Creampuff my sentiments exactly.
Bob Murphie I can see you are going to be a fun and constructive member of the board.
brianh
Let's get personal then shall we and deal with the sophist claptrap disguised as intellectually rigourous debate. B&gger I think I just committed a tautology.
Your despicable (thanks Creamie) invocation of Joe Goebbels and others of his ilk, has been very much abused by the intellectually bankrupt and lazy as a throw away line to attempt to win cheap points.
But then why would I be surprised, your mates are masters at the self serving propaganda which they hope would drive the AOPA members on to the CASA and Government guns, but I do not think they are anywhere near as clever as old Joe, nor the
6,000 odd ex AOPA members were.
AOPA IMHO has been a laughing stock in the places that count in this country for at least the last decade and the
6,000 plus ex members seem to agree with me.
Suing AOPA US, cost = $250,000 that we know of, benefit = 0 that I can find.
Suing CASA or whatever they were called then = cost unknown = benefit =<<0
Spending over $30,000 on brochures for an 2002 Aviation Expo that were not distributed and the stall not attended by any members or the Directors responsible and don’t even make good pulp for recycling.
The sexing up of the accounts (yup the old prepaid issue again) some years ago to make them look better than they really were in the face of a rapidly declining membership.
Expecting those that are called, publicly, “bastards”, “the enemy”, you’ve heard it all before, to then deal with you in a constructive manner.
My famous next door neighbour psychiatrist describes one measure of insanity as “continuing to do the same things in the expectation of a obtaining different result”, but I digress.
To dispose of your truly Goebbelian
rhetoric, you have attempted to disguise as serious questions ??
Since a Board which had your mates on it has already passed a vote of No Confidence in you, how do you suggest your being elected offers any future benefit to either the AOPA Board or those who vote for you, as the new Board post AGM is unlikely to be any more receptive to you???
Typically bankrupt mental gymnastics in that one, the Cirque de Soleil would snap you up in a minute.
It is NOT the AOPA boards’ role to choose to be or not to be receptive of me or anyone else elected by the members.
A Director is elected by the members on the merits of his views, background and experience, to represent them on their behalf. They voted for him/her, to the Board, for that purpose, NOT whether is he does or does not sing the party song and you have the impertinence to invoke Goebbels.
My views have been well know waaay before my election, they have not changed and my actions have always on concert with them.
In other words how otherwise are the members to effect change if that is their wish.
I do not recall signing an agreement that required me to act and vote according to anyone else’s fantasies.
What do you think is the motivation for the many separate attacks on you. At present you are scoring even more than Bill Hamilton did at the last election. The only thing left to call on seems to be the "tall poppy syndrome" which a few others outside Aviation have used lately.
I really don’t know, I have my own ideas, but I can only guess it’s for the same reason that old Joe and his fellow thugs found it necessary to “correct” the free flow of thoughts, ideas and information “in the interests of the members” of course.
There’s been lots of the usual huff, puff, thunder and lightning, smoke and mirrors that the
6,000 odd ex members have come to accept as the usual modus operandi bandied about but so far and as usual no actual substance.
I have been in and out and have not read your recent posts at length. Is there any mention in them of any rumour or possibility of a CASA job offer to an AOPA Board Member at the same time as the Strict Liability sellout.
Joe would have been so very very proud of you; he used this very technique, reckoned to be his favorite and most effective, with devastating effect.
Promote a populist conspiracy theory, add a couple of cups of half truth and innuendo, a cwt or two of demonizing, mix thoroughly and bingo, Kristallnacht or AOPAnacht if you wish. Hell let's get into some bookburning whilst we are at it.
Let’s just kill the rumour and innuendo first shall we.
Fact: The Director to whom you would allude is none other than myself.
Fact: The position was NOT advertised and I did NOT apply, a small number identified by the exec search company (a highly respected one at that) as having the potential to fill the position, were
invited to discuss the position with them. I believe no more than 6 people agreed to engage for what was seen by many as a poisoned chalice.
We were promised strict confidentiality and a quick result.
The successful candidate with whom they wished to continue further negotiations was identified by them very quickly, the final announcement was kept secret and was dependant on the passing of the enabling legislation and the successful agreement on the terms and conditions.
Bruce Byron was always going to be the man if they could entice him on board. He and Bruce Gemmel will make a formidable team.
Fact: Strict confidentiality required that I limit the knowledge to all but the absolute minimum. I advised the Pres and VP, both lawyers and of course my immediate family, who were not by the way, enthralled at the prospect. I should not have to draw you a picture of the extent to which it would have remained confidential should I have informed the board at large.
Stupid I am not and most reasonable persons would agree, a pair of lawyers would have been capable of resolving any potential conflicts.
How one of your AGACF mates got on to it and published it here, is a mystery that perhaps you are able to solve. I have my own theories, which shall remain mine, I know whom I told and whom I did not.
Fact: It was all over bar the shouting I think in the first week of Sept, well before the Notice of Motion was even lodged or discussed if my memory serves me correctly.
You should also be careful when you link the words Strict Liability, “sellout” and the above. Alluding to, in this context is the same as actually saying it.
Finally on the particular matter of SL, apart from a bunch of the aforesaid “huff ‘n puff and thunder and lightning”, would you please point me to the “hundreds” of CASA regs that were NOT already or would be deemed by the courts as SL and what harsher enforcement measures are now available to CASA, that were not already and that are not softer options than previously available.
I didn’t invent SL anymore than I personally visited it exclusively on the aviation community.
If you have a problem with that, you might take it up with the Government of the day not the individual regulators as it is they, the Govt., who make the running on the law as policy and in the legislature.
Go and read carefully what I and Creampuff and those much cleverer and more highly qualified in the law, have provided for your education.
There WAS a board majority on the issue, I do not intend to make public the internal communication on it.
Please explain to me the difference between a “bare” majority and a majority, or to make it simple for you, when is a majority not a majority.
The subsequent treachery and reasons for it, I will not discuss publicly.
The
majority of the board TWICE refused Pagani’s subsequent demands resulting in her resignation, beyond that I will say no more, it’s on the record.
If you do not have the wit to understand the way it really works, I cannot debate this issue with you any further, if all that is at stake is political mileage.
In which case AOPA will continue to be an irrelevancy.
Can you list, without rhetoric, what you personally have achieved for GA and AOPA members while o]n (sic) the AOPA Board.
You will be pleased to learn, I have stopped beating my wife and I no longer feel the urge to mess about with small furry animals, or little boys for that matter.
By the mien you have demonstrated here, you are clearly not interested in the actual answer other than as an opportunity for more sophistry, therefore I will not waste my time doing so.
In conclusion for someone who has appointed himself in other places as the AOPA ‘gatekeeper’ and spend much time in self applause of your vast corporate and regulatory experience you clearly see as desperately needed in AOPA, let’s hear again why you will not nominate for the board, beyond that you can’t afford the time or expense.
Neither can I nor any of the others who are, like me, volunteers How about you give them the respect they deserve just for that.
How about you also tell your mates that their behaviour has been and is totally unacceptable in any civilized community, more especially towards their fellow volunteers who have been voted on to the same board on which they sit, by the very same members.
Or has it all been done “in the interests of the members”, funny most were all either not voted on or voted last in the ballot.
Vote for whom you wish.
6,000 ex members can't be wrong