E-Bulletin MythDemeanours - Doublespeak

To continue, we (the three of us) were asked to come to a “meeting” the next day (again we were naive and stupid - expecting a reasonable discussion) which amounted to a grilling.  Several of the directors stated that they had been receiving nasty emails - they not only wanted to know what the problem was - but also they didn’t know there was a problem.  (I certainly don’t believe that  nasty emails should ever be sent; I’ve not read any of the ones that were directed to the DC Board, but I have read them from members of the DC Board.)   One director was very angry (and apparently still is) that she was a DC director and a member of High Country and that nobody had come to her regarding any problem or concern which, had they done so, she surely could have helped resolve.  I did not respond.  When I relayed this to the individuals who gave me their proxies, their response was exactly what came to my mind when I heard the complaint: “ Why bother - we tried that once before and found it to be a totally useless effort.” 

At any rate - many of the Board members stated that they were offended and angry that we opposed the bylaw amendment scheme.  Yes, we three agreed the Board needed to be expanded;  yes, we agreed that there needed to be Bylaw reform, but not by being ram-rodded in the manner they were trying to do. Bylaws are sacrosanct.

Back to the e-bulletin:
“Although it was clearly explained how our meeting would proceed if the bylaw amendment was not successful, some proxy holders insisted they had a mandate not to support the change even though each said later that they did support the increase in Board, just wanted to force the election issue even though there was disagreement about regional representation. “

Although it was clearly explained how our meeting would proceed if the bylaw amendment was not successful,
and
some proxy holders insisted they had a mandate not to support the change even though each said later that they did support the increase in Board, just wanted to force the election issue even though there was disagreement about regional representation. “

A prime example of a non-sequitur -  the first part of the statement has nothing to do with the other.

When I left for Toronto - I had a resounding “NO” from my proxy votes to the Bylaw amendment as presented.  How many times do we have to state: ILLEGAL.  Drive Canada has the list of the proxies I held.  I challenge them to ask those people.  I’ll go a step further and challenge them to ask the issuers of the proxies of all three of us.


Red Herring Statements again:  as “just wanted to force the election issue even though there was disagreement about regional representation” Garbage - this is back to the adjectival comment I previously made.

E-bulletin: “Unfortunately the Special General Meeting became a political contest with a few individuals soliciting proxies, even outside their regions. There was misleading and insightful information being circulated and a campaign based on negative comments and promises of changes that are simply not possible.”

"became a political contest " - Again, garbage - maybe political on DC's part.

Since when is there a problem for someone going to the AGM - particularly one who has been nominated to the Board of Directors - to let people know they are going?  There is absolutely nothing in the Bylaws preventing anybody from representing people in other locations. 

I do admit I am guilty - I did send an email of solicitation and there were 2 people that were not from my “region.” But, they were Club Members and I thought they might also be Drive Canada members. (That is another matter)

This is the email I sent:

“If you are currently a Drive Canada member, you should have received your notice of the Drive Canada special meeting and the Annual General Meeting by now and I'm sure that you have discovered that Iris Davies and I are both nominated to the Board. We will be attending the meetings in Toronto.

We feel that it is important that ALL Drive Canada members exercise their right to vote.  There are problems that arise from the agenda for the Special Meeting that impact the AGM and election.

If you will not be attending the meetings, please give your proxy to either Iris or I and if you have any specific instructions, they will be followed.    Also, you may have noticed that there are TWO separate proxies for the two meetings - both proxies are required. Family memberships have ONE voting member who is designated on membership renewals.  Proxies must be registered before November 7 so please do not delay."

Proxies can be emailed to me if you can sign and send electronically or faxed to me at ______.   Any questions or comments please email me or call me at ________.  Iris' email is above and phone number is ____________.”

I apologise to those who were offended that I sent it.  I didn’t find anything inflammatory in re-reading it; however, I didn’t complain when a DC Board member posted an announcement of attending the meetings and requesting  proxies AND I didn’t complain that the proxy form itself states:

"I _______ a Voting member in good standing hereby appoint the ___ President, ___Secretary or _____________ (a current Voting member in good standing) to vote on my behalf at the ......”

So there we are - the President and the Secretary are also seemingly soliciting votes and also clearly doing so from those NOT IN THEIR REGION.  Give me a break!  The President had no complaints when he had huge numbers of proxies and they certainly weren’t  all from BC.


I really, really love this one:
“There was misleading and insightful information being circulated “  - particularly the Freudian slip “insightful”

I imagine the writer was after “incite” - (“inciteful” is like “irregardless” - no such  word) Incite means to provoke or stir up while insight means clear or deep perception of a situation:  insightful- showing or having insight; perceptive.

Yes,  there was clear and deep perception of a situation.  Iris Davies sent a request to Drive Canada to please email her position in the form of an e-bulletin.  Was it? - NO.

Iris’ position is here:

http://carriage-driving-canada.blogspot.com/

- Obviously inflammatory, controversial, and not reflective of Drive Canada's  onespeak.

Though sometimes attributed to George Orwell, along with his doublethink,  newspeak,  and duckspeak, (1984- published in 1949)  “doublespeak” was coined in the early 50's.  The Doublespeak Award is an "ironic tribute to public speakers who have perpetuated language that is grossly deceptive, evasive, euphemistic, confusing, or self-centred." It has been issued by the National Council of Teachers of English since 1974.

It’s not too difficult to extend the Doublespeak Award to writing. The cumulation of the coloured and italicized phrases win the Doublespeak Writing Award and it’s one that will just keep on giving.

For interest sake, these are fun reading.

http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Involved/Volunteer/Appointed%20Groups/Past_Recipients_Doublespeak_Award.pdf