pmu 0 Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 As a support i honestly believe we have the club we deserve! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 There is no "perhaps" about it. If you do not believe me, then please ask Rev McQuarrie yourself; then perhaps you would be good enough to post his reply. I'll wait till Monday to speak to him but don't see the need to post it on the internet for all to see. I am told that he has a reputation for being scrupulously fair which is why he was invited to take the role and has held similar positions in the past. I don't doubt that for a second. He does not have a vote in the elections for Office Bearers. Indeed, he is however overseeing the process. However, if you think that the fact that I spoke to him for the reason stated post the election renders him unsuitable to chair the first meeting because he might be in some way biased when it comes to the conduct of the office bearers election should there be one (though it's not clear to me how he might exercise such bias) then I suggest you ask him to stand down when the agenda is considered. I don't doubt the Reverend's suitability for so much as a single second and I certainly am not accusing him of bias in any shape or form, frankly I'm at a loss as how anyone in their right mind could possibly think that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Perhaps but given that he's chairing the meeting at which the Office Bearers will be appointed (I'm not standing for any of the positions) would it not have been the wiser option to refrain till after that event in case it could be perceived as potentially gaining an advantage by other prospective candidates. I don't doubt the Reverend's suitability for so much as a single second and I certainly am not accusing him of bias in any shape or form, frankly I'm at a loss as how anyone in their right mind could possibly think that. You want us to believe that, really? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 You want us to believe that, really? Yes, show where the f*&k I have accused him of bias in any shape or form. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Yes, show where the f*&k I have accused him of bias in any shape or form. By making that statement - " ... in case it could be perceived as potentially gaining an advantage by other prospective candidates." - you are implying that BH could conceivably gain some kind of advantage over the other prospective candidates by speaking to the Rev. McQuarrie. For that to happen, you are implicating the Rev McQuarrie in granting any kind of conceivable advantage. We know this because you tell us that the Rev. McQuarrie will chair the meeting. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 By making that statement - " ... in case it could be perceived as potentially gaining an advantage by other prospective candidates." - you are implying that BH could conceivably gain some kind of advantage over the other prospective candidates. That is for the other candidates to decide is it not? For that to happen, you are implicating the Rev McQuarrie in granting any kind of conceivable advantage. We know this because you tell us that the Rev. McQuarrie will chair the meeting. I'm not implicating the Rev McQuarrie in f*&k all. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 That is for the other candidates to decide is it not? I'm not implicating the Rev McQuarrie in f*&k all. 1. Then unless you have spoken to the other candidates you should not be commenting or implying any untoward intentions by any of the candidates. 2. It's funny how other people see things different from ourselves when our juices are flowing !!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stimpy 0 Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 1. Then unless you have spoken to the other candidates you should not be commenting or implying any untoward intentions by any of the candidates.2. It's funny how other people see things different from ourselves when our juices are flowing !!! Like people might feel that you're putting words in others mouth through your own views? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Like people might feel that you're putting words in others mouth through your own views? Take it as you find it. Don't you see the irony in your statement considering the discussion? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 1. Then unless you have spoken to the other candidates you should not be commenting or implying any untoward intentions by any of the candidates. I've no intention of contacting any candidates at all before the meeting. I see it's moved from accusing Reverend McQuarrie of bias to implying untoward intentions by any of the candidates, what next? 2. It's funny how other people see things different from ourselves when our juices are flowing !!! You've already admirably proven that you'll read whatever you want into whatever someone posts. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.