RAAus Constitution Reform Result

[gandalph]

I don't like the bullying, and that goes for the attacks on Keith Page and Bill Woodford; and I don't like the pathetic wriggling pretence that it wasn't meant or that I might not have had my morning coffee; there are plenty of nasty sites around if that's the sort of activity people want.

Turbo, lighten up mate, lighten up! The coffee comment was meant in jest. I don't give flying duck whether you have coffee in the morning or not but I do think you jumped the wrong way with that post. That is My opinion, and if I've understood your post, you support people having opinions.

IF I believed you were insinuating that I have bullied or attacked Keith and/or Bill, then I would be very offended by such a libellous statement but I assume (well I hope) you were speaking generally. If you were directing it at me then I'd have to say that you are so very wrong.

 

Keith and I differ on some things and I have asked Keith - a very long time ago - to provide some supporting facts for an assertion he made (I don't remember what it was about but Keith was being a bit cryptic as he sometimes is and I was trying to find out what he was saying.) If that's bullying or attacking then I am uncle to all the monkeys in creation. As for Bill, I can't recall ever responding to a post from Bill , but I'm sure Bill will put me right if he wants to, so I really don't know what you're on about.

 

 

[Oscar]

Good grief, it appears Turboparrot is still about. Can't keep a man down, eh?

 

 

[Admin]

You guys are pushing it, if you have nothing of value to say regarding the thread topic then don't say anything and take the pettiness elsewhere. It is your posts that are destroying this site and I will protect this site with everything in my arsenal

 

 

[Oscar]

OK Ian, I thought a little levity might not go amiss, but if that is breaching your standards, then I'll cease to contribute to the thread. Hopefully, that will be acceptable?

 

 

[Admin]

OK Ian, I thought a little levity might not go amiss, but if that is breaching your standards, then I'll cease to contribute to the thread. Hopefully, that will be acceptable?

Have a look at post #81 and you can see why I am getting concerned

 

 

[gandalph]

Ian, I agree with the sentiments expressed above and I agree also that my post was off topic and for that I apologise, but I say in my defence that I was responding to what seemed to be an allegation that I had bullied and attacked Bill and Keith, an accusation which I strenuously deny. I'm sure you'll agree that that sort of accusation and character attack goes against all that you are trying to instill on this site. I'd be delighted to leave the matter there and if Keith and or Bill want to discuss it with me then I invite them to do in elsewhere or via private messages. That's assuming of course that whatever is currently crippling my access to this site is fixed to allow those discussions to take place. I assume you've had no success in finding out what the problem with my access to this site is?

 

Regards

 

CS

 

 

[Admin]

I know exactly what your problem is but with your attitude to both myself and other users I have had no incentive to fix it. You are connecting through (removed), and in most cases through the (removed) exchange. You are using several devices each with different processor IDs including Apple. I can see your lat and long and the only thing I can't do is tell you what colour jocks you are wearing or turn your mobile device camera on to take a picture of you. Your IP address is (removed), using a dynamic IP and a decimal of (removed). To fix it would simply require a small configuration change in the site's security system but I am just so busy reading the posts that you make and trying to decide if the attitude has changed. Also the security system flagged an attempt to register under a different name

 

 

[fly_tornado]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it

 

 

[gandalph]

I know exactly what your problem is but with your attitude to both myself and other users I have had no incentive to fix it. You are connecting through iinet, and in most cases through the Ainslee exchange. You are using several devices each with different processor IDs including Apple. I can see your lat and long and the only thing I can't do is tell you what colour jocks you are wearing or turn your mobile device camera on to take a picture of you. Your IP address is 124.171.100.68, using a dynamic IP and a decimal of 209160710. To fix it would simply require a small configuration change in the site's security system but I am just so busy reading the posts that you make and trying to decide if the attitude has changed. Also the security system flagged an attempt to register under a different name

Yes, I thought you might know the cause.

 

So I'm not banned because nobody is banned, and I'm not suspended because you're not doing that during Moratorium May, you've just got irits with me because we've disagreed publicly on a few things.

 

I've told you in several PM's that I regard this site as a huge asset to the sport of recreational flying and that I value it very highly, but I've also questioned some inconsistencies when I've come across them. If you regard that as a bad attitude then I guess in your eyes I'm guilty. I don't plan to quit challenging inconsistencies and I don't plan to quit calling bull when I see it, for example you recently allowed a poster to allege that the President would "lose" preferences during the recent vote i.e accuse him publicly of electoral fraud, but you warned another poster for being disrespectful to members when he put up an admittedly gloatingly bad post. about the recent vote. I see that as inconsistent management of the site and I don't see how it can improve the quality, reputation or credibility of the site. BUT I also accept completely, absolutely and unreservedly that as site owner and administrator you can play the game and manage the site however you like. However we are drifting a bit off topic here and perhaps further discussion should be in private not here.

 

Happy to send you a photo if you want one, though I can't imaging why you would want to be into that much pain!

 

Maybe we can meet for a friendly coffee (my shout) while you're in town and see what we can sort out in a gentlemanly kind of way. You know how to contact me if you'd like.

 

I wonder why I'm going through Ainslie, I'd have thought I'd be routed through Melba exchange.

 

Yes I did try to register under a different name to see if the problem was with my computer or with my logon, you'll note that I didn't try to post under that name.

 

 

[billwoodmason]

I don't like the bullying, and that goes for the attacks on Keith Page and Bill Woodford; and I don't like the pathetic wriggling pretence that it wasn't meant or that I might not have had my morning coffee; there are plenty of nasty sites around if that's the sort of activity people want.

Turbs, thank you for your concern but luckily I have a thick hide so I am OK. I thought it was ordinary behaviour that after the vote that Jim Tatlock took one of my posts apart answering each paragraph with his spin and giving me another clip in the process and then offered an olive branch at the end. I sincerely hope we've seen the last of him on the board. I believe I am entitled to my opinion without attack. It seemed to me that it was deliberate tactic to shut me up. Very poor form.

 

 

[turboplanner]

IF I believed you were insinuating that I have bullied or attacked Keith and/or Bill, then I would be very offended by such a libellous statement but I assume (well I hope) you were speaking generally.

Yes, if you read it again you will see I was talking generally, and not linking you with Keith or Bill.

 

 

[gandalph]

Thanks Bill for responding. I'm glad you cleared that up. It takes me out of the sights somewhat. I chose to assume that Turbs was not taking aim at me directly but as he appeared to be responding to a post I'd made, you can understand why I was a bit on edge about his post. Let's hope Keith can also confirm that he's not under attack by me as well.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I already said that Gandalph!

 

 

[gandalph]

Thank you for clearing that up Turbs. I did re-read and the post and it did not seem to me that you were generalising, but I'm happy to take your word that you were and that I misunderstood what you were saying. In deference to Ian's sensibilities and concerns about the deleterious effects these sort of disputes have on the site's stats, I'll say no more on this matter. Though as Ian has admitted he's already taken care of that side of things.

 

 

[gandalph]

I already said that Gandalph!

Yes Turbs I know . But with my current restricted access it takes ages for me to get to a thread and then ages to get my response uploaded so crossed messages are inevitable.

 

 

[Admin]

I now have even less incentive to fix your connectivith problems

 

 

[ClintonB]

Without getting into politics of people I don't personally know, if everyone is unhappy with the vote-why did they not make the effort to put their view forward in the form of a "no" vote. Us Aussies always seem intent on bitching and moaning about the state of affairs, without getting up and doing something about it.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

@ClintonB The board chose not to offer the No case an equal opportunity to promote its case.Only 1 Board member spoke out in the negative.

[Geoff13]

Without getting into politics of people I don't personally know, if everyone is unhappy with the vote-why did they not make the effort to put their view forward in the form of a "no" vote. Us Aussies always seem intent on bitching and moaning about the state of affairs, without getting up and doing something about it.

Yep did that and now the judges decision is in I am willing to live with the majority decision. I still think the company structure will be the end of us but if RAA as we know it falls apart then I guess I will need to look to other options for my flying pleasure.

 

 

[kasper]

Without getting into politics of people I don't personally know, if everyone is unhappy with the vote-why did they not make the effort to put their view forward in the form of a "no" vote. Us Aussies always seem intent on bitching and moaning about the state of affairs, without getting up and doing something about it.

well the number of no votes - while a far away lower number than the yes vote - in raw numbers is a very large number for member votes - do not forget HOW much money, time and advertising was put into the Yes vote campaign by the RAAus ... the total number of votes was really large for an organisation like RAAus.

But the decision is made and we will live with it as best we can and hope for the best

 

 

[Geoff13]

As for whether RAA is or should be promoting itself, ask yourself why you joined RAA.

 

in my case the honest answer is that once I had decided to learn to fly my school of choice because of RAA rules said I had to join to continue learning.

 

If I wanted to keep flying I had to join. It took no promotion on the part of RAA, it is written in the rules.

 

 

[facthunter]

I think the formation of a company is for indemnity or limited liability. Most clubs are an incorporated body for that reason. Nev

 

 

[kasper]

I think the formation of a company is for indemnity or limited liability. Most clubs are an incorporated body for that reason. Nev

Actually RAAus under the current structure has limited liability - changing the registration to ASIC and changing the limitation of liabiltiy is complety serperate.

The FACT that was never presented in the vote yes case was the form of constitution structure changes for the member charter etc could ALL have been done under the existing ACT registered structure ... we did not HAVE to move to ASIC registration and company limited by guarantee its just that it gave a couple of admin return efficiencies AND it moved the regulator away from Canberra based ACT regulator.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

One wonders if you or I put up a Special Resolution (to amend the Constitution say) would it receive similar backing and/or promotion from the Board and/or CEO via special newsletters, meetings, etc.DWF

As an ordinary member who, according to Col Jones put up approx 54,000 SRs I can assure all that a Special Resolution passes on its merit and does not need support from any Board Member. Whether 13 or 7 or only 5 Board Members they do not command enough votes to block any decent Special Resolution.

 

Don

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Actually RAAus under the current structure has limited liability - changing the registration to ASIC and changing the limitation of liabiltiy is complety serperate.The FACT that was never presented in the vote yes case was the form of constitution structure changes for the member charter etc could ALL have been done under the existing ACT registered structure ... we did not HAVE to move to ASIC registration and company limited by guarantee its just that it gave a couple of admin return efficiencies AND it moved the regulator away from Canberra based ACT regulator.

Not intentionally I'm sure but completely wrong. I lost count of how many times I pointed out that both Inc and Ltd are corporations.

The move to Ltd and Federal registration was to ensure the Board could never again operate in contempt of the Constitution as happened in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. Try doing that when operating under the ASIC and see what sort of ton of hot bricks gets dropped on a Director..