This is a placeholder text
Group text
by bgstout on 29 October 2010 - 22:10
Why not read Lyle's interview on the USA homepage? Maybe that will shed some light on why the amendment passed.
by gucci on 30 October 2010 - 01:10
Agree with Jurdron, Lida
by Einstein on 30 October 2010 - 01:10
Lida, Judron, Bob.
Explain to me how the delegates/members voted in any of the changes when 6 votes are officers, 4 votes are illegally voting Directors at large (cited in Missouri state law and the posted bylaws) and 9 votes are Regional directors?
I am waiting.
Judron and team. Detail what you see as BS. Please provide a substantive example (s).
This is what is referred to, in some academic circles, as yellow journalism on the part of the above.
Explain to me how the delegates/members voted in any of the changes when 6 votes are officers, 4 votes are illegally voting Directors at large (cited in Missouri state law and the posted bylaws) and 9 votes are Regional directors?
I am waiting.
Judron and team. Detail what you see as BS. Please provide a substantive example (s).
This is what is referred to, in some academic circles, as yellow journalism on the part of the above.
by judron55 on 30 October 2010 - 02:10
The whole delegate non issue was addressed by the BOI I believe....Whether you agree with there finding or not is your issue:-) Until 1 member 1 vote is adopted..(I personally don't want that)..if ever, you go by the present system. The BS...IMNSHO is the anonymous Eistien who probably doesn't even care but chose to start idotic nonsense.
by gucci on 30 October 2010 - 02:10
Have a friend who worked so hard for USA Sch. then was kicked in the ass by the Johanna's Rule, Her name is Joann Letcher, Doglady J on here..just contact and ask her , However nowy she is one of our WDA members. and will work as hard for us...
by Einstein on 30 October 2010 - 02:10
judron,
Who are you again?
I requested a substantive example of what you claim, not ongoing insipid drivel. Examples. Man up.
The illegal issue was addressed by the orgnaization that commited the illegal act, by definition of Missouri law. Do you really think that they would find themselves guilty? Honor among thieves?
It is not my issue of not agreeing, it is the officers and BOI of USCA not following the established non-profit laws of the established organization.
Who are you again?
I requested a substantive example of what you claim, not ongoing insipid drivel. Examples. Man up.
The illegal issue was addressed by the orgnaization that commited the illegal act, by definition of Missouri law. Do you really think that they would find themselves guilty? Honor among thieves?
It is not my issue of not agreeing, it is the officers and BOI of USCA not following the established non-profit laws of the established organization.
by gucci on 30 October 2010 - 02:10
Do you even have a clue about how many USA members sucked up money to send someone to the meeting and they were not allowed to give an opinion????? I do, Lida Ask Joann Letcher... Dog Lady J...
by Rik on 30 October 2010 - 03:10
It is not necessarily the club vote that is bad. It is that the club that cannot afford it is put under financial stress to cast their vote.
If the one club, one vote is the choice, then make it possible for the club to cast that vote without forcing that club to spend hundreds of dollars to do so.
When WDA membership grew weary of the direction of the leadership and the kow towing to GSDCA, the one member, one vote was pretty efficient and quick in removing them.
And, really, are we peasants so stupid that we must be told from the top down what a GSD is. It is best decided from the bottom up. These are the people who consider the dog first in their vote.
JMO,
Rik
If the one club, one vote is the choice, then make it possible for the club to cast that vote without forcing that club to spend hundreds of dollars to do so.
When WDA membership grew weary of the direction of the leadership and the kow towing to GSDCA, the one member, one vote was pretty efficient and quick in removing them.
And, really, are we peasants so stupid that we must be told from the top down what a GSD is. It is best decided from the bottom up. These are the people who consider the dog first in their vote.
JMO,
Rik
by CMassGSD on 30 October 2010 - 19:10
Hey Gucci.......ALL Delegates were allowed to speak at the meeting!! I agree with Rik, there should be a way a CLUB can vote electronically! But even if that happens, going by Gucci's way of thinking, clubs that vote electronically will not get a chance to speak! Just vote!
Hey Einstien......it was investigated and a decision was made......as usual, Matt was wrong! Ask Matt how many regional events he's been at? Regional Meetings? what has HE done for UScA? What has he done to better the organization? Answer......NADA!! He's been more involved in the WDA. He should stay there!!
Hey Einstien......it was investigated and a decision was made......as usual, Matt was wrong! Ask Matt how many regional events he's been at? Regional Meetings? what has HE done for UScA? What has he done to better the organization? Answer......NADA!! He's been more involved in the WDA. He should stay there!!
by CMassGSD on 30 October 2010 - 22:10
Question for all the Matt supporters...... why didn't Matt show up to his regional Championships this year, Regional meeting this year...how long was he a WDA member? He was listed as a WDA club contact until April when he decided to run for USA president.... what club is he loyal to? I think it is VERY obvious......WDA!!!
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top