MICHAEL HANSON RIP *NM*

[Rob M.]

Re: MICHAEL HANSON RIP

Has anything changed in ruling regarding the freedom of speach in the States lately?

[Joe L.]

My Thoughts

Rob------

I am ABSOLUTELY LOATHE to get involved in discussions like this. However, I feel compelled to offer a few comments even though, by doing so, I'm violating my own principle and opinion that this sort of topic is totally inappropriate for this discussion board.

First of all, I know nothing regarding the issues here. Although I noted all of the posts concerning the 63-64 issue, I actually viewed virtually none of them and I have no intention of going back now and "seeing what I missed". The "thrust" of the few that I did view seemed to be going in a direction that held no interest, at all, for me so I, basically, ignored the rest of the threads in the various posts. I did note in this thread that some folks have stated they saw nothing inappropriate in the previous discussions at issue. Keep in mind, though, that it's possible that there were other posts and statements which were deleted prior to many folks seeing them.

Notwithstanding my lack of viewing virtually all of the posts in the recent 63-64 discussions, I have noted some posts in the past on this subject which seemed to go well beyond the technical issues involved. There have been many posts over the course of the past years that discussed technical issues surrounding 63-64 Corvettes and disagreement over various aspects of the judging guide. As far as I know, those generated no particular controversy and no posts were deleted by NCRS. Some posts, however, got into the area of PERSONALITIES, statements I would describe as "biting and pointed criticism" of same, and general criticism of the organization which sponsors this discussion board. Still, most, if not all, of those posts were allowed to remain.

Sometimes, I think that folks forget several important things regarding this discussion board. First and foremost is the fact that the STATED purpose of this board is for TECHNICAL DISCUSSION of Corvettes. It is not a board intended for wide ranging, off-topic discussions and certainly not for getting into personalities. Quite frankly, I think that NCRS management has been quite "liberal" in interpretation of what constitutes appropriate discussion on this board. I have seen a lot of questionable or "marginal" discussions so I really do not think that the organization has "over-regulated", "narrowly interpreted" or exercised rigid censorship of this board. The fact that this very thread remains on the board is about as strong a testament to that fact as I can think of. Just to be clear, I have no problem, whatsoever, with this policy; I think that it's very good to have SOME of the "marginal" discussions even though they really are well outside the area of technical discussion. There has to be limits, though. Also, I feel that offenders of the discussion board policy are warned, and perhaps, repeatedly, of postings which violate policy before further action is taken. So, I really don't think that this comes as a surprise to individuals involved. It is NOT incumbent upon board management to advise the rest of the board regarding the issuance of said warnings nor is it incumbent upon them to advise as to their reasons for any "disciplinary actions". In fact, it's quite INAPPROPRIATE for them to do so, regardless of how curious that some might be.

I have been involved and active with several Corvette discussion boards over the course of the last 10 years, or so. With many, especially some of the early ones, the boards degenerated into what amounted to a farce as a result of no active management or moderation of the board. Some folks will constantly "test the limits". As they reach one level of "excursion" and are not controlled or "reigned in", they proceed to the next level. In short order, the boards are destroyed for all practical purposes. I honestly feel that some folks actually enjoy creating controversy and destroying discussion boards. I think that it gives them a sense of power that may be otherwise lacking in their lives.

With regard to the issue of "free speech" that you and several other folks have commented on, I offer this: as one prominent jurist described once-upon-a-time "...free speech does not mean that one can yell 'fire' in a crowded theater when there is no fire...". In other words, one cannot say whatever they want in any forum at any time. For example, suppose that an individual took a position contrary to the doctrine and policies of their religion. Do you suppose that they would be allowed to take the pulpit at their church and profess their opinion and ideas? Would the refusal of the church to allow that constitute "censorship" or "denial of their right of free speech"?

The management and ownership of ANY discussion board has the right to set rules for the conduct of their discussion board. They have the right to remove postings that, in their sole opinion, violate the rules. In this case, the NCRS discussion board is NOT the place to discuss personalities, operating practices of the organization and similar things. It's not the place, AT ALL, to do those things. Bringing up technical issues which involve contrary opinions to items found in the judging guides is fine----we do it all the time and have been doing it for years. Going BEYOND that may not be so fine.

I have not been involved in the management or leadership of the NCRS and I have no plans or intentions to do so. However, NCRS is primarily a VOLUNTEER organization and I have been and continue to be involved in other volunteer organizations for over 30 years, so I well understand same. I can tell you, FOR CERTAIN, that if I have one point of EXTREME IRRITATION with respect to such involvement is folks that criticize what the volunteers are doing WITHOUT THEMSELVES BEING VOLUNTEERS or, in many cases, without even being members of the organization. By the way, I do not include participation on this discussion board, for myself or any others, as being a "volunteer" effort in the true sense of the word. The level of volunteer which rises to an OBLIGATION OF TIME COMMITMENT is what I'm talking about.

While this discussion board is not the place for criticism of the organization or individuals associated with it, there ARE forums within the organization for such. These include attendance at board meetings, letters or e-mails to NCRS elected or appointed leaders, and personal conversations with NCRS leaders and members at NCRS events. There's NO lack of available opportunities for "free speech" within the organization. Free speech and conveying dis-satisfaction does not mean, though, that all that disturbs one will be corrected to one's satisfaction. One may consider themselves to be the "center of the universe" and "all-knowing" but others may disagree.

If folks are really dis-satisfied with any aspect of the organization, then I suggest that they approach that in a CONSTRUCTIVE MANNER. By this, I mean the following:

1) If not a member, JOIN the organization. An individual that is not a member has no more right to criticize the organization than a person that does not vote has to criticize the government. Refusing to be a member as a matter of protest also, in my opinion, denies one the right to criticize said organization;

2) VOLUNTEER to get involved in the process to change the things that disturb one. Accept the fact that change may not occur as fast as or to one's liking. If NCRS is like any of the volunteer organizations that I've been part of, there is a VERY SHORT line of folks waiting to "ascend" to positions which involve OBLIGATION OF HEAVY TIME COMMITMENT and personal inconvenience.

Without trying to patronize anyone and begging one's pardon if my opinion is contrary to yours, I really think that this discussion board is the finest Corvette discussion board in existence. In fact, I think that it's one of the finest of ANY type of discussion board. A great part of the reason is that it's actively monitored and managed. It's like this: one might not like getting a speeding ticket but one does benefit greatly from the fact that one's child is not run over and killed by speeding drivers in an uncontrolled environment.

[Rob M.]

Re: My Thoughts

Joe,

I do agree with you but I'm still curious what boundry has been crossed to avoid making the same mistake. I know Michael as a very helpfull and positive attitude guy so I'm just surprised if his abandonship would indeed be true...

greetings,
Rob.

[Erik S.]

Re: My Thoughts

If I remember correctly many of us agreed with Roy Sinor's approach (see his post of week ago or so) - I guess he more or less indicated what would happen if................

That's all I want to share on this very sensitive subject. In the Netherlands we have the approach that everything can be solved by entering into mature discussion whereby we respect other opinions.

Erik

[Bill Stephenson]

Re: My Thoughts

-------I have known Mike Hanson since 1976. I was technically his boss. That was laughable as he clearly knew 10 times more about automobiles than I did. It was bad for the ego but good for business to have him around. All of us at Classic Motors learned an incredible amount from Mike. He was and, I think, still is a good teacher. I remember him being patient and tolerant of those that knew less than him. I am leaving this arena as well, but not at all because Im his friend. If the people that make decisions here can not see the value of someones educational posts then there is something really wrong here. I have never seen a negative post by him, just some information in direct contradiction to NCRS manuals. If he is banned for that,,,Im gone too........Bill S

[Terry F.]

Re: My Thoughts

Nice letter. Did you every get your ZL1 started?? Terry

[Hector G.]

Re: My Thoughts

I hope this matter is resolved. I benefitted greatly from Mike's help.

[Loren Smith]

Re: My Thoughts

A good compromise might be a separate "adminstrative issues" forum. Then non-technical issues posted on the technical forum could be moved to the adminstration forum, which is less offensive to the people making the posts than having them disappear. Management might be pleasantly suprised to find little traffic on the admistrative forum after its enactment, if it is anything like the administrative forums on the other Corvette websites. And if a tree falls in the woods, but no one is there to hear it, did it make a sound? Just my 2 cents.

[mike cobine]

Michael Hanson was not the first removed

Many have been.

Last September, I almost was because of the 1963-64 TMJG website I set up to collect issues with the judging manual.

If you want to discuss it, send an email to Jeff Cook. However, you had better cc a few others at the same time.

[Jack H.]

Re: My Thoughts

I agree with Joe Lucia's comments...this is a Technical Discussion Board, and politics are not the main focus here.

Further, to Joe's comments regarding recognized restrictions to free speech, there's a matter of Constitutional law here. The First Amendment to the US Constitution was written in a 'unique' manner:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The first five words have been argued before and our Supreme Court has ruled on the issue conservatively. Citizens have 1st amendment rights with respect to the Government (Federal, State, Local) but do NOT have 1st amendment rights when it comes to their relation with private organizations/private employers.

Private organizations DO have the right to set standards of conduct and restrict an individual's behavior... So, it's NOT a matter of falsely crying, 'fire' in a crowded theatre. It's a matter of a private organization's rules of conduct here.

[Donald M.]

Now That "Everyone's" Leaving.......

maybe I will be taken seriously. You see, I have this theory about BB hood '67's and...
Don

[Loren L.]

"Technical" Board

In terms of this Board and the long-avowed purpose of NCRS - cars built as they were at the factory - I CANNOT imagine anything more "technical" than input/opinions on how the cars were built/appeared at the factory.

[Joe L.]

Re: My Thoughts

Terry-----

I'm ashamed to have to say "not yet". I've pretty much run out of good excuses so I won't be able to offer any. Actually, I ran out of good excuses a very long time ago. But, I'm still planning on having it on the road by this spring.

[Roy B.]

Re: Now That "Everyone's" Leaving.......DON

MY 67 sold last month so now I dont need to be asked about it no more , now it's him and Noland to argue over it with others!

[Terry F.]

Re: My Thoughts

Joe, if you ever wanted to compare projects that are not done, I think I could go head to head with you. My 68 is so over due it isn't funny. Do you have an opinion on full roller rockers regarding quality and possibly those that might fit under stock valve covers on big blocks with drippers?? Thanks, Terry