I have been asked to clarify an earlier post.
My description of "presumptive insufferable twits" (below) was, I still
think, extremely
clear as made in sole reference to the apparent unilateral decision of
any legal
community claiming sole rights to interpret adopted legislation.
My suggestion that persons voting the final "poll" option referred only
to those who
would vote "I don't give a rat A**". My opinion remains that if they
don't like or enjoy
"tech Talk" they should not be encouraged or express an opinion
disrespective of
those that do. I am entitled to that opinion but I should have been
more clear.
Stan's suggestion of a nap is appreciated. Several big martinis might
work better.
My public participation here has become a "no-win" situation. In the
interest of
collegiate discussion, earlier presumed the purpose of this forum, I
regularly offered
a lot of information to members. Obviously too much, for some.
It is a "hard call" to provide enough to be comprehensible to new
members without
boring those that have been here for years. The latter are easily
bored to tears.
Who should we "serve"? The average Ercoupe changes hands every five
years, and
most new owners need a LOT of help. Even so, some manage to give back.
I had hoped that those who wish to learn and those who put forth the
most detailed and
accurate information would set the pace on Tech. With no schedule or
school bell,
participation to almost any extent would expand our common knowledge.
Some "old hands" had a different agenda. They pretend not to
understand that which
is essentially clear. They go off on a tangent knowing I must yield or
respond with more
and more information. At some point they know the boredom of
non-participants will
act as the wrench in the gears of discussion that grinds them to an
unresolved halt.
So be it. My compliments to the victors. "Peace at any price" again
prevails.
Watch out for those regulatory "land mines" everyone. They're still
there.
WRB
--
On Sep 3, 2009, at 16:06, Ed Burkhead wrote:
Bill,
I **think** your mention of “twits” is talking about legislators and
lawyers. If so, hardly anyone would disagree.
Yet, you’ve made the distinction inadequately clear.
Please be careful in phrasing.
Ed
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of William R. Bayne
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 3:50 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ercoupe-tech] New poll for ercoupe-tech
We have stepped on the slippery slope when opinions of
no substance or logic are given equal weight to those of experience
or even regulatory requirements.
The parallel that comes to mind is when state or federal legislature
adopts something and the legal community unilaterally decides that
we, the people, are unqualified to interpret and follow it as worded.
They seriously believe that NO ONE (presumingly including elected
members of said legislature) knows what was adopted until a judge
rules on the matter. Presumptive insufferable twits IMHO.
Once we were a society of laws and not of men, and the law
"belonged" to the people the legal establishment served.
William R. Bayne
.____|-(o)-|____.
(Copyright 2000)
--
