ptschram
Well-known member
I think Blue's comments regarding the train wreck thread in the for sale section applies here as well as there
ptschram
Well-known member
are you really going to make me go through 240 pages of posts to find what you're going on aboot?ptschram said:
come on, gimme a link!
ptschram
Well-known member
jim-00-4.6 said:
Well, let's see, it's in the for sale section, Blue has clearly posted in it, maybe a search would find it?
Ok, OK, OK, I'm in a good mood, look for 110 on ebay, it's several pages long.
D
discobuddy
Guest
John,
I am no longer a BoD member. I am the chairman which basically is a position that does not have voting power unless there is a tie. The position's main function is to aide in the transition of the BoD and be there to answer questions that come up in relation to the previous year's actions. There is currently an empty position on the BoD to which I have chosen not to fill.
This may or may not be what you are looking for John, but I feel the time is right.
I feel under my direction, we instated the policy to the best of our ability with the pressure and time constraints placed on us. The issue was spiraling out of control and needed a resolution before the club sustained any more damage and move forward. I felt the best solution was to consult with counsel and determine what was best from a liability stand point. I did not believe that this would be a decision that would be easy. A BoD is there so that every issue, decision, or policy change does not need to be voted on by the general membership. I did believe that through time, if this issue continued to be a part of the club, that it would need to be brought back to the forefront and addressed once again. I am pushing for a general membership vote on this issue. If everyone knows and understands both sides of the case, they can make an informed decision on the club's policy.
I am currently being scrutinized by some for bringing this here. Why did I? John, from the day this issue began, you had something to say. In a conversation I had with Randy, he said it was good to see you so vocal on this. I believed that you cared enough about the club to spend the time on the issue. Look at the posts you have made. You have done your research, brought out baggage about me, club decisions in the past, etc. I have not seen you post this much since joining this board back in 2003. That leads me to believe either one of two things. One, you care about the club enough to spend the time to research its issues. Two, you are on a witch hunt to destroy certain individuals. I don't believe the latter.
I am sorry that this issue has become nearly as heated as before. Had I to do it differently, I may have. But, sometimes you must tear down before you can build up. You have called me out on post deleting, editing, archiving, etc. and that is fine. They were done under my leadership and whether or not I had time to deal with them, or not, I take responsibility.
Sure, I know you will tear my post apart line for line. Tell me I had no clue. Say that all I've done is shown the world I make bad decisions. That's fine, go ahead.
And your right. You and I never had a problem.
I am no longer a BoD member. I am the chairman which basically is a position that does not have voting power unless there is a tie. The position's main function is to aide in the transition of the BoD and be there to answer questions that come up in relation to the previous year's actions. There is currently an empty position on the BoD to which I have chosen not to fill.
This may or may not be what you are looking for John, but I feel the time is right.
I feel under my direction, we instated the policy to the best of our ability with the pressure and time constraints placed on us. The issue was spiraling out of control and needed a resolution before the club sustained any more damage and move forward. I felt the best solution was to consult with counsel and determine what was best from a liability stand point. I did not believe that this would be a decision that would be easy. A BoD is there so that every issue, decision, or policy change does not need to be voted on by the general membership. I did believe that through time, if this issue continued to be a part of the club, that it would need to be brought back to the forefront and addressed once again. I am pushing for a general membership vote on this issue. If everyone knows and understands both sides of the case, they can make an informed decision on the club's policy.
I am currently being scrutinized by some for bringing this here. Why did I? John, from the day this issue began, you had something to say. In a conversation I had with Randy, he said it was good to see you so vocal on this. I believed that you cared enough about the club to spend the time on the issue. Look at the posts you have made. You have done your research, brought out baggage about me, club decisions in the past, etc. I have not seen you post this much since joining this board back in 2003. That leads me to believe either one of two things. One, you care about the club enough to spend the time to research its issues. Two, you are on a witch hunt to destroy certain individuals. I don't believe the latter.
I am sorry that this issue has become nearly as heated as before. Had I to do it differently, I may have. But, sometimes you must tear down before you can build up. You have called me out on post deleting, editing, archiving, etc. and that is fine. They were done under my leadership and whether or not I had time to deal with them, or not, I take responsibility.
Sure, I know you will tear my post apart line for line. Tell me I had no clue. Say that all I've done is shown the world I make bad decisions. That's fine, go ahead.
And your right. You and I never had a problem.
Boy I'm glad I left Kalifornia you cant even run a Land Rover Social club with out Lawyers and Drama....
discobuddy said:
It's not what I'm looking for. I don't mind serving on the SCLR board of directors, but I have no real desire to do so. But the bigger problem than lack of desire is the conflict of interest. I feel very strongly that it's an inherent conflict of interest for a vendor to be on the board of directors. I won't go so far as to say any vendor should be automatically disqualified from serving on the board of directors. That absolute prohibition goes too far I think. But for myself, it's not something I'm comfortable with. I would feel dirty. I'd sleep better if I weren't on the board.
discobuddy said:
Oh there was pressure on you all right. I think you got caught in the crossfire between the two sides of the alcohol question. The editing and deleting of posts and threads just added fuel to the conflagration. I know that, at least for me, the editing and deleting was a hundred times worse than the alcohol question. It went into the very heart of how SCLR is run as a club. It was a cluster.
Let's say everyone put in his two cents on the alcohol question before the board of directors voted. I think everyone would have been fine with whatever the board's final decision was. By "fine", I don't mean that everyone would have been happy. Rather, I mean that everyone could have lived with the decision. Sure, some people (whether drinkers or abstainers) would have left the club. But overall I think the general membership's mood would have been accepting of the board's final call.
But that's clearly not what happened. When you locked/deleted the original thread, what happened? Immediately, several members started other threads and many more members replied. This is a red flag. People still had more to say. Quite obviously, club members weren't done discussing the issue. I think it would have been preferable to let the threads play out and then make the decision. This alcohol thing was a big decision for the club, and I think the board of directors rushed into the decision it made. I can't help but think the board of directors somehow equated making a ruling on the alcohol question to putting out a fire. This was a mistake. The two are not the same thing. Again, I think it would have been preferable to let the membership at large air its opinions on the matter and then make the decision.
I think another error was not making available to the membership the legal opinion that the board of directors relied on. That was weird to me. It looked like an evasive move on the part of the board. Members were not permitted to comment on the opinion, because they never got to see the opinion. Obviously, the board of directors members found this opinion compelling. But just how persuasive or unpersuasive were the arguments in the opinion? We don't know. We never got to see it. That was a mistake.
For example, let's just say arguendo that the authorities in this opinion were compelling and from a liability standpoint the club should condone drinking on the trails. I'm quite unsure that's the case in reality, but bear with me and let's assume the correctness of this opinion for the time being. Let's say the correct move for the club from a pure liability standpoint would be to condone drinking on the trails. And let's say the opinion was clear and convincing, like only a chump could disagree with what the opinion opined. Still, I think there would be very valid arguments from a policy standpoint (rather than a liability standpoint) that the club should adopt a dry policy for trail runs despite the clear and convincing liability reasons for the opposite.
There is more to life than legal liability. For example, do we really want to be a club that is known for condoning the drinking of alcohol on the trails? That's not a good thing. We'd look like a club that was in favor of degenerate fourwheeling and irresponsibility. That's not a club I want to be a member of, and I think many ex-members feel similarly. What kind of members would we attract by such a policy? What would the atmosphere be like at club trail runs? These are all very real factors. They're just as important as liability.
In this re-hash of the alcohol question that's going on right now on the SCLR BBS, I think it's very telling that only two members of the board of directors are defending the board's decision. One is Nathan Woods, who seems fixated on the liability question. He can't see anything else. Such are the limits of his brain. The other is Joe Nosal, who, it seems to me, is merely fighting for the club's imprimatur that the way Joe Nosal fourwheels is legitimate and not degenerate. The other members of the board of directors aren't participating in the thread. That's very telling. I think the reason is that they feel torn about their decision last year. The decision seemed justified in light of the opinion, but looking back on things, somehow they just don't feel good about their decision. At least that's the feeling that I get. This shows that there is more to life than liability. One has to feel good about what decisions he makes. Policy often comes into play and often overrides liability justifications.
That policy vs. liability is a judgment call we could have made as a club, after we saw just how compelling or uncompelling the opinion was, and after we weighed the pros and cons. Had everything been made known to the membership and the club did eventually to accept the legal advice in the opinion, I think those who left the club would have left without any hard feelings. They made their best case; they just lost. And those who stayed in the club would have felt better about staying in the club, because the decision they made was "legally justified" in their minds.
Or, we might have decided as a club that we wanted to be dry despite the increased legal liability. Sure, the drinkers would have left the club. But I think they would have left the club without hard feelings. And those who stayed in the club would have felt better about remaining in the club.
But we never got to make these decisions. We never got to first base even. We never got to see the opinion, read it, weigh its strength or weakness, discuss the possibility of not accepting the advice in the opinion even if it was clearly and convincingly the right path for the club to take from a pure liability standpoint. We never did any of this.
I say all of this not to point out the error of your ways as President, but constructively. You and the board of directors might try this approach or certain aspects of it if the club ever decides to revisit the alcohol question.
discobuddy said:
Kevin has proposed that this question be decided by the club at large rather than by the board of directors. I'm not sure I agree with that, as the club members elected the board of directors to make such decisions. That's why we have a board of directors in the first place.
I recognize that the alcohol question is not the typical question faced by the board of directors. It's a major issue for the club. So perhaps a democratic vote is more appropriate than a republican vote. I'm not sure.
I think either voting system could work and would be acceptable to the club membership, so long as people got to air their views and such views were preserved rather than edited or deleted.
Realize that the discussions will be heated. Accept it. I'm not saying accept language like "you fucking asshole" or "you fucking idiot" or "you prick, why don't you just leave the club if you don't like it" or similar language. But realize that saying some is "talking drivel" and calling him "a moron" are one and the same thing. Don't think one is different from the other. They're not.
Furthermore, don't limit discussions to abstractions. If Kevin links to pics of Max Yedor's Miller Jeep Trail run with pics of people drinking beers on the trail and he names Max Yedor, that is not necessarily a "personal attack". If I name Roger Davis and discuss drinking on Cottonwood, that is not necessarily a personal attack. Naming names is important. Citing to specific examples of trail drinking is important. It makes the discussion less abstract and more concrete, i.e., "look at this example" or "this is actually happening". It sharpens the issues. It deals with actual facts. Talking in nameless abstractions or hypotheticals is not nearly the same.
Also realize that you're not going to please everybody if you vote on the question by board of directors rather than the membership at large. This sounds obvious, but I think it bears repeating. You're not going to please everybody. Make your decision (when it's time of course) and be decisive about it. Don't announce your decision with the equivocal "Member X - supports dry trail runs but supports the current club policy [of allowing alcohol on lunch breaks or other stops]". That was so weak. I can't believe the past board thought that would fly. It was so ridiculously weak. It was actually pathetic.
Also, if you vote by board, be forthcoming about which board member voted which way. Don't be chickenshit and try to hide the way you voted. Don't release the vote break-down only if a member demands to see it. As elected officials, you don't have the luxury of keeping your votes secret. It's abhorrent to a republican system of government. It's the action of cowards and crooks.
traveltoad said:
Agreed. It's also illegal. I have conducted or assisted the past 4 (or 5?) New Member Orientation runs. My standard speech is that alcohol is not welcomed or encouraged on the trail and remind people that state laws regarding it also apply to the trails. Many people are surprised at that BTW. They assume that "highway" laws don't apply to the trail. Without exception, at each Orientation, I have had a new member express thanks for teaching them that.
traveltoad said:
??? Is this something SCLR does, or done by an SCLR member? You are referring to one incident at a multi-club event by a person who is not an SCLR member. I don't see the connection..... You might as well look for photos of similar behavior from the National Rally or MAR, or a Jeep or Toyota club, and blame that on SCLR too. This event was closer to home, and has been used as an example to bring SCLR's policy (or lack one) into focus, but ultimately, it was not an incident caused, encouraged or condoned by SCLR or its members.
traveltoad said:
I don't know how that can be prevented, if it's even possible to prevent that, or even it's desirable to prevent that? It goes back to the societal issues I mentioned earlier. Do you feel it's possible, or desirable? I have no idea, and have no desire to explore it further.
Wow John, I have to say that I agree with everything you just wrote in your last post. It was the most clear discourse I've read on this entire issue, including anything I myself have written 
I agree with every aspect of your post, and I appreciate the fact that you took the time to write and in the manner in which it was written. I think it will be helpful to those current on the Board. At least, I sincerely hope so.
I would point out though, that the "examples" you named are not SCLR members. Using non-members can be useful, but I feel that people are confused about what they are seeing or how it's being labeled. We can just as easily use examples from people in Jeeps, Hummers, Toyotas, Quads, Sand Rails, etc... Sadly, I don't think we will have to look very hard to find far more bad examples than we would ever want to have.
I agree with every aspect of your post, and I appreciate the fact that you took the time to write and in the manner in which it was written. I think it will be helpful to those current on the Board. At least, I sincerely hope so.I would point out though, that the "examples" you named are not SCLR members. Using non-members can be useful, but I feel that people are confused about what they are seeing or how it's being labeled. We can just as easily use examples from people in Jeeps, Hummers, Toyotas, Quads, Sand Rails, etc... Sadly, I don't think we will have to look very hard to find far more bad examples than we would ever want to have.
Nathan,
Fuck you.
Don't try to ingratiate yourself to me. Do you think I'm dumb enough to fall for your pathetic attempt at a Jedi Mind Trick?
You don't agree with anything I said. The truth is that you saw Buddy and me reconcile and you thought, "here's my chance to reconcile with John". Yeah, keep on thinking that.
Just because you see Buddy and me reconcile our differences doesn't mean the differences between you and me are reconcilable. First of all, I respect Buddy. I sure as hell don't respect you. In fact, I hate your guts. Second, while I may disagree very strongly with the decisions Buddy made as President last year, I never doubted that he acted always in good faith when he was President. There was never any deceit on Buddy's part. Buddy's mistakes were simply that. We all err. To err is human. It's an inherent human weakness. And mistakes made in good faith are especially forgivable.
I can't same the same for you. You're a low-life. Your actions were far from mistakes and they were very deceitful. You abused your powers as SCLR webmaster. When I accused you of these abuses, you denied what you did, you played cover-up with smoke and mirrors, and you tried to define your way out of culpability for what you did. You claimed you were acting with the consent and authority of the board of directors when it was just you and John Gagg. The board of directors even stripped you of your moderating powers because you abused them. You tried to cover up this embarrassing fact by trying to frame your getting stripped of moderator powers as a simple restructuring of SCLR BBS duties. Admit what you did. Now that the board of directors' members are second-guessing themselves about their decision last year, you're out and about defending your vote with full zest. You have no doubt that the vote you made was correct. You're incapable of error.
Why on earth would I ever want to reconcile with a deceitful shit-bag like you?
You agree with every aspect of my post? Yeah. Nathan, I think you have to be one of the least credible people in SCLR. Even dirt-bags like John Gagg and Joe Nosal know deep down that they're dirt bags. You refuse to believe what you really are. You actually think you're Mr. High Road. That makes you even lower than these guys.
So you claim to agree with everything I wrote in my last post. Let's take a look at what I wrote in my last post and we'll see if you truly agree with my statements or not. Here's one:
You agree with this? You say you do. But do you really? If you truly agreed with this you wouldn't have been on the board of directors. You're associated with Off Roving. You pimp those Rover Specialties sliders that Off Roving sells to club members. You don't see a conflict there? I do. But you seem to have no problem pimping the Rover Specialties sliders to new club members while serving on the board of directors.
Don't even bother responding with "but I honestly feel these are the best LR3 sliders around". That's non-responsive. The issue is not whether or not the Rover Specialties sliders are good or not. Rather, the issue whether it's appropriate for a member of the board of directors to be pimping equipment that he sells. It's not. You think it is appropriate. That makes you a dirt bag.
What you did is even worse considering that these members you pimped those sliders to were new members. They were rookies. They don't know who's who. They're especially vulnerable to your advice. But you pimped the sliders to them anyway. Even worse, you made sure that these new members saw you as their leader. You led these people in the rookie trail runs. You initiated these new members into how the club is supposed to run.
Don't even claim that you were acting out of altruism when you organized these rookie runs. There was no altruism from you. You led these rookie runs so that you could be the boss and control these people the way you control your radio-controlled planes. You could be the big fish in a little pond. Being rookies, these new members wouldn't see that you couldn't drive your way out of a paper bag. Even your hideously ugly, stickered out, rice rocket look-alike, third-rate Imperial Stormtrooper LR3 that makes me vomit a little in my mouth every time I see it and that lacks everything that makes the LR3 such a nice trail truck wouldn't be outclassed by the rookiemobiles and beater trucks on these newbie runs. Leading these runs was your opportunity to be the big dog trail leader without getting laughed at. That's why you led these runs.
For you to claim that you agree that there's an inherent conflict for vendors to serve on the board of directors is ridiculous. Your actions speak otherwise.
Here's another one:
You agree that editing and deleting posts is a hundred times worse than allowing drinking on the trails? You were the one who was doing the editing and deleting. And now you're claiming to agree to the proposition that editing and deleting members' posts is a hundred times worse than allowing drinking on the trails? Fuck you.
Here's another:
I'm basically using fancy words to call you a moron and Joe a low-life. I was in a constructive mood and using constructive language.
You claim to agree with these comments? Of course you don't. You say you do. But I know you don't. You don't think you're a moron. You actually think of yourself as quite intelligent and clever. If you actually agree with what I said, it's only because you're too uneducated to know what I wrote. In either case, you're a moron.
I slipped when writing that paragraph. I said you were a member of the board of directors. I had forgotten that the current board of directors hated your guts enough to kick you off the board of directors. The reason I forgot is because you're such an officious asshole that you still talk as if you're on the board of directors. So I forgot that you had been kicked off the board. I think you forgot as well. I think you still think you're on the board of directors.
Here's another one:
So you agree that legal liability is not dispositive and is but one of many factors to consider? You say that now. However, that's certainly not what you've been saying over and over again on this thread and the SCLR BBS' re-hash of the alcohol question. Over and over again, you've been beating a dead horse. You've justified over and over again the board of directors' decision based on legal liability alone. You never mentioned any other factors. Now you claim to be Mr. Totality Of The Circumstances. But your post to Kevin says otherwise:
You're such a condescending asshole. Your mind is capable of understanding so little, and yet you accuse Kevin of not seeing the larger picture. You're so fixated on the legal liability question. It's dispositive to you. The very idea of it is attractive to you. It must have taken you quite a while for you to read that opinion. You struggled with the ideas contained in it. Then you grasped it. Or at least you think you did. You think you're now aware of a factor that the club members at large at not. That makes you better informed than the other members. So now you wave around that factor like a sword to show your intellectual power to the membership at large. It's pathetic.
I don't think I'm far off the mark in saying that you understand very little of what's contained in that legal opinion. And now that I've pointed out that there is more to life than legal liability, you claim to agree with such a proposition. Yeah. You're just pissed you didn't think of it.
Here's another one:
You agree that naming names is important? It sharpens the issues? It makes the discussions more concrete and compelling? Then why do you continue your chump talk here when replying to Aaron?:
So, you claim you agree that it's important to speak in terms of reality rather than abstractions. And yet you can't even bring yourself to name Roger Davis. You can't even bring yourself to name Rover Rendezvous 2007. For some strange reason, you actually try to be as unspecific as you possibly can when discussing Roger Davis and Rover Rendezvous 2007. You seem to have no problem mentioning the National Rally and MAR. But you can't bring yourself to write "Rover Rendezvous".
I think this type of obfuscation is deeply ingrained in you. It goes to your lack of veracity. Just as you automatically euphemize when describing something you did that was wrongful, you automatically speak in abstractions and allusions when referring to people you don't want to remember. Just as you automatically speak in the passive voice when you don't want to admit you did something wrongful, you automatically speak in abstractions and allusions when referring to events you don?t want to remember.
The name is Roger Davis. The event was Rover Rendezvous 2007. Accept it.
And for the record, yes, Rover Rendezvous 2007 was multi-club event. Multiple clubs organized Rover Rendezvous 2007. However, SCLR was one of those clubs. SCLR doesn't organize the National Rally or MAR. So your response to Aaron was basically a joke.
So Max Yedor and Roger Davis are not SCLR members. When did I claim that they were?
Go and crawl back into your hole you low-life moron.
Fuck you.
Don't try to ingratiate yourself to me. Do you think I'm dumb enough to fall for your pathetic attempt at a Jedi Mind Trick?
You don't agree with anything I said. The truth is that you saw Buddy and me reconcile and you thought, "here's my chance to reconcile with John". Yeah, keep on thinking that.
Just because you see Buddy and me reconcile our differences doesn't mean the differences between you and me are reconcilable. First of all, I respect Buddy. I sure as hell don't respect you. In fact, I hate your guts. Second, while I may disagree very strongly with the decisions Buddy made as President last year, I never doubted that he acted always in good faith when he was President. There was never any deceit on Buddy's part. Buddy's mistakes were simply that. We all err. To err is human. It's an inherent human weakness. And mistakes made in good faith are especially forgivable.
I can't same the same for you. You're a low-life. Your actions were far from mistakes and they were very deceitful. You abused your powers as SCLR webmaster. When I accused you of these abuses, you denied what you did, you played cover-up with smoke and mirrors, and you tried to define your way out of culpability for what you did. You claimed you were acting with the consent and authority of the board of directors when it was just you and John Gagg. The board of directors even stripped you of your moderating powers because you abused them. You tried to cover up this embarrassing fact by trying to frame your getting stripped of moderator powers as a simple restructuring of SCLR BBS duties. Admit what you did. Now that the board of directors' members are second-guessing themselves about their decision last year, you're out and about defending your vote with full zest. You have no doubt that the vote you made was correct. You're incapable of error.
Why on earth would I ever want to reconcile with a deceitful shit-bag like you?
nwoods said:Wow John, I have to say that I agree with everything you just wrote in your last post. It was the most clear discourse I've read on this entire issue, including anything I myself have written
You agree with every aspect of my post? Yeah. Nathan, I think you have to be one of the least credible people in SCLR. Even dirt-bags like John Gagg and Joe Nosal know deep down that they're dirt bags. You refuse to believe what you really are. You actually think you're Mr. High Road. That makes you even lower than these guys.
So you claim to agree with everything I wrote in my last post. Let's take a look at what I wrote in my last post and we'll see if you truly agree with my statements or not. Here's one:
John Lee said:
You agree with this? You say you do. But do you really? If you truly agreed with this you wouldn't have been on the board of directors. You're associated with Off Roving. You pimp those Rover Specialties sliders that Off Roving sells to club members. You don't see a conflict there? I do. But you seem to have no problem pimping the Rover Specialties sliders to new club members while serving on the board of directors.
Don't even bother responding with "but I honestly feel these are the best LR3 sliders around". That's non-responsive. The issue is not whether or not the Rover Specialties sliders are good or not. Rather, the issue whether it's appropriate for a member of the board of directors to be pimping equipment that he sells. It's not. You think it is appropriate. That makes you a dirt bag.
What you did is even worse considering that these members you pimped those sliders to were new members. They were rookies. They don't know who's who. They're especially vulnerable to your advice. But you pimped the sliders to them anyway. Even worse, you made sure that these new members saw you as their leader. You led these people in the rookie trail runs. You initiated these new members into how the club is supposed to run.
Don't even claim that you were acting out of altruism when you organized these rookie runs. There was no altruism from you. You led these rookie runs so that you could be the boss and control these people the way you control your radio-controlled planes. You could be the big fish in a little pond. Being rookies, these new members wouldn't see that you couldn't drive your way out of a paper bag. Even your hideously ugly, stickered out, rice rocket look-alike, third-rate Imperial Stormtrooper LR3 that makes me vomit a little in my mouth every time I see it and that lacks everything that makes the LR3 such a nice trail truck wouldn't be outclassed by the rookiemobiles and beater trucks on these newbie runs. Leading these runs was your opportunity to be the big dog trail leader without getting laughed at. That's why you led these runs.
For you to claim that you agree that there's an inherent conflict for vendors to serve on the board of directors is ridiculous. Your actions speak otherwise.
Here's another one:
John Lee said:
You agree that editing and deleting posts is a hundred times worse than allowing drinking on the trails? You were the one who was doing the editing and deleting. And now you're claiming to agree to the proposition that editing and deleting members' posts is a hundred times worse than allowing drinking on the trails? Fuck you.
Here's another:
John Lee said:
I'm basically using fancy words to call you a moron and Joe a low-life. I was in a constructive mood and using constructive language.
You claim to agree with these comments? Of course you don't. You say you do. But I know you don't. You don't think you're a moron. You actually think of yourself as quite intelligent and clever. If you actually agree with what I said, it's only because you're too uneducated to know what I wrote. In either case, you're a moron.
I slipped when writing that paragraph. I said you were a member of the board of directors. I had forgotten that the current board of directors hated your guts enough to kick you off the board of directors. The reason I forgot is because you're such an officious asshole that you still talk as if you're on the board of directors. So I forgot that you had been kicked off the board. I think you forgot as well. I think you still think you're on the board of directors.
Here's another one:
John Lee said:
So you agree that legal liability is not dispositive and is but one of many factors to consider? You say that now. However, that's certainly not what you've been saying over and over again on this thread and the SCLR BBS' re-hash of the alcohol question. Over and over again, you've been beating a dead horse. You've justified over and over again the board of directors' decision based on legal liability alone. You never mentioned any other factors. Now you claim to be Mr. Totality Of The Circumstances. But your post to Kevin says otherwise:
Nathan Woods said:
You're such a condescending asshole. Your mind is capable of understanding so little, and yet you accuse Kevin of not seeing the larger picture. You're so fixated on the legal liability question. It's dispositive to you. The very idea of it is attractive to you. It must have taken you quite a while for you to read that opinion. You struggled with the ideas contained in it. Then you grasped it. Or at least you think you did. You think you're now aware of a factor that the club members at large at not. That makes you better informed than the other members. So now you wave around that factor like a sword to show your intellectual power to the membership at large. It's pathetic.
I don't think I'm far off the mark in saying that you understand very little of what's contained in that legal opinion. And now that I've pointed out that there is more to life than legal liability, you claim to agree with such a proposition. Yeah. You're just pissed you didn't think of it.
Here's another one:
John Lee said:
You agree that naming names is important? It sharpens the issues? It makes the discussions more concrete and compelling? Then why do you continue your chump talk here when replying to Aaron?:
nwoods said:
So, you claim you agree that it's important to speak in terms of reality rather than abstractions. And yet you can't even bring yourself to name Roger Davis. You can't even bring yourself to name Rover Rendezvous 2007. For some strange reason, you actually try to be as unspecific as you possibly can when discussing Roger Davis and Rover Rendezvous 2007. You seem to have no problem mentioning the National Rally and MAR. But you can't bring yourself to write "Rover Rendezvous".
I think this type of obfuscation is deeply ingrained in you. It goes to your lack of veracity. Just as you automatically euphemize when describing something you did that was wrongful, you automatically speak in abstractions and allusions when referring to people you don't want to remember. Just as you automatically speak in the passive voice when you don't want to admit you did something wrongful, you automatically speak in abstractions and allusions when referring to events you don?t want to remember.
The name is Roger Davis. The event was Rover Rendezvous 2007. Accept it.
And for the record, yes, Rover Rendezvous 2007 was multi-club event. Multiple clubs organized Rover Rendezvous 2007. However, SCLR was one of those clubs. SCLR doesn't organize the National Rally or MAR. So your response to Aaron was basically a joke.
nwoods said:
So Max Yedor and Roger Davis are not SCLR members. When did I claim that they were?
Go and crawl back into your hole you low-life moron.