> Oh yeah, it's all my fault. So you stayed at the same hotel. BIG DEAL.
> Just because YOU had a perfect room doesn't mean that everybody else did.
> It just so happens that my room was quite nice EXCEPT for the lack of A/C
> and the UNWILLINGNESS of the staff to address the problem. And for that
> you say I'm overreacting? It's nice to know you're so open-minded.
>
I'm saying you are overreacting for labeling an entire hotel chain based on one
bad experience. If you can't see that then frankly I don't know what to say.
> Yeah and thanks for asking why I left, rather than ASSuming such as you
> did. You wanna know why I left? I'd been there since 9 AM, in the cold,
> pouring rain... and by the time worktime came, I was getting SICK. The
> prospect of spending an hour or more out in the cold blowing wind was not
> appealing, especially since the REASON I got there early was to ensure an
> in-trailer work assignment.
>
And what assumption would you have made in my shoes? I don't think it would
have been much different. You would have been a little irritated that someone
else did not fulfill their work assignment, requiring others to fill the
vacancy by working extra. I worked about 4 assignments that day, partly due to
the weather and partly due to self centered people like yourself.
> So yeah, I left. I'd rather bail and risk not getting sick. But guess
> what? I spent the next three days sick ANYWAY, so you can be happy about
> that, if you even believe it. Had I stayed, odds are it would have been
> even worse.
I'm sorry you got a cold, but if you makes you feel any better I had a cold the
next few days as well. Difference was, I still helped to make sure the event
went off OK for everybody, and didn't whine about it. It's called
responsibility, an adult concept.
> Now you and the rest of your little SFR Clique(tm) has managed to alienate
> yet another player from your elitist group of Holier-Than-Thou types that
> prefers to sit back and pat themselves on the back for working their butts
> off for "the good of the region," and then attack those who might have a
> difference of opinion. Not true? Well, it's sure how it comes across to
> me, and to others. Remember the NASA school a few months back? I spoke
> to no fewer than SIX long-timers, and every one of them agreed with my
> assessment of SFR.
>
I really don't know how to respond to the above other than to say that you have
to consider that a dedicated group, which has worked many years to make things
run as well as they do, probably has a strong opinion that the procedures
they've come up with are good ones. That doesn't mean that things are
"perfect" and suggestions are not welcome, just don't expect them to be
experimented with willy nilly. And boy, you had me worried there for a second.
If it had been SEVEN members....
> Guess what? I've made MANY, MANY suggestions to the region and offered to
> help more times than I can count. They've all been IGNORED or passed over
> as "unnecessary."
>
I remember you offered to tow the trailer to the Aquabowl if you could do it
the night before. However, that was not possible at that site. Don't take
that as a rejection of you personally.
> I can see clearly that my opinion is not valid, or even welcomed in this
> region. I've no doubt failed to suck up to the right people, attend all
> the steering committee meetings, which are so conveniently held way down
> in the south bay, where no one in the east bay can realistically get to
> during the week... OR chaired a bunch of events.
>
I used to live in Santa Rosa and understood the logic of having the meetings in
the South Bay. Simple, that was the location that most members (steering
committed or non) could make it to. I didn't take it as a personal affront
they didn't schedule them in a place convenient for me.
> I had planned to get more involved with the region this year and try to
> help improve areas that I felt needed work. I wanted to make it more open
> to new autocrossers (which I realize now isn't what the region wants), and
> so on.
>
I don't understand your comment on what the region wants, but that wouldn't be
the first thing you've said I don't get. If you have suggestions to make, air
them out. But don't be angered when others may rip them apart. Whether you
believe it or not, they aren't attacking you, but merely commenting/criticizing
an idea of yours. If you don't understand that, then you might want to look out
for the black helicopters, they're everywhere.
> No, you just want people to come cheer for you and praise you for being so
> good and so Holy and tell you what great drivers you are. Homey don't
> play that. And the difference between myself and some of the others is
> that I'm not afraid to speak up and piss people off.
>
I'll heartily agree with the last statement. What you don't seem to be able to
handle is the fact that you may piss people off, and so what? If they get
angry at what you say does that mean you have to do the same in return?
> It also appears that Sacramento is the same way, based on Jeannine's
> reaction. AAS and NASA are the only ones NOT like that from what I've
> seen so far. And the common denomiator there is that THEY AREN'T
> AFFILIATED WITH THE SCCA. Isn't that interesting?
>
So now you are labeling Sac Chapter based on one person's response. What was
that about overreacting? And as far as the other series, you may want to be
careful about what you say in public. It has a way of coming back to get you.
-Andy
|