Bill,
Once again, you repeated your false accusation that I am accusing the cabinet of some impropriety.....what I have actually done is merely brought an action that they have taken (which I happen to disagree with), out into public view, when it was not out there in the public eye before.....I will fully admit that I want to see Larry Quick reinstated, and I believe that this is more likely in the public veiw, than behind closed doors.....that being because Larry's wonderfully cheerful always carefree and considerate attitude has at times offended some of our more stern folks here who seem to think that we should not use the entire English language when communicating with each other (Just in case you don't get it-for the record-that last was utter sarcasm....Larry did commit some crimes and has in my opinion been punished easily adequately). Taking this action, is not an impropriety, neither is voicing my displeasure with it publicly....this is simply using the media to bring an action they took, that was previously not known, to light.....while I admit, this may not be comfortable for them in light of support displayed here for Larry, I never implied any impropriety....you are the one making that slanderous twist on my words.
Now I will make one further statement, I stated in my post that you were speaking hypothetically when you said "the next time a member makes a cheating allegation against you"....however, what you did that was offensive, was worded your hypothetical statement in a manner that implied that such an accusation had indeed been made against me in the past....You could have said, "In the event, a member makes a cheating accusation against you".....that would have been a proper hypothetical statement....you chose to make the improper, more inflammatory, statement which was slanderous to my reputation by it's wording....I am choosing to view this as an accident on your part, or shall we just say a "fatal error in judgement", and not a malicious act on your part, however, I will admit, it did upset me, due to it's erronoeus implication, however unintended (hopefully unintended).
Lastly, on the our basic disagreement, you have enough "faith" in those in power, to allow them to voluntarily take your rights to an open, transparent process away voluntarily. I simply do not have that faith.....I don't think the folks in the cabinet are dishonest....quite the opposite (Personally, I have played Mark Nelms, and found him to be an excellent person and player....I like the guy....My only dealings in the past with Pierre were cordial....I think highly of him....I am not sure I know the rest of them), I think they are motivated folks that do care about the club.......However, the safeguard of transparency, would, in the event those someone ever did get into the cabinet, who did not "measure up", expose them....without transparency, we likely would never know. Well, one good thing has come out of this, should you run for the cabinet, I'll definatly know without hesitation to vote against you (I won't be inviting you to dinner anytime soon either)... Hank Smith
BG Hank Smith
Army of Georgia
Smith's Division CO
Carroll's Corp
|