Expedition Exchange Bulletin Boards  

Go Back   Expedition Exchange Bulletin Boards > General
User Name
Password
FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 26th, 2007, 06:39 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,153
Record of SCLR Alcohol Thread

I saved a copy of the SCLR Alcohol thread in case Nathan Woods deletes it. I regret only that Nathan has already had a hand in this copy, as he deleted posts and edited posts already:


This is topic Alcohol on SCLR-Sanctioned Trail Runs in forum Roverboard at SCLR Roverboard.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.sclr.org/cgi-bin/roverboa...c;f=1;t=001196
Posted by John Lee (Member # 305) on April 26, 2007 11:10 AM:

There is some talk on DiscoWeb about Rover Rendezvous 2007. Several SCLR members have posted there. If you are interested, here is the entire thread on DiscoWeb:

http://www.discoweb.org/forums/showthread.php?t=34921

Included in such talk is an issue that I believe SCLR needs to address. And by “address”, I don’t mean behind the scenes. Somehow, SCLR has turned into a club where everything important is discussed behind the scenes or brushed under the rug. The issue is alcohol on the trail. Alcohol on the trail is an issue that greatly affects all SCLR and all fourwheelers. I say let’s address it publicly and openly.

I cannot recall the official club policy on alcohol on the trail. I had believed that the club’s policy was to have “dry” trail runs. That is, no alcohol on the trail, even during lunch or dinner breaks. Alcohol is fine around camp, but prohibited on the trail. Again, that is just my recollection. I thought that is what the club’s insurance policy required.

Nathan Woods posted on that thread that the club’s policy is permit drinking in moderation during lunch breaks and depending on the trail leader’s policies for his own particular run:

http://www.discoweb.org/forums/showp...8&postcount=40

I might be mistaken about the club’s official policy. Nathan Woods might be mistaken. Again, I am not sure who is correct on the club’s official alcohol policy.

If the club’s alcohol policy is to permit alcohol during lunch breaks, I hereby move that we change the club’s official policy to prohibit alcohol during the trail runs. “Trail runs” includes lunch breaks and other trail stops.

This is not an abstract discussion. There was drinking on the trail at Rover Rendezvous. For example, Joe Nosal freely admits to it:

http://www.discoweb.org/forums/showp...4&postcount=79

Joe Nosal freely admits to drinking on the trail at Rover Rendezvous, and not just at lunch (not that drinking at a lunch break and then hitting the trail immediately thereafter is acceptable behavior). I guess Joe was bored enough on the trail that he felt the need to down a beer while waiting for the group to get moving.

There was also drinking on Cottonwood on Saturday. Ask anybody who was on Cottonwood and he will tell you that there was drinking. Adam Spiker even took pics of the drinking here:

http://s57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...eath%20Valley/

I linked to the drinking shots here:

http://www.discoweb.org/forums/showp...6&postcount=52

Of course those are dead links now. Adam Spiker removed the photos. Surprise surprise. But I saved the pics because my gut told me the pics would get deleted eventually:

http://www.expeditionexchange.com/sc...aturday030.jpg
http://www.expeditionexchange.com/sc...aturday031.jpg

Note the Bacardi lime bottle. This will become important in a bit.

This exact same white Mk3 and couple was on the trail ahead of us on Pleasant Canyon on Sunday:

http://www.expeditionexchange.com/rr7/rr7005%20185.jpg

Guess what we picked up on the trail on Pleasant on Sunday? You guessed it. A brand spanking new Bacardi Lime bottle. It was fresh. It hadn’t been sitting there for a long period of time. It still had liquid in it. It wasn’t covered in dust. It had just been discarded by whoever drank it. Coincidence? It could be. But I doubt it. Same booze. Same truck. Same people. Same trail.

Read Kerlin lead Cottonwood on Saturday and Greg Hirst lead Pleasant Canyon on Sunday. I know both Read and Greg personally and have wheeled with them. I consider both of them friends and trust their judgment and integrity. Neither of them drinks on the trail nor condones such behavior. But there was drinking on both trails by the trail participants who either didn’t know the club’s alcohol policy or who--more likely--didn’t care.

This is an important issue for the club. Let’s discuss this. Let’s not brush this under the rug or discuss it behind the scenes, as the club has done for basically everything important for the past few years. Let’s discuss this issue openly. It affects us all.

Once again, if the club’s official alcohol policy is to permit drinking during lunch breaks, I hereby move that we change the club’s policy to prohibit drinking on the trail all together.

Edited to remove content not related to the discussion

[ April 26, 2007, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Nathan Woods ]



Posted by Buddy Jones (Member # 618) on April 26, 2007 12:07 PM:

John, thank you for your post. I take this as a serious issue. Since being elected President in February of this year, this issue has come up several times. I have read the By-Laws several times and have not found a policy on alcohol consumption on the trail. I do feel there should be a policy in regards to alcohol and drugs and have been working on one. When I first joined the club, it had been spoken that moderate consumption of alcohol was permitted at lunch.
The consensus thus far has been that alcohol in moderation at lunch was ok and up to the trail leader whether even that would be allowed. I know others may argue that one alcoholic drink will impair one's ability to drive and/or make good decisions. Therefore, I agree that we should open this discussion up to the membership.
Lastly, you bring up an excellent point about our insurance policy. I will look into that and if there is mention of it, then we must follow that policy.



Posted by Kevin Mokracek (Member # 631) on April 26, 2007 12:22 PM:

Like Buddy said this has come up over and over again. It's tough to make everyone happy but that is not always possible. I dont know how we change the by laws but I am all in favor of limiting the use of alcohol to camp only and making all trail runs dry. If people cant handle that then they can organize private trips themselves and not make it an SCLR trip.

I just went back and re-read the super top secret Directors forum and there was no behind the scenes stuff. We had a discussion about complaints that had been brought up to some of us and all the complaints I received revolved around the use of alcohol. There were also some complaints about the food and raffle tickets but that is small stuff and easy to handle. I am new to this Vice President thing and was kind of thrust into it so I dont know the In's and outs of the club and it's inner workings. I just thought the issue of alcohol was important enough to bring up to the board and try and come up with some cut and dry policy.
Thanks for bringing it up and be sure that something will change.



Posted by Nathan Woods (Member # 752) on April 26, 2007 12:23 PM:

I think a discussion of alcohol is probably a good idea. As Buddy said, I too am unaware of any official SCLR policy on the topic.

John makes a couple of points that need clarification though:
1. RR7 is not an SCLR event. Instead, Rover Rendezvous policies would be in effect for the RR7 event.
2. The policy I voiced on DWeb was my understanding of the RR7 policy and unrelated to any formal SCLR policy, if there is one.
3. The photos of the nice folks in the white RangeRover are not SCLR members and are not effected or influenced by whatever policy SCLR may or may not have.



Posted by John Gadd (Member # 468) on April 26, 2007 12:31 PM:

As you know Rover Rendezvous is a multi club event, not an SCLR event. So what happened there is event specific. Not SCLR specific.

John, I'm just curious how many SCLR runs you have been on in the last couple of years? You lead/organize many runs during the year. But none open to all SCLR members via the calendar. On EE runs you have a right to be very person and rule specific. But the club needs to accommodate many different types of people and vehicles. I would hate to see you create a rift in SCLR regarding something that really doesn't seem to affect you that much.



Posted by Kevin Mokracek (Member # 631) on April 26, 2007 12:32 PM:

OK, so how do we go about changing the by laws? Club vote? Directors vote?



Posted by Joe (Member # 592) on April 26, 2007 01:05 PM:

I am certain alcohol is legal for those of us that are over 21.

Certainly not while driving.

I am unsure about state and federal laws but I know that certain areas, like OHV areas, do not allow alcohol. I don't know about National park rules, BLM land, etc.

Any by laws should obviously not contradict local state and federal laws but there is also the "whats next" mentality should we decide that SCLR be non-alcohol across the board.

No smoking?

Vegans only?

No shoes, no shirt, no SCLR?

I think the alcohol in moderation, such as lunch time, etc. and "dry" runs at trail leader discretion is a good policy if as stated it doesn't contradict any laws or add any liability to SCLR. i am curious how this attitude relates to applicable laws, SCLR bylaws, and insurance policy, etc.



Posted by Matt Sodaro (Member # 457) on April 26, 2007 01:05 PM:

Drinking on the trail....hit someone and your going to be personally sued. that alone should be enough to wake people up.(it only has to happen once). The trash is what really pisses me off and is equally important.



Posted by Rupert Jung (Member # 635) on April 26, 2007 01:15 PM:

My personal perspective is No Alcohol on an organized club or multi-club event, insurance liability would increase for any club. Enforcement of that policy would be diffult for the trail leader if the offenders refuse. The trail enjoyment would be ruined for the other participants.
Also there should be a policy of loud noise (music etc) on the trail. We wanted to listen to the birds at the end of the Cottonwood Canyon trail, but that samee couple decided to play it loud. Someone on the trip asked them to tone it down, which they did.
BTW, that couple was not from NCLR.



Posted by David Hobbs (Member # 773) on April 26, 2007 01:19 PM:

I am a recent member to SCLR, however I wactched Roverboard for several years prior to joining. I have also been a member on DiscoWeb for quite some time.

I cannot believe all of whining, complaining and fighting that has been going on. The recent matters on DiscoWeb should have been addressed internally within our own organization.

I also believe that editing and removing of postings should be accomplished ONLY by someone that is NOT caught up in the ongoing disputes.

So let's get on with it and enjoy the opportunity to get out on the trail.



Posted by Huston (Member # 637) on April 26, 2007 01:19 PM:

100 members can have a beer during lunch and be ok. It takes only that one guy who becomes beligerant and out of control and ruins it for everyone. I don't have a problem with dry runs if it protects the club members and our reputation. It only takes one. Odouls!



Posted by Randy Banis (Member # 167) on April 26, 2007 01:20 PM:

With the concurrence of the BOD, Quint Kuhl banned drinking away from camp on all SCLR events, including lunch breaks, when he was SCLR president in 2004. This prohibition has been stated at each new member orientation since. Although I've been a little out of the loop this last year, I'm pretty sure that this policy is still in effect.

I would expect that if there occurred an unfortunate incident involving drinking on the trail, this would affect the SCLR's ability to defend itself and receive a payout from its expensive liability policy. And depending on the situation, I can envision how this might possibly open trail leaders to personal liability.

Outside of camp, drinking on the trail must stop on all SCLR trips.

Lastly, re: RR not being an SCLR event -- All I can say is that a good lawyer would cut that arguement to shreds, no matter how we feel about it. Registration is collected on the SCLR site, SCLR collects the money, SCLR members are covered by our liability insurance, the event is members only, and we receive income from it. Perhaps we would not bear full culpability for a negligence claim, we would certainly be assigned our fair share.



Posted by Joe (Member # 592) on April 26, 2007 01:36 PM:

RR was not members only, maybe that was the idea, not what happened. There were several trucks/people not registered as a participant nor a member of any of the clubs involved. I believe that was clearly stated over on d-web by John Lee's friend Jack.

Inflammatory posts or outright lies should be removed regardless of who is involved. This is not D-web. We are members of the same club because we choose to be. This topic should stay on topic and not become a free for all like D-web.



Posted by Matt Norton (Member # 789) on April 26, 2007 01:47 PM:

New member opinion, FWIW:

I enjoy alcohol from time to time, but at camp, not on the trail.

I really don't want to be next to a truck driven by someone with such low self-control that they can't wait until they get back to camp for a tipple.

Also, regardless of which club you're in (or not in) I always felt that if you've joined a group on a run that you've agreed to run the trail by their rules.

The littering thing, of bottles, or anything else is completely unacceptable and inexcusable whether solo or grouped.

My friends and I don't drink when we shoot or drive and I don't really want to hang out with folks who do. I don't mind if they screw themselves, but I don't want to get dragged into the mess.



Posted by Rupert Jung (Member # 635) on April 26, 2007 03:24 PM:

Since the alcohol policy or lack of was brought up, what about a gun policy? John, I believe made a fauxpas when he posted pics of his(?) pistola on the EE site under the heading of RR7. He might not have done an official trail but by implication guns are allowed at RR7.
NCLR has a no weapons policy in development and there is still much discussion on it.



Posted by Nathan Woods (Member # 752) on April 26, 2007 03:31 PM:


quote:Originally posted by Rupert Jung:
Since the alcohol policy or lack of was brought up, what about a gun policy?

I think in this specific case, it would be under BLM policies. I am not aware of any BLM restrictions on gun use in the areas around Death Valley other than the usual state and federal restrictions.



Posted by John Lee (Member # 305) on April 26, 2007 04:27 PM:


quote:Originally posted by Nathan Woods:
3. The photos of the nice folks in the white RangeRover are not SCLR members and are not effected or influenced by whatever policy SCLR may or may not have.

Nathan, let's look at what you wrote and see if it stands up to examination.

You describe this couple in the white Mk3 as "nice folks", even though they drink and drive on Cottonwood while blaring degenerate music and basically putting a cloud over the entire trail run. Then they drink and drive on Pleasant and then toss the bottle out the the window and then drive on. These are "nice folks" to you?

And these "nice folks" "are not effected [sic]or influenced by whatever policy SCLR may or may not have" while attending Rover Rendezvous?

I think you meant "affected".

Sure, this couple is affected by SCLR policy while attending Rover Rendezvous. It now appears from Randy's confirmation that the official club policy was and still is to prohibit drinking on the trail on club-sanctioned events. Everyone in SCLR is bound by that policy. The members are so bound. The trip leaders are so bound.

This couple drank on Cottonwood on Saturday, which was led by Read Kerlin, an SCLR club member. This couple drank on Cottonwood on Sunday, which was led by Greg Hirst, an SCLR club member. When trip leaders like Read and Greg now see drinking on the trail, they can prohibit the drinking. No, they as trip leaders must prohibit the drinking.

And, Nathan, please do not or edit this post on the ground that is "meaningless to the discussion". Then, please do not edit this post yet again on the ground that is "not related to the discussion". You are not God. You do not own SCLR or the SCLR board, just as you do not own Death Valley.

If you have a beef with me, that is your business. But don't edit or delete my posts here because you don't like what I have to say. If you don't like what I have to say, your remedy is to post something up yourself and point out why I what I said or wrote is wrong.

That's what I have done in this post. I think your take on the "nice folks" is completely wrong. And I think your position that SCLR would not affect their drinking on the trail is also completely wrong.

If you disagree, that is fine. Say why. Don't make my posts disappear or edit them to appear I said something I didn't say. Again, you're not God. You do not own SCLR. You may think you do, but you don't.



Posted by Adam Spiker (Member # 700) on April 26, 2007 04:44 PM:

Wow. What a mess. How many forums are we going to put this on?

I will and have always been the first to raise my hand and say "spank me" when I've done anything to offend anyone or step outside of the rules. I'm raising my hand. I never condone littering and have never done it myself. I find it hard to believe the RR did this and give him the benefit of the doubt [because I haven't spoken to him, it's only fair to do so] that it was a mistake he would feel poorly about.

What I would like to point out however is the tone in which this thread is carrying. A club by its very nature is a fraternity of respect, consideration and appreciation for an aggregate common good or purpose. I hear this in the intent of the thread but have to read between the lines and overlook the hostility of the verbage. The tone contradicts the message.

One thing I have respected about the SCLR forum if nothing else is the general consideration we put into our text knowing that the readers cannot always "hear" the tone in which we write. I would hate to have that hostility and public ridicule brought into this forum as it is so openly condoned in [several] other forums. It negates the entire point of the thread. It's like yelling at your kid that it is wrong to yell at others.

There have been a couple of incidents in the past where objectors presented their case to everyone except the person[s] they charged with the offense. Again, do we lead by example in dealing directly with the persons[s] offending or make every issue a public one first?

Most of us run, or are high up enough in our businesses to know that the best customer service starts internally, with those in our fold. I would hope that we live that in how we relate to each other when we are faced with conflicts we feel so passionately about, such as this one. I know I am no different than anyone else if I say that I would personally respond much more quickly and favorably to a private and sincere objection than one made publicly without my ever being able to clarify my role in the offense or make a personal apology to those I've offended.

Objection Stated: Valid.
Method of stating it: I would request going to the person[s] directly first and ask that this be done in the future whenever I am the offender. I promise all I would give you the same respect in return.

Let's keep control over ourselves "here" if we expect others to keep control over themselves, as is the point of the thread. The value of whatever is accomplished in the end will be surely diminished if it is accomplished with such hostility.

Sorry for the dissertation. I deal with too many politics all day long. It is so terribly less efficient than going directly to the source for resolution.

Thank you very much John. I can say I have never and will never have anything against you or your supporters. You make a valid point and one which I will respect. I hope there is reciprocity.

p.s. I removed the images once I cought wind of this on another thread out of respect for discretion. It seemed to fuel the fire and seemed inappropriate to have such pictures out there. Since I was not involved in the beginning, I hope it is not seen as a cover up. Purely removing images which could be portrayed as condoning the behavior. Nothing more.

Cheers



Posted by Joe (Member # 592) on April 26, 2007 04:50 PM:

I disagree.

Did someone see them "toss the bottle out the window" ?

Maybe they just set it down and forgot it, and good eye for seeing it and picking it up. I know many people that have forgotten "trash" on the trail. our own presidnet left his brand new camera on a rock out in the desert, technically thats littering. I dont think he meant to leave his $400 camera out there. Nor do i think robert left his GPs out there on purpose if that was the case that he lost it.

"degenerate music" ?

freedom of speech allows us to make whatever kind of music we want. just because you may not like it, doesn't make it degenerate. if you dont like the volume, ask them to turn it down a bit. i am sure they would oblige. instead you treat them like common criminals and call them names and degrade them.

Yes, they were nice. Did you meet them, have a conversation with them, anything? or are you just judging by what you saw or thought you saw, or more likely by 3rd hand information.

I for one was impressed that this guy brought his $90K rig to the desert to begin wheeling. Not only that, he has done his own modifications to it in the form of custom fab work for sliders. that doesn't make a him a nice guy or bad guy, but he's out there. dont bash him for it.

They are also new to wheeling. They may not know all the rules and legal issues and courtesies, etc. instead of railing them into the ground, why not embrace their ignorance and teahc them. what a great opportunity to instead of trying to reverse behavior, shwo them the right path from the beginning.

"not god" is right - this is not a religous or spiritual club to my knowledge. I always figured Webmaster was "God" when it came to the web page. And in that role, biased or unbiased he has carte blanche to delete edit as he see fit so that this forum doesn't become the pit of hatred and disrespect that D-web IS. On a similar note, i agree that your post was edited, what does you opinion of me or my comments on another forum have to do with the topic of this thread. so I got 5 speeding tickets last year, is that relevant to legal/moral issues of drinking on a trail run? NO. its just inflammatory, again, reference the pit of D-web.

"affected" - what are you a linguist? english major? we all know what he meant regardless of using the wrong term. thats just inflammatory albeit true. why bother belittleing someone?

many people here "have beef" with you and sevral of your group, in my opinion - i am sure many have "beef" with me. bu tthe main difference is for all of my mistakes, i am the first to step up and say i am sorry or i was wrong if that be the case. but not you. instead of just bringing up the alcohol issue to light publicly on our forum, you just had to post single post links to other forums that can now be taken out of context and bring up unrelated issues.

member #305, years of wheeling, product knowledge, etc. doesnt make you a better person or give you the right to treat people like garbage.



Posted by John Lee (Member # 305) on April 26, 2007 04:54 PM:


quote:Originally posted by John Gadd:
As you know Rover Rendezvous is a multi club event, not an SCLR event. So what happened there is event specific. Not SCLR specific.

You and Nathan both tried to make this point, and Randy basically shut it down. Randy is correct on this issue.


quote:Originally posted by John Gadd:
John, I'm just curious how many SCLR runs you have been on in the last couple of years? You lead/organize many runs during the year. But none open to all SCLR members via the calendar. On EE runs you have a right to be very person and rule specific. But the club needs to accommodate many different types of people and vehicles. I would hate to see you create a rift in SCLR regarding something that really doesn't seem to affect you that much.

How many SCLR runs have I been on in the past few years? I honestly can't recall. Other than Rover Rendezvous, it's been a very long time. So? Does that mean I no longer have a say in club policy?

If you're asking why I no longer do non-RR club runs, it's because there are irresponsible people in the club I can't stand and don't care to be with on the trail with. They have just as much right to be in the club as I do. I'm certainly not going to call for their elimination from the club. So I choose to wheel with people whose company I enjoy. My trail time is very infrequent and thus precious to me. I would rather wheel with my wheeling friends than with the club.

I make an exception for Rover Rendezvous because it's a very large and event and thus necessarily will be filled with people of all kinds. So I accept that. But my rare weekend trips are different and I greedily keep them to myself.

"But the club needs to accommodate many different types of people and vehicles."

That's a very veiled statement. Let's look at it. I have no idea what it means. By this do you mean that the club needs to accommodate trail drinkers and non trail drinkers? If not, then how what you wrote pertinent to the disucssion of alcohol on the trail? Had I written the same thing, Nathan Woods would have deleted it on the ground that it was "off topic", "meaningless", or "not related to the discussion".

This alcohol thing is admittedly a divisive issue. Am I creating a rift by bringing it up? I guess I am. But I think it's an issue that needs to be addressed publicly. I was stunned by the happenings at RR7.



Posted by Joe (Member # 592) on April 26, 2007 04:58 PM:

that is what i meant by my first (deleted) reply.

I am fed up with the way people get treated around here by some and the excuse is always the same, blame you mistreatment of them on the fact they made a mistake. well that doesnt make it OK.

it makes you (anyone who does that) a weak person in heart and mind and most of us commoners see right through it transparency.



Posted by John Lee (Member # 305) on April 26, 2007 05:03 PM:


quote:Originally posted by Rupert Jung:
Since the alcohol policy or lack of was brought up, what about a gun policy? John, I believe made a fauxpas when he posted pics of his(?) pistola on the EE site under the heading of RR7. He might not have done an official trail but by implication guns are allowed at RR7.
NCLR has a no weapons policy in development and there is still much discussion on it.

Gun policy? Sure, if you want to move the club for a gun policy, go ahead.

I made a faux pas when I posted a pic of Greg Hirst's Luger? How so? Are guns illegal in Death Valley? They're not. Does SCLR have a gun policy? I don't think so. I don't think San Diego or Vegas does either.

Apparently, NorCal doesn't either. You just said that the gun policy is "in development".

So exactly how is posting a pic of Greg's Luger a faux pas?

For record, I wasn't armed at Rover Rendezvous. I forgot to pack my pistol while gathering my gear.



Posted by John Lee (Member # 305) on April 26, 2007 05:26 PM:


quote:Originally posted by Joe:
Yes, they were nice. Did you meet them, have a conversation with them, anything? or are you just judging by what you saw or thought you saw, or more likely by 3rd hand information.

Did you ever see that lame movie "Batman Begins"? There's a surprisingly deep line in that lame movie. Something to the effect of "Who you are is not what you are deep inside. Who you are is what you do."

This couple could be the nicest people on earth deep down inside (somehow I doubt that), but if they are blaring degenerate music, drinking on the trail, and tossing bottles on the trail, they are not "nice folks" in any sense of the word.

Who you are is not what you are deep inside. It's what you do. The "you don't know me" defense is lame. It's right out of Jerry Springer.


quote:Originally posted by Joe:
They are also new to wheeling. They may not know all the rules and legal issues and courtesies, etc. instead of railing them into the ground, why not embrace their ignorance and teahc them. what a great opportunity to instead of trying to reverse behavior, shwo them the right path from the beginning.

Who doesn't know that blaring music and drinking on public roads is a bad thing? We're not talking about esoterica like treading on kryptobiotic soil. We're talking about matters that all reasonable people know and abide by.


quote:Originally posted by Joe:
"not god" is right - this is not a religous or spiritual club to my knowledge. I always figured Webmaster was "God" when it came to the web page. And in that role, biased or unbiased he has carte blanche to delete edit as he see fit so that this forum doesn't become the pit of hatred and disrespect that D-web IS.

SCLR is a club. No one person has the powers you list. Nathan thinks he does, but he doesn't. No person in SCLR has the power to silence statements he disagrees with. We're not talking about cursing or porn or similar matters. We're talking about input on how the club should be run. These are matters that should be discussed, freely.

The pit and hated that Discoweb is? You mean like this example here?:


http://www.discoweb.org/forums/showp...&postcount=138


For those of you who don't read DiscoWeb, "Badfysh" is Joe Nosal.

You mean like that Joe?


quote:Originally posted by Joe:
On a similar note, i agree that your post was edited, what does you opinion of me or my comments on another forum have to do with the topic of this thread. so I got 5 speeding tickets last year, is that relevant to legal/moral issues of drinking on a trail run? NO. its just inflammatory, again, reference the pit of D-web.

My comments about you were on this forum, not DiscoWeb. Nathan edited them. At the risk of being edited yet again by Nathan, I will repeat what I said earlier. You freely admit to drinking on the trail (and not just at lunch) at Rover Rendezvous. You also were doing donuts at Pismo in camp and you roosted Ho's two girls and Aaron Shrier's boy Evan. You freely admit to driving in the carpool lane even though you are alone, then get pissed off when you get a ticket for it. And now you admit to having had five speeding tickets in the past year.

I bring up these matters because they are clearly relevant to the alcohol discussion at hand. You are irresponsible and need to change your ways. Trouble follows you everywhere you go. Now, what you do on your own time is your business. But when you're drinking on the trail at SCLR events and roosting kids in camp, I have a big problem with that.


quote:Originally posted by Joe:
many people here "have beef" with you and sevral of your group, in my opinion - i am sure many have "beef" with me. bu tthe main difference is for all of my mistakes, i am the first to step up and say i am sorry or i was wrong if that be the case. but not you. instead of just bringing up the alcohol issue to light publicly on our forum, you just had to post single post links to other forums that can now be taken out of context and bring up unrelated issues.

Taken out of context? I posted a link to the entire thread and encouraged people to read the entire thread. Let them see for themselves. I'm not linking out of context. You freely admit to drinking on the trail. Far from apologizing for it, you're actually proud of it. You think it makes you a real man and real fourwheeler.


quote:Originally posted by Joe:
member #305, years of wheeling, product knowledge, etc. doesnt make you a better person or give you the right to treat people like garbage.

I have every right to treat people like garbage if they are in fact garbage.



Posted by Nathan Woods (Member # 752) on April 26, 2007 05:29 PM:

John, as noted by others, I am a moderator on this forum.

At the head of the Roverboard it states:
"Your participation on the Roverboard should be governed by the same decorum and courtesies you would use on an SCLR trip. Please refrain from using profanity and attacks on other users. Such messages will be removed."

While not profane, your comments about a fellow SCLR member were construed as a personal attack by members of the Board of Directors, and removed accordingly.

On a separate topic, I appreciate your recognition of my omnipotence, but I must be candid and inform you that I have not yet been granted Deity status, though I have applied and have been told it’s under review. I was told the review process make take some time. Something about “…until it freezes over…” :-)



Posted by John Lee (Member # 305) on April 26, 2007 05:45 PM:


quote:Originally posted by Nathan Woods:
John, as noted by others, I am a moderator on this forum.

At the head of the Roverboard it states:
"Your participation on the Roverboard should be governed by the same decorum and courtesies you would use on an SCLR trip. Please refrain from using profanity and attacks on other users. Such messages will be removed."

While not profane, your comments about a fellow SCLR member were construed as a personal attack by members of the Board of Directors, and removed accordingly.

So my listing of what Joe did to Ho's and Aaron's children at Pismo was "construed" as a personal attack by the Board of Directors?

I spoke with Gerry Barragan this afternoon and he had no knowledge of a board discussion on the deletions and edits. He said there was nothing in the board section of the BBS about it.

Who made the call on the deletions and edits? You did.

Again, you are not God. You do not own SCLR. This is a club matter, that pertains to club policy about alcohol and safety on the trail. There was no profanity. There was no personal attack. I merely listed what Joe did.

Just because you disagree with what I write, that does not give you the right and power to delete it or edit it. Once again, your remedy if you disagree with me is post something yourself and say why I am wrong. Your remedy is not to make what I write disappear.

Note how Joe does not deny he roosted Ho's and Aaron's kids by doing donuts in the Pismo camp. If what I said is not true, let Joe defend himself and show that he did not do what I accused him of doing. If Joe does decide to deny it, let Ho and Aaron come forward and state their side of the story.

This is called discussion.

You are not God. Get over yourself.



Posted by Joe (Member # 592) on April 26, 2007 05:57 PM:

the problem john is you listed it wrong.

like i said, this guy is far too righteous for me.

for the record...

1. i am badfysh
2. i had one beer at a 1.5 hour break
3. i had another later in the day at lunch
4. i never even did one donut in ANY campsite EVER
5. there were NO children around or even close by nor adults when I made a U-trun, in locked low range, yes on the gas, FAR away.
6. i havent had 5 speeding tickets, i was just making a point that it is not relevant to drinking. But again you cant seem to read and ignore everything else - carpool lane? the carpool lane is in violation of the law, so yeah, i drive in it. the lane itself is illegal hence the fight in the courts over it. challenging a rule of law doesnt make me irresponsible.
7. see above, once again, you are trying to highlight supposed irresponsibility and sideskirt the way you and others treat people
8. DID YOU CLICK YOUR OWN LINK? again it links to single post view. not the entire thread. I challenge anyone to read that thread and show me where i started it. I get sick of the way you guys treat people and finally i chimed in, albeit in a poor manner. at least it got you vultures and parasites off people that havent done anything wrong other not live up to high and mighty standards.

i personally for one am glad you dont go on any runs.

with that said, i will stand by SCLR rules on any run that is SCLR sanctioned and I have no more to say on this unless asked by BOD or Officers directly.

and lastly, you final statement says it all about you and you moral high ground.



Posted by John Lee (Member # 305) on April 26, 2007 06:09 PM:


quote:Originally posted by Joe:
the problem john is you listed it wrong.

like i said, this guy is far too righteous for me.


for the record...

1. i am badfysh
2. i had one beer at a 1.5 hour break
3. i had another later in the day at lunch
4. i never even did one donut in ANY campsite EVER
5. there were NO children around or even close by nor adults when I made a U-trun, in locked low range, yes on the gas, FAR away.
6. i havent had 5 speeding tickets, i was just making a point that it is not relevant to drinking. But again you cant seem to read and ignore everything else - carpool lane? the carpool lane is in violation of the law, so yeah, i drive in it. the lane itself is illegal hence the fight in the courts over it. challenging a rule of law doesnt make me irresponsible.
7. see above, once again, you are trying to highlight supposed irresponsibility and sideskirt the way you and others treat people
8. DID YOU CLICK YOUR OWN LINK? again it links to single post view. not the entire thread. I challenge anyone to read that thread and show me where i started it. I get sick of the way you guys treat people and finally i chimed in, albeit in a poor manner. at least it got you vultures and parasites off people that havent done anything wrong other not live up to high and mighty standards.

i personally for one am glad you dont go on any runs.

with that said, i will stand by SCLR rules on any run that is SCLR sanctioned and I have no more to say on this unless asked by BOD or Officers directly.

and lastly, you final statement says it all about you and you moral high ground.

Nathan? Isn't what Joe wrote much more of a personal attack than what I originally wrote about Joe and you saw fit to delete and edit? Or will you keep this one the board because Joe is against me, as are you?

I leave it to you, but I recommend keeping Joe's post on the board. Joe has just denied that he roosted Ho's and Aaron's children at SCLR's Pismo Beach run. Let's wait for Ho and Aaron to reply. This is better than brushing the entire issue under the rug as you are fond of doing. This is an issue that pertains to the entire club. I say keep it public.

Joe, here is the very beginning of this thread:

quote:Originally posted by John Lee:
There is some talk on DiscoWeb about Rover Rendezvous 2007. Several SCLR members have posted there. If you are interested, here is the entire thread on DiscoWeb:

http://www.discoweb.org/forums/showthread.php?t=34921

I posted the entire thread. People are free to read it if they wish. In fact, I encourage it. Only later on did I link to individual posts for brevity's sake.



Posted by Ho Chung (Member # 238) on April 26, 2007 06:14 PM:

Joe, Pismo trip last year. We were camped in a cul-de-sac. Wide playground area in front of the camp.

Do you remember? My kids and Aaron's boy were playing with their sand toys in front of the tents until they had sand all over them because you were running donuts kicking sand all over the campsite. Now do you remember?

I confronted you right after you did it. And you said you were sorry and that you didn't see the kids. Still don't remember?

Aaron and I thought such behavior plus past records (being restless while waiting for the trucks to get moving, and shooting off the trail doing your yahoo moves, speeding on the road during a trail run and being ticketed for it) made you a liability to the club. Aaron and I asked the BOD to have you removed from the club. Did any one in the BOD contact you because of that?

Do you remember now?



Posted by Read Kerlin (Member # 526) on April 26, 2007 06:18 PM:

I whole hardily support "dry" trail runs. Let's face it, it's a no brainer. It's not something that needs to be debated about period. I did not even bring up the issue at the drivers meeting before we hit the trail. Why? It was the first time I had lead a trail for RR and because I naively thought everyone was familiar with CA law. I assumed it might have been covered when they took their driving license test. Instead, I spent the time in the meeting going over Tread Lightly/leave no trace practices.

I also believe it is poor form for a moderator to edit a post for content when that individual for what ever reason is directly involved with the issue at hand. It just looks bad. Nathan, it's just poor form. Please use better judgment in the future. As I will use better judgment while leading any other trail in the future.

Thank you.

Read K



Posted by Nathan Woods (Member # 752) on April 26, 2007 06:22 PM:

John, I am not opposed to discussing the Pismo trip if you wish, offline, though I find it odd to do so as you were not there. Regardless, it is not relevant to THIS discussion that you have initiated.

For the record, I was at the Pismo event, standing very near to Ho at the time of the incident, and saw absolutely nothing of consequence that would affect my or my family, including my two small children who were near Aaron's baby and not far from Ho's kids. So you can enter their testimony into the fray just as I can, but official complaints were already filed and dealt with adminstratively by the Board of Directors at the time. I learned from an Ashley Judd movie a while back that someone can't be punished twice for the same crime.

At this point, it comes across as just another personal attack from you. This entire thread and any surrounding discussions is now locked, and should the Board decide to delete it, so be it.

If you wish, you may start another thread related to the use of alcohol, but keep it on topic please.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old April 26th, 2007, 07:36 PM
reelpain
 
Posts: n/a
As you know I too have been in the thick of things with NW about RR7,Drinking on the trails, and the raffle ticket cover up. Luckily on EE I can exercise my 5th ammendment right's without John or Ho deleting my post for relevancy.John your "spot" on about this, and it amazes me that an organization such as SCLR has swept so many things under the carpet! I think the drinking need's to be addressed, but moreover NW is a HUGE liability for SCLR. He is walking a fine line, and I too am weighing my options about these matter's.

First, I am asking for my membership and dues back. I do not want to be in a "club" that support's this bad apple, and then gives him the "keys" to the only venue in which members can post. I have many venues to go wheeling in Southern California and do not need a club to feel validated. It's a shame though. I hope I can get invites to some of your trailings in the future? (hint, hint) You guy's have your shit together! Im not labelling a whole group, but the "officers" really need to regain control and grow some "grapes".

Good job John..expose NW for the lying, non credible, pompus jackass he really is.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old April 27th, 2007, 07:22 AM
Nadir_E
 
Posts: n/a
John - your post brings up two key issues, safety, and communication. It would appear that the methods /thought process used by "NW" compromise both, to the detriment of the club and those who wheel with it (I've been out of the wheeling loop far too long, so this is all said as an 'outsider').

FWIW, the person who refuses to discuss a subject is usually the one with the weak argument - in this case, NW editing posts unnecessarily.

In regards to the core issue - drinking on runs, I think it's a serious safety issue and should be addressed in a clear manner. Just as with sobriety, the differences in individuals is such that no hard and fast rule with regard to volume consumed will work - it is all dependent upon the consumer. So 1-1.5 beers for one person may be little or no impairment, whereas for others, it may approach legal limits (and thus be a clear safety violation). It is better for all involved, then, if the opposite position is taken - dry runs, party at night.

Worth what you paid for it! Thanks for the platform, John & Ho.

-Nadir
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old April 27th, 2007, 08:34 AM
alcruz
 
Posts: n/a
John thanks for bringing up this issue, there's no place for alcohol on the trails and I sure wouldn't want my kids seeing it.

Al
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old April 27th, 2007, 08:40 AM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,153
Guys, you are posting your comments in the wrong forum.

The place for your comments is on the SCLR board.

If you feel you have something to say about how SCLR is run, step up and post it on the SCLR board and not here.

The only reason I saved that thread here was just in case Nathan Woods deletes the entire thread.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old April 27th, 2007, 08:42 AM
parantaeyang parantaeyang is offline
Won Park
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ventura, California
Posts: 503
Hey Al!

Where were you during all this fun?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old April 27th, 2007, 09:45 AM
alcruz
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
The place for your comments is on the SCLR board.
I'm no longer a member and I'm not sure it's appropriate to reply? Plus I think NW has frozen the thread?

Quote:
Originally Posted by parantaeyang
Hey Al!

Where were you during all this fun?
I've become a soccer dad My daughter has gotten pretty serious about the sport so my free time has been at practices and at games. I'm sure I'll be able to get out soon
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old April 27th, 2007, 02:42 PM
roger
 
Posts: n/a
Drinking on the trails...

Guys,
First thing I'll say is that the RR7 trip was a really good event for us, we had a great time, saw lots of cool rigs and met some cool people. We hope to go again next year!

I'll address the issues that I have a problem with with this posting:

1) As far as I am concerned John Lee does NOT have his facts straight. He should have actual fact before posting about anybody he does not know or have evidence to support. Currently, I am upset with him and his business for posting my pictures on his website and slandering me. I have asked him to remove these and hope he follows his word and does so. I think it was poor judgemnt on his part to include his business in such childesh internet banter.

2) With concern to drinking on the trail at lunch on both Sat and Sun: Yes I did have 1 drink on both days during lunch and after the trail. I was not roudy, beligerant or drunk on the trails. I know my limits and would behave as such. Had I been asked to stop and informed of the rules, I would have. BUT neither trail leader said anything before/during/after the trails about a no drinking policy, I had no idea it was not allowed. To that fact, I'm still not sure it was not allowed, because I can't find in any rules from the clubs/event. In fact I even offered the Sun trail leader a beer during lunch, he declined but mentioned nothing to me about not drinking. If this is in fact the rule, then at least next time I can make a choice to follow a group trail and not drink or go my seperate way and do my own thing.

3) With concern to the loud music on the Sat trail. I played Marley out the window during lunch with the key off, so it only allows 25% volumn. No one said anything to me at all, had I been asked to stop, I would have.

4) With concern to the littering on the trail. I fully resent this, I would NEVER litter on or off the trail. In fact, check with the trail leader, I stopped to pick up an empty corona bottle left by another person that the leader said to watch our for! So it makes no sense that I would pick up another persons trash and then leave my own. I don't beleive I even had any of those left from Sat night to be honest. I was drinking Heinikens. If it was left behind by me, its news to me and I would appoligize. Anyways, thanks for picking it up, we should all be picking up left over trash if we see it.

All of that said, I hope to be a valauble member of the socal off road rovers groups. I hope that everybody would consider that as a group there will be differences of opinion, people will not always agree, but we can still treat each other with respect and find all the facts before making rash posts.

As far as my opinion on drinking on the trails; Just like drinking at home, in a bar, with dinner, etc. It is the choice and responsability of the driver to determine what his/her limits and comfort levels are. I think this should be at the discression of the driver, if the leader sees a driver taking it too far, then maybe a gentle word is in order.

Hopefully this puts an end this childeshness.

Thanks,
Roger
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old April 27th, 2007, 03:12 PM
Matt Kendrick Matt Kendrick is offline
Matt Kendrick
KI6CGL
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Garden Grove, CA
Posts: 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger
....at lunch on both Sat and Sun: Yes I did have 1 drink on both days during lunch and after the trail.....

so, you were the guy in the white MKIII on Cottonwood?

1 beer? during lunch only?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old April 27th, 2007, 03:25 PM
reelpain
 
Posts: n/a
Roger; For the record, I too was on Cottonwood run Saturday. I recollect Read (Trail Leader) telling both you, your significant other, and the "stickered" out LR3 that drinking was to be done back at camp and not on the trail. (or something to that sort) At lunch, all be it only 25% volume, I again recall you being asked to turn it down. (Even being a Marley fan)

I cannot speak on Sunday, but if you call your significant other hanging out of a sunroof, and you hanging out of the drivers window (while driving the trail I might add)for a photo shoot responsible,who am I to judge..You need to vote on the Roverboards so you can be heard about the alchohol policy or lack thereof. Happy Trails!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old April 27th, 2007, 03:27 PM
roger
 
Posts: n/a
Reed asked me not to SMOKE on the trail, he said it was afire hazard.No one ever asked me not to drink or to turn the music down, this did not happen. Sorry but you heard wrong.

Roger
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old April 27th, 2007, 03:29 PM
roger
 
Posts: n/a
And as far as hanging out the window for a photo... Are you kidding me? this can't be done for a photo when driving 5-10mhp off road?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old April 27th, 2007, 03:41 PM
Matt Kendrick Matt Kendrick is offline
Matt Kendrick
KI6CGL
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Garden Grove, CA
Posts: 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger
Reed asked me not to SMOKE on the trail, he said it was afire hazard.No one ever asked me not to drink or to turn the music down, this did not happen. Sorry but you heard wrong.

Roger


answer the question. 1 beer, you sticking with that?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old April 27th, 2007, 03:52 PM
read read is offline
Read Kerlin
KI6CSI
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 303
Roger is correct Tony. I did only request that he not smoke while outside the vehicle. He was apologetic and complied immediately. At the time I was not sure of the club policy when it came to drinking on the trail. As a result I did not do anything to stop it and for that it is my fault. I should have acted inline with my personal views and asked him to stop. I'm confident that had I asked, Roger would have complied just as he did about the smoking.

Roger, on future runs my suggestion would be to observe the actions of the group as a whole and plan your actions accordingly.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old April 27th, 2007, 04:23 PM
roger
 
Posts: n/a
Reed, thanks for clarifiing. Yes had you asked me I would have complied. i wish it would have come up before hand. After your speach I even told you how I liked your "tread lightly, on the trail, pick up trash, etc", I am all about being responsible on the trail so they stay open for us to use.

I honestly didn't think i was being a problem, the group I was talking with seemed on the same wave length, my fault for not talking with everybody, it seemed everyone found their click when we stopped.

I appoligize if I offended any other driver there during my drive with you.

I'll stick with I drank during lunch and after the trail... I was not drunk!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old April 27th, 2007, 04:26 PM
roger
 
Posts: n/a
John, Thanks for removing the photos.

Roger
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old April 27th, 2007, 05:50 PM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,290
I was the trail leader on Sunday with Roger. The events as he stated above is correct.

Roger, thanks for your help twice with the tire changing and volunteering your spare for the LR3. Not sure if I had enough Safety Seal plugs for all the holes in his Nittos.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old April 27th, 2007, 06:04 PM
reelpain
 
Posts: n/a
Roger, I appologize. I was quick to speak and it was in fact the smoking. Thanks for setting me straight Read!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old April 27th, 2007, 06:19 PM
roger
 
Posts: n/a
Thank you Read and Greg, I appriciate that this is now behind us. I had a great time on both trails last weekend, you're both great trail leaders.

the LR3 tires were pretty bad, if anybody wants to see them, how can I post them?

John, we cool now?

Roger
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old April 27th, 2007, 06:59 PM
Matt Kendrick Matt Kendrick is offline
Matt Kendrick
KI6CGL
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Garden Grove, CA
Posts: 363
look roger, i don't know you and i've never said anything desparaging about you, you seemed like a nice enough guy. if you were to have a couple beers at lunch i really wouldn't care. that's not what this is about and you know it.

what it's about is the cold one at the cave, the cold ones at lunch, the cold one after waiting for others to get through the little water crossing, the cold ones at not quite the end, followed with tequila (or whatever hard alcohol that was), and yes, the music. (by the way, i don't believe anyone has ever stated that you were impaired).

claiming you didn't know the etiquette of wheeling is a little far fetched. so, it's legal to drink and drive as long as what? it's a dirt road, a national park, nobody is around to bust you?

i'm not a prude, i drink plenty of alcohol. what drives me crazy though is the general lack of personal responsibility. i just don't buy it, i suspect you are smarter than that.

all that being said, i think you probably learned a valuable lesson, albeit in a really lousy way.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old April 27th, 2007, 07:14 PM
read read is offline
Read Kerlin
KI6CSI
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 303
Hummm....

http://sclr.org/roverboard/roverboard.shtml


I wonder what's going on.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old April 27th, 2007, 07:22 PM
parantaeyang parantaeyang is offline
Won Park
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ventura, California
Posts: 503
Did NW remove the whole board?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old April 27th, 2007, 07:43 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,153
Roger,

I got some issues with what you posted.


Quote:
Originally Posted by roger
1) As far as I am concerned John Lee does NOT have his facts straight. He should have actual fact before posting about anybody he does not know or have evidence to support. Currently, I am upset with him and his business for posting my pictures on his website and slandering me. I have asked him to remove these and hope he follows his word and does so. I think it was poor judgemnt on his part to include his business in such childesh internet banter.


Slandering you? A statement is defamation only if it is not true. If an allegedly defamatory statement is shown to be true, then it cannot be defamatory.

Here is what I wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
There was also drinking on Cottonwood on Saturday. Ask anybody who was on Cottonwood and he will tell you that there was drinking. Adam Spiker even took pics of the drinking here:

http://s57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...eath%20Valley/

I linked to the drinking shots here:

http://www.discoweb.org/forums/showp...6&postcount=52

Of course those are dead links now. Adam Spiker removed the photos. Surprise surprise. But I saved the pics because my gut told me the pics would get deleted eventually:

http://www.expeditionexchange.com/sc...aturday030.jpg
http://www.expeditionexchange.com/sc...aturday031.jpg

Note the Bacardi lime bottle. This will become important in a bit.

This exact same white Mk3 and couple was on the trail ahead of us on Pleasant Canyon on Sunday:

http://www.expeditionexchange.com/rr7/rr7005%20185.jpg

Guess what we picked up on the trail on Pleasant on Sunday? You guessed it. A brand spanking new Bacardi Lime bottle. It was fresh. It hadn’t been sitting there for a long period of time. It still had liquid in it. It wasn’t covered in dust. It had just been discarded by whoever drank it. Coincidence? It could be. But I doubt it. Same booze. Same truck. Same people. Same trail.


Exactly what in my statement is defamatory (false from a factual standpoint)? You freely admit that you drank on Cottonwood on Saturday. You don't deny that.

Your white Mk3 was on Cotton on Saturday. You don't deny that.

Your white Mk3 was ahead of us on Pleasant on Sunday. You don't deny that.

The photos (now deleted) showed you holding a bottle of what looks like Heineken, and your significant other holding a bottle of Bacardi Lime. You don't deny that.

We found a brand spanking new Barcardi Lime bottle on Pleasant. You don't deny this.

Exactly what facts in my post do you take issue with?

Now we move onto opinion. My opinion is that the Bacardi Lime bottle we found on Pleasant came from your white Mk3. I freely admit that it could be coincidence. I'm not Nathan Woods and therefore all-knowing. Anything is possible.

However, we are talking about a lot of coincidences here. The bottle in question was Bacardi Lime. The photo showed your significant other holding a bottle of Bacardi Lime. You were ahead of us on Pleasant Canyon in a white Mk3. The photo showed you and your significant other in a white Mk3.

Again, anything is possible. It could be a coincidence. But my belief and opinion is that the Bacardi Lime came from your truck. I mean, try to look at it from my point of view.

Now, if you admit that the Bacardi Lime came from your truck, but that you accidentally left it on Pleasant, that is fine. Mistakes happen. We are human. You stopped to pick up an empty Corona bottle that wasn't even yours. That is commendable and would lead credence that the Bacardi Lime bottle being left on Pleasant was a mistake.

Next, I don't have evidence to support what I alleged? I still have the pics. Would you like me to repost them for you? Sure, the bottle is now gone. We didn't think it would be an issue and tossed it. But if you like I can have the people who found the bottle step forward and tell about the bottle.

And it was poor judgment to include EE in such childish internet banter? We're talking about drinking and driving on public roads. This is childish internet banter? I have to disagree. This is a deadly matter. I take it very seriously.


Quote:
Originally Posted by roger
2) With concern to drinking on the trail at lunch on both Sat and Sun: Yes I did have 1 drink on both days during lunch and after the trail. I was not roudy, beligerant or drunk on the trails. I know my limits and would behave as such. Had I been asked to stop and informed of the rules, I would have. BUT neither trail leader said anything before/during/after the trails about a no drinking policy, I had no idea it was not allowed. To that fact, I'm still not sure it was not allowed, because I can't find in any rules from the clubs/event. In fact I even offered the Sun trail leader a beer during lunch, he declined but mentioned nothing to me about not drinking. If this is in fact the rule, then at least next time I can make a choice to follow a group trail and not drink or go my seperate way and do my own thing.


Your argument is basically that you didn't realize drinking and driving on public roads was against the rules. Think about that. Do you think this flies?


Quote:
Originally Posted by roger
3) With concern to the loud music on the Sat trail. I played Marley out the window during lunch with the key off, so it only allows 25% volumn. No one said anything to me at all, had I been asked to stop, I would have.


Just like your drinking on the trail, you didn't know loud music was objectionable to others? Think about that.

So your defense to both drinking on the trail and playing loud music was that you didn't know it was wrong. I'm sorry but that doesn't fly. Every reasonable person knows these things are wrong.

If you had stepped on kryptobiotic soil by mistake, then sure, ignorance would be a defense. Kryptobiotic soil looks just like regular dirt. If you had tossed an apple core or orange peels out the window thinking that you were helping the environment by fertilizing it, that is an honest mistake as well.

But drinking and driving on public roads and playing loud music are not esoteric matters. You cannot claim you didn't know any better on these matters.


Quote:
Originally Posted by roger
4) With concern to the littering on the trail. I fully resent this, I would NEVER litter on or off the trail. In fact, check with the trail leader, I stopped to pick up an empty corona bottle left by another person that the leader said to watch our for! So it makes no sense that I would pick up another persons trash and then leave my own. I don't beleive I even had any of those left from Sat night to be honest. I was drinking Heinikens. If it was left behind by me, its news to me and I would appoligize. Anyways, thanks for picking it up, we should all be picking up left over trash if we see it.


Yes, you picked up the empty Corona and that is commendable. Thank you for that.

You claim you were drinking Heineken. So what? We didn't find a brand spanking new Heineken bottle. I don't recall saying we found an empty Heineken bottle.

We found a brand spanking new Bacardi Lime bottle. Wasn't that what your significant other was drinking? Do you think it's outside the realm of possibility that she dropped it on the trail? I notice you don't deny your significant other was drinking Bacardi Lime on Sunday. If she left it inadvertently, then she left it inadvertently. That's understandable. Given that you picked up trash that wasn't yours, the possibility that your significant other left the Bacardi Lime bottle on the trail is quite possible. It might even be probable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by roger
All of that said, I hope to be a valauble member of the socal off road rovers groups. I hope that everybody would consider that as a group there will be differences of opinion, people will not always agree, but we can still treat each other with respect and find all the facts before making rash posts.


Roger, if you want to be treated with respect, you have to treat others respectfully. That's the way things are. If you do treat others respectfully by not drinking and driving in their proximity and not blaring music near them, then people will treat you with the same respect. If you act irresponsibly, you cannot reasonably expect people to treat you respectfully, for you are not behaving in a respectful manner.


Quote:
Originally Posted by roger
As far as my opinion on drinking on the trails; Just like drinking at home, in a bar, with dinner, etc. It is the choice and responsability of the driver to determine what his/her limits and comfort levels are. I think this should be at the discression of the driver, if the leader sees a driver taking it too far, then maybe a gentle word is in order.



Well, that's your opinion. And you're definitely entitled to your opinion. Unfortunately, your opinion conflicts with the law. Drinking and driving is not legal on any public road in the United States. Both Cottonwood and Pleasant are public roads.


Quote:
Originally Posted by roger
Hopefully this puts an end this childeshness.


I say it again. Drinking and driving and the discussions pertaining to same are not childishness. They are deadly serious matters. Think about that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by roger
John, Thanks for removing the photos.

Roger


I removed the photos at your request, but primarily because the photos were not mine. Adam Spiker took them. They are his photos. I have no right to use them, so I took them down and apologized to Adam for pirating his pics.

I have asked that you think about several things. But before I end, I would like you to think about one more thing. If what you did was not wrongful, why did you ask me to remove the pics that I had previously posted? You claim you did nothing wrong, but at the same time you ask me to delete photos of your conduct.

Think about that.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old April 27th, 2007, 08:25 PM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,490
Roger, you are so full of shit it makes my head spin.

Who the fuck do you really think you're kidding?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old April 27th, 2007, 08:30 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by read
Hummm....

http://sclr.org/roverboard/roverboard.shtml


I wonder what's going on.


Damage control.

A few members even posted jokingly in the classifieds section. Of course their posts were deleted. Whoever deleted them probably did so on the ground that the posts were "off topic" or "inappropriate" or "not relevant" or whatever smoke & mirrors buzzword you want to use.

Unbelievable.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Le Tour de France johnlee General 114 June 22nd, 2010 10:53 AM
K-80 SuperSport johnlee General 131 February 19th, 2009 05:44 PM
2005 Omega porn david General 97 May 25th, 2007 04:00 PM
SCLR BOD Meeting / "Election" reelpain General 24 May 22nd, 2007 03:11 PM
04 Envy... hanchung General 225 September 17th, 2006 06:53 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:34 PM.




Copyright © 2001-2012 Expedition Exchange Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.