SOTCW Forum

you don't get to tell me what I do and don't do ,you have absolutely no mandate to do anything on here at all ,your not even a member.
Why the existing team have indulged you is beyond me ,especially given the way you have treated them.
Your arrogant ignorant and have tried to impose your so called "proposal" on everyone, you have used terms like "healthy discussion" where there has been none ,"aggressive dissent" as opposed to the "passive" flowery bullshit you have continuously come up with.
All smoke and mirrors ,all things to all people ,your so called proposal has blown about in every direction it currently suits you.
You have broken in here like a former Manager turning up years later at a place he is no longer employed and dismissing the current management team, disrespecting everyone else and imposing an authority he no longer posseses, the arrogance is unbelievable. The manner you use and have used is completely ignorant. I have never in my life let anyone impose their will on me ,and im not going to start with the likes of you.
I have the advantage on you in so far as I met you once ,way back at the Societies inception. I had collected in memberships ,big Scottish guy ,you wont remember me as you didn't even have the decency to address me directly,
there was no preamble ,how you doing ,hail fellow well met or anything other than ...did I have the money.
Marcus Aurelius asked "of each particular thing ,what is it in itself, what is its nature ...and with you its always been about the money. "Give ME the £600. Make of this what you will, but of course you are going to do all this for purely altruistic reasons out of your love for the Society. No one would be happier than me for the Journal and the Society to survive and thrive ,but you kicked the door in and tried to impose yourself ,and you might even succeed ,I don't wish you well , your a bullshit merchant . End of story

Shame this got nasty

I replied to Mark's email agreeing to the proposal but did not inform anyone else.

Apologies if this was incorrect.

I think the proposal is worth giving a go

David

Dave Knight wrote: ↑26 May 2019, 17:24 Shame this got nasty

I think the proposal is worth giving a go

Yes, I agree Dave, but when asked to 'air your views' sometimes it can get nasty...as I myself am a little guilty of doing in the past

But, on the positive side, I've sent Russ Philips a few articles, (one of which he has already put on the SOTCW webpage), and I shall be sending him a few more. I had hoped they'd have been 'in print' in another edition of the journal, but that looks less likely as time goes by...but hey-ho, still trying to do my (little) bit to keep us afloat and hopefully, entertained in the process.

Grant

granty101 wrote: ↑26 May 2019, 17:45

But, on the positive side, I've sent Russ Philips a few articles, (one of which he has already put on the SOTCW webpage), and I shall be sending him a few more. I had hoped they'd have been 'in print' in another edition of the journal, but that looks less likely as time goes by...but hey-ho, still trying to do my (little) bit to keep us afloat and hopefully, entertained in the process.

Grant

Thanks Grant, all contributions are welcome.

Regards

Phil

Dave Knight wrote: ↑26 May 2019, 17:24 Shame this got nasty

I replied to Mark's email agreeing to the proposal but did not inform anyone else.

Apologies if this was incorrect.

I think the proposal is worth giving a go

David

My apologies if I have offended anyone other than where the post was aimed at. If my language is nasty as far as im concerned it is in parallel to the way and manner he has conducted himself. I have found his manner dictatorial ,condescending, arrogant ,ignorant ,and above all else completely unnecessary .
He should have approached this in a completely different manner. The fact he managed to get the wrong side of Richard Baber who is an absolute diamond of a guy says it all for me.
Ive posted over 3500 times on the two forums ,less than a handful of which have been in any way contentious ,again if ive offended anyone other than Mr Wheeler my apologies. John

Phil_Gray_260 wrote: ↑26 May 2019, 22:25

granty101 wrote: ↑26 May 2019, 17:45

But, on the positive side, I've sent Russ Philips a few articles, (one of which he has already put on the SOTCW webpage), and I shall be sending him a few more. I had hoped they'd have been 'in print' in another edition of the journal, but that looks less likely as time goes by...but hey-ho, still trying to do my (little) bit to keep us afloat and hopefully, entertained in the process.

Grant

Thanks Grant, all contributions are welcome.

Regards

Phil

Hear, hear

Phil_Gray_260 wrote: ↑26 May 2019, 22:25
Thanks Grant, all contributions are welcome.

Hello Phil, I've just sent Russ an article at the weekend, and I have two half finished and another one in the pipeline, with about three floating about in my head...and before Carl replies with a witty jape or two, no Carl, I don't hear voices in my head!!!

Grant

bannockburn bhoy wrote: ↑26 May 2019, 23:35 again if i've offended anyone other than Mr Wheeler my apologies. John

John, you're like me bonny lad, you say it as you see it.

Grant

All,

Please note that the SOTCW continuation proposal in this future offer thread is withdrawn and will not now occur. I have not reached the one hundred response objective and even if I had, the headwinds encountered in this forum, and expressed by some in emails, are too great. I assume that this means the SOTCW will now continue as an online forum presence only but I will let the team comment on this. If anyone wants further discussion I am happy to do so by email, but I do not anticipate posting in this thread again. Hopefully, another can find a way to return the Society to a position of greater prominence in the future and I wish it every success.

Regards,

Mark Wheeler

So team your being "allowed" to comment . Do the team think there is any future for the Society.
If so ,how do we proceed. My own view is we could try to re-launch the forum, and then take it from there.
Perhaps recent events may stir up some renewed enthusiastic participation. I think its worth a go.
I think at least we should open up a genuine discussion on people's views on the possible way forward. cheers John