How do you change text in postings?

Submitted: Thursday, Sep 30, 2004 at 07:52
ThreadID: 121455 Views:4879 Replies:10 FollowUps:5
This Thread has been Archived
I noticed that Cobra Dave posted a message in RED,, but I don't appear to have any option other than plain text. Can anyone tell me how to use underline, italics and different coloured text please.
Enjoying the friendship of BOG members

My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Noosa Fox - Thursday, Sep 30, 2004 at 08:12

Thursday, Sep 30, 2004 at 08:12
Further to the above, I have the HTML text highlighted in my profile.
Enjoying the friendship of BOG members

My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

AnswerID: 564945

Reply By: Deleted User - Thursday, Sep 30, 2004 at 08:28

Thursday, Sep 30, 2004 at 08:28
David has done a deal with the devil ...he writes in red wine !!! [smile]


AnswerID: 564946

Reply By: Cobradave - Thursday, Sep 30, 2004 at 17:32

Thursday, Sep 30, 2004 at 17:32
red test
AnswerID: 564947

Reply By: Cobradave - Thursday, Sep 30, 2004 at 18:16

Thursday, Sep 30, 2004 at 18:16
Don't know where I ran out of red wine but it appears as if it is not possible to select font colour and style in this forum.
AnswerID: 564948

Follow Up By: Luvntravln - Friday, Oct 01, 2004 at 00:26

Friday, Oct 01, 2004 at 00:26
If enough members what control of color and style, it could be added.

If enough members want public profiles within our private forum it could probably be done.

If enough members want a chat feature, why not?

Everyone simply has to speak up publically - not really hard to do!

FollowupID: 843905

Reply By: Cobradave - Friday, Oct 01, 2004 at 00:39

Friday, Oct 01, 2004 at 00:39
Precisely Jay, let's add all these enhancement wishes to a list and get it costed. Then in the truely democratic style of this organization to which we have become accustomed, take a vote and resolve to have it done or not.

AnswerID: 564949

Follow Up By:- Saturday, Oct 02, 2004 at 00:35

Saturday, Oct 02, 2004 at 00:35

I'm not sure what democratic style our organisation follows ?

We have the "Greek" model to follow ...

Or we seem to have the new style called "Chequebook Democracy" ...styled along the I'll withdraw my donation if I dont get what I want model ...which seemed to instill awe if not a little fear in the committee.

I'd rather be a little Greekish, democratically speaking ! [smile]

Anthonyious 2004AD

FollowupID: 843906

Reply By: Cobradave - Saturday, Oct 02, 2004 at 01:00

Saturday, Oct 02, 2004 at 01:00
Dear Anthonyious2004Ti,
Surely you mean Geekish not Greekish !
In fact Geek mythology dictates a motion be made (non-Thetford type), a 2nding then discussion, then vote.
Assuming I was not asleep for the past 2 days and missed something, could someone tell me which thread did I miss in which the new presidential candidates were proposed and ultimately our new president was democratically elected.
I guess I must have been dozing in the Copeton sunshine when I missed the clause in our constitution which permits resignation of the presidency followed by automatic reinstatement without full membership vote.

AnswerID: 564950

Follow Up By:- Saturday, Oct 02, 2004 at 01:34

Saturday, Oct 02, 2004 at 01:34

Funny that !!! I think the committee is slightly quango(istic) and I thought it was there to express the will of the majority of the members not the Sponsor as well ! Sigh !!

At least the old forum was almost immune to that influence. MMMmm!!


FollowupID: 843907

Reply By: Cobradave - Saturday, Oct 02, 2004 at 01:38

Saturday, Oct 02, 2004 at 01:38
Hey Anthony,
How true it is, everything comes at a price, there ain't no free lunch anymore and no sponsor on this planet tips in a red cent without the expectation of a 1.x cents in return.
AnswerID: 564951

Follow Up By:- Saturday, Oct 02, 2004 at 02:18

Saturday, Oct 02, 2004 at 02:18

I understand the sponsors right to a fair "receive" from his investment as advertising but to intimidate and thereby influence a committee member to resign by threat of financial withdrawal ...WOW ! Thats more than a cents worth and a form of blackmail surely ? Effectively the Sponsor controls the committee and/or the BOG Inc ....what happens when a member says something in the future the Sponsor doesnt like ..are they for the chop ? Where is that written in the BOG charter ?

Funny how we are now Incorporated and held accountable by a Dept called the Justice Dept !! More Mmmmmmm! ...for thought !

I would have thought Sponsors hand over their money for a 12 month contract period ... maybe we must have to be on good behaviour for 12 months and then you get the monies ?

FollowupID: 843908

Reply By: Luvntravln - Saturday, Oct 02, 2004 at 06:35

Saturday, Oct 02, 2004 at 06:35
Anthony, I have to hand it to you! When you are angry and feel a wrong has been committed you speak your mind. Unfortunately very few at Copeton have your maturity or sense of correctness.

While what Anthony has said is what happened obliquely, I feel duty bound to explain exactly what he is referring to.

I received an email from a member who will not be identified and felt that I should know what was being said because I didn't know what was happening telling me about all of the backstabbing that had gone on at Copeton and was still going on by email regarding how terrible a person I am.

That email stated among other things that:

"When you had the chair at the special meeting and you were pushing the amendments to the rules through, they felt that you

a. Were too dictatorial by running the meeting in a manner similar to how a paid corporation would run a meeting. Not a fun club that the owners wanted to be part of.

b. When we were asked to vote to approve the 4 ordinary members of the committee we were not given a choice of voting for individuals, it was vote for all 4 or none at all. Several didn't vote at all because they didn't want to see you on the committee.

c. That you have a habit of over "complexifying" everything.

d. Trying to make himself the center hub of the organization. Whether it is intentional or not.

e. Many others at the rally have told me they cannot stand him.

f. Butting into conversations between others and then wanting centre stage.

g. So he can big note himself.

h. Continually making "much ado over nothing" to big note himself to center stage.

i. Nearly always stayed up at his camp fire, and didn't participate with others at the main fire each night.

j. At the working bee to cut up fire wood, made mention that we were open to a damages claim if someone was hurt as there was no proper instruction of how to use the chain saws or first aid equipment available. (I suppose Bob should have said it was a working bee, not chain saw lessons, as we all knew he just wanted someone to organize getting the wood cut up for the fires. I know that you had good intentions, but the comment didn't go down well with some who heard it. )

k. Didn't like the way you approached Bob in the tent when he had made a decision on his own bat without taking it to the committee. ( I noted that all the other committee members with possibly the exception of Anthony were happy to let Bob make the decision and not make a fuss about it.) I suppose it is just the different cultures between Americans and Australians, and because we are mainly Australians you are always going to be the odd one out.

l. Many members have said that they will not come to the next rally, or pay next years subscriptions if you are still on the committee.

When you were told that Bob was going to resign, you immediately said that "I will nominate Peter Spring to President, Me to Vice President and Anthony up to Treasurer, then we will have to get someone to fill Anthony's position. This type of instant reply gives the members the feeling that you are trying to run the whole show and they don't like it. To date no-one else has mentioned anything about who should fill the officer positions if Bob resigns.

I know you and Steve don't see eye to eye, and Steve has now said that he will probably end his sponsorship of the BOG Web site if you are allowed to stay on the committee. You must have also upset one of the other sponsors as well as they look like pulling out of their sponsorship as well. Without their sponsorship the site will fold due to lack of funds.

I don't like to have to say it, but the only way that I can see the club surviving is if you stand down from the committee and just become an ordinary member."

This is from a friend - the only person to tell me what was being said. The speakers to whom he refers neither spoke up during the complained of meeting nor had the maturity to tell me to my face how they felt.

The first thing I did was call Steve Gibbs to confirm the conduct attributed to him. The sum and substance of our conversation was that if I remained on the Committee he would remove his support.

To make sure I understood his position Steve also wrote to me confirming that if I remain on the Committee he would "end our support of the BOG website and Club, and go back to operating independently as we have done all along..."

The primary reason I immediately resigned was that I have no intention of being part of a Mangement Committee that has to answer to its sponsors on issues that have nothing to do with the sponsor's product.

If we are going to be dictated to by sponsors regarding how our Association is run, we do not need the sponsor. By the way, if you disagree and feel it is ok for a sponsor to agree to fund for a year and then withdraw his support, speak up!

It is interesting that this thread has had more "views" than any other thread and yet no one is willing to express themselves publically.

There is also the issue of Mob mentality. Anthony told me two things in that regard: (1) Bob Pollock told Anthony that one of the members offered to take me up into the hills and beat me up; (2) Bob Pollock immediately after the confrontation with Griff told Anthony that Bob was going to get 12 members and evict Griff from the Rally.

To answer Dave's question whether Bob was duly elected as President, he was not during the first meeting. I sincerely doubt that the adopted Rules were even read cover to cover by the Chairman before the first meeting.

During the second meeting of which I am accused of performing so badly - I didn't do it like a good old boy - I made sure that the proper motions were made, seconded, and past so that Bob was legally the President. Frankly, although he has retracted his resignation, there are no procedures for him to have made the retraction. Of course you do not want to hear this; however, tough.........

If you are going to follow the adopted Rules, the new President must be from the remaining members of the Committee, and then the remaining members choose additional non members to bring the Committee back to 8. Bob could be made an ordinary member; there are no procedures for him to legally be President having resigned his position.

In another thread one of the members said they understood the need for insurance et cetera however no one wants to put up with the BS.

Well, in this life you do not get your cake and get to eat it without any burden.

Apparently those in "know" wanted the benefits of an Incorporated Association - favorable tax treatment and limited liability - however, they thought they could still run the Group as their own club without the burdens of the laws governing Incorporated Associations.

Can't work that way and if you want it that way we should go back to MSN.

Let's talk about the BS and see if we can identify it since the member in question only referred to BS without any explanation.

When I arrived I was told I did not have a reservation. After a period of time when it was realized that I was getting upset I was told it was a prank by Bob Pollock. When I ask Bob why he did the prank he told me because I was different. Is that the BS?

When I came back from the rescue of the Boggers that got bogged during the wine tasting I said to Bob privately that driving the F-truck I didn't even realize that the cruiser was attached. That apparently gave Bob the opening to humiliate me - not my words - a member's words to Bob who was very angry the way I was treated, and suggested Bob owned me an apology. Of course, there was no apology. Is that the BS?

After the first meeting I was asked by Peter to review the Rules and propose changes. A meeting was held the next morning at 10:00 to review the amendments and make proposals to the group. The meeting was well attended by noncommittee members as well as myself, Anthony, Pete, and Brian. Bob couldn't attend because he was attending to the food for the night. What was more important?

I had been up since 5:00 am preparing the necessary amendments so that the Group was acting legally and the officers were legally elected. Is that the BS?

There was a full discussion of all of the amendments and I retyped everything for the meeting because several things I initially proposed were rewroked. Peter asked me to chair the meeting - I did not volunteer; Peter asked me and Anthony to be on the Committee - I did not volunteer; I asked Keith to be on the Committee - he did not volunteer. Is that the BS?

During the meeting some of the proposals were accepted; one that I supported was rejected. All of the officers and Angie were properly reelected; I was elected in a group with Anthony and Keith. No one asked for separate elections; no one voted against the three nominations. Is that the BS?

Three days later on Friday at the campfire I learned for the first time from Brian that Bob is going to resign because of differences with me, and I also learn about all of the backstabbing that has been going on. Is that the BS?

After the meeting numerous members thanked me for the professional meeting and for getting things done quickly. I had no idea until Friday night that there were any problems.

I guess that sums it up. Am I hurt - yeah, I am not afraid to admit publically that I am hurt by all of the backstabbing and the fact that many of the members didn't appreciate the necessity for the way I conducted the meeting. Like it or not, things will occur in a correct manner and the organization will be protected because I was not afraid to speak out when necessary.

I guess I am also a little hurt because all of those members that thanked me are now quiet and all I hear is the negative.

Nevertheless, I have no intention of leaving the Group and I will be at the next Rally.


AnswerID: 564952

Follow Up By:- Saturday, Oct 02, 2004 at 07:44

Saturday, Oct 02, 2004 at 07:44
I was saddened to learn that one member was going to take Jay up into the bush for a good flogging. I was also saddened to learn that Griff was close to being evicted physically by 12 men. Holy bleep e ! Griff is a BT owner ..and a family man ... was it another personal vendetta from his banning many months ago ? Was this to be done in front of his children ? I couldnt believe what I was hearing !!

Am I next for the threatened bush flogging ? Am I next along with my family in front of my children to be physically evicted by 12 burly Boggers ?

I realise these we probably hollow threats but they instill a certain apprehension in the indidual they are aimed at ...real adult stuff ... the stuff of men !

Is this where we are at people ?

Can I ask what Jay did to Steve Gibbs for Steve to threaten to rescind financial support if Jay was on the committee ? Was it spending $100,000 at Bushtracker that triggered Steve to this end ...was it a personal vendetta ?

Is this where we are at people ?

I had two very valued people say to me that they were verbally belittled a few times (over 2 days at least) by a certain individual to the extent it affected their whole stay at Copeton. The people in question are original boggers of whom I have the utmost respect. They wish to remain quiet for the sake of peace so the individual person will do it again most likely. But Jay and Jackie were so bad they were ostracised for Jay being American, A Lawyer and a forthright ?

Is this where we are at people ?

I dont know where the wheels fell off and I dont know the solution to personal differences but I know one thing ..... you dont have to like anyone but we are all grown up surely we can all be at least civil for a start. The civility should be from everyone to everyone else because we all own Bushtrackers.... if you dont like a certain personality get over it for the groups sake and be at least civil.

As was said to me by a bogger Lady to-day .... most are thinking of themselves and their position/credibilty as perceived by others instead of thinking of the group as a whole.

I am ashamed at some of the goings on at Copeton ....


FollowupID: 843909

Reply By: Cobradave - Sunday, Oct 03, 2004 at 00:57

Sunday, Oct 03, 2004 at 00:57
A lot of light has now been shed on this drama and I for one have no reason to doubt the historical data provided by Jay and Anthony. We as a group of independent thinking and acting people in the prime of our lives should not accept in any way, intimidation or threats from members or sponsors.

Anthony has always been over helpful in my view to provide extensive explantions, advice and I believe hands-on assistance to those who requested it.
Like his mannerisms or not, Jay's contribution to the group at Copeton has been substantial and valuable. Who can argue with these facts.

Since resignation of the presidency and 2 committee members took place, we are now faced without a president and a reduced committee who cannot possibly be expected to function effectively or carry the work load.
It is time that we the members who have entrusted the elected committee with management of this group, nominate canditates and with their approval, proceed along the normal lines of voting for their selection to the presidents' position and that of at least 2 committee members.
Furthermore I propose that in view of the behaviour of those sponsors who have made threats, one of whom apparently has been BTi, that we consider refusing to accept sponsorship from any sponsor who makes threats or offers cash with strings attached, either prior to payment of sponsorship funds or during the term of the sponsorship.
I for one prefer to pay for my independence and say "to hell" with those sponsors who want to dictate to us how and by whom we should run our organization.

I am calling now for nominations.

AnswerID: 564953

Reply By: Luvntravln - Sunday, Oct 03, 2004 at 02:36

Sunday, Oct 03, 2004 at 02:36
David, the short answer is that the situation is covered by the adopoted Rules and the members at large have nothing to do with the reformation of the Committee.

To repeat what I have previously said, the remaining 5 members vote amongst themselves to choose a new President. If the President is an existing officer, then the committee continues to fill the vacant positions.

The committee also has the power and obligation to fill the vacant ordinary member positions.

At this point I am going to post a couple of messages in the private forum in the hope that the silent members will feel more comfortable speaking up in private.

Perhaps not.

AnswerID: 564954

Our Sponsors