. That thread showed just how long the comments by Tyler and Javier stayed public. The thread also showed just how short David Lara's post was on there before you "archived" the thread.
It seems that personally attacking some people is acceptable on the SCLR BBS. Personally attacking other people is not. It all depends on who is attacking whom. If the SCLR BBS policy is truly to delete personal attacks, then why did you not delete those comments by Tyler Winslow and Javier Velador? Was it because these two were members of the SCLR board of directors? Or, more likely, was it because these two directed their comments against EE and Hornburg Land Rover? I think the latter. Had their comments been about some paid sponsors of SCLR, you would have deleted those posts with celeriity.
Here's another one:
Jose Nosal said:
Comments by non-members have no bearing in this club. If Quint wants to interject then fine, but whatever those other guys say on that other website is irrelevant. not to mention some of them are outright liars.
So some of us are outright liars? I'm guessing Joe Nosal is referring to Aaron Shrier. Or, he might be referring to me. I don't know, but I'm thinking Aaron in this context.
I'm a liar? Or Aaron is a liar? Or both of us are liars? Of course Joe's statement is not a personal attack. Joe is in favor of your alcohol policy, and therefore his comments are not personal attacks. But when I criticize you for what you actually wrote here, I'm engaging in personal attacks.
The truth is that your rule against personal attacks is no rule at all. Rather, it's just a convenient way to silence opinions with which you disagree. It was your justification for "archiving" each and every thread related to the alcohol discussion. The comments in those threads were overwhelmingly against allowing alcohol on the trails during club runs. You silenced all of those comments by sending them to Never Never Land.
Now, just to be clear, I'm not advocating that the above-mentioned personal attacks should be deleted or edited. Let them stand. You guys have done enough editing and deleting already. It has to stop. I mention them only to impeach your claim that there are no personal attacks in the current SCLR alcohol thread. There are. You just choose to ignore them because those personal attacks are being made by people who support your decision to condone drinking on the trails.
discobuddy said:
John, I have never denied that I voted for the current policy.
When did I claim that you did deny it? I never did.
I just wrote that you voted in favor of the current policy of condoning alcohol on the trails to make clear that you were not voting in favor of maintaining the status quo ante, as your fellow SCLR board of directors member Jose Nosal contends. I wanted to be clear that you voted to change the then-current SCLR policy on alcohol. That you did.
discobuddy said:
My actions speak otherwise? Really? Come on John, you're better than that. Do your research and you will find at least one occurrence where I have banned a non-member from coming back or joining the club for actions which involved alcohol.
Do my research? Where? Everything you did was behind closed doors. You and the board did everything behind closed doors. There are no minutes of this board decision. Even if there were minutes, they wouldn't have details in them. That's the way you operated SCLR when you were President. Exactly where am I supposed to do my research?
Here's an idea. Why don't you tell me? You're so proud of the fact that you ejected some low-life and prevented him from joining SCLR. So please give up the details. What's his name? Which club member invited him to which club run? Which members of the board of directors voted to exclude this non-member and which ones did not? Whatever happened to the member who invited this non-member whom you blocked from joining SCLR?
You're the one who opened the door. Now walk through it. I'm asking for names.
discobuddy said:
So, you and many others may think my and the board's decision was wrong. That is fine. People are speaking up again over this issue. I have told the board that I will not stop until this is settled.
Oh no, please don't stop. With every post you write, I think it becomes more and more clear that you swept the entire alcohol question under the rug. This thread is your attempt at damage control and clearly it's backfiring on you. So by all means please go on. Keep posting. Try answering my questions about which non-member you ejected from SCLR. We'll take it from there.
discobuddy said:
I believed and continue to believe that I have the club's best intentions in mind. Others do not agree. If the membership and the current board believe in a different policy, then it is time to change it. If not, then it will remain the same. See, that is the great thing about a club. It does not take an act of congress to change its policies.
The club's best intentions. I think you meant interests.
I don't doubt that you have the club's best interests in mind. Again, I don't think you're a low-life. Not at all. I really do believe that you had the club's best interests in mind when you acted the way that you did.
However, that is not to say that you made the right decisions. You condoned the editing and deleting of threads. You condoned the shutting down of the SCLR BBS. You condoned secret voting. You condoned secret board of director discussions. All of these things are wrong. You're not even sorry you did them. There's no remorse at all in your posts or their tenor. It might be different if you wrote something like, "If I could do things differently today, I would. I made a mistake." But you have never written anything to that effect. Not even close. In fact, you've written the complete opposite. You've tried to justify time and time again what actions you took and what decisions you made. So live with it.
discobuddy said:
Call and speak with Hovik. Call and speak with any other board member on why I posted here.
OK, here's an idea for you. I've pitched it many times. But I'll pitch it again for you.
Why don't you and the rest of the board of directors discuss your views on the board of directors section of the SCLR BBS. And then make that section of the site open to viewing by the membership at large. Don't make your arrangements over the telephone or emails that the membership at large are unable to view. This way, the membership doesn't have to call the board of directors members and get varying stories on why board member A did X and why board member B did Y.
If you and the rest of the members of the board of directors had done this, I wouldn't have to call Hovik. I could just go to the board of directors section of the SCLR BBS and I could see who was truly in favor of what and why.
I wouldn't have to call different members to see who was saying what. I wouldn't have to compare different versions of he-said-she-said and weigh the different members' credibilities. I could just see for myself who said what and why.
Try it.
