More comments illustrating once again that hearing, does not equal understanding.
Super VXer
More comments illustrating once again that hearing, does not equal understanding.
Super VXer
I think people replying to this thread should have to fill out one of these before they submit their response:
because I swear robots are replying now.
Bart
Super VXer
Thank you for defining all of your posts on this thread in one post, really nice of you.Originally Posted by Y33TREKker
More comments illustrating once again that hearing, does not equal understanding.
Well thanks for telling us what to expect from all of your posts, we appreciate it, and by we I mean everyone who financially contributes and thus keeps this site up and running :-)
Super VXer
(I know this wasn't directed at me specifically when your wrote it t4b, but your most recent comments have so...)
Dang T4B, you've gotten around.....that 'splains alot....I think.....
So what you all are apparently saying is that in an effort to try to understand what I've been saying, you've not bothered to go back and read the explanations I HAVE provided on numerous occasions in these threads, yet you're still trying to say that the ball is in my court to explain what it is I've been saying?
I guess my last comment should have been changed to read.
More comments illustrating once again that not even attempting to hear can obviously only equal never understanding.
Super VXer
Umm, are we reading the same words? I was talkin' 'bout T4B moving around /relocating a lot in his lifetime....was nuthin' 'bout hearing, understanding or 'splainin' anything.....
VX KAT
....the adventure BEGINS ANEW! ...2015......
Remember that life is not measured in the breaths you take, but rather in the moments that take your breath away.
Super VXer
Last edited by VXR : 10/21/2011 at 09:25 PM
Super VXer
I must really be dense today 'cause I don't recall making comments directed at anyone specifically
If you are referring to post #121, then you've misinterpreted what I meant for the general public to hear. I do understand your original points - I just disagree with them ... AND I was talking to the general audience, not anyone in particular.
Last edited by tom4bren : 10/20/2011 at 02:13 PM
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Put a smiley after you say that Bub.
Super VXer
No, I've read it. What I have gathered is you seem to feel some sort of intolerable social obligation is placed on you by requests for donations..."moral judgements" you perceive as being placed on you for not donating. So my question still stands: Given that the site does need actual money to exist, what means of requesting donations for such money would be acceptable to you? This is a serious question.
Oh by the way, I haven't contributed either. I don't want you to think I am coming at this from some position of perceived moral superiority.
95 Trooper with a buncha stuff nobody here cares about...
Super VXer
HuH
X2...do tell trek..
As MANY here on the forums, that I consider good friends, also are NOT site supporters, I'm having a hard time to figure out where you get the idea of persecution &/or moral judgement...
Is it all about you?
Have you noticed, that with very few exceptions, YOU are the only one following the beat of that single drum?
Super VXer
Super VXer
What is that definition of insanity?
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Chi Dog...Dog is my Co-pilot
Onward thru the fog
Leave it BETTER than you found it!
Super VXer
And given you're quoted statement, how you've gathered it is in fact not as I've explained it. That that hasn't stopped you (and others who also still haven't gathered it correctly) from making responses implying I'm the person who doesn't understand what's being said though is only one of the types of responses I've been referring to.
In what seems to have become an exercise in futility though:
Requesting donations that include no implied "moral judgements" directed at those who do not donate for whatever reason.
Seriously, is that hard to understand what's being implied by some who donate saying that THEY do so because it's the "right thing to do" while in the same breath describing those who don't as not "getting it"?
Simple as that, and what it would seem MOST would innately consider "acceptable".
The question you SHOULD be asking of some of the members here is why they seem to have such a problem NOT being able to do that.
The problem you'll encounter based on my experiences in these threads (and again, some of these latest responses to even my last comment) seems to be finding even one of the members who do so who is apparently even self-aware enough to realize that they're doing it.
In what seems to have become an exercise in futility though...wait for it...
Super VXer
X2 well said
Super VXer
"Moral judgements" was your statement, not mine.
Um, OK.That that hasn't stopped you (and others who also still haven't gathered it correctly) from making responses implying I'm the person who doesn't understand what's being said though is only one of the types of responses I've been referring to.
This is an online forum. Nobody here is in position to judge anybody, other than as a peer would in any social situation.Requesting donations that include no implied "moral judgements" directed at those who do not donate for whatever reason.
You seem overly sensitive to simple salesmanship. You are being sold all the time. From TV ads implying you are smart for driving car X, to Girl Scout selling cookies, to public radio pledge drives, you are being sold. Requests for donations are the same thing. People are trying to convince you there is something of value in exchange for your money.Seriously, is that hard to understand what's being implied by some who donate saying that THEY do so because it's the "right thing to do" while in the same breath describing those who don't as not "getting it"?
Simple as that, and what it would seem MOST would innately consider "acceptable".
What you seem to feel is some sort of judgement is nothing more than salesmanship. The fact that the salesmen in question are "volunteers" doesn't give them any special status, unless you make it so.
VXer
After reading the entire thread over the last hour or so, I have, for what it's worth, a couple of observations as a relative newcomer and having no pre-conceived opinions about anyone on here, (nor do I sit in judgement of anyone as a result of reading it);
1) Slightly off topic - whatever that was- but nevertheless worth a mention; the general standard of English far exceeds that of my fellow U.K. residents, (on MkIVSupra.net at least), as does the intellect of the posters on here and their equally high standard of typing. After a year of trawling through countless pages of often unabbreviated, mis-spelt text speak contrasted by unfathomably creative literary genius by the more educated members than I, it makes a very refreshing change to be able to follow a thread as easily as this one, confusing as it was at times. Thank you all!
2) Perception is indeed the issue here. Everyone has their own world-view but it's in our interests to put ourselves in another's shoes and strive to understand exactly why someone might see things differently. Simply accept that differences are inevitable and respect eachother's right to hold another viewpoint. That is, afterall, why God if you will, created relativity in the first place! Celebrate your uniqueness and honour it in others.
I, for example, fully sympathise with Scott's stance on the matter of funding and his reasons for the current system. I would however, for the purposes of clarity if nothing else, should he choose to explain in more depth the way it's calculated, question the wisdom of essentially relying on 15 members each month to contribute $20 and the existing members that aren't due for annual 'renewal' to take up the slack when there aren't enough new members, in a club that by definition, has a limited vehicle/owner base.
I mean, do the numbers add up?
It's not a matter of whether it's worth it. Of course it's worth $20 a year to a regular member and more, as has been pointed out in this thread. It's more a mathematical problem. For example,
A) How many members are 'due' for an average month and can be 'expected' though not in any way obliged to contribute and how many actually do?
B) How many new members can you expect to join and then contribute for that average month?
C) Who's going to make up the shortfall when, not if it occurs from time to time, hence the reminder thread/s?
Either it is absolutely fine to not hit the target from time to time or it isn't. If it isn't okay to come up short, a system must be devised by which 'due' members are either solicited or gently prodded to contribute and/or reserve members can be called upon when necessary by prior arrangement. I think the former would be more popular, even if it means raising the $20 annual subscription charge.
I for one, would not mind seeing a couple of banners from contributing traders, for example, 'sponsors', if you will, as per the Supra Forum I mentioned. On there, we quite often 'nudge' individuals to cough up when they hit their first 30 posts and those that are stayers, happily pay the joining fee. If they don't, they're banned from posting until they do! Those that only come on for a quick bit of advice are encouraged to join and if they don't, it's not a problem, at least not financially.
Posting Permissions
