'In scanning the previous posts regarding yourself, I am unable to see you called any other name than dk (An insult in some circles I'm sure but hardly at the level of childish name calling!). As always I stand to be corrected, and will acknowledge such correction as necessary.'
So you and your consipracy theorists have , in the absence of a shred of evidence, decided that because I hold a view that does not agree with your own then I MUST be someone on the Exec. How absurd - not to mention paranoid. The second part of the above statement is even more absurd - this is an anonymous rumour netwrok. Which part of that don't you understand?
'I find it very interesting that the fact dk's job would be a paid position was kept quite secretive until after he was selected for the position. No arguement....this I know for a fact. Many of OUR colleagues would have jumped at the oppurtunity.'
The issue of payment in the role of Fed Sec has been well known since it became a full time position. If the Fed Sec worked for an airline, his time away frpom work was covered by his employer - in the same manner as the Exec. What did you expect the bloke to do - do it for free ( I'm sure you and your ilk would jump at the chance) If the current Fed Sec was QF his time would be paid by QF as has been custom and practice. If you cared to drop in and have a look at the financial records it would be quite clear. But then again, you're there all the time, eh Steve.
'Now that what I call having a finger on the pulse of the members.'... more like up your arse