Board members expressing opinion - thread split

[gandalph]

Ah, a coat tailer

Turbs, you've come in for a fair share of criticism over the few years I've been a member and while I've not always agreed with what you say on this site I have always thought that your responses were mostlty rational and pretty well thought out. I think you have kept the standard of debate pretty high. Until now.

 

Your comment in post 101 is out of character. It is uncalled for, petty and offensive. It, sadly, says more about you than your target.

 

Perhaps I should have put this in a private conversation with you rather than wave my cape at the bulls in the arena but I didn't want to intrude on your privacy.

 

Regards

 

 

[Oscar]

Ah, don't be too hard on old Turbs, he's just trying to wind me up. Not with any success, though; it's a long way away from the topic of the thread and there are far more important things to discuss.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbs, you've come in for a fair share of criticism over the few years I've been a member and while I've not always agreed with what you say on this site I have always thought that your responses were mostlty rational and pretty well thought out. I think you have kept the standard of debate pretty high. Until now.Your comment in post 101 is out of character. It is uncalled for, petty and offensive. It, sadly, says more about you than your target.

Perhaps I should have put this in a private conversation with you rather than wave my cape at the bulls in the arena but I didn't want to intrude on your privacy. Regards

gandalph, for a few pages now a conversation has been taking place with Oscar paying tribute to his superior level of intellect.

 

This conversation is in the words behind what appears in the posts, in other words, not the literal words.

 

Oscar has indicated he understands this.

 

Post #101 was not uncalled for; if you've been following threads lately you'll find he has been doing a hatchet job, quite successfully on Motzartmerv and Major Millard, and I for one am going to stand up for them. This is not a reality show with contestants where you get to spectate and vote, if you want any credibility. You can kiss him or do whatever you want; I agree with Diversity.

 

Post #101 was not petty; at risk on who is impressing who are potential lives. Importantly, we now know exactly where Oscar sits in relation to the likes of Motzartmerv and Major Millard which makes future discussions less wasteful.

 

Post #102 was not offensive, it was simply a means of communication what I know to Oscar, so we are on a better wavelength.

 

Remember gandalph what one of Oscars most recent comments was: "I'd like to think that those I share the sky with can fly and chew gum at the same time, and so far I have not been massively disappointed - just a bit shocked that there are aberrations to that norm." The aberrations part seemed to be aimed at people who couldn't follow what was being said at the esoteric level.

 

 

[gandalph]

gandalph, for a few pages now a conversation has been taking place with Oscar paying tribute to his superior level of intellect.This conversation is in the words behind what appears in the posts, in other words, not the literal words.

Oscar has indicated he understands this.

 

Post #101 was not uncalled for; if you've been following threads lately you'll find he has been doing a hatchet job, quite successfully on Motzartmerv and Major Millard, and I for one am going to stand up for them.

Turbs, I've been following this thread since before it was split and I've had a bit to say about my belief that representatives of the RAA board, when they post in this site, should be careful what they say. because their posts can and often will be taken as legitimate information about what the boars thinks or is planning to do. The Maj's posts about the RAA taking action behind the scenes against Jabiru was what caused me to criticise his irresponsible behaviour. If you read back you'll see I was critising his behaviour and his posts not him.

 

The Several folk leapt to the conclusion, falsely, that I was saying that because I took a swipe at his posts I was taking a swipe at him and saying that board members should be gagged.

 

I understand the subtext of the exchanges between Oscar (or Emmy, or BAFTA - at that rate he'll soon be downgraded to the raffle winner at a FNQ CWA cake night) and Merv. but I think it would be better to argue the topic rather than insult the respondent(s).

 

My $0.002 worth on a hot Sunday afternoon.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Why don't you put up his quote again so we can see the exact words?

 

 

[gandalph]

Why don't you put up his quote again so we can see the exact words?

What purpose would that serve other than to re-ignite the debate?

If people want to see the genesis of this thread they can backtrack if they feel it's worth the effort. Not sure that I do.

 

If an RAA rep, either a board member or other, pops up here and makes what I believe to make an unsubstantiated claim or statement then I'll probably have another say, but until then I'll leave it be.

 

I don't plan to pick a fight with you Turbs, I just thought your "coat tail" epithet was below you... EOS.

 

 

[turboplanner]

That's because, as I said, you didn't understand it.

 

 

[gandalph]

That's because, as I said, you didn't understand it.

Ah Turbs! You presume too much. I understood it quite well.

But that aside, I still think it's more productive to argue the issues rather than exchange insults with respondents.

 

 

[rankamateur]

Perhaps I should have put this in a private conversation with you rather than wave my cape at the bulls in the arena but I didn't want to intrude on your privacy.

Wouldn't offend other forum members in the least, if you put your name to your post instead of hiding in internet anonymity, so we knew who was spragging at our esteemed comrade.

 

 

[gandalph]

Wouldn't offend other forum members in the least, if you put your name to your post instead of hiding in internet anonymity, so we knew who was spragging at our esteemed comrade.

Dear Mr or Ms. rankamateur, I am truly tickled by the irony of your suggestion .

 

Regards

 

Gandalph

 

 

[Oscar]

The real issue of this thread is what limits ought to apply to Board Members making statements, not whether I choose to communicate with due respect for the intellect of the vast majority of the members of this forum and the RAA - or accept the long-held principle of the advertising industry that any message not capable of being understood by an 11-year-old is likely to be lost (and no, that's not a sideways dig at anybody here, that's a fact that is adopted by that industry, so if you choose to charge in on me for the demographic research that has been done, you're on very flimsy grounds indeed.)

 

In conversations around the traps with RAA members and aviators generally, I use the exact same sort of language as I use on this site and I have yet to have a single one pull me up and ask 'please explain' my use of terminology or vocabulary. I am extremely comfortable with the idea that I don't have to moderate my use of language to have conversations with our sector of society and I have no intention of patronising people by assuming that they neither understand nor appreciate the use of language that is restricted by some sort of truncated version. That's akin to the old British Raj-era idea that all foreigners will understand English if you just speak slowly, loudly, and using simple words. I do not intend to insult my fellow aviators by adopting that principle - and if you consider that is a 'wank', then perhaps you (and some others) need to examine your own view of your fellows in the sector.

 

Returning to the point of the thread: the essential debate here is whether Board members are required to moderate their statements to reflect (or at least acknowledge) RAA's official position on matters, or whether they have the right to imply that the RAA has a position/policy that happens to accord with their own agenda but is not a Board decision. I believe that any Board member has the right to express that he supports 'X', but NOT to imply that that is the majority Board decision unless that is in fact the case. If he wants to state that his position on 'X' has been vigorously prosecuted by him and that he is unhappy that the Board majority position does not agree - fine by me.

 

However, there is a bottomless fissure between a statement that 'the RAA is taking action' on an issue and an individual statement that is in fact not the case but purports to be a faithful representation of RAA position/policy. In this case, the statement has implications for the ownership and operation of aircraft belonging to a considerable percentage of RAA members. As an individual member of RAA, one is entitled (I believe) to any opinion one chooses to hold; however as a Board member of the regulating authority, one has at least de facto if not de jure accepted that one is now a part of the management of the regulating authority and therefore one is bound to present the majority decision of the management of that authority if making any statement that purports to carry the imprimatur of the authority.

 

Turbs, you are quite evidently more than sufficiently educated to understand my language without needing someone to explain the big words. I don't believe that I need to moderate my language to fit in with those who may consider that John Laws's songs for truckies is the Australian equivalent of Shakespeare (in whatever variant form of that spelling is currently in vogue) - and I know more than a few truckies who have not the slightest problem with the distinction between between 'quintessential' and 'typical', before you go decrying my intellectual snobbery once again. It would progress the discussion on this thread if you could return to the point at issue rather than taking up the cudgels for a supposed membership of this forum that has, by your apparent standards, a limited capability of dealing with polysyllabic words.

 

You are assuming that the audience here is of limited understanding of the English language. I don't believe that is, in fact, the case. In terms more aligned to the patois of current usage, you are assuming that the majority of forum members are dumb f**ks who need to be talked down to if they are to understand the points of an argument. I disagree; my experience so far is that the vast majority of aviators are very astute and intelligent people. However, if you have evidence to support your position, then please bring it forward.

 

Quite incidentally - the only BAFTA I know is the British Academy of Film And Television Arts. It doesn't seem relevant unless I'm being mistaken with Stephen Fry and he's taller, more famous and differently sexually oriented than me. However, I guess we could probably converse with no real difficulty - is that the connection?

 

 

[turboplanner]

I'm not assuming anything of the sort.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Gee I can't believe you guys are still putting up with this wanker Oscar (and Gandolf)... I put them both on my ignore list about three weeks ago, and haven't missed their lack of unmeaningfull imput since.

 

In the words of the late Keith Williams .....' nothing more than an annoying pimple on my arxx,'...........Maj....

 

 

[rankamateur]

My name is known here but for your benefit, I am not a member of the board, but ordinary member Steve Hunt.

 

 

[Oscar]

I'm not assuming anything of the sort.

So why do you treat them that way? - seems to be a dichotomy...

 

However, all this internecine warfare is not progressing the point of the thread at all. I'll get back to you when you have a contribution to the issues the thread has raised, Turbs - no offence there, but I have a life to lead beyond personal squabbling. As for the Maj's contribution: quod erat demonstrandum.

 

 

[gandalph]

Gee I can't believe you guys are still putting up with this wanker Oscar (and Gandolf)... I put them both on my ignore list about three weeks ago, and haven't missed their lack of unmeaning full imput since.In the words of the late Keith Williams ' nothing more than an annoying pimple on my arxx,'...........Maj....

Eh! Toro!

 

 

[rankamateur]

Tickled by the irony, but not enough to cough up a name.

 

 

[gandalph]

Tickled by the irony, but not enough to cough up a name.

Steve, I wasn't suggesting that you were a board member and so my comments about the responsibilities of board members here were not directed at you. Sorry if you thought they were.

 

My friends call me Chuck, or Chuckles. Take your pick

 

 

[rankamateur]

Steve, I wasn't suggesting that you were a board member and so my comments about the responsibilities of board members here were not directed at you. Sorry if you thought they were.My friends call me Chuck, or Chuckles. Take your pick

Have you been a board member Chuck?

 

 

[Russ]

My life must be pathetic, I,m actually enjoying this load of cods wollop going on here.

 

( remind self to seek professional help, this perceived enjoyment is messing with my head )

 

I bet if you all met up at some meet, a beer, and a good Sanger sandwich, you would enjoy the event around the good ol camp fire, so what,s all this pis1n comp achieving.

 

SFA

 

 

[gandalph]

Have you been a board member Chuck?

RAA Board? no.

 

Do I need to have been on the board to comment on acceptable behaviour of Board members?

 

Do I need to be a "well-known member " to make critical comment here?

 

 

[gandalph]

My life must be pathetic, I,m actually enjoying this load of cods wollop going on here.( remind self to seek professional help, this perceived enjoyment is messing with my head )

I bet if you all met up at some meet, a beer, and a good Sanger sandwich, you would enjoy the event around the good ol camp fire, so what,s all this pis1n comp achieving.

 

SFA

Russ, I've been trying to back away from this since 9:25 this morning when I sent a polite note to Turbs. I think the exchange between Turbs and myself has been vigorous but polite. I certainly haven't taken offence at anything he's said here today and I would hope that he hasn't been too upset with anything I've said to him. But as I said in that post, (#102) maybe I should have contacted Turbs privately and then I would not have woken the crowd in the stadium , but some others seem to want to continue to try and dowse me with their stream. Must be the weather!

 

Glad you've been enjoying the exchanges - help is on the way!

 

 

[facthunter]

I think I'm called a well known member. That's a funny term, really, for me . No, it isn't necessary to be one and I doubt if many here know me at all. You know what I write and I know what you write. That's the way it works.. Stand back a couple of steps and take it easy , when you get uptight.. Why behave like pilots ? They are usually full of $#IT ( Cruel but they are opinionated often.) I'm not saying you people are . I judge the person by what they try to say and their obvious intention to assist or OTHERWISE. IF you know a lot (and that is fine) try to tell it in such a way that the lesser knowledge people here can gain from your experience. They are keen to do so, unless I read it wrong. Every long journey has a first step.. Be better for us to get around a big burning log fire and have a chat in a remote paddock somewhere with our planes sitting in the shadows, and some RED, but that is not available easily. I might make some tee shirts with " The older I get, the better I flew" Should sell a few don't you think? . We have to encourage the youngsters or there will be no one...Nev

 

 

[rankamateur]

Do I need to have been on the board to comment on acceptable behaviour of Board members?

I don't believe so, your early comments in this thread though,had left me feeling you may have been an ex-member of the old boys club.

 

Had you been on the board, you may have realised that you still had your personal opinions after joining the board and valued your right to continue expressing the same. Ross, unlike the majority of politicians, has continued to express similar opinions after election as before. People who voted for him to represent them are getting what they voted for, not what he became after election, so I see no need to gag his personal opinion.

 

 

[greybeard]

Why is this thread still going? Has the TV broken simultaneously in forum members homes?