Dear Baz (Angel of the North)??
Thanks for your post on this thread. I am the BS committee member who Paul addressed in the paragraph below. He was answering a post that I made on the BS site. Sometimes you have to sit back and wonder about what people write on web-sites?..myself included on a few occasions it must be said. I said a few things in that post which I have since apologised for. However, if Paul thinks the paragraph, quoted below by you, is true, then Paul is obviously not sure what he wrote in his ?initial? looped e-mail to the whole BS committee.
I obviously know what it says, word for word, as I have it on my BS data-base. I would expect that the other BS committee guys to also have it on their data-bases. For the record, for those who do not know, I was one of three committee guys who immediately, in written reply to Paul?s looped e-mail, tried to get Paul to reconsider his ?tendered resignation?. Others, I am led to believe, took the time to contact him personally with the same request. At that point I was in Paul?s corner fair and square. It?s true to say, that things that have been said by him since that date, have slowly moved me from that stance, with much regret.
Your quote Baz (Well Paul?s in reality but you put it up here for all to see) ?Also just one other inaccuracy. I never actually formally tendered my resignation, I said that "if that were the case I would step down", to which I had an immediate reply accepting my resignation!!!!!! No comprimise no ways to look at working things out that were a problem for me at the time !!!!!!?
There is one easy way to see who is in understanding of what Paul said and that is to read Paul?s initial ?looped e-mail? to the committee. Please do not expect me to publish Paul?s ?initial? mail content on here, as it?s a private correspondence between Paul and the BS committee??and I, for one, wouldn?t stoop that low to ?leak? those words on here or anywhere else. Well yes, I might consider it over on the BS forum because it is in the membership?s best interests to know what?s been said and what hasn?t, given the manner this has gone??but for now, that?s for Paul to consider doing, not me. I have no personal axe to grind with Paul at present and wish him all the best further down the line.
However, Paul is quite at liberty to put up his initial ?looped e-mail? to the committee on here to show you all that the paragraph quoted above is correct and that I was wrong to say he had resigned. If he is thinking of doing that to prove his point then I think he should take advice first, so that he fully understands what the term ?tendered? means. In light of the way this has all gone down, with the conspiracy theories, alleged lies and the twists and turns it has taken by the many who have posted thus far, maybe it?s time things were seen as they were written. That?s only one mans call though, not mine. Over to you Paul.
By the way, on his initial ?looped e-mail to the committee tendering his resignation? Paul didn?t get an immediate reply accepting his resignation??and there was compromise and ways looked at to working things out. Paul and the rest of you just need to remember that we are talking about Paul?s initial ?looped e-mail to the committee???nothing else.
You say ?Talk about riding roughshod over somebody? it is a damned disgrace.????I say, ?that?s quite possibly going to be the line a lot of us uses in the next few days, if the truth prevails. The ?somebody? may have to be exchanged for the word ?us all?.?
You say ?My message to any BS members -: Watch out the Clanton gang have just robbed the stage.???I say ?it might be that they only nicked the curtain, maybe now we can see the whole deal clearer soon?.
Yours With Respect.....
Steve
