After reading the entire thread over the last hour or so, I have, for what it's worth, a couple of observations as a relative newcomer and having no pre-conceived opinions about anyone on here, (nor do I sit in judgement of anyone as a result of reading it);
1) Slightly off topic - whatever that was- but nevertheless worth a mention; the general standard of English far exceeds that of my fellow U.K. residents, (on MkIVSupra.net at least), as does the intellect of the posters on here and their equally high standard of typing. After a year of trawling through countless pages of often unabbreviated, mis-spelt text speak contrasted by unfathomably creative literary genius by the more educated members than I, it makes a very refreshing change to be able to follow a thread as easily as this one, confusing as it was at times. Thank you all!
2) Perception is indeed the issue here. Everyone has their own world-view but it's in our interests to put ourselves in another's shoes and strive to understand exactly why someone might see things differently. Simply accept that differences are inevitable and respect eachother's right to hold another viewpoint. That is, afterall, why God if you will, created relativity in the first place! Celebrate your uniqueness and honour it in others.
I, for example, fully sympathise with Scott's stance on the matter of funding and his reasons for the current system. I would however, for the purposes of clarity if nothing else, should he choose to explain in more depth the way it's calculated, question the wisdom of essentially relying on 15 members each month to contribute $20 and the existing members that aren't due for annual 'renewal' to take up the slack when there aren't enough new members, in a club that by definition, has a limited vehicle/owner base.
I mean, do the numbers add up?
It's not a matter of whether it's worth it. Of course it's worth $20 a year to a regular member and more, as has been pointed out in this thread. It's more a mathematical problem. For example,
A) How many members are 'due' for an average month and can be 'expected' though not in any way obliged to contribute and how many actually do?
B) How many new members can you expect to join and then contribute for that average month?
C) Who's going to make up the shortfall when, not if it occurs from time to time, hence the reminder thread/s?
Either it is absolutely fine to not hit the target from time to time or it isn't. If it isn't okay to come up short, a system must be devised by which 'due' members are either solicited or gently prodded to contribute and/or reserve members can be called upon when necessary by prior arrangement. I think the former would be more popular, even if it means raising the $20 annual subscription charge.
I for one, would not mind seeing a couple of banners from contributing traders, for example, 'sponsors', if you will, as per the Supra Forum I mentioned. On there, we quite often 'nudge' individuals to cough up when they hit their first 30 posts and those that are stayers, happily pay the joining fee. If they don't, they're banned from posting until they do! Those that only come on for a quick bit of advice are encouraged to join and if they don't, it's not a problem, at least not financially.
Originally Posted by Moncha
Cheers VX brothers
...
