I guess that I may represent some of the new people or at least those who lurk.

I believe I know of ozstamps from the Baht run thread. However, what I naively do not know is why he was away for a year.

Forgive the ignorance, but could someone provide some background?

FWIW, briefly, he and another FT'er had a little chat with Randy over some persistent disagreements, and the upshot was that these two folks would both no longer post. Yet after a year, they are now both happily back in the FT fold resuming their contributions!

In addition, the FT board owners/managers have exhibited an unwillingness to discuss these matters publicly, so I'd urge us all to kindly defer and respect this policy of not talking about others!

Hope this helps.

-Mark

Thanks doc, and I feel our host would agree that sums up things pretty succinctly, and hopefully assists countinplaces and some other newer members of FlyerTalk. As per Randy Petersens' post earlier in this thread - which he has often repeated in the past as his main wish for these boards:

------------------
~ Glen ~

doc posts: Then why, may I ask, do you violate your own "advise" and do just that with the following?

If you feel free to discuss this subject (against your own "advise"), then why shouldn't anyone else be allowed to do the same?

I'll repeat that question just in case you missed it:

If you feel free to discuss this subject (against your own "advise"), then why shouldn't anyone else be allowed to do the same?

Personally, and since doc has commented on this, and to at least allow a speck of "equal time" so to speak, I don't think doc's revisionist/minimalist synopsis of the whole matter does the story justice and is a million miles (there, at least I discussed miles) from "succinct."

I don't have a problem with anyone sending their welcome back greetings. But if anyone trys to sugar coat what happened in the past and feels compeled to only allow one side of the story (as was just now put forth), and that which IMHO does not even approach the truth or the whole story, well...

You can't have it both ways boys. You can't ask others to keep their mouths shut while you go on publically pushing your own "it was no big deal" version of the story.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

PremEx, my friend, you are not wrong. Not at all.

Not everyone here is posting welcome back messages.

FewMiles..

I don't really care about the welcome backs, like I said. Anyone can hip hip horray or hiss hiss 'gday if they feel so inclined.

My points were only meant to:

1. Address doc's contradictory "advise" above.

2. Since he posted his synopsis, my own comments that I felt his synopsis was far from the whole story.

It took great discipline on my part to withold my "synopsis" of events.

[Comments rescinded.]

[This message has been edited by MagMile (edited 05-13-2002).]

Then, why don't you just let this thread pass by and keep your negative attitudes to yourself.


[This message has been edited by Hunki (edited 05-13-2002).]

Edited because what I refered to was removed. Thank You.

[This message has been edited by PremEx (edited 05-13-2002).]

premex, forgive me, you're correct and I will edit my post.

Hunki, all I have done is agree with PremEx that there are two sides to every story and that many details have been glossed over.

As for my comment that "not all here are posting welcome back messages", you can take that any way you please. On the one level, I am merely pointing out (mainly to people who are "newer" to FT) that the absence of dissenting opinions does not mean complete support on the issue. If anyone wishes to read "deeper meanings" from this, that is their freedom.

FewMiles..

[edited upon further consideration]

[This message has been edited by FewMiles (edited 05-14-2002).]

Thank You Hunki. I have done the same.

How does a "Welcome back" thread deserve any dissenting opinions other than to cause negativity? I understood Premex's comments about Doc's comments, and his feelings about the basis of this thread. I don't understand how your post provided any further clarification of Premex's post other than just to be negative. Given that this is a "community thread", then what issue are you protecting the "newer members" from?
As my mother used to say, "if you don't have anything nice to say about someone, then don't".

Well, Hunki, I decided to edit my previous post, since while I was composing it, you had already edited your earlier post on the previous page. I was frankly surprised you would have posted something like what you originally posted, given your advice above.

You are correct that I really do not have anything nice to say, but that does not necessarily mean I shouldn't say it. Believe me, though, I haven't said a darn thing. I'm not going to engage you in any debate on what it means to be nice, because in the end, I know I cannot be as nice as you. But for me, it keeps me from being blinded by any naive belief that the good always outweighs the bad.

I really would prefer that we all go back and address PremEx's earlier question to doc. Why do we on the one hand say we will not talk about these past events (IMHO, burying our heads in the sand), yet on the other hand give "sanitised" versions of history?

FewMiles..

If you feel that it is important enough, then start a new thread to address that issue, I just don't feel it's appropriate here. And, yes, I over-reacted in my first post, and I apologize for hitting the "enter" key before I had fully processed what I had written.