View Single Post
Old 22-09-07, 00:42
Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)'s Avatar
Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP) Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP) is offline
former OC MLU, AKA 'Jif' - sadly no longer with us
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 5,400

Originally posted by Ozzie John & Fiona
Let the facts prevail and the rubbish cease. It is true to say that the majority of the committee are becoming fed up with the misinfomation that has been put around in different circles.
"Rubbish", John? "Fed up"? I'm so sorry you're 'fed up' with all the 'rubbish' on this Forum, dear me.

What seems to have escaped you is that the membership here are not beholden to you or any other individual, and that they have the right to post pretty much whatever they please, as long as it's neither obscene nor a slur on a fellow member. They do not need your pronouncement as to whether what they have to say is 'rubbish' or not.

Furthermore, not only am I, as the Forum Owner and Chief Administrator, the only one here permitted to make that kind of judgment publicly, I find the slur inherent in your post exceptionally disagreeable.

"Slur?" you may ask? Yes, exactly that; in declaring the words of legitimate Forum members garbage, you are in fact casting dispersion upon they themselves as thinking individuals, for voicing their opinions and concerns.

And this is the second time in two posts you have done just that. In two successive posts you have denigrated everyone, NOW including even KVE's own Secretary, for posting either what they've heard or what they've understood to be the situation at the time of their posting. In effect, you have used MLU to castigate those holding either opinions contrary to your own, or differing impressions as to the implications of your stated opinions of the moment.

Just because you say 'it's so' at any given time (and that may or may not mean "it's so") you have no right to try to muzzle other Forum members.

No, this is just 'not on', John.

As far as 'it's so' is concerned, let's just examine one such 'fact', shall we? You strongly imply throughout your first four 'Facts' that not only was it always your intention to permit tracked vehicles in the Ball Park, but that the Airport concept 'has always been an option of mine' and that 'camping at the airport is available'.

Here I might draw your attention to the notice (a copy of which is in my possession) sent out by John Arnott as a KVE representative immediately after your May meeting, which states unequivocally "For safety, and protection of the caravan park, tracked vehicles will not be allowed in the park."

As if to attempt to retract that pronouncement, you stated here on MLU, on 12 August (prior to your AGM on 19 August) in the Corowa 2008 Proposal thread, that "At this meeting, we will be having discussions regarding the housing of all tracked vehicles to see if they can be accommodated in and around Ball Park Caravan Park, as this is the Corowa event recognised location." Note that not only is this far from clear, but there is no mention of the airport whatsoever.

Talk of the Airport beyond the presentation of Keith Adams' public Proposal only began to lurk - without naming the Airport as a possible venue - when you stated on 31 August, in the same thread, "Alternative arrangements may have to be made for large AFV’s away from Ball Park Caravan Park."

Three days later (03 September) was the first time you stated flatly that arrangements had been made "for the use of the entire airport to facilitate all needs that may arise in regard large tracked vehicles staying at the airport, including camping at the airport." This, after your only other definitive comment on the subject was to castigate Keith Adams for unveiling his Proposal here.

If you look at all of this in context, I'm not surprised at the confusion and concern held by the rank and file who have an interest in this affair, and nor should you be.

Which leads me to what I hope will be my final comment necessary on this whole sorry business. I will reiterate part of my response to you on 03 September, as it pertains to this Forum and its membership: "My point is that they will continue to debate any matter of concern to them, as often as they wish, with my blessing; whether or not you choose to follow those debates as they evolve, or participate in even just the ones which may concern you, is your business."

Given both the tone of your post today and the implication that somehow you hold the right of approval on what our membership posts, I feel it my responsibility to advise you that in fact, the only thing I've read here on this subject which remotely approaches 'rubbish' is your own approach to the issue at-hand.

Please be advised that MLU will not tolerate this kind of superior attitude and innuendo against our membership in any further posts you care to make, and this is not subject to debate.

:remember :support
Reply With Quote