Subs payments please!

[Seenenough]

Having not had a reply to my query to Seenenough and TalmaCaptain I have now refunded both 'donations' (what ribrash (so nicely) refers to as "a few wealthy patrons virtue signalling") - NB not my words. I do appreciate the thought chaps, but not what I asked for. A payment of £3 each would be magic.

A thought for those who disagree - where would it leave me if, say, 6 or 7 members decided to 'donate' £50 each? On the next flight to the Caribbean, do I hear?

admin2-To assume we intended to "Virtue Signal"is somewhat of a narrow viewpoint.We were simply upholding the principles under which Alison created the Forum and clearly by her recent comments, wishes to see continue.

You seem to have some personal issues with those who donate ,without expecting any preferential treatment in any way.You incorrectly and insultingly assume and imply that we are sinisterly expecting something in return.

Several of us ,including Alison have made it clear that we feel it is wrong of you to require a subscription to participate but you just ploughed ahead anyway.

This is a forum of thoughts and views and was never intended to be a Country Club where if you are not one of us,you're not welcome.

Nobody should never be prevented from commenting because they choose not to subscribe.

[VP959]

admin2-To assume we intended to "Virtue Signal"is somewhat of a narrow viewpoint.We were simply upholding the principles under which Alison created the Forum and clearly by her recent comments, wishes to see continue.

You seem to have some personal issues with those who donate ,without expecting any preferential treatment in any way.You incorrectly and insultingly assume and imply that we are sinisterly expecting something in return.

Several of us ,including Alison have made it clear that we feel it is wrong of you to require a subscription to participate but you just ploughed ahead anyway.

This is a forum of thoughts and views and was never intended to be a Country Club

Nobody should ever be prevented from commenting because they choose not to subscribe.

I did post earlier that I wasn't going to say more on this, but your post Seenenough resonates so very closely with my own views that I just had to write to say that I wholeheartedly agree with you. I've donated to two other forums over the years, to defray running costs, one a cycling forum, another a mutual help forum for a small group of self-builders, years ago. Both times the donations were willingly given, without being asked, because, like this one, I felt they were communities that were worthwhile and deserved support.

I also inherently trust all here, we are all honourable people, that have had to show, or even prove, that by oaths and deeds over the years. It's unthinkable that anyone here would misuse any donation in my view.

The very last thing on my mind when making a donation to this forum's running costs was the abhorrent idea of preferential treatment, likewise I had no intention of so called "virtue signalling", in fact I very specifically objected to the list of donors being published and asked not to be included in it. If I donate to anything or anyone, then it is done with free will, a good heart and absolutely no expectation of anything in return, and frankly I'd far rather no one ever knew of it (a desire that has failed miserably on this occasion).

It seems that some here object to the way I view the world, judging from some comments above, and some seemingly object to the principle of no strings attached donations to worthy causes. So be it, but please accept that I am not a whinger (as has already been suggested) and I have not been trying to freeload, get something for nothing or curry favour with anyone.

My whole donation has now been refunded, with none kept back for the notional subscription.

I assume from this that I am now to be expelled from this new members club, given that even the new, small, subscription has not been kept back.

Great shame, as I have enjoyed the virtual company of all here over the years, and have gained a lot of pleasure from many of the tales and anecdotes, and particularly Ricardian's never-ending series of jokes.

As Douglas Adams once wrote, with fish as a metaphor for all benefits received, "So Long and Thanks for all the Fish"

VP out

[Seenenough]

"As Douglas Adams once wrote, with fish as a metaphor for all benefits received, "So Long and Thanks for all the Fish"

VP out"

Well done admin2,it seems you have run another recently re-emerged participant out of town.

[admin2]

You have both been on the wrong drugs, I feel? Both posts contain imagined and incorrect assumptions, bordering on hallucinogenic. No-one has been 'run out of town' over subs by me. As I understand these last two posts both of you choose not to contribute the £3 requested - is that correct? That does seem somewhat bizarre!

Seen - your issue is with ribrash over the motives he has assumed for you, not me - I assume you missed words "NB not my words". Please deal directly with him if you don't like his views. I have genuinely thanked all donators for their kind offers but pointed out that is not the way I wish to go for the coming year, no more. I did also explain to you (again you have ignored that) that I was warned that accepting donations MIGHT cause issues in some circumstances and I noted the advice. However, since i have moved to a subscription scheme that does not apply.

[talmacapt]

I have written to admin2 indicating that I am happy to pay the sub., despite the fact that it cannot be done anonymously.

I will dwell no more on the subject but do hope those, who have indicated their decision to leave, decide to stay.

We need your input to balance some of the more prolific posters!!

[Seenenough]

You have both been on the wrong drugs, I feel? Both posts contain imagined and incorrect assumptions, bordering on hallucinogenic. No-one has been 'run out of town' over subs by me. As I understand these last two posts both of you choose not to contribute the £3 requested - is that correct? That does seem somewhat bizarre!

Seen - your issue is with ribrash over the motives he has assumed for you, not me - I assume you missed words "NB not my words". Please deal directly with him if you don't like his views. I have genuinely thanked all donators for their kind offers but pointed out that is not the way I ***** go for the coming year, no more. I did also explain to you (again you have ignored that) that I was warned that accepting donations MIGHT cause issues in some circumstances and I noted the advice. However, since i have moved to a subscription scheme that does not apply.

Interesting to see you emphasizing and endorsing another view in support of your decision not to accept donations in any way or manner.

And Yes you are running people out based on your "I'm the boss around here"approach and you will all comply with what I alone have decided in order to play at what is seemingly becoming more and more like your own personal playground.

[Rossian]

I really, really don't understand why all the bickering. What is it that you don't like? the "sub/donation?/ the fact that admin2 has said who has and who hasn't dobbed in? I belong to several small organisations (Men's Sheds) and we all chip in to the tea swindle and some need regular contributions but I've never seen this degree of wingeing (disguised as some principle?). We (mostly) are old enough and and ugly enough to come to some sort of compromise; who hasn't been on a crew where differences needed sorting out? Certainly in Maritime it was a continuous process. Or are we all retired skygods whose word was law/ no stick no vote, I'm the captain types? It's only £3 for god's sake.
What we need at the moment is a sensible woman like Juud from TOP to knock heads together.
If not £3, how else do you suggest we keep the site running. Stop bitching at admin2 and come forward with some constructive suggestions. And stop referring to TGA as Caco, that is being childish.

The Ancient Mariner

[VP959]

I really, really don't understand why all the bickering. What is it that you don't like? the "sub/donation?/ the fact that admin2 has said who has and who hasn't dobbed in? I belong to several small organisations (Men's Sheds) and we all chip in to the tea swindle and some need regular contributions but I've never seen this degree of wingeing (disguised as some principle?). We (mostly) are old enough and and ugly enough to come to some sort of compromise; who hasn't been on a crew where differences needed sorting out? Certainly in Maritime it was a continuous process. Or are we all retired skygods whose word was law/ no stick no vote, I'm the captain types? It's only £3 for god's sake.
What we need at the moment is a sensible woman like Juud from TOP to knock heads together.
If not £3, how else do you suggest we keep the site running. Stop bitching at admin2 and come forward with some constructive suggestions. And stop referring to TGA as Caco, that is being childish.

The Ancient Mariner

I am not bickering at all, and I am being grossly misrepresented here.

I didn't want to do this at all, but my parting shot is this. I chucked £50 in the kitty - good value I thought, and I hoped the excess would help out those that were having difficulties in transferring international funds.

I received this reply: "Oh dear - nice thought but you have NOT read or understood the thread! I will be recording your £3 and returning the £47."

The implication from the capitalised word "NOT"was that I was an imbecile, incapable of reading or understanding pages of what have been pretty conflicting statements, including many posts suggesting we donate around £50 to the kitty over the past few weeks. Frankly this pissed me off deeply, if I am to be absolutely honest. I do not expect to be spoken with as if I am an imbecile, but that's by the by.

I assumed that if my money wasn't needed, or was causing offence, then the excess would be refunded, as clearly stated in the quote above, even though it didn't bother me at all if it was kept to help out others.

Next thing I knew was that even my £3 had been specifically refused, reason unknown, but I've been refunded £50 as of 13:59Z, which to me is a clear and unequivocal indication that my "subscription" has been rejected and my membership of this "club" has been rejected. Perhaps this is because I did not want my name to be included on a public subscription list, who knows, I certainly don't. I do know that I have not been even the slightest bit impolite with our administrators, at any time since I first signed up here around 4 years ago.

[admin2]

VP - for some ??inexplicable reason?? you have only partially quoted my message to you (to which you failed to respond), hence the total refund - as I do not have time for prima donnas to strut around the stage.

For the benefit of accuracy so all can see what you are up to, this was the second part of my message to you

"I have the option of refunding the whole payment and we can start again or if you give me your PP account I will return the £47."

Why did you not respond (and also misquote)?

[Seenenough]

VP - for some ??inexplicable reason?? you have only partially quoted my message to you (to which you failed to respond), hence the total refund - as I do not have time for prima donnas to strut around the stage.

For the benefit of accuracy so all can see what you are up to, this was the second part of my message to you

"I have the option of refunding the whole payment and we can start again or if you give me your PP account I will return the £47."

Why did you not respond (and also misquote)?

Quite rich coming from you-A more adult like way of doing it would have been to have kept 3 Quid and repay the rest but you had to prove your point and absolute authority ,didn't you.

I clearly said in the pay notes when I paid that this was "for me plus bit more for those who did not want to pay"-but you are conveniently forgetting to tell others that.

[VP959]

VP - for some ??inexplicable reason?? you have only partially quoted my message to you (to which you failed to respond), hence the total refund - as I do not have time for prima donnas to strut around the stage.

For the benefit of accuracy so all can see what you are up to, this was the second part of my message to you

"I have the option of refunding the whole payment and we can start again or if you give me your PP account I will return the £47."

Why did you not respond (and also misquote)?

I did not have time to respond given the haste with which my donation was refunded! I assumed that the first line from you was the key statement of intent, that which would be followed unless I made a contrary request. That's how our language usually works, is it not? How was I to know that the secondary statement really had primacy, which flies in the face of normal convention when giving orders?

Far too much of what's been going on in this thread and the others seems to be a consequence of very, very poor communication. Some of this was caused by the lengthy debate, some by genuine misunderstanding, but at no point has there been a clear and unequivocal statement to the effect of:

"Please ignore everything that's been discussed over the past few weeks, here's the PayPal/Western Union/bank account/Revolut (or whatever) payment details, send NO MORE than £3 using one of the above methods by such and such a date, if you wish to remain a member"

I'm not an imbecile, and although I'm getting on for 70 now I did manage to get to 1* before I retired, so some people seemed to think I had a modicum of competence. I am far from being alone in having misunderstood the orders given regarding payment, as is clear from the fact that others seem to have done much the same as I have, and have been issued refunds.

What other conclusion was I supposed to draw when the full amount was refunded almost exactly 21 hours after I had made the donation, of which much of that 21 hour period was overnight, when, funnily enough, I am not sitting at my desk waiting to respond to any email?

[VP959]

Quite rich coming from you-A more adult like way of doing it would have been to have kept 3 Quid and repay the rest but you had to prove your point absolute authority ,didn't you.

I clearly said in the pay notes that this was "for me plus bit more for those who did not want to pay"-but you are conveniently forgetting to tell others that.

That was exactly my view. Some had expressed concern over how to transfer money internationally, and I genuinely felt that if I chucked a few quid extra in then it would cover their costs and keep us all onboard for another year or so. Never have I seen a charitable desire turned around to be something that has clearly caused so much offence. It is beyond bizarre that all this upset hinges around several members here trying to help out those that were clearly finding making a subscription payment a bit of a technical challenge from wherever they live.

[Seenenough]

"You have both been on the wrong drugs,...."

How very professional and polite,admin2

[Smeagol]

It might be a good idea to take this 'discussion' to the private part of the forum. To 'non-members' viewing we may be making rather a spectacle of ourselves.

[Opsboi]

I thought the Tory leadership contest was an unpleasant embarrassment but wow...

It was mooted that we might chip in a puny £3 to help keep the board airborne

You'd think we'd been forced to contribute £3,000 to a support fund for Vladimir Putin

Just take a deep breath, everybody - and Rossian, for God's sake post some of your worst ever jokes...

[om15]

It might be a good idea to take this 'discussion' to the private part of the forum. To 'non-members' viewing we may be making rather a spectacle of ourselves.

I don't know, it is the most entertaining thread posted in the past six months, good value for money I'd say.

[admin2]

Welcome back, om15.