Hello, Nathan.
nwoods said:
There are a lot things about your post that I disagree with, that are wrong or even humorous, but I have neither the time nor energy to deal with it right now.
How convenient. You'd just love to respond, but you have neither the time nor the energy to deal with it right now. This is merely yet another variation of the All-Time Classic DiscoWeb Chump Line: "I don't care."
You cared before. You cared a lot. Now that you've lost, you no longer care. I think I liked you better when you lost, knew that you lost, but declared victory anyway.
nwoods said:
When I said I agreed with your constructive post, I meant it.
You didn't agree with any of it. You may have agreed with the tenor of the post (constructive as opposed to attacking), but you really didn't agree with the content of it. That was just more lip service from you. You neither say what you mean nor mean what you say.
nwoods said:
The entire Board at the time, including myself, agreed that I should not be the moderator anymore, and so we changed the whole structure of how that's done.
This is patently false. When the board members (except perhaps John Gagg) admonished you for your messing with my posts, you gave the board an ultimatum. You threatened to leave the club all together if the board would not back you up. When nobody spoke up in your defense and basically invited you to leave the club, you huffed out of the room. That's not even close to what you euphemistically describe above.
The board of directors took away your moderating powers and gave them to someone else because you abused your powers as moderator. It really is that simple.
nwoods said:
I don't make a dime from promoting or participating with Off Roving. I do it because I enjoy it. I promote the rock sliders because there are no alternatives, and anyone wheeling an LR3 can testify to the need for underbody armor. They are just too low to the ground. I have posted on this forum before that there is virtually no profit in these sliders. In fact, I personally have not profited from them at all. So no, I do not feel there is any conflict of interest with my involvement of those brands while I was on the Board, nor was it ever an issue made known to me at the time.
So because there was no pecuniary gain for you, there was no conflict of interest for you? That's no answer. I'm not accusing you of having received a commission on sales. I don't doubt that you made no money from those sliders. But have you ever considered that you were motivated by desires other than money?
Your vehicle was the test bed for those sliders. You were very proud of being involved in the development of those sliders. You wanted other LR3 owners to follow your lead. You were very motivated by the prospect of the becoming the LR3 Daddy. Ever since you splashed on the scene, you wanted to be the foremost authority on the LR3. The LR3 was new. Nobody really knew anything about it because it was so new. The older, more experienced Land Rover owners didn't really care about the LR3. So there was your chance. So you tried to become the LR3 Daddy.
You're not the first to try this. We have seen this happen many times before. Justin Dermody wanted to be the foremost authority on the Disco2. Steve Young wanted to be the foremost authority on the Freelander. Every time a new Land Rover model comes out and little is known about it, there is always some guy who lands with a splash and tries to be the foremost authority on that particular vehicle. You're just another link in the chump chain. You weren't the first and you won't be the last.
You cannot argue now that nobody ever brought to your attention the conflict. The conflict exists. Even if you didn't actually know about the conflict, you should have known about it. A reasonable person in your shoes would have known about it.
nwoods said:
That's why a Board has many members, to allow each personality and mentality to weigh in on issues and provide their unique point of view.
Yeah, and that's why the club has a bulletin board too: so that members can chime in and give their opinions on club matters. But somehow that didn't sit too well with you, did it?
nwoods said:
Buddy directed me to remove Roger's name from those threads at Roger's direct written request, because it did not seem appropriate to expose SCLR to the tangibly threatened lawsuit regarding discussion of a non-SCLR member. As I am fairly sensitive to liablity issues, I had no problem removing his name from the thread. As a non-member, he was not legitmately our problem. Though, as you pointed out, the situation does(did?) serve as an example and discussion point.
I think your recollection is off. You never removed Roger's name. I never even posted Roger's name. I didn't even know what his name was. I found out his name only after he called me and told me his name, which was after I posted the links to the photos of him drinking on Cottonwood. You can't remove something I never even posted.
And Buddy directed you, did he? Or did you go to Buddy with the suggestion veiled as a question and say to Buddy something like, "Buddy, should we remove John's links to the photos of Roger drinking on Cottonwood? Roger Davis has threatened to sue the club if we don't remove the references to him." I have a hard time believing Buddy read my post, took the initiative, went to you, and asked you to remove the links. Rather, I think you knew Buddy was having a hard time dealing with all of the volleys flying back and forth. You smelled weakness and saw your opportunity to get what you wanted.
I think you did the exact same thing with Roger Davis before you went to Buddy. When you told Roger Davis that his drinking on Cottonwood was being discussed on the SCLR BBS, you fed Roger the slander idea. Naturally, Roger took your bait and said, "Yeah, I can sue for slander. Take those links down or I'm suing SCLR for slander." Unfortunately, neither you nor Roger apparently knows what slander is.
Your plan with Roger worked like a charm, and then you went to Buddy with Roger's threat in hand. That's the way I think it happened.
nwoods said:
I dislike the way you fail to take what I write at face value, often overlooking what I am actually saying.
Do you know what credibility is? It's basically the same as "believability". You don't have any credibility. Even when cornered and you have no real escape other than to admit what you did, you still spout the bullshit. You admit now that criticism against your editing posts was "universal". But when a few days ago I accused you of editing posts, you tried to define your way out of culpability for editing posts.
That's really slippery. It shows a considerable amount of malice aforethought. That's not something that just shoots out of one's mouth. There's real calculation there. How is what you did any different from this:
Q. Did you ever have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky?
A. I did not have sexual relations with that girl.
Q. Didn't you stick you penis in her mouth and ejaculate on her chest?
A. Yes.
Q. Didn't you stick a cigar into her vagina?
A. Yes.
Q. Then how did you not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky?
A. Sex is penetration of the penis into the vagina. I never did that. Therefore, I never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
Do you remember that one? Your editing defense was pretty much the same thing. You shouldn't be too surprised that I don't take what you say at face value. Words have no meaning to you. You neither say what you mean nor mean what you say. Why should I take what you say at face value? You're not a credible person.
nwoods said:
I regret many things that have transpired over this past few years, but I harbor no grudges towards anyone, and take none of this personally.
How very big of you. But you should take all of this personally because that's certainly how I intend for you to take it.
I'll leave it at that for now.
