ATTENTION: I may have to RESIGN the BCA over THIS!!!!!

[Reatta Man]

Dear friends of the collector car hobby and members of the BCA,

In the general AACA forum, under a posting titled "EPA threatens to increase Ethanol in gas to 15% " I posted a note, along with the other comments posted by other members, about how I hoped the November 2nd elections would change the direction of the EPA. That, along with my signature block, generated this note from Peter Je. Heizmann:

Reatta Man.

Just a reminder that the AACA "owned" Forum rules forbid political or religious references.

Requesting that you delete your signature statement about God does not believe in atheists plus no references to the Nov. 2nd elections in the ethanol thread. I have copied this text into a Microsoft Word document; if you need a copy of it after it is deleted, email me and I will send it to you.

Thank you in advance,

Peter.

I SENT THIS RESPONSE TO HIM:

Peter,

You obviously do not understand sarcasm. And, your censorship has gone TOO FAR.

Unless you stop this, I will resign from this forum, and the BCA. I can't be part of something that seeks to take away the very constitutional freedoms that I have fought for as a military officer and Air Force civilian for nearly 30 years. To think that it has now become acceptable to actually demand someone remove a refernce to God and a legal election where people will excercise their right to vote is beyond belief for a forum hosted in the United States of America.

Please reconsider your request and your policy.

Joe N. Wiggins

As a result of this, my reference to the November 2nd election has ALREADY BEEN REMOVED from the EPA and ethanol post.

I am hereby formally asking the BCA board of directors to either start their own forum NOT censored by the AACA monitors, or get AACA to change the direction of this censorship.

While my signature block was considered to be sarcastic and get readers to think about God, I am NOT pushing my beleifs on anyone. And, I have served nearly 30 years in the Air Force, and deployed to some of the least desirable parts of the world to support the mission so you would have freedom of speech in the U.S.

Peter's demand, to me, is unrealistic and uacceptable. If this policy of censorship by the AACA doesn't change, I will request the moderator of this forum delete my account, and when my membership in the BCA is up for renewal, I will NOT be renewing it. I am 55, will retire in about 5 years, and have the resources to, I had hoped, travel to every national no matter where it is held, and spend whatever I wanted to restore old Buicks and enjoy this hobby. However, this atmosphere of censorship cannot allow me, in good conscience, to support this forum, the BCA, or its events.

I'm very sad to say this; as I sit here typing this, my hands are literally shaking at the thought of having my right to freedom of speech be censored by a club and a forum that I have helped suppport with my dues. I thought there had been a lot of great discussion lately about how we could all make contributions to mentoring new members, keeping the events friendly to cars in all conditions, and thereby encourage their owners to participate.

However, I can't go along with this kind of censorship. If you wish to discuss this further, my email address is joewiggins55@yahoo.com or you may post a message to men on my Facebook page. Just find the 'Joe Wiggins' on Facebook that lives in San Antonio. You might want to keep this info; I suspect that THIS post, along with my last one in the Ethanol forum, will soon be deleted.

Sincerely,

Joe Wiggins

[buick5563]

The way I see it, this isn't a constitutional issue. It is a private forum and we need to follow their rules. If you don't believe in God you shouldn't join the Boy Scouts, etc.

Very respectfully,

[Smartin]

...aaaand if you don't comply with the "demand?"

To me, boards like this are too valuable to just walk away from. Signatures are an insignificant part of the whole picture. Walk away from this for a day and let your mind clear. I used to get all worked up about stuff like this, but it's just not worth the stress.

[Reatta Man]

Adam,

Normally, I would agree and appreciate your advice. If I had called someone a name, made a poor judgement, or some other dumb mistake that any of us could make from time to time, you would have a valid point.

But censoring a religious reference, or censoring just a reference to a constitutionally sactioned election is just TOO MUCH.

The bottom line is, this forum needs its members more than the members need the forum. And, I am a member of several other automotive forums; NO ONE practices this kind or level of censorship.

Joe

[trimacar]

First, the Reatta group is on this forum as a deal made with the Buick club to include all forum items, not just true antique cars (which, by AACA definition, no Reatta meets at this time), so being on this forum is a privilege which you are apparently, in the moderator's opinion, abusing. This is only a BCA issue in the sense of the deal that they made with the AACA.

Second, what you are not considering, is that this is a forum of a club with not only strict bylaws, but also legal responsibilities. As such, it cannot condone discussion of such sensitive subjects, as there are legal ramifications of allowing such threads.

Look at the big picture, and as they say, breathe in, breathe out, move on

[Reatta Man]

Allowing freedom of speech and freedom of religion does NOT result in legal liabilities. If so, virtually every other non-AACA forum would be sued, closed or with a huge legal liability.

A while back, someone threatened a lawsuit over something, so they cracked down over people endorsing or criticizing businesses. It has now spread to this.

And, as I said before, NO ONE exercises this level of censorship in other automotive forums.

[NTX5467]

Politics and religion are two VERY touchy subjects, so having those rules are reasonable and valid, with all due respect.

I feel the BCA (and similar groups) are very fortunate to be a part of these AACA-hosted forums. Kind of a "one stop shopping" for vehicle enthusiasts that, as I understand, doesn't cost the BCA very much money at all.

For the record, the push toward E15 from E10 has been "under review" for several years, just that the possibility of it happening is growing much closer.

Respectfully,

NTX5467

[JZRIV]

Joe,

First of all thank you so for your service and sacrifice for our freedom. Sports figures and movie stars pale in comparison to servicemen and women who are the true heros but receive little credit.

I know this sort of thing can be a touchy subject based on the forum rules and its important for the moderators to maintain a respectible place for us to come and share our hobby. If they don't, it can easily ruin a message board.

On the other hand I am fed up with all the politically correct BS going on in the US and its being taken way overboard in many areas. Based on the forum rules of "forbidding religious references" could mean we can't even say Merry Christmas here if they wanted to really push the issue. Afterall Christmas is about as religious as you can get. Obviously this is an example where the moderators would use some discretion based on the demographics of the board. I personally think your signature comment should be no problem and it shouldn't be offensive to anyone. Your comment is generic enough and is not written in a derogatory way. If they were getting numerous complaints about your sig from members in good standing then I could see some reasoning but I doubt that was the case.

Hopefully, you and Peter can cool down a bit and work this out and find some middle ground.

[NEW1966]

My father was 82nd Airborne Paratrooper WWII. 3 Invasions in a Glider. Sicily, Normandy, & Holland. He was a hero and very wise.

I was in a situation like this regarding a Ministry. I called him to report the injustice done to me. I will never forget his response. "Son, you knew the rules of the Ministry before you joined. Accept them or resign. I love you son, but you are wrong."

I hope this will help. This Site is too valuable to "walk away" from and so was the Ministry.

Respectfully, Greg Thomas

[Bhigdog]

There once was a moderator of the forum

Who seemed so hung on decorum

He read every post

To make sure they were most

"Correct", lest he'd delete um.

HAW HAW HAW................Bob

[Pete Phillips]

Why do BCA events and whether on not to support them, have to get drawn in to this spat?

Pete Phillips, BCA #7338

[old-tank]

Chill Joe

I too have locked horned with the Peters over at AACA. You should see the emails and PM's that I saved and read occasionally if I need a good laugh. I could have walked away waving a famous 'salute', but that would mean they have won. I will try to push the limits and needle them any chance I get. The more they regulate and censor the littler they get.

On the other hand I appreciate the enormous job of running a forum. Stick with the BCA forums---they have pretty much left us alone over here lately. Come to the South Central Regional Meet...there ain't nothing censored there.

Willie

[MrEarl]

REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR

But yea, what Willie said. And I got my hotel reservations for Fredereicksburg so will see if all he said is correct. Of course the Warden will be accompanying me so not much chance of any censoring of me will be needed. Maybe we can have a roundtable discussion about what Peter has censored in the past. Believe me it HAS improved. Hope you can join us there Joe.

Edited September 22, 2010 by MrEarl (see edit history)

[Reatta Man]

I also just sent this message to Peter:

QUOTE

By the way, Peter, I just reviewed the rules--again. They do NOT forbid political or religious references. The word 'political' or 'religious' or even 'religion' are found NOWHERE in the rules.

Joe

UNQOTE

If any of you would like to review the rules for yourself, here is their location:

AACA Forums - Forum Rules

[NTX5467]

How about if we NOT get into a "war" here over "rules" and such--period!!!! Not only will it divert things away from the reason WE are here in the first place, but it will also drain more of your own energies as your mind might stay centered on this subject--not to mention the possible affect on other aspects of your life.

I also suspect this whole situation has become more centered on "principles" and "emotions". Putting principles and emotions into the same mix can result in a circular situation of reasoning, by observation, which can feed and grow inside a brain until everything in life will be secondary AND influenced by the somewhat self-feeding circular reasoning situation. Everybody has their own principles to live by, some of which would be common for many others in society, or some of which might be more societial niche-related than mainstream, but principles none-the-less. Be that as it may.

So where might principles be overridden by priorities? That dang judgment call situation! That, like so many other aspects of our lives, is a variable situation for each of us.

Remember, WE are guests here. It's a "house" that we use and can find refuge, "safety", and enjoyment in for little organizational cost--not a bad deal.

NOW, let's get back to enjoying and talking about BUICKS, please!!!!!

Respectfully,

NTX5467

[Guest Dan Cook]

REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR

Yes I do and look what it got me!!!!!!!!!

[1937hd45]

Politics and Religion are topics most other Forums don't allow, but the squeeky clean "Mr Rogers Neighborhood" atmosphere here does get tiresome.

[Bhigdog]

Politics and Religion are topics most other Forums don't allow, but the squeeky clean "Mr Rogers Neighborhood" atmosphere here does get tiresome.

I regularly visit a site named Practical Machinest. While primerily a metal working site they will allow, within reason, a bit off topic posts and some political speak if it pertains to it's impact on the trade. They also are quite tolerant within reasonable bounds.

The site is INFINATELY more interesting than this site with a wide range of folks participating in often lively discussions. I visit often.

This site, by design, is as dry as dust.

The oft heard comment regards the AACA "it's just a booring bunch of old white guys" is reflected in the way the forum is administered.

Having a booring foum is not a good way to attract new members, especially younger ones who would continue the club.

I can imagine a new car owner and prospective member visiting the forum and thinking "wow, this is really neat I should join these guys". After about a month he's bored s**tless and long gone. Probably lost forever.

I've talked to several "leaders" about this very thing but they remain humorless and dare I say it...........hide bound.

This will probably get me another deletion and another PM with the admonition about the forum not being the place for negative speak.

Yeah well....................Bob

Edited September 23, 2010 by Bhigdog (see edit history)

[MrEarl]

We use to have a lot of fun in a place I referred to as "down in the cellar", a forum at the bottom of the AACA main page that allowed other than antique auto discussions. It wasn't for sniveling and whining crybabies though and if you were easily offened you may not last long, but it was fun. It got boarded up and shackled though, and I haven't heard from some of those ol' farts since. Some really interesting characters I recall. I wonder where they are these days. "Alf" if you read this give a shout:D

Edited September 23, 2010 by MrEarl (see edit history)

[Reatta Man]

Well, here's the latest development in a nutshell.

I told Peter that, after he told me references to religion and politics are forbidden by the rules, I said I checked and they are not restricted, he then told me that while not forbidden, the "rules" used by the moderators forbid it.

So much for the rules; we are now in unwritten bureaucracy.

Here's the points I am trying to make to Peter, the AACA and BCA:

1. While the fact that this IS an AACA forum, it is also a forum located in the United States of America. What exactly do we contribute to the greater good in here by censoring comments? And, do we offend more in the hope of not offending a few? Do we risk offending everyone in the hopes of not offending one? (Political correctness run amuck....)

2. Where does it stop? OK, I remove my reference to God in my signature. Now what? If a member named "Mohammed" comes into the forum, do we demand he not use his name because he is named after a religious figure? What if 'Jesus' Martinez becomes a member? Is he banned too? What if I use a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King in my signature? He is "politically correct" to a lot of people, but remember, he was the PASTOR of a large BAPTIST CHURCH in Atlanta! Is he out because he was a religious leader as well as a civil rights leader? By the way, here are two of his quotes I really respect and have used before that I think are really appropriate here:

"There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because it's right."

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."

3. If this continues, where does it take the BCA and AACA? We are LOOSING members every day, while other forums and Web sites that exercise freedom of speech such as Facebook, MySpace, You Tube are growing by leaps and bounds. Do you see a pattern here? I do....

4. If I recall, previous listings of BCA events have inclued mentioning "church services" when the meet was over a Sunday. Is that out, now, too?

5. Do you have any idea how fundamental my belief in God truly is to me, and probably many other members in here? While I may have "stepped on your toes" with my signature, you have ground my toes into the pavement by asking me to NOT talk about something that is as much a part of me as breathing. Do you realize how much easier it is to give up my membership and support of this organization than it is to agree to "not mention God?"

The bottom line is this when dealing with censorship: Censorship is a dangerous, slippery slope that doesn't accomplish anything good or end well for anyone.

So, please, please please....whether it is Peter Gariepy, VP of Internet at AACA, Peter Heizmann, the moderator telling me why he deleted my post and asking me to remove any references to God, or the BCA board members, I'm asking, respectfully, please rethink your policy of censorship.

[MarkV]

"Politics and religion are two VERY touchy subjects"

why? perhaps because the masses are so set in their small beliefs they cannot handle when one challenges them or questions. Maybe that is what is wrong with this country.

Dont worry I have been threatened by these guys before and even contacted AACA leadership in regards to Peter's threatening emails here are some messages I have received through the years:

[MarkV]

Wesley,

In hindsight I obviously broke my own rule of being civil. For that I apologize.

I do however respectfully request you consider my points. This forum is no different from a car club meeting. Lots of different personalities, lots of different car likes and dislikes, etc. Now imagine if you made the following statements at the car club meeting:

"Why are the once crappy economy 1960's cars desireable?" (an exact quote)

Regardless of your intent, anyone with an economy car from the 60's would take offense. Face to face you could have made your point better, but in the forum there is no facial expressions, tone of voice or body language to convey the intent of your statement. Therefore all people have to go by is your written statement - which in my opinion was an attack on someone's personal choice.

The rest of your posts to which I referred to in my private messages to you are negative in tone. You are right to make them if you choose, but consider how they are taken by others in the forum. I personally found them un-constructive and offensive.

I've been running this forum for 11 years, and it's not often I get offended by something. In this case I went overboard. It remains my job as head moderator to make this forum a pleasant place to anyone to visit and use over and over again. I'd appreciate your help make my job easier.

Regards,

Peter Gariepy

On Jan 29, 2008, at 11:56 AM, Wesley Willison wrote:

Steve,

I have enjoyed the website up until yesterday when I have been bullyed by Peter Gareipy! Here is what he said and my responses:

Peter Gariepy Offline

Web Mechanic

Member

Registered: 08/30/02

Posts: 4105

Loc: Tucson, AZ

" I Just got my new issue of HCC in the mail and read the article about GM and what is interesting is that they practically skip over the models like the 490 that made Chevrolet a direct competitor to Ford! I have noticed this in several articles that I have read. Meanwhile they mention practically every other model through pics. or the story! In fact it has been very hard to find any article about the 490 let alone one that even briefly mentions it! So, what is this all about?!"

You seem hell bend on your recent posts to upset anyone who reads them. I'm not going to debate you on this. Follow the simple rule of being civil -- I don't think that is too much to ask.

This is your only warning: tone down your agressive and offensive posts or I will ban you.

Peter

_________________________

Peter Gariepy

Web Mechanic

Antique Automobile Club of America

CARS: 1961 King Midget, 1903 Curved Dash Olds (Replica)

CLUBS: Antique Automobile Club of America (AACA)

My response:

#27323 - Yesterday at 09:24 PMRe: What no 490?

1948Lincoln Online

Member

Registered: 07/17/07

Posts: 271

Loc: California

How is that offensive? Is there something I am missing? I am wondering why the 490 is not mentioned in the article or any other! How is that 'upsetting' anyone? How is that not civil? Take a look at the responders are they 'offended'? I do not think so, in fact one gentleman was already talking about his Olds. not being mentioned.

-Wes

_________________________

Wes'

1921 Chevrolet '490'

1941 Dodge Buisness Coupe

1948 Lincoln Continental

1966 Ford Mustang

1978 Lincoln MKV

Clubs:

WPC

LCOC

LZOC

VCCA

Re: What no 490?

Peter Gariepy Offline

Web Mechanic

Member

Registered: 08/30/02

Posts: 4105

Loc: Tucson, AZ

"Crappy economy cars"

"Why no 490!?"

"Whats up with reused auto names?"

Your posts are offensive, redundant and an not constructive. Take a breath and read your posts. Or better yet, have someone you know read them.

When people complain to me about offensive posts I have to investigate. I agree with them.

Being civil is all i ask. You seems to want to create controversy - its not wanted or necessary.

If you have a problem with 490's not getting enough press then why not state the merits of the car instead of saying "it has been very hard to find any article about the 490" or "what is this all about?!"

Calling peoples cars "crappy" isn't civil either - regardless of your motives.

To put it another way... STOP WHINING AND SAY SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE!

_________________________

Peter Gariepy

Web Mechanic

Antique Automobile Club of America

CARS: 1961 King Midget, 1903 Curved Dash Olds (Replica)

CLUBS: Antique Automobile Club of America (AACA)

2 minutes later:

Re: What no 490?

Peter Gariepy Offline

Web Mechanic

Member

Registered: 08/30/02

Posts: 4105

Loc: Tucson, AZ

Oh... and posts that whine like "This really disappoints me!" are worthless. Just because you have a few bad experiences doesnt mean the whole world is out to get you and the rest of us who drive antique cars. In the 30 years i've been driving antique cars on the road I've not experienced anymore stupid driving than I have when i drive a modern car.

Your just whining and negative. Enough is enough.

_________________________

Peter Gariepy

Web Mechanic

Antique Automobile Club of America

CARS: 1961 King Midget, 1903 Curved Dash Olds (Replica)

CLUBS: Antique Automobile Club of America (AACA)

My response:

#27328 - Yesterday at 10:23 PMRe: What no 490?

1948Lincoln Online

Member

Registered: 07/17/07

Posts: 271

Loc: California

Peter,

You are not quoting me correctly for one, first the 'crappy economy car' thing I believe I said the 'ONCE CRAPPY 1960'S ECONOMY CARS DESIREABLE' Once is past tense and is not present tense, they were not considered on the level that they are now back then. (Both my grandpa's and 2 Uncles were in the car buisness with over 150 yrs. of combined car experience) My dad's dad sold cars before WWII and up to 2005! And he was the top Chevrolet salesman in the country for 10 years! So, I know alot about the industry from those days I NEVER once said that the cars were crappy. I like most of them, like the Corvair because of it's engine design, the Falcon Station Wagon can fit alot of stuff in it (my mom had one so, I know). People took off with attacks because they THOUGHT I said this or that. I was wondering why something like a Chrysler Imperial, higher end models, etc. are selling for less than an economy model. Something that is better built (there are some exceptions) is selling for less .it would be like a Wal Mart watch selling for more than a Rolex a hundred years from now. So, that was my reasoning with the post.

As for the '490' post there is nothing insulting about that! It is true that it does not get ANY press yet, it was a milestone separating Chevy from one of the minor car makes. I did state the big thing about the car, which was it helped chevy be in direct competition with Ford. There is nothing offensive about that! Read the responses is anyone offended?

Also, the post about the reused auto names, my friend and I were having this discussion about auto names the other day. It is a true fact and there is nothing offensive or wrong with that post either!

Finally, the post about me being tailgated in my '41 Dodge was not offensive in any way! re-read the responses! People have experienced what I have experienced! No insults there! Also, I would like to know who hacked into my acct. and responded on that page? I do not appreciate that and I would never do that to anyone else! And who are these people who are 'offended' by these posts?

You told me to be Civil, which I have been though, many had rude responses and you are now saying 'stop whining' Who is not being civil? I would never say anything like that to you or anyone else!

And finally not once did I CALL ANYONE'S CAR CRAPPY AT ANYTIME!!!! Please stop twisting the facts!

Now, lets stop the bullying and lets get past this and contribute to the board!

_________________________

Wes'

1921 Chevrolet '490'

1941 Dodge Buisness Coupe

1948 Lincoln Continental

1966 Ford Mustang

1978 Lincoln MKV

Clubs:

WPC

LCOC

LZOC

VCCA

His response:

Peter Gariepy Offline

Web Mechanic

Member

Registered: 08/30/02

Posts: 4105

Loc: Tucson, AZ

Wes,

Its my JOB to make this forum a pleasant place to visit. Be positive, constructive and I'll have no issue with you. If you are not then you will be banned.

Peter

_________________________

Peter Gariepy

Web Mechanic

Antique Automobile Club of America

CARS: 1961 King Midget, 1903 Curved Dash Olds (Replica)

CLUBS: Antique Automobile Club of America (AACA)

So, AACA believes in bullying? This is truly unacceptable from anyone, especially the webmaster! He speaks of being 'constructive' or 'positive' yet here he is attacking me! Over every little post none of which were bad at all! Take a look at the responders on each one after the economy car one, which was over! Are they upset? NO! This makes me very upset and this is not what AACA is about! I am a frequent contributor and I am a member of the VCCA, WPC, LCOC, LZOC, Tucker, and I have even started my own car club on my campus+ I have been in 2 issues of Hemmings classic car in feature articles and I own 5 of my own! I always tell people to come here but, if this is how they will be treated then I will no longer tell them to come here anymore! I will also encourage all my friends to leave this site, and I will too. Because this is unacceptable behavior. I hope it does not have to come to that! Looking forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Wesley Willison 1948Lincoln

p.s. here are the links for you to read:

http://forums.aaca.org/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/482888#Post482888

http://forums.aaca.org/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/482964#Post482964

Lincoln400 posted this one copying mine, apparently he was not 'offended'

http://forums.aaca.org/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/482975#Post482975

Here is where Peter thought he could Hack into my acct. and respond in my box:

http://forums.aaca.org/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/482844#Post482844

Here is the orig. 'ONCE considered crappy..." post which was over and done with!

http://forums.aaca.org/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/482108#Post482108

Edited September 23, 2010 by 1948Lincoln (see edit history)

[MarkV]

this was back in 2008. Here was in 2009:

August 13th, 2009

Steve Moskowitz

Super Moderator

Steve Moskowitz

Super Moderator

Steve Moskowitz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2000

Location: Hershey, Pa.

Posts: 3,713

Images: 3

Re: Here's the deal

Wes, I am not going to get into a war of words. I have deleted posts by Dave before and others as well. I believe in being fair handed. The moderators have been instructed by me after hearing all of their concerns that enough is enough. Dave,Barry,you, me or anyone who turns our forums into a venue for attacking ANYONE personally needs to go. Sick of it!

You can threaten to have people quit AACA or whatever you wish. That naturally is your right. Just as you stand up for what you believe is right so do I. My posts have always been straightforward. We have tried to give some leeway for people to talk about subjects like clunkers but every time we do we get extremists on both sides.

I personally am not aware of the issue, circumstances or anything with an apology to you but if you were wronged it was the right thing to do.

When you post with "car stuff" that is a help to our viewers. That is appreciated. However, when several moderators feel you make personal remarks is when we need to step in. I can tell you most of our moderators have little in common with Dave's very liberal views. The moderators and I have sent several emails out today. We are going to add several new very cool features to our website and do not want to chase people away.

I hope that you can abide by our rules as we do not want to exclude anyone. My emails were meant to be respectful but to state our position.

Steve

Steve Moskowitz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2000

Location: Hershey, Pa.

Posts: 3,713

Images: 3

Here's the deal

Wes, I have been at a conference and just returned. The volunteer moderators feel that you are attacking too many people on our website and want your privileges revoked. We do not want to see people attacked for their beliefs nor do we want you attacked. Our forum is supposed to be fun and educational not a place for people to rant all day long.

Our website may not be of that much intertest to you anyway but it is my job to let you know that if the moderator group votes to delete another one of your posts, they will revoke your posting ability permanently.

[MarkV]

here was my reply:

Steve,

Well than that is their choice, obviously I have over 900 posts here, so, obviously I visit often. You know, it is funny to mention how, I am 'attacking people'. Yet it is people like Dave @Moon who attacks and spews political crap. Yet when anyone argues against him WE are deleted, and his far left green views, which many are inaccurate are allowed to stay! Why is that? Maybe you can answer that question.

The bottom line is that you are speaking to the wrong person, I have been attacked time and again on this forum. Lets not forget the economy car debacle or even with the Cash for clunkers debate. I was attacked personally by Dave@Moon and others. And just today I was attacked in my 'car sitting for a year' by just putting out the idea of returning a battery, which is under the returns policy. I was told 'I have no scruples' and 'no morals', and that I was defrauding the store! , etc. And you know what Steve I wont put up with crap like that, I am a good person and I help many people, but, then again, I dont even need to say that. The bottom line is, if this is how you treat people who dont start things, but, merely defend themselves than this forum or AACA is not worth spending time with. You guys have proved to me once again, how I am pigeon-holed because I am younger and not one of the older posters here.

Therefore it is ok to blame it on me, meanwhile people like Dave@Moon, are allowed to make any political commentary (on subjects that have nothing to do with politics) and make personal attacks. You guys need to get your facts straight, before you discuss me. I will admit from time to time politics does come up, but, you will notice it is ONLY AFTER someone like Dave starts spewing his ideas, why are these not deleted instantly like my posts and others? Perhaps you guys need to examine your inclusion of politics. The only one I remember including politics in was cash 4 clunkers, which is a political subject. Obama has gotten into the new/used car industry and it is valid. And the bottom line is, I AM NOT ATTACKING ANYONE on this site personally, the only time when I have done that was today, when I was attacked personally as mentioned before. And if someone, specifically Dave has done it in the past.

This is the second time I have had to deal with your moderators, and that other time was cleared up with one of the apologizing to me (you know who he is). You guys need to get your act straight and blame the proper people for whatever problems you are experiencing, and get your facts in order!

Now I like this forum and AACA, but, after these recent attacks on my character and after this incident here, I am seriously thinking of leaving this forum and encouraging my friends, AACA members to revoke their memberships. Most of your forum guys have been insightful and good folks, but, I will not put up with disrespect, especially since I have contributed much to this hobby. I am not a spammer, etc. and I have been here along time, and I expect to be treated with more respect. And needless to say I love old cars, just look at the list below my name, those are all mine not my parents, etc. Anyway, sorry to write such a long note, but, I feel this must be addressed.

Regards,

Wes

[MarkV]

I decided to post these, because a few really did make me upset. I have been the target here a few times through the years. I believe this is partly because I am younger. As the emails suggest some moderators are more lenient than others or dare I say reasonable. But, you know if a signature is innocent enough leave it. As long as it is not saying kill them all or something like that or some hate speech or perverted thing whats wrong? It is your own opinion, leave it up to people to decide, and I doubt athiests are insulted as they do not believe in God in their religion. I doubt people who believe in God are insulted either.

[LINC400]

I have complained several times about posts being deleted, and with only a few exceptions, have gotten basically zero support. Apparently it does not bother people until their own posts are deleted.

While I agree that the moderators sometimes get carried away and delete happy, any mention of politics or religion simply is not a good idea. While some subjects definitely involve politics, such as government bailouts or cash for clunkers, some people on this forum will use any opening to spew their own distorted views about politics and subjects completely unrelated to cars at all. While your sig is not offensive to me, I cannot think of any reason why religion should be mentioned on a site for antique cars.

I belong to several other forums as well that do not delete anywhere near the amount of what is deleted here. It does not cause problems or legal issues. But this site seems to have more members that feel the need to spew their own views about politics and other non-car issues, than to contribute anything constructive to the topic. I am not sure how to balance that with freedom of speech.

[MarkV]

I am always bothered we just dont find out about it

[Bill Stoneberg]

I agree with Willis a few posts ago,

Lets keep this about Buicks or at least cars...

The moderators do a thankless job trying to keep everyone civil and making sure we all get along. It may not always be right and you may not agree but we are playing in their sandbox.

I come here to read about cars, not politics / polar bears / or melting iceburgs.

There are other sites for that.

I would hate to loose access to this site or some of our more colorful members because of this.

[Guest BJM]

I agree with Bill, Willis and everyone. Wes - posting personal responses such as you have is not appropriate. That is why they are called Private Messages. Mr. Gariepy did not post them on the forum for others to read and you should voluntarily remove them.

[MarkV]

of course not, in certain circumstances, and I had a feeling someone would say that, but, you know what, when someone responds like Peter did to me it should be examined, and half of the AACA knows about these, so, they are not private. If you have such a problem dont read them or Reatta man's or anyone else's and I have no problem with them posted or my responses. After the first message I began forwarding all messages from Peter to several of the top AACA members, he is also aware of this. I posted them, because I feel Reatta Man's pain, I have been bullied around on this site, and needless to say I am no troll. Peter did apologize as well as some of the others, but, apparently the lesson has not been learned two years after the fact, when there is a problem (which is non-existent in both cases) treat people with respect. And dont think that just because it is a 'private message' that you can bully people around quietly. We may be just a profile pic and a name, but, we are people too, and this kind of treatment is unacceptable. And the patronizing attitude towards some is unacceptable. Back to Reatta Man, people got his signature, and Peter is once again patronizing the public by saying that they do not understand what his signature means. And his responses to Reatta man are unacceptable and rather short and rude. I wanted to point out this is not the first occasion of this kind of behavior. I mean how many people really read the signature? Also, I will say that Peter and the gang do well keeping the website online and in many cases they are right in editing, but this time not, I still dont see why someone would be insulted by the signature? At least Reatta Man did not have his account hacked into and responses changed by Peter.....

Edited September 23, 2010 by 1948Lincoln (see edit history)

[Pete Phillips]

I, for one, always read each person's signature. Always.

Pete Phillips

[NTX5467]

In many boards, there is a dedicated place for "off topic" discussions not related to the normal subject of the board--in many cases, "cars". Similar to what Mr. Earl mentioned, but I've never gotten involved in those things as I didn't really care to see what was in there OR had the time to get involved in another forum.

On an NPR radio show I regularly listen to, the word "civility" is used with respect to the host's way of having the many and varied discussions among the panelists. CIVILITY!

While some have had issues with certain moderators of the AACA forums, this thread does NOT need to be a public outing of things which are now historic--even if they might be felt to be relevant to the current situation by some. Trying to show a particular pattern of orientations? If you might be "after" said moderator, then please take your comments to the appropriate entities/persons rather than continually trying to demean said moderator in this area of the AACA forums, where it is not really appropriate. Nor am I, personally, interested in reading posts of prior exchanges between members and the moderator(s)--for ANY reason, period. I find it interesting that a poster would actually save and re-cycle those written exchanges several years later . . . as if the original tiff is more on-going than finished.

When I was growing up, back when many of the Buicks cherished by many collectors were still "used cars", we were generally taught that there was "right" and "wrong". You didn't tell lies, either! Later, as things progressed, we learned that adults could get away with "little white lies", which were really a bending of truth for particular situations.

Then there were "rules", and lots of them. You broke the rules and you got punished, usually, IF you got caught. Sometimes, rules were more about conformity and discipline than not. Rules were made and enforced by "others" who were able to do that. What WE thought of the rules was not a real consideration, you conformed and obeyed . . . or else.

Then the "raging hormones" appeared and authority was questioned more openly. Justifications were sought, and many times given.

I suspect that if you read any Human Resources or Employee Manual for a workplace, you'll find all sorts of things in there you might not like. Consent to searchs of your workstation and other property on company premises? Consent to random drug checks? Mandatory drug checks in particular situations? File suit against your employer and you're automatically terminated, especially when arbitration is the first step toward addressing things? Park ONLY in the designated employee parking areas? Particular dress requirements/standards/uniforms? Yes, lots of things (considered to be "rights and freedoms") that almost everybody signs away for the priviledge of working in a particular industry or company in the normal course of supporting yourself and your family.

Also "rules" for many other things, too. Days off? Vacation days? Sick days?

"Rules" can be finite, but don't have to be and aren't always enforced just because they are on the books. "Management" has the option of deciding to not enforce some rules, for all employees, if desired . . . and without notice. Some rules might be quietly not enforced due to the necessary means and resources necessary to completely enforce them . . . or a determination that the rule does not accomplish what it was designed to accomplish . . . or is too disruptive to the workplace. YET, other rules can be added at any time . . . with little real notification or anything more than a piece of paper with your paycheck--a "one time" notification, but not "pink" in color.

In some cases, a rules violation might not be known about, until something happens to raise some red flags with management. THEN the alleged infractions are noted and EVERYBODY is made aware that some were not obeying the rules. Oversight increases after the trigger has been tripped.

Key point is that "management" can add "rules" at their discretion or chose not to enforce every rule, again at their discretion. BUT . . . it's the employee's decision of whether or not to comply with the rules. If the employee might lobby for a modification, so be it, as long as such lobbying might not be termed "disruptive to the workplace" or "insubordination". But as long as you choose to be employed there, you also agree to play by THEIR rules. Not that some of the rules might be stretched or bent in some cases, hopefully with justification or be "at the edge of the envelope". Still, as long as you receive money from them, you generally follow their rules. Otherwise, you go somewhere else to work, IF you might find the existing rules that distasteful to tolerate. In many cases, that grass on the other side of the fence is very similar to the color of grass on YOUR current side of the fence, so what would be gained by changing employers rather than tolerate current conditions--other than starting over with vacation time and other similar things?

And ALL of this happens regularly in the USA, every day. A normal course of events.

By observation, many "fights" that are publicized really should be done in private. Not that the public doesn't have a "right to know", just that we don't necessarily need to know all of the "gory details". Unfortunately, egos can tend to get involved and that usually tweaks things somewhat. Challengers usually seek to gain support for their position, typically, in trying to prove "the authority" is wrong. Just usually the way things tend to happen.

Please, if you have issues with the forum moderator(s), use the Private Message functioin and use THAT avenue rather than posting your exchanges in here. It's one thing to paraphrase comments, responses, or replies and another to take up several posts of those involved trying to explain and justify their particular positions on what was allegedly done wrong. Civility?

As I previously stated, we are the GUESTS here and have a very nice "rent agreement" in place.

In consideration of the comment about this being a "dry" and possibly unexciting forum, it historically has been on of the most active of all of the AACA forums. There are many others that are much more "dry", by observation.

Just some thoughs . . .

Respectfully,

NTX5467

Edited September 23, 2010 by NTX5467 (see edit history)

[trimacar]

Ah a long discourse on "rules."

I come to this forum to learn more about, and discuss, antique automobiles.

Anything else is just fluff or the ranting and raving of those people who should find a more appropriate outlet and/or forum for their feelings.

'Nuff said.

[JohnD1956]

Dave Coco...what a great collection of cars!

[Bhigdog]

Re the reference to my "dry" comment I was refering to the forum as a whole. I totally agree that the Buick forum is a bit "juicier" than the others. This thread proves my point. The moderaters have stood aside and let us have our say. And it has been both surprising and interesting. Diverse views have been expressed, complaints aired, boundries defined, and no one is the worse for wear. No one has been insulted, called names, or vilified for a position. It has been proof, beyond a doubt , that we are able to function as mature adults without hand wringing "mommies" watching our every word and stepping in to "correct" us when we cross some imaginary line of civility.

Personally I agree with only about half of what was said here but I am heartened by it's progress.

This thread, if left to run it's course, will just burn itself out with no harm done and everyone getting on with buisness.

Hopefully the forum powers that be will learn something from it............Bob

Edited September 24, 2010 by Bhigdog (see edit history)

[buick5563]

No one has been insulted, called names, or vilified for a position.

Yeah,

But I don't know how much longer I can keep my mouth shut!

[Bhigdog]

Now Mike, just keep a steady strain. None of this stuff is life changing and we are all friends.....................Bob

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

Just bite your tongue Mike, bite your tongue.

Ben

[Reatta Man]

Willis,

The list of compromises about where we work is correct, but not related to this discussion. Ironic, isn't it, that the men and women who have died to preserve our freedoms willingly subscribe to a set of rules in order to preserve our society?

But the thing to keep in mind is those military people swore an oath to preserve the constitution, and they were compensated for it. They make those choices for what they believe is the greater good--a free and open society. This policy is being pushed on us by moderators who, by their own admission, use an unwritten set of rules. That doesn't sound like a "greater good" or a free and open society to me.

Same choice is true with an employer; we all make the choice to do ( or not do) certain things for our employer to PAY US. But no one says "follow my rules if you want to participate in your HOBBY..." Except here, of course.

Two things to keep in mind;

a) this latest wave of censorship, we are told, is due to a suggestion or an actual threat of a lawsuit against the AACA because of something a poster said in one of these forums. Ironically, this latest wave of censorship (no mention of God, and no mention of an ELECTION--called politics by some) could actually generate a lawsuit by some group looking to make a point and make examples out of organizations like the ACLU. And, keep in mind, the ACLU doesn't threaten or suggest....once they are on you, they are like a pit bull on steroids. Uh-oh, here comes a threatened lawsuit from PETA because I mentioned pit bulls in a negative way! (Don't worry; I have NO intention of mentioning this forum to the ACLU; I think they have gone too far in the OTHER direction most of the time.)

The BCA, as of now, continues to live in their "mother-in-law's" house and live by her rules because she pays the bills and the BCA doesn't want to have to pay for, run or moderate another forum. Thing is, another one already exists...we could have discussions on Buicks, sans censorship, on our Facebook page... And, if they wanted their OWN forum, the software used by other car clubs and owners groups, is found FREE at phpBB • Free and Open Source Forum Software

[Bill Stoneberg]

Joe, One comment about the forums that you seem to forget....

When you made the original comment that started this post, you were in an AACA forum, you were not in a BCA forum. This forum is, for the most part, moderated by Roberta, and she allows us much more freedom then other moderators do.

If you want to make a comment in an AACA forum, you follow their rules.