Re: Fun and games

"Tim Forcer" <tmf@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:93m8a3djad8d37lts5iqc7hhrit22cg7p9@4ax.com...
>snip <
> And if Duncan is
> elected Treasurer, he will need to be alert to the views of the
> membership, and rate them more important than his own when forming
> policy. It won't be a question of choosing between being right and
> being popular, it will be a choice between being a servant and being a
> master - and I note Duncan has long criticised various EC Officers for
> being masters not servants.
>
> --
> Tim Forcer tmf@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> The University of Southampton, UK
>
> The University is not responsible for my opinions

About 98% of the BN membership did not go to either event, but subsidised
those who did.
Tim is making the mistake of thinking that those who should the loudest and
longest are right. Actions speak louder than words. One action which speaks
very loud is that I am the only person in the world who is currently
prepared to take on BN's financial challenges, and to try to do so from the
point of view of the underlying causes. The EC is already opposing me in
every way they can.
The membership is voting for what they want - with their feet. Consider
those who stay away from 'events' rather than those who go, consider those
who leave BN rather than those who stay. It all starts to look different.
These naturists have no voice as BN won't give it to them, instead all we
hear is AW's hype and the filtered fawning of his supporters.
Any consultation exercise needs to listen to all points of view, including
those who normally just keep quiet and don't take part.

Tim Forcer wrote

>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:30 Duncan Heenan wrote:

>> consider those who leave BN rather than those who stay.

> OKaaayyyyy. I've considered them, it seems there are always quite a
> lot of them. But nobody knows WHY they left, and there's only limited
> information about those who haven't left. But one can speculate
> endlessly.

(lots of snipping for brevity)

Anyone who doesn't renew their BN membership is sent a "we don't want
to lose you - please re-join, or if not, please tell us why not" letter.
However, I don't suppose the reasons given for not renewing are publicly
aired anywhere and I wonder how many people actually bother to reply
anyway.

I am in possession of such a letter and I do want to reply, but I need
some help from BN members here. Those of you with long memories may
recall that I posted my intention not to renew because of the way that
the President allowed people at the AGM who were not entitled to vote,
to vote on the John Paine matter. I felt that if the Constitution could
be so publicly flouted, it was possible that even more unsavoury actions
could be going on behind the scenes and I didn't feel I could support
such an organization.

It is my recollection that (much to my surprise) this action was
accurately minuted and placed on the Members' Only section of the BN
website - which I can't access now. Please could someone who is a BN
member copy and paste the relevant section of the minutes into a reply?
Then I can make an informed response to the BN letter.

Many thanks - Susan

On Jul 29, 2:08 pm, Tim Forcer <t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> Now, as to "right" and "wrong", consider Rev Blair's astonishing
> statement on leaving office that he had done what he thought was right
> over Iraq. I could only conclude that, in many other areas, he had
> NOT done what he though was right. Right or wrong, Rev Blair and his
> supporters shouted the loudest and longest WHERE IT MATTERED, in the
> corridors of power. The vast numbers shouting something different in
> Trafalgar Square (right or wrong) were not listened to.

Why should it be extraordinary that a departing PM's states that,
whilst in office, he did what he thought was right? Surely it would
only have been extraordinary if he'd said the opposite.

You might personally think the war was absolutely wrong but that's a
separate point entirely. Of course, the Iraq war was a very
controversial matter and significant numbers of people believed it to
be wrong. But there are many other issues for the Blair Government was
responsible, from top-up fees to the 2012 Olympics logo, where that is
also the case.

Surely it's an inevitable consequence of any Government and any PM
that they will need to make decisions on a whole range of contentious
matters which will divide the country to some extent. This is the case
whether or there is lobbying within the corridors of power.

And I might be misunderstanding you entirely, but it's a non sequitur
to draw from his statement on Iraq the conclusion that, in other
areas, he had acted in ways contrary to the why he thought was right.
I really fail to see the logic here.

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:08, Craig M <snowmanmagnet@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 29, 2:08 pm, Tim Forcer <t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Now, as to "right" and "wrong", consider Rev Blair's astonishing
>> statement on leaving office that he had done what he thought was right
>> over Iraq. I could only conclude that, in many other areas, he had
>> NOT done what he though was right. Right or wrong, Rev Blair and his
>> supporters shouted the loudest and longest WHERE IT MATTERED, in the
>> corridors of power. The vast numbers shouting something different in
>> Trafalgar Square (right or wrong) were not listened to.
>
> Why should it be extraordinary that a departing PM's states that,
> whilst in office, he did what he thought was right? Surely it would
> only have been extraordinary if he'd said the opposite.

Exactly.

I was astonished that he thought it was so important that everyone
knew he had done what he thought was right when, as Craig apparently
agrees, that would be the normal presumption about ALL his actions.

> You might personally think the war was absolutely wrong but that's a
> separate point entirely. Of course, the Iraq war was a very
> controversial matter and significant numbers of people believed it to
> be wrong. But there are many other issues for the Blair Government was
> responsible, from top-up fees to the 2012 Olympics logo, where that is
> also the case.

Indeed, and, in the absence of the "I did what I thought was right"
statement, I would have assumed that all those actions were the result
of a sincere intention to do the right thing. But no such "I did what
I thought was right" statement was made in respect of ANY other
actions, nor was the original statement even qualified along the lines
of "as with everything I did".

> Surely it's an inevitable consequence of any Government and any PM
> that they will need to make decisions on a whole range of contentious
> matters which will divide the country to some extent. This is the case
> whether or there is lobbying within the corridors of power.

Yup. Although I cannot imagine an issue dividing the country and NOT
being subject to lobbying.

> And I might be misunderstanding you entirely, but it's a non sequitur
> to draw from his statement on Iraq the conclusion that, in other
> areas, he had acted in ways contrary to the why he thought was right.
> I really fail to see the logic here.

IMO, Blair was citing a single instance where the dog in the night
time did bark. IMO the only reasons for doing so were a) there were
strong grounds for believing that he had deliberately taken that
action DESPITE not believing it was right or b) there were other
actions he had taken where he did not believe he was doing the right
thing. I have no problem at all believing Mr Blair to be a very
sincere person, with extremely strong moral convictions. It is
precisely for that reason that I regard his statement as very
significant. In declaring so emphatically that, in the specific
instance of Iraq, he had fully followed conscience, IMO he was giving
expression to doubts about the rectitude of at least some other
actions.

Dragging the whole thing back to naturism, or at least to CCBN, IMO
the current EC leadership is entirely sincere in its horror at the
prospect of The Awkward Squad getting elected - what happened at the
2006 AGM made it clear that The Awkward Squad was to be muffled or
silenced or ridiculed at every opportunity. I am concerned that this
extreme distaste for individuals and/or their viewpoints may have
resulted in some "end justifies the means" behaviour - as _may_ have
occurred in regard to John Paine's suspension, and certainly did occur
in regard to the conduct of the AGM in 2006.

"Tim Forcer" <tmf@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:rm13b3tc3cigl4c5vn3i0lkeobfpvha134@4ax.com...
>snip<
> Indeed, and, in the absence of the "I did what I thought was right"
> statement, I would have assumed that all those actions were the result
> of a sincere intention to do the right thing. But no such "I did what
> I thought was right" statement was made in respect of ANY other
> actions, nor was the original statement even qualified along the lines
> of "as with everything I did".

The fact that Mr Blair thought that what he did was right doesn't make it
right (who defines what is right? History maybe, but it is the winners who
write most of that). Adolph Hitler thought he was right.
To me the most frightening thing about Mr Blair is that he still holds to
that belief, even in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. It takes
a very big person to say 'I was wrong', and even bigger to change course as
a result.
Dragging it back to naturism, I believe that BN has got it wrong in many
ways in recent (and not so recent) years, and there is a heap of evidence to
that effect. But we are still fed 'We got it right' by the EC, with anyone
who says different being expelled or resigning out of frustration and
disgust. At the 2007 AGM I predict a re-run of the 'We got it right' mantra,
and probably the same lock-out tactics of the old guard against anyone who
dares to say different.
The story of the Emperor's new clothes comes to mind with some irony, given
the forum!

	#1
Duncan Heenan	Re: Fun and games "Tim Forcer" <tmf@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote in message news:93m8a3djad8d37lts5iqc7hhrit22cg7p9@4ax.com... >snip < > And if Duncan is > elected Treasurer, he will need to be alert to the views of the > membership, and rate them more important than his own when forming > policy. It won't be a question of choosing between being right and > being popular, it will be a choice between being a servant and being a > master - and I note Duncan has long criticised various EC Officers for > being masters not servants. > > -- > Tim Forcer tmf@ecs.soton.ac.uk > The University of Southampton, UK > > The University is not responsible for my opinions About 98% of the BN membership did not go to either event, but subsidised those who did. Tim is making the mistake of thinking that those who should the loudest and longest are right. Actions speak louder than words. One action which speaks very loud is that I am the only person in the world who is currently prepared to take on BN's financial challenges, and to try to do so from the point of view of the underlying causes. The EC is already opposing me in every way they can. The membership is voting for what they want - with their feet. Consider those who stay away from 'events' rather than those who go, consider those who leave BN rather than those who stay. It all starts to look different. These naturists have no voice as BN won't give it to them, instead all we hear is AW's hype and the filtered fawning of his supporters. Any consultation exercise needs to listen to all points of view, including those who normally just keep quiet and don't take part.

	#2
Susan Hassett	Re: Fun and games Tim Forcer wrote >> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:30 Duncan Heenan wrote: >> consider those who leave BN rather than those who stay. > OKaaayyyyy. I've considered them, it seems there are always quite a > lot of them. But nobody knows WHY they left, and there's only limited > information about those who haven't left. But one can speculate > endlessly. (lots of snipping for brevity) Anyone who doesn't renew their BN membership is sent a "we don't want to lose you - please re-join, or if not, please tell us why not" letter. However, I don't suppose the reasons given for not renewing are publicly aired anywhere and I wonder how many people actually bother to reply anyway. I am in possession of such a letter and I do want to reply, but I need some help from BN members here. Those of you with long memories may recall that I posted my intention not to renew because of the way that the President allowed people at the AGM who were not entitled to vote, to vote on the John Paine matter. I felt that if the Constitution could be so publicly flouted, it was possible that even more unsavoury actions could be going on behind the scenes and I didn't feel I could support such an organization. It is my recollection that (much to my surprise) this action was accurately minuted and placed on the Members' Only section of the BN website - which I can't access now. Please could someone who is a BN member copy and paste the relevant section of the minutes into a reply? Then I can make an informed response to the BN letter. Many thanks - Susan

	#3
Craig M	Re: Fun and games On Jul 29, 2:08 pm, Tim Forcer <t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > Now, as to "right" and "wrong", consider Rev Blair's astonishing > statement on leaving office that he had done what he thought was right > over Iraq. I could only conclude that, in many other areas, he had > NOT done what he though was right. Right or wrong, Rev Blair and his > supporters shouted the loudest and longest WHERE IT MATTERED, in the > corridors of power. The vast numbers shouting something different in > Trafalgar Square (right or wrong) were not listened to. Why should it be extraordinary that a departing PM's states that, whilst in office, he did what he thought was right? Surely it would only have been extraordinary if he'd said the opposite. You might personally think the war was absolutely wrong but that's a separate point entirely. Of course, the Iraq war was a very controversial matter and significant numbers of people believed it to be wrong. But there are many other issues for the Blair Government was responsible, from top-up fees to the 2012 Olympics logo, where that is also the case. Surely it's an inevitable consequence of any Government and any PM that they will need to make decisions on a whole range of contentious matters which will divide the country to some extent. This is the case whether or there is lobbying within the corridors of power. And I might be misunderstanding you entirely, but it's a non sequitur to draw from his statement on Iraq the conclusion that, in other areas, he had acted in ways contrary to the why he thought was right. I really fail to see the logic here.

	#4
Tim Forcer	Re: Fun and games On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:08, Craig M <snowmanmagnet@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 29, 2:08 pm, Tim Forcer <t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Now, as to "right" and "wrong", consider Rev Blair's astonishing >> statement on leaving office that he had done what he thought was right >> over Iraq. I could only conclude that, in many other areas, he had >> NOT done what he though was right. Right or wrong, Rev Blair and his >> supporters shouted the loudest and longest WHERE IT MATTERED, in the >> corridors of power. The vast numbers shouting something different in >> Trafalgar Square (right or wrong) were not listened to. > > Why should it be extraordinary that a departing PM's states that, > whilst in office, he did what he thought was right? Surely it would > only have been extraordinary if he'd said the opposite. Exactly. I was astonished that he thought it was so important that everyone knew he had done what he thought was right when, as Craig apparently agrees, that would be the normal presumption about ALL his actions. > You might personally think the war was absolutely wrong but that's a > separate point entirely. Of course, the Iraq war was a very > controversial matter and significant numbers of people believed it to > be wrong. But there are many other issues for the Blair Government was > responsible, from top-up fees to the 2012 Olympics logo, where that is > also the case. Indeed, and, in the absence of the "I did what I thought was right" statement, I would have assumed that all those actions were the result of a sincere intention to do the right thing. But no such "I did what I thought was right" statement was made in respect of ANY other actions, nor was the original statement even qualified along the lines of "as with everything I did". > Surely it's an inevitable consequence of any Government and any PM > that they will need to make decisions on a whole range of contentious > matters which will divide the country to some extent. This is the case > whether or there is lobbying within the corridors of power. Yup. Although I cannot imagine an issue dividing the country and NOT being subject to lobbying. > And I might be misunderstanding you entirely, but it's a non sequitur > to draw from his statement on Iraq the conclusion that, in other > areas, he had acted in ways contrary to the why he thought was right. > I really fail to see the logic here. IMO, Blair was citing a single instance where the dog in the night time did bark. IMO the only reasons for doing so were a) there were strong grounds for believing that he had deliberately taken that action DESPITE not believing it was right or b) there were other actions he had taken where he did not believe he was doing the right thing. I have no problem at all believing Mr Blair to be a very sincere person, with extremely strong moral convictions. It is precisely for that reason that I regard his statement as very significant. In declaring so emphatically that, in the specific instance of Iraq, he had fully followed conscience, IMO he was giving expression to doubts about the rectitude of at least some other actions. Dragging the whole thing back to naturism, or at least to CCBN, IMO the current EC leadership is entirely sincere in its horror at the prospect of The Awkward Squad getting elected - what happened at the 2006 AGM made it clear that The Awkward Squad was to be muffled or silenced or ridiculed at every opportunity. I am concerned that this extreme distaste for individuals and/or their viewpoints may have resulted in some "end justifies the means" behaviour - as _may_ have occurred in regard to John Paine's suspension, and certainly did occur in regard to the conduct of the AGM in 2006.