No R19 news in Feb Porsche Post?
- Thread starter ians
- Start date
graham tompkins
New member
Looks like we have been sanctioned[:'(]
Steve Killoran
New member
I'm sure we'll find out Sunday 4th Feb, bujt just in case I've sent a note to PCGB to ask why!
It's a shame you did that. I know that Fab is feeling a bit fragile about things at the moment and the last thing he needs is a wakeup call from 'on high'.
]
You found the words I struggled to find [&o]
Steve Killoran
New member
I support all that Fab is/has been doing, its "our" club and its a shame that all of the events of last year is spoiling it.
SUPPORT YOU REGIONAL ORGANISER.
He works bl**dy hard for you.
He works bl**dy hard for you.
Steve Killoran
New member
Do you think I don't?
Hi All
Nobody is questioning how hard anybody else is working! Just feeling sorry for Fab.
Lets hope it will settle down and he will return full of vigor and enthusiasm
Have fun
Paul Kelley
Nobody is questioning how hard anybody else is working! Just feeling sorry for Fab.
Lets hope it will settle down and he will return full of vigor and enthusiasm
Have fun
Paul Kelley
Paul, I think Steve might be inquiring as to whether we are aluding to a percvieved non support of our R.O.
It is interesting to note that despite all the fuss, and despite the Thames Valley region being the largest in terms of registered members, that, at last count, only 30 people had looked at my post directing them to the regional information on the club website, and that doesn't mean they followed the information up.
I'd moan about the lethargy but I can't be bothered.
Sadly once again no email of regional activity or representation of the region in Porsche Post as far as I can see; This years AGM is going to be fun, and I don't care if it costs me my membership. Fortunately I don't have to belong to the club to be able to drive my Porsches, and I rather fancy because of my technical support via email and contributions to the Post, the club will miss me more than I it, if push comes to shove. I want substatiation of their allegations levelled at Fabien
968CSReading
New member
When I get the PP I look at the 968 classifieds, the 968 reg section and TV regional report. In the last two PP there hasnt been a report for TV or the 968 register. Surely if the usual contributor can not provide a report it could be passed onto someone else?
It is a shame when the other regional reports are so complete and we have had nothing. Again, it is not a dig but when there are problems isnt that why deputies are in place? More reasons not to part with my renewal fee.
It is a shame when the other regional reports are so complete and we have had nothing. Again, it is not a dig but when there are problems isnt that why deputies are in place? More reasons not to part with my renewal fee.
oceancarrera
New member
As a neighbour to R19 and just reading some of the comments in this thread, I think some balance is missing...
First of all, I can't comment on whatever is happening to Fab as I don't know.
It is important that members support their RO, but it is also the responsibility of the RO to ensure that regional reports are submitted on time for timely publication in PP. If they are absent for whatever reason and unable to submit the regional report, then the responsibility should be delegated if at all possible. I was guilty of not submitting the R20 Jan report, so took the flak come the Feb report!
If an RO abstains from fulfilling their duties to the membership, it is not necessarily the fault of 'PCGB'. It's not unreasonable to ask 'PCGB' what has happened to the RO after 2 missed reports and the RO hasn't responded to emails/phone calls. Just imho.
Fab, if you're reading this, I hope you are ok.
First of all, I can't comment on whatever is happening to Fab as I don't know.
It is important that members support their RO, but it is also the responsibility of the RO to ensure that regional reports are submitted on time for timely publication in PP. If they are absent for whatever reason and unable to submit the regional report, then the responsibility should be delegated if at all possible. I was guilty of not submitting the R20 Jan report, so took the flak come the Feb report!
If an RO abstains from fulfilling their duties to the membership, it is not necessarily the fault of 'PCGB'. It's not unreasonable to ask 'PCGB' what has happened to the RO after 2 missed reports and the RO hasn't responded to emails/phone calls. Just imho.
Fab, if you're reading this, I hope you are ok.
I take your point ocean, but if you read Fabs own comments in the "censorship in porshce post" post you will see that his December report was edited without explanation, and if Mike Rees did that to one of my technical articles then that would be the last one he would get from me.
Here is his post
"Dear All,
I guess you've just received The Thames Valley Region News. It's a 6-page PDF document with lots of info.
If not, please feel free to E-mail me r19@porscheclubgb.com
Start of my Editorial:
"Maybe you noticed, maybe not, but last month our Regional Report in Porsche Post was cut due to some unexpected censorship"¦ I've tried to get full explanation, with no success. That's the reason why I've made the decision to produce an electronic version distributed by e-mail instead of submitting a "subject to censorship report" to the Editor of Porsche Post. Naturally, I'm eager to receive your comments and then decide how to proceed over the following months"
Here is his post
"Dear All,
I guess you've just received The Thames Valley Region News. It's a 6-page PDF document with lots of info.
If not, please feel free to E-mail me r19@porscheclubgb.com
Start of my Editorial:
"Maybe you noticed, maybe not, but last month our Regional Report in Porsche Post was cut due to some unexpected censorship"¦ I've tried to get full explanation, with no success. That's the reason why I've made the decision to produce an electronic version distributed by e-mail instead of submitting a "subject to censorship report" to the Editor of Porsche Post. Naturally, I'm eager to receive your comments and then decide how to proceed over the following months"
John
this sounds a little one sided. When I first saw this thread I asked Stephen Mummery (PP Editor) if there was an explanation, I was told that a small number of words were edited out for good reason at the discretion of the Editor. Seemed reasonable to me. Stephen knows his job and does a fantastic one.
If you think that a contributor should be above editing, then that seems a little extreme.
this sounds a little one sided. When I first saw this thread I asked Stephen Mummery (PP Editor) if there was an explanation, I was told that a small number of words were edited out for good reason at the discretion of the Editor. Seemed reasonable to me. Stephen knows his job and does a fantastic one.
If you think that a contributor should be above editing, then that seems a little extreme.
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
