Don't read too much between the lines
Posted: 7 February 2001, 9:25 AM
Well, the other thread was starting to get wayyyy too long...
I think Jamie and Stu you misunderstand my motivations. Personally I will welcome Jamie remaining in the Squad. I am not "chasing" his resignation - I am challenging his ethics.
Stu , I think you need to re-read the previous thread.
For the record, Jamie in his first posting, said:
"The National Squad, there is no doubt it is poorly run ...and there is little benefit of being in it"
and then said
"I believe it should be abolished"
So I have a member of the Squad who questions the value of belonging to the Squad, thinks it is being run poorly (to which I accept to some degree, and stated as much), and thinks it should be abolished. I think it is natural to question his motivation for being in the Squad given such statements.
It's a simple question: Jamie, given your sentiments, why
do you belong to the Squad?
I now have had the answer after asking 3 times that Jamie wants to be involved in all aspects of elite O whether he deems it effective or not. Thanks for the response. My question now Jamie is, if you are wanting to remain a member of such an ineffective body, what do you hope to get out of it? Think before replying "nothing".
In the next breath Jamie said "the situation won't improve if everyone ups and leaves". Well, Jamie - if everyone ups and leaves then there will be no Squad left and your desire to see it abolished will have been achieved!!! Surely that would be improvement in your eyes?
Further Jamie is being critical of the squad format. I haven't said anything to that Stu because it requires some consideration, and perhaps not in this forum. Even you agree to that with your comment "this is not the correct way to raise them". I'll answer them in time and in an appropriate way. In the meantime, I'll ignore your assertion that I'm completely disregarding Jamie's points.
Perhaps Stu/Jamie you can point out the other things Jamie has said that require an answer from me (as NOS Mgr), because blowed if I can see them. A lot of his comments are directed at NumberOne and I've left those two to their debate. I already have enough of a say around the place without needing to stick my nose into other people's debates.
Jamie you need to think about your criticism. I accept you are not directly criticising me but given I'm responsible for the Squad if you think that it is being poorly run then it is a criticism of my efforts. You can't state otherwise. Don't worry, I'm not offended.
Then in 5 sentences Stu I'm referred to as "insecure", "completely unreasonable" and "ridiculously immature" and then I get accused of bringing discussions down to a personal level???? Hmmmm. Perhaps I should thank you Stu for your efforts in raising them out of that level.
And Stu learn the difference between "dismissal" and "resignation". There's a huge difference.
So, in summary:
1. I accept the Squad is not being run well at the moment
2. Jamie's criticism hasn't been taken personally
3. I haven't said anything one way or the other about Jamie's comments on the squad format because I'll allow my subconscious time to rumble over them for a while
4. I still have great difficulty with understanding how someone can belong to anything that they find "poorly run", of "little benefit" and "should be abolished"
So Jamie, if you're still deeply disappointed and Stu if this is still a sad day, so be it.
Posted: 8 February 2001, 12:19 AM
Rayney, stick to listening.
The prerequisite to be in the Sqd only applies for World Cups. Anyone can be selected for WOC.
Posted: 4 April 2001, 4:26 AM
I am yet to resign from the squad officially. I have no morals or guts and can't even finish let alone resign.
But I know a good time when I see one, and I am amping for nationals bigtime, don't stand in my way, or else you'll feel the full force of 102kg of solid Jamie, beware.....