Radio Free Registry

[alan hall]

Joel,
You had to have been there to appreciate what went on regarding the four-cam forum (including the threats).
Alan

[bbspdstr]

Steve Proctor, hello.

You wrote:
Being angry and an accountant, the obvious way to extract a level of retribution was to forensically investigate the books and make an issue of his findings. I find it hard to believe that he just woke up one morning and decided to take this path at considerable expense without some strong ulterior motive (certainly not, "gee I wonder if the Registry is using a computer based accounting system..."

I have not drunk the kool-aid on either side of this issue, but this scenario is the only way I can see that makes sense. Dissuade me.

Perhaps Steve Heirichs developed a....."oh yeah, well take THIS" moment when he couldn't see the records we all should have access to (if they actually exist(ed)...and please pardon my long-standing skepticism) and maybe that compounded a frustrated desire to have a 4-cam something with Michael Doyle, but that which comes first to my mind that gives credence to demanding to see about the financial health of the Registry was having to jettison "too much" money one year and raise dues due to "too little" money the next. I'm no CPA, but that seemed odd even to me. Perhaps in today's vernacular, a "WTF moment."

HOWEVER, that is moot now. The point I'd like to focus on as we move on is.....what about the forensic CPA's findings and should patches, fixes, changes be instituted for the good of the Registry?

I'd say a REAL audit would be cheaper for the Registry than a lawsuit.

Your 'cost of plane trip and a couple of days in a motel vs cost of a lawsuit'...to see the same 'books'..... was an all-too-predictable and typical Registry response and from you that surprised me...as if I'd say "So you want to buy my 356 engine and you want to hear it run first? Sorry...no can do."

But I know you can do better than that and thus my attempt at dissuasion. I think we all want to see the Registry grow and prosper and I now see, not just assume that small corrections in governance can help and I'd hope you and all Registrites would agree...or explain why not. WHY has this been so difficult on which to agree?

Please note; I am NOT dwelling on placing blame, but taking aim on ways to move forward with new information that can help. For the life of me, I have never understood how a Registry member could not expect complete transparency in how the club was being run and it's financial health. I believe Steve Heinrichs thinks the same way and focused on what was good for the Registry more than an additional category on the Forum for four-cams or a "personal vandetta."

BTW, about 30 years ago, I stopped 'drinking'...and that now includes Kool Aid. I have said before, we should all be for FOR one thing; the concept of the Registry and not the personalities involved. There is no harm in a Fresh Start.

Regards,
-Bruce Baker

[356JAGER]

Joel,
You had to have been there to appreciate what went on regarding the four-cam forum (including the threats).
Alan

Alan, please provide a link to those threads so we can all appreciate what went on, or was that part of the record that was purged during the site's 'upgrade'.
Otherwise you're just throwing something vague at the wall and trying to make it stick.
Cheers,
Joel

[S.J.Szabo]

If I may, it would seem that we're missing the real point here.

Regardless of his motivations, Mr.Heinrichs, like every other member, has a perfect right to request a look at the "books and records" as provided for in Ohio State Law.

Doing so does not, in itself, imply any ill purpose; the law says "for any reasonable purpose", and curiosity about the health of the Club legitimately qualifies. This is exactly what these regulations are for; to provide a reasonable transparency in a not-for-profit. To avail yourself of this right is no more damning than wondering what some level of Government is doing with your taxes.

When wondering becomes the mark of a treacherous intent, we know that democracy is dead.

[alan hall]

Joel,
I wish I could but Steve deleted all of his Talk posts after things continued to deteriorate. I don't know if the rest of the thread is available, but would be pretty meaningless with only half the conversation. Also don't get me wrong there were threats from both sides ranging from being kicked off Talk for a period to being told that the Porsche factory did not approve of Steve not being able to add a 4-cam topic and there would be consequences.
Alan

[Steve Heinrichs]

Hi Alan,

As you can imagine, I am reluctant to respond to any posts regarding the litigation at this time. That said, I believe you and your comments are sincere (anyone curious about the GT 547/1 motors must be).

First, I never deleted my posts. My lawyers complained about the personal and defamatory posts as to me personally and asked that they be removed.

So: The Registry removed my posts only.

(You can imagine how the then two threads read.)

We complained again.

So: The R removed all thread posts.

My suit was based in part on the defamation.

BUT----after 2+ years the R, having refused and saying they did not have----finally----said that they long ago donated the server to Goodwill (or similar org).

As to the 4-cam thread stuff----by no means was I the only guy arguing that. There is no truth to the comment that Porsche---the company---did not want, etc.

Best and get the book----the GTs are all noted.

Steve Heinrichs

[S.J.Szabo]

-(technical difficulties)-

[S.J.Szabo]

Just skipped right over the point about a core issue, didn't we?

Oh Mr.Hall, one might suspect that you speak only to roil the surface of things, not to see what lies beneath.

I thank you for the apt demonstration of why attempts at serious dialog with Status Quo defenders seldom get past the stage of "yo mama".

[356JAGER]

Allan,
Just to be clear, I was there and observed the entire exchange. The comments and sophmoric personal name calling directed at Steve by some of those on the R, was beyond the pale and was never returned in kind by the adult in the room, nor were the authors ever disciplined for what were obvious and blatant violations of the forum rules. That same group of verbal bullies continues to freely ply their 'craft' on that site, although now free of those comments previously made that were patently libelous. I guess that's progress over there, but sticking to the facts and not espousing the same old untruths, distortions and self serving, red herrings would be a much bigger step forward if getting to the truth of the matter were the goal.

Cheers,
Joel

[alan hall]

Mr. Szabo,
Serious discussion doesn't go anywhere from either "side"!
Steve,
I have the book and LOVE it!! As I have said before a fantastic amount of work and well appreciated. I was just trying to instill in Joel a sense of the acrimony that occurred around the 4-cam forum topic issue. I honestly thought you said that the Factory was aware of the discussion and did not approve of the way the Registry was not adding a separate 4-cam topic. If I am wrong about that, I apologize to you.
Alan

[Steve Heinrichs]

Alan,

Just a brief follow-up:

I said it inarticulately as I re-read...anyway...Porsche the company (as far as I know) never commented on the 4-cam stuff (as it relates to the R Forum) in any way.

I, too, would like the old threads to be with us---

Steve Heinrichs

ps--tks much re the book!

[Bill Sampson]

I have no idea of the exact cost to fly 7000 members to Portland to look at the books they have the right to review under Ohio law but at $500 per trip it would be $3,500,000.

[S.J.Szabo]

I don't know that that's true. Why not try it sometime and see?

Serious and well meaning discussion of all sides of any issue of import is welcomed over here.

It's the playground stuff that doesn't play well.

C'mon, let's give it a try.

Where do you stand on the issue of the Registry being run in a manner compliant with Fed and State regulations?

[S.J.Szabo]

Jim Liberty
Post subject: Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit is Concluded
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 6:45 pm

"...the friends if the plaintiff are far more articulate than I. That said I do have trouble understanding a lot of what they say. Brevity is not their strong suit."

Mr.Liberty:

Wel-l-l-l... This explains so much. Why didn't you say something sooner?

Are we ready?

Question: Why shouldn't/can't the Club be run in strict compliance with all Federal and State regulations?

That wasn't so much, now was it?

I look forward to your thoughtful, short reply.

[S.J.Szabo]

Come, come Mr.Hall. I know you're there.

I'm waiting to engage you in a serious dialog about the compliance issue.

Cat gotcher tounge?