Attempt by our Committee to change the Club rules without notifying the members

[steveeasy]

Sorry to let you down Steve, didn't see your message until after I had done a fair bit of posting last night. Just been busy elsewhere so can't sit on here all day.

Still feel the need to come back occasionally to set the record straight. After all the whole purpose of this thread has become to clear my name of these false accusations.

Absolutely NickC, my point was you actually spend less time on the thread than most of us do. I see no need to ever remove the thread, its been suggested more than enough times anyone who is tired of the subject simply can choose not to read or post if they so wish. What seams of particular interest is the interaction between people of different opinions. I for one have seen a more balanced discussion in views and opinion.

Personally I don't think anyone can ever convince everyone that an individual is right or has been unfairly treated. People don't react like that, not on this forum anyway. The natural instinct of humans is to nip away at those who may seam weak. By the way im not inferring you are weaker, The reality is probably you have indeed moved on, but post regularly to respond to specific comments.

When not if this thread reaches 100,000 visits, which will be sooner rather than later I suggest you propose a celebratory get together of all the forum members. That certainly would be worth the trip.

Steveeasy

 

[NickC]

I have no doubt that they are given how widespread surveillance is these days. But there are quite strict rules on lawful interception and they wouldn't allow a small yacht club in Essex to monitor their members to that extent, even if they had the capability.

Could you elaborate.

Not without identifying the individuals involved and I am not going to do that.

 

[NickC]

Nick C said their e-mails and internet are being watched and I replied no doubt they are being watched but that a small yacht club couldn't do it and wouldn't be allowed to do it.

No I didn't, at least if thats how it came across it not what I meant, I said some of the locals have been threatened with the fact that that their internet and email is being watched. I didn't say it was true just that they have been threatened with it so are justifiably frightened of saying anything against the Consortium either by email or on the Internet.

 

[NickC]

it is a matter for the membership.

Finally l'escargot we agree! It is a matter for the membership, yes they should be informed of the issue and allowed a vote on it.

 

[NickC]

Obviously responding to a post by Floyd:

you seem to be the one with an agenda.

+1

 

[NickC]

Has it reached the position that people "own" threads and their supporters will brook no dissension?

No but it is rude to hijack someone else's thread for your own agenda. When one forum member has posted more replies than the OP this suggests he really should have started his own thread.

Hijacking a thread - some quotes from the Internet on forum etiquette:

Thread derailment:
Do not derail or 'hijack' threads with posts that are either off-topic or designed to draw attention away from what is being discussed. If you'd like to discuss something different either start a new thread or find another existing thread which better suits the area you wish to discuss. Hijacking a thread would be like interrupting a normal conversation between others and would therefore be rude.

• Hijacking threads because you feel the need to whine or complain about your personal opinions that have nothing to do with the main topic of the thread will be instantly deleted at will!

• Hijacking threads - being disruptive to the purpose of the original poster's thread.
• Trolling another member - following another member for negative reasons i.e. disliking another user and venting that dislike by repeatedly posting negative comments wherever the other user posts.

Don't Hijack Threads
The Original Poster (OP) and the previous contributors were having a discussion about the original topic. It's not nice to come in and go off on your own personal tangents and derail their discussion. You're always welcome to start a new thread to talk about your topic. If it is tangentially related, then you can mention it in your first post. Something like "I was reading X and it got me thinking about..." is fine.

Thread Hijacking
Thread Hijacking is when you change the topic of a thread to something other than what the author intended. Don't post on a thread to try to get attention for your own personal benefit. Be respectful to the creator of the thread. If you are caught trying to change a thread topic to benefit you, your comment will be deleted.

• Do not "hijack" forum threads. Stay on topic and avoid directing the thread away from the current line of conversation, particularly if the original poster is seeking an answer to a question. If you'd like to discuss a different issue or problem, it's best to start a new thread on the forum.

Avoid Hijacking a Thread. Hijacking involves posting a new idea or topic on someone else's thread. Sometimes if the topic is related this is okay, but try to post new threads if you need to start a different discussion. People who are interested in your topic can go to your thread and you won't offend anyone else this way.

A thread has been hijacked if:

1. The off-topic discussion carries on for more than two posts.
2. The discussion is on-topic, but deals more with the hijacker's problem (even if it's a similar problem) more than the original post-er's problem.

Rule #1:
Thou Shall Not Hijack Other People’s Threads
This rule can be summed up in a simple sentence: If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.

 

[NickC]

Floyd I have created a new thread on your behalf, consider yourself the OP of that thread, no need to thank me:

NOT-Attempt-by-our-Committee-to-change-the-Club-rules-without-notifying-the-members

You can post as many of your opinions as you like there without offending anyone here and without disrupting this thread any further.

Can’t believe I didn’t think of this before. Have fun.

 

[Floyd Raser]

No but it is rude to hijack someone else's thread for your own agenda. When one forum member has posted more replies than the OP this suggests he really should have started his own thread.

Hijacking a thread - some quotes from the Internet on forum etiquette:

Can't see anything there which relates to this thread. No-one is off topic or has chased Nick around the forum in a vindictive manner. Everything is concentrated in this bear pit of a thread in which he chose to air his grievances. But this post does show how Paranoid Nick chooses to interpret things to suit his own agenda.

 

[NickC]

If it is really the case that club members are reading this they please can someone come on here and give us another perspective on both the "massive engine" debacle and the "illegal expulsion of NickC" saga.

You will be anonymous on here so please feel free to weigh-in.

If you are reading the thread but are not prepared to comment then simply say that you are a club member but you are not prepared to comment as that will tell us everything we need to know about the fascist-style leadership of the Club and the reality of living under their reign of terror.

Richard

bump

 

[steveeasy]

Floyd,
I KKKnow you have a good sense of humour, you've got to give NickC credit for your new thread, its an absolute classic. No malice meant at all on my behalf, but please you must see the funny side to it.

Happy Days

Steveeasy

 

[Floyd Raser]

Just been pointed out to me that there is an even easier way to prove that the alleged ‘hearing’ offered was not a genuine hearing but a Kangaroo Court.

Take a look at the letters below from the Committee. Read carefully and you will notice how these both specify completely different reasons for expulsion!

Therefore no genuine opportunity was provided to defend against the accusations made in ‘Final letter of expulsion’, this confirms beyond all doubt that the alleged hearing was nothing more than a Kangaroo Court.


Letter of threatened expulsion:
View attachment 54949
Final letter of expulsion:
View attachment 54948

Oh dear oh dear Nick, you've done it again. Foot - aim - BANG!

In post~823 on page 83 Nick says among other things that he has had legal advice quoting a meeting "in the middle of a pub". I would point out as no-one else may have noticed that "in the middle of a pub" is a phrase made up with predjudice to influence attitude and opinion. To have recieved the same phrase within legal advice is no coincidence; it must have part of the original question, like, "Is it OK to have a meeting in the middle of a pub?"
Now we have a copy of the original letter which Nick has published here of his own free will and there is no mention that it will be "in the middle of a pub". It may be at the pub but as he chose not to turn up, there would have been no point in asking the Landlord for the use of a private room would there?

But besides that, a more important point: where in the letter does it say anything about disciplinary action? It quite clearly suggests an informal but on record chat to sort things out. As there is no suggestion of disciplinary action, why the need for them to produce evidence? It clearly states it was a chance for Nick to explain his actions "without predjudice" and the people he upset wouldn't be there.
It seems to me there may have been as much chance of the evening ending with handshakes and hatchets buried as further action.
Of course the real truth depends upon how much of a naughty boy Nick had already been but by not turning up he must have buried himself.

 

[l'escargot]

Finally l'escargot we agree! It is a matter for the membership, yes they should be informed of the issue and allowed a vote on it.

Well you're not going to achieve that on here are you... What do you actually think this thread will achieve, what do you see as it's purpose?

At the moment, it's just a bit of light entertainment for a load of uninvolved strangers, a distraction for you and is never going to get you reinstated in the club - it's just a classic Internet forum time waster...

 

[Floyd Raser]

Floyd,
I KKKnow you have a good sense of humour, you've got to give NickC credit for your new thread, its an absolute classic. No malice meant at all on my behalf, but please you must see the funny side to it.

Happy Days

Steveeasy

Steve,

PSSST, don't re-quote this as I don't want Nick to read it but...

Am I missing something here? Am I supposed to be wound up by that? Sorry but it's gone right over my head. Nick and I finally have something more in common than this thread and boats: we both are rubbish at writing comedy. I claim to be worse than him because I have actually published the worst selling comedy book of all time. His effort is that thread and his very old signature. Still, there's no such thing as bad publicity.

 

[Floyd Raser]

Floyd I have created a new thread on your behalf, consider yourself the OP of that thread, no need to thank me:

NOT-Attempt-by-our-Committee-to-change-the-Club-rules-without-notifying-the-members

You can post as many of your opinions as you like there without offending anyone here and without disrupting this thread any further.

Can’t believe I didn’t think of this before. Have fun.

Is it just me or does #847 actually contravene what he put in #846? And does Nick understand what OP stand for?

 

[NickC]

When not if this thread reaches 100,000 visits, which will be sooner rather than later I suggest you propose a celebratory get together of all the forum members. That certainly would be worth the trip.

What a splendid idea Steve, would be great to all get together and meet-up. Looking forward to the 100k mark then. Do you think elsie & Floyd would be able to make it?
:beaten:

 

[Seajet]

NickC,

it would be interesting to see if some people have to keep nipping round the back to get changed and made up to cover various persona, rather like we used to try to get in the panoramic school photo twice !

 

[Floyd Raser]

Floyd,
I KKKnow you have a good sense of humour, you've got to give NickC credit for your new thread, its an absolute classic. No malice meant at all on my behalf, but please you must see the funny side to it.

Happy Days

Steveeasy

Steve you've lost me: why have you sent me a personal message with almost exactly the same wording as this post???

 

[VicS]

When not if this thread reaches 100,000 visits, which will be sooner rather than later I suggest you propose a celebratory get together of all the forum members. That certainly would be worth the trip.

Steveeasy

What a splendid idea Steve, would be great to all get together and meet-up. Looking forward to the 100k mark then. Do you think elsie & Floyd would be able to make it?
:beaten:

Perhaps it will be possible to persuade the club at the centre of all this to host the event.

The bar profit alone should make it a worthwhile exercise.

 

[Floyd Raser]

Oh dear oh dear Nick, you've done it again. Foot - aim - BANG!

In post~823 on page 83 Nick says among other things that he has had legal advice quoting a meeting "in the middle of a pub". I would point out as no-one else may have noticed that "in the middle of a pub" is a phrase made up with predjudice to influence attitude and opinion. To have recieved the same phrase within legal advice is no coincidence; it must have part of the original question, like, "Is it OK to have a meeting in the middle of a pub?"
Now we have a copy of the original letter which Nick has published here of his own free will and there is no mention that it will be "in the middle of a pub". It may be at the pub but as he chose not to turn up, there would have been no point in asking the Landlord for the use of a private room would there?

But besides that, a more important point: where in the letter does it say anything about disciplinary action? It quite clearly suggests an informal but on record chat to sort things out. As there is no suggestion of disciplinary action, why the need for them to produce evidence? It clearly states it was a chance for Nick to explain his actions "without predjudice" and the people he upset wouldn't be there.
It seems to me there may have been as much chance of the evening ending with handshakes and hatchets buried as further action.
Of course the real truth depends upon how much of a naughty boy Nick had already been but by not turning up he must have buried himself.

I'm quoting my own post as some people seem to be drifting off topic. I don't know, these people who hijack a thread to talk about false identities...tch tch tch...

 

[steveeasy]

Steve you've lost me: why have you sent me a personal message with almost exactly the same wording as this post???

Hi Floyd,
Just being diplomatic. Best intentions, I found the new thread comical, as im sure you did. we all need to keep a sense of humour on here. You don't have to be in agreement with NickC, but surely we can have a laugh.

Steveeasy