QUICK DRAW MCGRAW
Maxi
I guess I come from an environment where we accepted the cut and thrust of debate and comment within limits that were set just a tad harder than egg shells.
If Murph says he is "whiteanted' and someone wants to rush in and seize the cap then claim defamation I personally do not find that the skill of a seasoned negotiator. On reflection, I don't think that's defamatory thinking on my part but I'd better rescind it now or I'm next aren't I? I could even claim to have whiteanted him as I haven't sent the promised proxy back yet - right Murph, now I'm defamed by you too - look out. Is AOPA to become the new Slater and Gordon - wonder if I hurt my back during that hard landing and whom I can sue?
Perhaps I can add to my earlier wish list " A Board comprised of members with thick enuf skins to understand that you cannot please all of the people all of the time, and capable of the sort of statesmanship John has shown over the current involvement in Iraq, rather than trying to gun down anyone who dissents".
We, the electors, (royal plural) laugh at the posturings and inanities of our elected MPs as they, so to speak "roam while their fiddle burns'. If those desirous of being our elected AOPA Board keep diverting to crossfires with dissenters we return to the very same position that everyone is whingeing about with the current Board.
And I'm not even going to name a previous re-standing Board member who recently sent me a snakey dirty livered unnecessary email, undoubtedly after a third scotch, trying to justify his/her position weks after the event. Scratch one from the list as far as I'm concerned. That sort of vindictive approach is totally unproductive.
It will be a shame if the informed AOPA members have to vote on an exclusion basis rather than a field of mature capable candidates.
Anyway, the more character assassination we can resolve on this Forum the more chance of a successful AGM and year to follow.
Vive la debate!