Radio Free Registry

[Bill Sampson]

Fellas:

As an honorary member of Delta House I call on all of you to prove Adam wrong, that selfless promoter of the Registry who works hard for it with no expectation of personal gain, wrong. Adam has asserted that there are 3 or 4 idiots here.

WHAT! This cannot be. We simply MUST recruit MORE IDIOTS - are we going to let the Registry beat us? Sure they have a lot of "naturals." But, are we not capable of being self-made idiots? Yes, they had a huge head start, but, with dedicated effort we CAN outdo them. PLEASE join me in this effort.

Dean Wormer is counting on US.


Sincerely,


John Blutarsky

[356JAGER]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep-xgd_eETE

[356JAGER]

More from that paragon of free speech, as long as it's his speech.

C J Murray
Post subject: Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit is ConcludedPostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2015 10:50 am
356 Fan
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:24 pm
Posts: 4253
Location: 30MI WEST OF PHILA
Greg,
You should shut down all lawsuit threads present and future. It's all been said, I agree. It's been litigated. The courts have spoken. Why allow this medium to be available to the haters? They have a place to vent elsewhere on the web where there are others who hate the Trustees and are very supportive of the anti-Trustee point of view. The haters that remain in the Registry can always post about 356 subjects like we would all like to be talking about. Nobody can complain about censorship after 3 years of this hideous argument and the fact that the courts have spoken. This is the perfect time to forbid the subject from ever again being discussed. Lock the existing threads and delete every attempt to bring up the subject ever again.
Cliff

And then a rare voice of reason on that site. Like minded 'haters' over there should also voice their views over there and not be intimidated by the likes of Mr. Murray.

Dennis ODonnell
Post subject: Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit is ConcludedPostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2015 11:06 am
356 Fan
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:44 pm
Posts: 526
Greg, please delete Murray's 5.54AM post. The thread is not "Sampson Bashing," the invective is personal, repetitive and bitter. His Bill O'Reilly stylesheet's only audience is the barefoot guy in longjohns with a shotgun across his lap down in the holler. That's not any of us. It's not funny, it's not serious, why is it on here? He can resolve his animosity by picking up the phone, writing a letter, emailing or getting on a plane for an appointment like the rest of us do. Thanks for your patience.

Cliff, what's with the schizoid behavior? You were a reasonable guy the other day. It's not the track here, your aggression is useless to the rest of us. Doesn't matter who the target is, make a cogent point about something or wait until you can.

[Bill Sampson]

We are JUST the guys to make the stupid and futile gesture advocated by Otter.

My thanks to some of my fellow idiots for introducing a movie that had escaped me for more than 35 years. Somehow my 11 years in college did not furnish this part of my education. I remain forever grateful to you guys.


Boon

[356JAGER]

And now more reason from their moderator. Thanks Greg for speaking up. Hope it doesn't cost you your volunteer position as it has so many others in the past.

Greg Bryan
Post subject: Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit is ConcludedPostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2015 12:04 pm
356Talk Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:05 pm
Posts: 1245
Location: San Pedro, CA 90732
Tag: Be Nice!
This thread could turn to a serious reflection of how to make the 356 Registry club a better place. Lots of ideas were brought forward regarding transparency, access, privacy, elections, term limits, and so on, that deserve serious discussion - it can only make the club a better place.
I don't want to be a censor - that just rots the soul and how can it be done even-handedly.
But I find the personal attacks hard to stomach, especially on an old car website, and serve no purpose other than to welcome a bitter response and an endless circle of invective.
I can promise the next person to stoop to personal attack a nice long time out - that's the only stick I have (and have never used up to this time).

_________________
Greg Bryan
356Talk Moderator

[Bill Sampson]

As Boon might say, "forget it, he's on a roll."

Tonight, playing Otter is Jimbo. Playing Mrs. Wormer, Jimbo's newly professed love. Playing the cuckolded Dean Wormer, Victor Victoria - if you can stand yet another movie reference.

Stay tuned and thanks for watching.


Greg Marmalard

[Jack Staggs]

Mr. Szabo,
We have gotten quite far afield from my initial question which wondered why Steve didn't pursue reviewing what was offered before resorting to an expensive lawsuit, but you may have legitimate concerns. I am going to have to do some research before I get back to you...but I will get back to you. I gather the crux of your concern is if the club is operating correctly as a 401-c7 as defined by the IRS.

In the meantime try to maintain an adult approach to this disagreement with the registry and hopefully avoid the name calling. As I said I will get back to you. I don't recall if we can use PM's on this site, but if we can you can, PM me some links to what you feel are the pertinent requirements.

Mr Hall asked a legitimate question here. His post indicates that he may have an open mind towards his opinion, what ever that may be. I am not a mind reader, nor is anyone else on this forum, AFAIK. What he has been met with here in response is a litany of insults, blatant sarcasm, name calling and topic baiting/switching, mixed in with some facts. These tactics are the same ones that some of you complain about on the Registry forum. I find this type of behavior detestable as well, particularly on topics as sensitive as this one. Respectful, compelling, and easy to understand arguments can be enlightening, at least to me. I understand the indignation that some here feel about the real or perceived treatment by Registry leadership and/or certain members. Wait a few minutes and review your posts before hitting the "submit" bottom. There just might be some things that you might want to re-word.
Thank you all for your consideration.

[S.J.Szabo]

Mr.Staggs:

While I understand that you set a high bar of civility and forbearance, you too must allow for different legitimate interpretations of situational dynamics.

You may not agree with it, as is your prerogative, but I believe there is another valid view that says Mr.Hall's original intent was not so benign as you envision, demonstrated by an inquiry into gossip-level speculations about personal motivations that were of a private nature, and which had nothing material to do with the real substantive issues at hand, that being that Mr.Heinrichs had every right in law, to take the action he thought necessary, regardless of the tenor of his motivations. Therefore, Mr.Hall's original inquiry was moot and its pursuit could only serve disruptive purposes.

I would also point out that it is not unusual for someone to venture over here with no more noble a purpose than to pollute the dialog with innuendo, dis-information, and ill intent. This sort of thing may be common and acceptable on the Reg. site, but I can see no reason to suffer such disingenuous behavior over here. As this is a self-monitoring site, I believe that in this light, testing intent and discouraging non-productive dialog, in a civil manner, is both acceptable and prudent.

I would also note that that which you have characterized as "topic baiting/switching", I call getting on point. The fundamental issue underlying Mr.Hall's original "inquiry" has, as I pointed out earlier, nothing to do with any particular motivations, but everything to do with the right the law provides, notably without stringent qualifications regarding those motivations.

Frankly, I am pleased to have re-focused the dialog on more germane and constructive issues, with far more potential for interesting and productive discussion. I am also pleased that as a result, Mr.Hall expressed what very well may be genuine receptivity.

Finally, it's point of view again, but I saw no "name calling" or "insulting", and I would remind you that sarcasm serves a legitimate and useful function in journalistic/literary technique.

Thanks anyway, for what I'm sure is well-meaning advice in communication skills, however paternalistic and unjustified it may be perceived to be.

[356JAGER]

[quote="Jack Staggs"Mr Hall asked a legitimate question here. His post indicates that he may have an open mind towards his opinion, what ever that may be. I am not a mind reader, nor is anyone else on this forum, AFAIK. What he has been met with here in response is a litany of insults, blatant sarcasm, name calling and topic baiting/switching, mixed in with some facts. These tactics are the same ones that some of you complain about on the Registry forum. I find this type of behavior detestable as well, particularly on topics as sensitive as this one. Respectful, compelling, and easy to understand arguments can be enlightening, at least to me. I understand the indignation that some here feel about the real or perceived treatment by Registry leadership and/or certain members. Wait a few minutes and review your posts before hitting the "submit" bottom. There just might be some things that you might want to re-word.
Thank you all for your consideration.[/quote]

Jack,
I have thoroughly re read the posts you refer to and, other than some well placed sarcasm, also used by Mr. Hall, can find no examples of what you allude to. This thread is to inform and when needed, debate the issues. Debate is a verbal contact sport, not a warm and fuzzy gathering among friends of like mind. We assume we are dealing with adults here, not children in need of a nanny's oversight.
Thanks for your always valued 356 advice.
Cheers,
Joel

[Mycar]

Of all the very strange corners of the world wide web this thread is surely one of the very strangest. There was I thinking the Radio Free Registry was no more, had expired, bereft of life, it rested in peace and yet the Szabo show is back once again to the delight of.... Joel.

Yes ladies and gentlemen Steven and Joel, the Batman and Robin of pointlessness, the Bert and Ernie of poorly reasoned rhetoric, the Beavis and Butt-head of loquacious verbosity have returned to a screen near you.

Fancy an evening of well reasoned discourse about the future of the Registry ? Maybe you're looking for a balanced discussion about some detail of the recent lawsuit or just a bit of a chinwag about cars ? Well you've come to the wrong place.

Why has this thread been resurrected, it serves only as a soapbox on which Mr Szabo's sizable ego can perch . He has nothing positive to offer, just a persistent stream of garrulous aspersion, a pointless monologue of the self absorbed.

Steven, add up all the hours you've spent typing copy for Radio Free Registry and then add up all the thesaurus time you've spent looking up big words and think what useful things you could have done with that time. You could have written a book about something that you love. You could have rebuilt a transmission, rebuilt an engine, painted your car.... the finest paint job ever seen !! Instead you've sat at a keyboard at all times of the night and day, tirelessly hammering out your opinion to an audience that doesn't care for you very much and can hardly be bothered to read a whole one of your many many many paragraphs.

Steven, I'm sure that in your own mind you're a hero of the revolution but it's over and all this copying and pasting and dissecting of paragraphs from the Registry forum must be very time consuming. Take some time out, kick back and go drive your car. Come back to ABCGT in a year or so with fresh eyes.

Oh and Joel, don't think I didn't notice that you deleted every one of the hundreds of post you made in the first 80 pages of the original Radio Free Registry thread. You really should have more courage in your convictions.

Good afternoon to you Gentlemen.

Mike Ruddy.

[356JAGER]

Mike,
Yet here you are doing what you chastise those on this thread for. If you really didn't care, you wouldn't put so much effort into your rant. You might also note the number of hits this thread receives in a very short time period.
Apparently someone is interested. Thanks for your thoughts.
Cheers,
Joel

[356JAGER]

Apparently Jim is referring to the trustees and their refusal to allow members open access to the records as required by law. Had they not done so, none of this would have ever happened.

Jim Liberty
Post subject: Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit is ConcludedPostPosted: Sat Apr 25, 2015 1:34 pm
Registry Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 3:47 pm
Posts: 1355
Location: Orange Co., CA
Guys, we won't know the real costs for some time, so there is no reason to speculate. There are costs indeed, and they will impact our club budget form here on. "Stupid and Selfish" are the only words that comes to mind.

.................................................. ...................Jim.

_________________
Jim Liberty


Top

[Mycar]

Mike,
Yet here you are doing what you chastise those on this thread for. If you really didn't care, you wouldn't put so much effort into your rant. You might also note the number of hits this thread receives in a very short time period.
Apparently someone is interested. Thanks for your thoughts.
Cheers,
Joel

No problem Joel and no real effort on my behalf. I did notice how the view count mounts on this thread, is that what the attraction is, you and Steven are just rating whores ?

I think the viewing figures may have more to do with a morbid fascination in your shenanigans than a genuine interest in your politics.

[356JAGER]

Mike,
Yet here you are doing what you chastise those on this thread for. If you really didn't care, you wouldn't put so much effort into your rant. You might also note the number of hits this thread receives in a very short time period.
Apparently someone is interested. Thanks for your thoughts.
Cheers,
Joel

No problem Joel and no real effort on my behalf. I did notice how the view count mounts on this thread, is that what the attraction is, you and Steven are just rating whores ?

I think the viewing figures may have more to do with a morbid fascination in your shenanigans than a genuine interest in your politics.

Mike,
Aside from your vulgarity, do you have anything to offer here other than your speculations ? Anything to back up your 'thoughts' ? This isn't our 'politics', we keep that out of the mix unlike some from the right on the other site.
Joel

[bbspdstr]

.....Respectful, compelling, and easy to understand arguments can be enlightening, at least to me. I understand the indignation that some here feel about the real or perceived treatment by Registry leadership and/or certain members. Wait a few minutes and review your posts before hitting the "submit" bottom. There just might be some things that you might want to re-word.
Thank you all for your consideration.

Times 2.
Yesterday I spent time away from fixing 356s to compose a nice piece I called "The Dead Horse Debate" and the main gist was staying on target, staying on point, establishing a dialogue of the issues with input from both sides, not distracted by various personalities hither or yon. I waited to post that writing, reread it and deleted it.

Not this time.

If civility isn't on the Registry site or here and open honest questions and answers cannot be found anywhere, what's the point? I can leave the Registry, probably to their delight, and just post on Justin's site here on 356 'stuff' and be less stressed. Hell, I could work more on my own 356 if I didn't care about the way the Registry has been run or post anything anywhere.

What's always been missing is meaningful input from the Registry trustees. I want to find out why people defend their lack of openness and access to Registry business. A reasonable request could be simple curiosity. I have wanted to know everything about being a trustee and Registry business since I ran for a board seat without knowing. Someone please tell me why I can't.

Chuck House tried to explain why I shouldn't know, so maybe I should post his lengthy emails here? He asked the age-old question "what's the matter, don't you trust us?" and I gave the age-old answer "If you have to say that, the answer is no."

I've saved Bob Campbell's "Enough is enough" rant, so maybe that should be posted here as well. That was an insulting gem meant to demonize those who wanted simple answers to simple questions that the trustees didn't want to give.

"The Lawsuit" merely exposed what they and a few of us knew all along about what members should have easily available to each and every one.
I was hoping to see why a few others beyond the trustees feel that it was OK to deny access unless someone brought an avoidable lawsuit. I do not want to see a chance for meaningful dialogue spoiled by anything or anyone.

Maybe I'm wrong in my assumptions and facts may change MY mind. Maybe, though, a bullshitter shouldn't try to bullshit another bullshitter.

The trustees are smiling as they read all this, I'm not. Their secrets are safe as long as both sides have abusive behavior toward each other as seen here and there these last few days, months and years.

"Abusive"? I'm reminded of an old rhyme Mike Ruddy may recall: "Beneath the spreading Chestnut tree, the village idiot sat, amusing himself by abusing himself and catching it in his hat." Eloquent, huh?

D-Day