Richard B Gosling wrote:
>
> Joe, Laura, and all others out there,
>
> Having delved a little further through my bulging in-box, it would appear
>(from
> a letter sent by Joe to Paul forwarded to the list by Brad) that it was you,
> Joe, who has upset Laura so badly.
>
Yep, I confess it was me!!!!
> Joe, you seem to think that Laura over-reacted to the comments you made, and
> that her reaction was unjustified and over the top. Possibly so, from your
> point of view. However, some people are more sensitive than others. If you
> do not know someone well, you should assume they are sensitive, and avoid
> making un-necessarily provocative comments, until you know them better and
> know that they can take it - that is common good manners. Maybe you feel
>that
> you know Laura well enough through the list that you can make these comments
>-
> if so, you have mis-judged her, as we all have seen (before this occasion)
> that her feelings can be hurt.
Not only did she over-react, but she took a previously private conversation to
the list in an order to personally hurt me and although
didn't specifically mention my name, made it perfectly clear who she was
referring to. (She cleverly mentioned "currying favor" twice
in the message... very clever indeed). My personal exchange with her was in an
effort to make her realize that few list members
actually buy that load of crap that she is peddling and that people were
snickering behind her back every time she brings it up. The
only way she could ever hope to quell this snickering is to either prove it
(which she has indicated she will not do) or stop it all
together.
No guy on any of these lists could ever expect to get away with such
unsubstantiated claims and She will not either. Time for another
cliché. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
>
> It was not so long ago that you managed to get quite upset when Graham Robson
> questioned your summary of Spitfire chassis numbers in the pages of the Club
> Triumph magazine - you are not so thick-skinned yourself. I detect a level
>of
> male chauvinism in your assumption that, because Laura owns, drives, and
> enjoys her Spitfire, that that should make her 'one of the guys', and
> therefore able to take the level of verbal brawling that a bunch of guys
> sometimes indulge in away from female company. Why should a sensitive woman
> not be allowed to enjoy a Spitfire, and share her enthusiasm with us, without
> having to suppress her femininity and her own character - or indeed a
> sensitive man, not all of us have elephant hide for skins?
Sorry man, but you have that 180 degrees backwards. It was Graham that got
upset because I questioned his numbers that were quoted in
some TSSC article. Actually, the figures were not attributed to him at all but
later it was revealed that they were his and came from
the BMIHT archives. IN fact, the information was indeed wrong, or poorly
presented so that it was misleading. Check with Sue
Huneybell and she will confirm this.
As for Male Chauvinism, it doesn't apply here. In fact, if anything, it is
poor Laura who wants a double standard. SHe wants to throw
out all sorts of unsubstantiated claims without being required to "put up or
shut up". The unstated rule that applies to male bravado
says that if you say it you must be able to prove it. Laura does not want to
be bound by any such trivial rule.
>
> As an aside, I never, detected any excessive bravado or bragging from Laura,
> beyond obvious enthusiasm for her car. As she may not be one of the most
> technical amongst us, I would not expect her to have to prove herself, or
> Nigel, with more technical details of him than she already has. If you have
> been suggesting that she must race her car, which she does not want to do, in
> order to prove herself or her car, then I am afraid that is something you
> should have grown out when you were 20. However, even if there had been any
> unnecessary bragging, I would have hoped that you would have had the
> sensitivity to avoid upsetting someone who most of us call a friend. If you
> do not count the other list members (at least those who contribute regularly)
> as your friends then that is sad.
If you haven't noticed any bravado, you must not have been paying attention.
In the past months her engine has been said to have all
the way from 125 HP tp well over 140 HP and the engine (starting out as a 1500)
mow is almost 1600 cc, runs all day at well over 100
mph and passes California emissions with ease. Somehow the figures don't add
up.
>
> I offered to support Laura in any attempt to expel those she felt had made her
> unwelcome in this community. That offer still stands. However, I would be
> very sad to see Joe go: as one of the most knowledgeable and dedicated
> amongst us, keeper of the register, and a regular contributor, he is a
> valuable person to have around. Much better to apologise - even if it is
>just
> for your insensitivity, and not your views - and we can all get back to being
> friends. Even if you feel in yourself you have done nothing wrong, apologise
> anyway - is it really worth that little bit of hurt pride to lose Laura from
> this list forever? Even if they were not intended them that way, your
> comments clearly were hurtful - Laura would still be around if they were not.
I don't want to drive anyone off the list either but I do think that anyone who
chooses to spout "Facts and Figures" ought to know that
if they can't (or won't) be substantiated, people will likely not believe them.
THat goes for guys and gals alike.
>
> Some may feel that I am getting involved in something that is not my business,
> that is between Laura and Joe. That is mostly true, but I am affected, since
> if Laura is driven from this list, then I lose a friend - that is when it
> becomes my business too.
It started out that way, but Laura's message to the list unfortunately brought
everyone into the frey.
Regards,
Joe
|