[scorpa3]

Haven't seen T&MX News this week, so can't comment at this point.

[GIZZA5]

majestyman340, on Apr 12 2008, 07:24 AM, said:

Seems strange that no one seems to care about this sort of thing, as after all the letter writers seem to me to be attacking each and every ACU member, as well as those reponsible for setting up commercial operations, designed to further the interests of rank and file members.

Sorry I don't get it, if you have an opinion on this then voice it, or are you trying to 'stir up a hornets nest' which is what it seems you are trying to do and not the brightest idea?? without your own personel opinions of the ACU and how you feel it should be run.

All I will say is that John Collins trys to answer most ACU questions through TC Forums, brave at times but at least he has the guts to explain the situation sometimes.

[Nigel Dabster]

Write that down and get it off to dickenson sharpish.

[scorpa3]

Right then. Now I've read the letter in question.

Nothing wrong with asking awkward questions in my opinion.

ACU events as a 'seperate' organisation to the ACU itself but with some of the same names onthe unelected pay roll. Pete Plummers comments (maybe accurate, maybe not) are worthy of debate and I will be interested to read the ACU's reply to his letter.... if indeed there is a reply.

As affiliated members, we should be kept informed as to how, where and why our governing body makes major changes and if certain changes look odd to us, then the ACU should come back and clarify the reasons for what they have done.

We should (and I do) trust the ACU to do the right thing for our sport. But that should include replying to letters such as this, so that we are all clear as to the implications of what has happened.

[Nigel Dabster]

majestyman340, on Apr 13 2008, 07:27 AM, said:

I wonder if you know who Andy Burns is? If so I guess you may be familiar with the questions he has asked in the past regarding ACU finances?......... to the best of my knowledge most of his earlier questions remain unanswered.

There just doesnt seem a lot of point continually banging your head up against a brick wall with these sort of things, and personally I feel it would be more positive to look at affiliation to other organising bodies, who are interested in co-operation rather than confrontation, which is something that in the long run seems pretty much a necessity if off road sport is to survive in its present form.

You and the ACU have one thing in common then.................... as for the rest?

[neonsurge]

majestyman340, on Apr 13 2008, 09:30 AM, said:

Seems a real shame no one seems that interested in a subject which could have such a drastic effect on the future of our sport! But I guess as most seem quite satisfied that our premier organising body is about as out of touch with the views of rank and file members as its possible to be, then perhaps that is to expected?

As of right now, I don't see any evidence to support your assertion that "our premier organising body is about as out of touch with the views of rank and file members as its possible to be" apart from a single letter to TMX which may or may not be accurate (the author of which himself admits that he's not privy to the behind the scenes details). I'd prefer to wait and see what John Collins has to say before starting to froth at the mouth and chuck around accusations.

Of more interest is your motivation for putting so much effort into starting a fight. Right now, all you seem to be doing is repeatedly poking a sleeping tiger with a sharp stick for no apparent reason. I must say, your modus operandi seems awfully similar to the irritating antics of a well-known ex-TC member.

This post has been edited by neonsurge: 13 April 2008 - 09:48 AM

[AtomAnt]

majestyman340, on Apr 13 2008, 09:30 AM, said:

Seems a real shame no one seems that interested in a subject which could have such a drastic effect on the future of our sport!

Of course people are interested, they just don't see that bashing the ACU will improve anything. Like I was told when I use to moan about the ACU, if you want it to change, then get in there and help!

Also, you have now made 2 posts in this thread along the same theme of trying to provoke caustic reaction. If your aim here is to be a nuisance, then this is the wrong place to do it. You have been warned.

[Nigel Dabster]

neonsurge, on Apr 13 2008, 10:45 AM, said:

As of right now, I don't see any evidence to support your assertion that "our premier organising body is about as out of touch with the views of rank and file members as its possible to be" apart from a single letter to TMX which may or may not be accurate (the author of which himself admits that he's not privy to the behind the scenes details). I'd prefer to wait and see what John Collins has to say before starting to froth at the mouth and chuck around accusations.

Of more interest is your motivation for putting so much effort into starting a fight. Right now, all you seem to be doing is repeatedly poking a sleeping tiger with a sharp stick for no apparent reason. I must say, your modus operandi seems awfully similar to the irritating antics of a well-known ex-TC member.

You are not saying, it couldn't possibly be, could it?

[Woody]

AtomAnt, on Apr 13 2008, 10:49 AM, said:

Also, you have now made 2 posts in this thread along the same theme of trying to provoke caustic reaction.

Somewhat in common with the threads on classic trials it would seem

[Woody]

Nigel Dabster, on Apr 13 2008, 12:12 PM, said:

You are not saying, it couldn't possibly be, could it?

On their third incarnation... - three strikes and you're out...

[Andy M]

Looking at his posts he is now a guest, an unwelcome one at that. Now where were we.

[AtomAnt]

Yup, he's gone

[Andy]

We have decided there is enough evidence that he is Chris Stevens who was previously banned from this site. Ian made the call and I back him totally.

[scorpa3]

Not sure about all that, but back to the subject; A very diplomatic letter from Mr Parker in T&MX News this week. It's interesting how he sums up by saying -

"I was disappointed at the suggestion that this is all a way for Jim Parker to stay involved after he reaches the age of 70.
Anyone who thinks that is very much mistaken. While I certainly hope to be able to make a worthwhile contribution after reaching that milestone, my fellow directors will be the judge of that and I would rather be judged on what I am worth than be sniped at for passing a birthday!"

Thanks for being so clear on that Jim.