Stupidity in action

No good deed goes unpunished.

A few months ago, someone who I thought was my friend (oh, he still is, I'm kidding him here) talked me into subscribing to an email list.  On the unofficial privately run email list called 'the dispatch', whose main interest is supposed to be the Sons of Confederate Veterans, there were weeks of much discussion and moaning and groaning about the proposed SCV constitutional amendments, so I thought it would be a nice thing to do to let them know the results of the national convention's Friday session.  Since the list's response to a similar report of the Thursday session was appreciated, it seemed that a quick update on the Friday session would also be appreciated.  I re-learned Rule #1 -- Never volunteer.  Anything.  Ever.

Not many people I talked to at the convention were aware of the existence of the 'dispatch' list.
Of those who did know of it, very few were positive about it.  An upper-lever SCV officeholder who declined to be named had this to say about the 'scv dispatch' email list:
"You got your regular SCV, and then you have that unofficial private list, sort of like the 'evil twin skippy'.  The 'black sheep', they're mostly wannabes and outcasts who have lots of skeletons in their closets.  We don't pay any attention to them, they're a bunch of old biddies sitting on the porch doing nothing and talking bad about everybody and everything."
"Winos in an alley" was another description of the regular posters on the 'dispatch'.   "Damned know-it-alls" was a popular description.  (This is coming from various upper-level people, mind you.  Plus a lot of 'regular folk')

The 'Southern Heritage News And Views' is a much nicer, respectable message board where news and opinions are discussed in an honorable fashion.  I'd stick with them from now on, and some other respectable places.


So here is my 'Friday Report':

Hello all,
  Proposed Amendment 1 passed, which removes the veto of an accused person
on a hearing by the Committee or Subcommittee at General HQ.
  Proposed Amendment 2 was amended then passed.  In the second line, "They"
was replaced by "Camps and Divisions", for clarification.  Near the end, "
... right to transfer to a Camp in a Division different from whence he
came." was changed to remove 'in a division'.
  Proposed Amendment 3 was passed afer a lot of pro and con speeches, by a
narrow margin.  Prop 4 is gone, the author tried to withdraw it, but due to
parliamentary rules it had to be read, then the author moved to postpone it
indefinitely, which kikked it.  A resolution was offered to designate 2008
as "The Year of Davis", passed unanimously.
  We're off to eat on the USS Alabama.

Deo Vindice!

Hank Van Slyke
Walter P. Lane Camp 1745
Orange, Texas



Which was immediately followed by this goofball's strange "corrections":

Correction on disposition of the amendments. See below.

Douglas D. Dawson
Commander Florida Division
Finely's Brigade 1614

----- Original Message ----- From: "Hank Van Slyke" <chevelle@pnx.com>
> To: "SCV Dispatch" <dispatch@scvmail.net>
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 3:56 PM
> Subject: [The Dispatch] Friday session
>> Hello all,
>>  Proposed Amendment 1 passed, which removes the veto of an accused
>> person on a
>> hearing by the Committee or Subcommitte at General HQ.
>> 
Amendments:
Amendment #1, removing veto power of the accused in a discipline matter
relative to the site o the hearing was _*passed.*_
 

I wrote that it passed, he said, no, it passed.  So what's the difference?  What is he correcting?  Huh?  Huh?  Anyone?

>> Proposed Amendment 2 was amended then passed.  In the second line,
>> "They" was
>> replaced by "Camps and Divisions", for clarification.  Near the end,
>> " ...
>> right to transfer to a Camp in a Division different from whence he
>> came." was
>> changed to remove 'in a division'.
Amendment #2, Clarifying the procedure and appeals for a member subject
to discipline _*passed.*_

Same thing.  I wrote that it passed, he said, no, it passed.  So what's the difference?  What is he correcting?  Huh?  Huh?  Anyone?  Are this guy's glasses in need of updating?

>> Proposed Amendment 3 was passed afer a lot of pro and con speeches, by a
>> narrow margin. 
Amendment #3 concerning cadet dues _*failed.*_

See paragraph below.  He didn't correct my misspelling of 'after'.  Strange.

>> Prop 4 is gone, the author tried to withdraw it, but due to
>> parliamentary rules it had to be read, then the author moved to
>> postpone it
>> indefinitely, which kikked it.
Amendment #4 concerning eligibility was _*postponed indefinitely *_on
motion to do so by the author.

Again, same thing.  I wrote that it was postponed indefinitely, he said, no, it was postponed indefinitely.  So what's the difference?  What is he correcting?  Huh?  Huh?  Anyone?  Perhaps his medication needs adjusting?  I misspelled 'killed' by typing it as 'kikked', which I didn't notice until it had been sent.  I figured it wouldn't be any big deal, people could figure it out.  Boy, was that ever a wrong assumption.  It sure threw this guy for a loop.

>> A resolution was offered to designate 2008 as
>> "The Year of Davis", passed unanimously.
>>  We're off to eat on the USS Alabama.
>>
 

Wonder why he didn't 'correct' the Year of Davis info or the USS Alabama dinner while he was at it.

This guy violated Rule #2 -- Praise in public, argue in private.  Most of the folks I talked to at the convention about this asked if the guy had tried to contact me privately, and were surprised that he had not made such an effort.  If he would have tried to talk to me about this, I would have been glad to discuss it and then post my own correction and a caveat about the many delegates who thought the same as I.

Let us hope this guy has re-learned Rule #2.

At the start of the Friday session, CIC Sullivan announced that there was some confusion as to the outcome of the Thursday voting on the dues increase.  He said some thought it passed, some thought it failed, some thought it was for 8 and some for 10.  So he recapped the events that led to the adoption of the amendment about the dues, and restated that the dues increase will be ten dollars but will not take effect until next year.
There's the precedent for confusion about what the end result of the proceedings were at this convention.  Since there was enough confusion about Thursday's results to cause a Friday recap, it is no wonder that there was also a lot of confusion about what the Friday results were.

As for the amendment about the cadet funding, I honestly thought the amendment had passed, due to all the discussion, motions, parliamentary procedure and various speeches.  Of the many people I talked to about the wording of my report, about a third were still sure it had passed.  We asked some division officers and some GEC members about it, they said it failed but they were still getting a lot of questions like ours.  That one item is the only part I got wrong in my 'Friday Report', and it was an honest mistake since so many people thought the same as I,  that it had passed.  The rest of my 'Friday Report' was correct.

The wording I submitted in my 'Friday Report' was correct according to the official handout of the proposed amendments at the official national SCV convention; it was handed to each registered delegate on the actual floor of the restricted-access meeting hall.   The revised parts of text I described and submitted in the 'Friday Report' were later inspected and confirmed as accurate by over 40 registered delegates to the convention; after that I quit counting.  The goofball on the Dispatch claimed he had three 'confirmations' of his so-called 'corrections'.
Over 40 confirmations in my favor are a definite slam-dunk repudiation of the goofball's 3, and they all understood perfectly about confusion on the outcome of the cadet dues issue.

Some people can't understand parliamentary procedures.  When a motion is made to table something indefinitely, a unanimous vote in favor of that motion means that the original something is dead and gone.
All these tiny-brained folk hear is 'unanimous vote for' and they think someone said the original something was passed, so they start jumping up and down and hollering that the other person is wrong and they are obligated to correct them.    So, taking it even further into the realm of numbskullness,  this goofball pompously declared that he was making official corrections to my information, and proceeded to quote my description of the floor action on the motion and then wrote the same thing, as if the act of repeating the same information would elevate his standing in the community.  What a prankvoll narr that guy is.  (Look that one up in German  ;-)    With people like this, you have to explain it to them, then draw them a picture, then explain the picture, then explain the explanation of the picture, and they still don't get it.  They are like a child who tries to correct an adult by saying "It is NOT a 'quarter of four', it is THREE FORTY-FIVE!".


I'd like to thank the many honorable gentlemen who have sent me private notes of support and encouragement. You are the best of comrades and you're right, a few bad apples should not spoil the barrel.  But they sure can raise a stink for a short time. 
 To the bad apples we say, "Here's your sign." (see Bill Ingvall)