Reporting Threads as Offensive

[Gene Nehring]

Tim,

I hope after the clarification provided that this will help close the issue on the forum for now.

I think unfortunately the messaging from the GC / EC to the broader Vincent community about the future of the forum has been muddled. I know I have been confused as to whats going on, I read mph and use the forum. I know we could debate why the communication has been muddled and point fingers but that won't do us any good. I hope moving forward that the communication will be clearer.

The reason I believe people have struggled to move on from the issue has been the personality clashes surrounding the issues. This clash comes from the passion for this forum and the community of Vincent owners that use it. If you don't use the forum it is difficult to understand the importance of it to people who do. People on both sides of the debate feel hurt and frustrated. The GC / EC need to try to heal the division instead of dividing us further and again this will come from clear, concise communication.

Best,

Gene.

 

[Martyn Goodwin]

Extracted from the March General Committee Meeting minutes:-

Tim Kirker speaking on behalf of the VRV section read out the motion below:
The General Committee supports the Executive Committee in implementing the Club Express System for the running of the Club.
The General Committee also supports the maintenance of the present Club Forum until such time as any alternative facility, provided by Club Express, is demonstrated to measure up to the present forum, and a mechanism for retaining and accessing old material is available.

. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .

• The GC agreed unanimously to carry the motion read out by Tim Kirker

At September's meeting a correction was made to the effect that the vote was not unanimous with, I think, a couple of people saying they had voted against the motion, out of about twenty-five/thirty.

It was further agreed that the arbiter of whether any new forum measured up to the present forum would be the General Committee. In other words, the present forum would not be replaced without the agreement of the General Committee. That motion has not been rescinded and will be Club policy until it is - and it can be rescinded only by the General Committee.

At the September meeting the EC confirmed that, whilst the functionality of the trial forum being developed in CE is similar to the present forum, its layout and presentation is not as good.

So, the argument was won six months ago . . . Why can't we move on?

Tim Kirker

So why then is the exec and its team pressing ahead with plans to prepare to implement the CE pseudo-forum, shut down the existing forum and replace it with a CE based pseudo-forum with just some of the content of the current forum being made available in pdf files through a CE hosted web site?

As to your March motion and testing of ANY forum alternative to the satisfaction of the GCM - no such GCM testing has happened - in fact after the March GCM those who were testing CE were told that their services as testers were no longer required.

The wall of silence and secrecy associated with this matter needs to be demolished - time to start telling the members what's really planed. Things will only get better if intent is out in the open, till then the trust in the some of the managers of our club is taking a battering.

I guess we can move on as a club only when those responsible to the GCM get on board with the GCM directives or decide to take up your suggestion and move on.

Martyn

 

[timetraveller]

The problem is what is not being said. It is certainly true that we have been told that the present forum will continue. But one of the rumours is that Grahan will be instructed to shut down certain features of it. It should not be too hard for the exec to issue an official statement as to whether this is true or not. A male with his bits removed might still look like a male but will not function as before. The forum with bits deleted might not be as useful as the present forum. For my part this is not a clash of personalities, it is a response to incomplete, and possibly biased information.

 

[Tim Kirker]

Tim,

I hope after the clarification provided that this will help close the issue on the forum for now.

I think unfortunately the messaging from the GC / EC to the broader Vincent community about the future of the forum has been muddled. I know I have been confused as to whats going on, I read mph and use the forum. I know we could debate why the communication has been muddled and point fingers but that won't do us any good. I hope moving forward that the communication will be clearer.

The reason I believe people have struggled to move on from the issue has been the personality clashes surrounding the issues. This clash comes from the passion for this forum and the community of Vincent owners that use it. If you don't use the forum it is difficult to understand the importance of it to people who do. People on both sides of the debate feel hurt and frustrated. The GC / EC need to try to heal the division instead of dividing us further and again this will come from clear, concise communication.

Best,

Gene.

Gene

You are absolutely right. The message has been muddled. Maybe the EC has not made its position as clear as it could - although the motion agreed in March, and what the EC said in September were perfectly clear. They do not need to say anything else. But I'm afraid the muddle comes largely from a dozen or so disgruntled, active users of this forum, led by Graham Smith, who want to see the whole ClubExpress plan de-railed, not just its forum. None of this thread, nor its predecessors, was necessary, if we had just accepted that the EC was going to get on with what had been agreed. But that was never going to work because Graham's and others' position starts from the premise that the EC cannot be trusted. (For example, see Norman Walker above.) Catch 22. So nothing anybody says will stop this mess. And it is my opinion that much of this distrust has been seeded by Graham, who sees himself as the Editor, but not as a member of the EC. To him, the EC are 'they/them', not 'we/us'. In club meetings he tends to sit in the body of the meeting, not on the 'top table'. Some correspondents have made much of the body language of certain members of the EC - try watching Graham's body language over the last few Zoom meetings. Where he disagrees with something, he uses his considerable influence with the club's social media to undermine the EC. That is why I spoke as I did at the September meeting. And that is why, however good this forum is, or however good MPH is, I will not support his being made an Honorary Member of the Club he has so badly damaged. All of which is rather sad. I had counted Graham as a friend, but I can neither condone, nor ignore his recent behaviour.

Tim Kirker

 

[timetraveller]

It is not a catch 22 situation. All that is required is a written statement on behalf of the exec that no functionality of this forum will be affected and that it will be left totally intact until such time as we have had a chance to experience long term use of both fora. Nothing more is required and we can then get on with playing with motorcycles.

 

[Graham Smith]

Gene

You are absolutely right. The message has been muddled. Maybe the EC has not made its position as clear as it could - although the motion agreed in March, and what the EC said in September were perfectly clear. They do not need to say anything else. But I'm afraid the muddle comes largely from a dozen or so disgruntled, active users of this forum, led by Graham Smith, who want to see the whole ClubExpress plan de-railed, not just its forum. None of this thread, nor its predecessors, was necessary, if we had just accepted that the EC was going to get on with what had been agreed. But that was never going to work because Graham's and others' position starts from the premise that the EC cannot be trusted. (For example, see Norman Walker above.) Catch 22. So nothing anybody says will stop this mess. And it is my opinion that much of this distrust has been seeded by Graham, who sees himself as the Editor, but not as a member of the EC. To him, the EC are 'they/them', not 'we/us'. In club meetings he tends to sit in the body of the meeting, not on the 'top table'. Some correspondents have made much of the body language of certain members of the EC - try watching Graham's body language over the last few Zoom meetings. Where he disagrees with something, he uses his considerable influence with the club's social media to undermine the EC. That is why I spoke as I did at the September meeting. And that is why, however good this forum is, or however good MPH is, I will not support his being made an Honorary Member of the Club he has so badly damaged. All of which is rather sad. I had counted Graham as a friend, but I can neither condone, nor ignore his recent behaviour.

Tim Kirker

Keep going Tim - I’m sure there’ll be some more buses coming along in future months that you and your silent associates can throw me under.

Thank goodness the suggestion I made a number of months ago for the Club to approach you with regards becoming a Vice President was rejected by some on the Executive Committee.

Clearly I’m not as good a judge of character as I thought I was!

 

[Albervin]

A few points:
" ...and a mechanism for retaining and accessing old material is available."
This is NOT the same as being able to access and REPLY to old material that is available.
If Graham can use the access to social media then so can other executive members. The executive have chosen not to do this (except for Graham) and I ask why? I now hesitate to say that Tim Kirker is the "mouthpiece" for the majority of the executive but again I ask why?
Tim is incorrect in saying that Graham is totally against CE. On several occasions he has said that the unification of the back office will be a good thing BUT the ability to have a fully functioning forum, an e-mail link plus private conversations is so far sadly lacking.
In a previous post Tim questioned why I was not made a proxy and I explained the situation. In modern terminology he was "gaslighting" me. In other words it was "my" problem that the situation with Farrow occurred. This in no way reduces the abominable words that emanated from Farrow's mouth. I do wonder whether he would have spoken thus IF he did not have a vote? Rest assured he will never be allowed to vote on behalf of the NSW Section again.
Several posts ago Tim alluded to "people from the past" and assuming you know them. Well Tim, I have "known" you and your wife since 1999 and I thought I knew who and what you were. I was obviously mistaken and that saddens me.

 

[Tim Kirker]

It is not a chatch 22 situation. All that is required is a written statement on behalf of the exec that no functionality of this forum will be affected and that it will be left totally intact until such time as we have had a chance to experience long term use of both fora. Nothing more is required and we can then get on with playing with motorcycles.

QED!

 

[timetraveller]

Resorting to Latin does not confer intellectual superiority.

 

[Albervin]

Resorting to Latin does not confer intellectual superiority.

Touché.