24-07-2015, 10:56 AM
DIck Heathwood: “Go for it, enjoy yourselves, by all means shoot the messenger. In my own defence all I can say is that I wrote the minutes honestly and carefully.”
Not sure what you are on about, Dick. We are entitled to query things, you know. No-one has attacked you - I just queried the minute that’s all. If there was a discrepancy, why would it make you dishonest or careless?
“As the original author (along with others) of <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.chessscotland.com/internatio">http://www.chessscotland.com/internatio</a><!-- m --> ... tional.htm, I can only hang my head in shame to learn that the words were very roughly formed.”
OK, I hereby retract that cruel and hurtful description and apologise for any umbrage, shame, hung heads and feeling-shot minute secretaries (I’d like to see that bullet though
)
There was a criticism from the floor that because it was in the form of a series of questions as such it couldn’t go straight into the constitution. I was only trying to explain the crticism from the viewpoint of the crtiics, with whom I don't agree.
In my view, this criticsm was no reason at all to reject the status quo but the CWP members seemed to agree readily with the criticism so I’m not sure why the 'hurt' routine is only aimed at people querying the minutes
Not sure what you are on about, Dick. We are entitled to query things, you know. No-one has attacked you - I just queried the minute that’s all. If there was a discrepancy, why would it make you dishonest or careless?
“As the original author (along with others) of <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.chessscotland.com/internatio">http://www.chessscotland.com/internatio</a><!-- m --> ... tional.htm, I can only hang my head in shame to learn that the words were very roughly formed.”
OK, I hereby retract that cruel and hurtful description and apologise for any umbrage, shame, hung heads and feeling-shot minute secretaries (I’d like to see that bullet though
)There was a criticism from the floor that because it was in the form of a series of questions as such it couldn’t go straight into the constitution. I was only trying to explain the crticism from the viewpoint of the crtiics, with whom I don't agree.
In my view, this criticsm was no reason at all to reject the status quo but the CWP members seemed to agree readily with the criticism so I’m not sure why the 'hurt' routine is only aimed at people querying the minutes