New Membership Cycling Organisation
Re: New Membership Cycling Organisation
The issue is how far club advocates are prepared to fight a management desire to take the club in a different direction. The powers that be have correctly gambled that old school DA types and nu-cyclist reformers added together won't beat the head count of the apathetic and those who use the club as a general insurance policy and look no further than magazine editorials.
My instinct is the current impasse will only last long enough for the next round of propaganda not to appear unseemly. The issue won't go away permanently.
My instinct is the current impasse will only last long enough for the next round of propaganda not to appear unseemly. The issue won't go away permanently.
Re: New Membership Cycling Organisation
As one who these days, after 25+ years of membership, belongs only for the insurance/legal aid benefits I object to be classed as apathetic. I wish to belong to a club, not subscribing to a charity that is close to a government influenced quango. The so called magazine is not worth reading anyhow!
Re: New Membership Cycling Organisation
In that case nobody was classing you as apathetic.
It is the 75% majority who didnt vote that were the target of that accusation.
It is the 75% majority who didnt vote that were the target of that accusation.
Yma o Hyd
Re: New Membership Cycling Organisation
meic wrote:In that case nobody was classing you as apathetic.
It is the 75% majority who didnt vote that were the target of that accusation.
They may not have voted because they weren't particularly concerned either way, which is a reasonable thing to do. Being an agnostic is not an unreasonable position.
Would you have been happier if the "silent" 75% had voted in favour?
jonty
Re: New Membership Cycling Organisation
Jonty wrote:meic wrote:In that case nobody was classing you as apathetic.
It is the 75% majority who didnt vote that were the target of that accusation.
They may not have voted because they weren't particularly concerned either way, which is a reasonable thing to do. Being an agnostic is not an unreasonable position.
Would you have been happier if the "silent" 75% had voted in favour?
jonty
This habit of corrupting the debate with an irrelevant personal question to slew the impression is tedious.
Yma o Hyd
Re: New Membership Cycling Organisation
meic wrote:Jonty wrote:meic wrote:In that case nobody was classing you as apathetic.
It is the 75% majority who didnt vote that were the target of that accusation.
They may not have voted because they weren't particularly concerned either way, which is a reasonable thing to do. Being an agnostic is not an unreasonable position.
Would you have been happier if the "silent" 75% had voted in favour?
jonty
This habit of corrupting the debate with an irrelevant personal question to slew the impression is tedious.
I suspect the answer is NO.
jonty
Re: New Membership Cycling Organisation
Personally I would have been happier because then there would be a clear mandate from the actual majority of members.
Re: New Membership Cycling Organisation
sadjack wrote:Personally I would have been happier because then there would be a clear mandate from the actual majority of members.
Agree.
No matter what the vote is or was, providing a substantial majority vote Yes or No the better the result.
75% didn't vote, therefore it wasn't a vote.
Mick F. Cornwall
Re: New Membership Cycling Organisation
sadjack wrote:Personally I would have been happier because then there would be a clear mandate from the actual majority of members.
So would I but polls aren't organised on the basis of providing you and I with personal happiness.
jonty
Re: New Membership Cycling Organisation
Jonty
I was only answering the question you yourself posed.
Personally I find that such a low number of members voting on a major issue puzzling. I fear and have no evidence of this, that the majority don't care and I worry that is because the only reason they joined our club is for insurance benefits.
But the democratic process continues and we are all bound to it whether we like the result or not.
So my personal happiness does not come in to it. And neither does yours.
I was only answering the question you yourself posed.
Personally I find that such a low number of members voting on a major issue puzzling. I fear and have no evidence of this, that the majority don't care and I worry that is because the only reason they joined our club is for insurance benefits.
But the democratic process continues and we are all bound to it whether we like the result or not.
So my personal happiness does not come in to it. And neither does yours.
Re: New Membership Cycling Organisation
Sadjack
You're right. I suspect many weren't terribly concerned either way and were possibly put off the whole thing by the way in which a lot of the discussion seemed to generate more heat and light and became quite personal.
But we are where we are as they say.
jonty
You're right. I suspect many weren't terribly concerned either way and were possibly put off the whole thing by the way in which a lot of the discussion seemed to generate more heat and light and became quite personal.
But we are where we are as they say.
jonty
Re: New Membership Cycling Organisation
Mick F wrote:sadjack wrote:Personally I would have been happier because then there would be a clear mandate from the actual majority of members.
Agree.
No matter what the vote is or was, providing a substantial majority vote Yes or No the better the result.
75% didn't vote, therefore it wasn't a vote.
Don't worry I expect the New Membership Cycling Organisation will debar all members who choose not to vote.
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade