The Western Front Association (WFA)

[Ann Murray]

Gareth, I'm lost. As I cannot see it, can you point out where exactly  you challenged me on the use of the GWF as a forum for discussing the WFA? From what I understand, you want feedback on the WFA, what's good, bad, etc. 

 

[Muerrisch]

On 24/01/2020 at 14:14, Gareth Davies said:

 

 

1 hour ago, Ann Murray said:

First of all, Muerrisch, I did not intend to be condescending or aggressive - we've misunderstood each other, that's all. But I concede that it may have sounded aggressive from your perspective. From where I'm coming from, stating something like 'it's clear you haven't thought through the role of the Bulletin' is not aggressive. I endure this all the time and maybe I'm hardened to being criticised myself - at academic conferences, I like most others are regularly confronted by other scholars challenging the validity of research.  Being told we haven't considered this or that would be pretty tame.

 

Re. mistakes in articles. they are maddening but will happen. Peer-review before publication would help minimize them.

 

KizmeRD, I can only envy the regular opportunity to speak German. I had to learn the language while doing my PhD so that I could do primary research on Weimar Germany. 

 

Gareth, re publications of the WFA: I'm aware that some members do like to read the Bulletin, and others like to receive the printed Bulletin because they don't like reading from a screen. Personally, I'd be happy to receive Stand To!/Bulletin in digital form to save resources but others might not feel that way - members who can't attend meetings regularly might feel they're not getting much for their money by just getting digital editions. 

 

Regarding feedback on the WFA in general, I can only comment on my own experience. For me, the monthly meetings and opportuntity to exchange knowledge with other people is the most important aspect. I have no real complaints. I have other imput regarding the publications but I would prefer to direct it to those doing the editing - I just feel it's more respectful.  

 

 

 

 

 

Ann, thank you.

 

perhaps my background, not in academe, prompted my response.

 

I entered the Meteorological Office of the Ministry of Defence at eighteen, with a A Levels in Physics, Pure  Maths and  Applied Maths. I qualified as a computer programmer in 1960, as a weather forecaster, as a Lecturer to RAF aircrew and in the Met. Office College,.I ended up as Chief Met Officer, British Forces Germany with a Dormant Commission as Group Captain RAF. Non-academic work in demanding environments with demanding customers . All of which leaves me Grumpy, whether it be in German or English.

 

I fear that you have not addressed specifics, such as my questions above, namely:

 

What do you think is in the Bulletin that could not, with advantage, be added to ST!, assuming an extra ST! per annum?

 

Can you give recent examples which demand exposure in a Bulletin, rather than in a section of an enlarged ST ?

 

 

 

[Hedley Malloch]

Gareth, so you don’t think how the WFA communicates with its members and the outside world could be relevant to all three questions laid out in your opening post of this thread?

[chaz]

On 05/01/2020 at 13:22, Gareth Davies said:

The Western Front Association has always included other theatres. It's very rare that I talk to WFA groups about the WF, I normally speak about Palestine. 

 

Good question!

Well, to answer my question.... no.

Usual trade stands selling medals, uniforms, blades, badges, books. Someone painting, auction houses, publishing company BUT NO WFA or similar organisation. I did purchase a single medal out of my theme then went outside and bought £30 of meat from the mobile butcher. With a slightly lower turn out than usual,  there was plenty of room for a stand. Come next month, the Bristol Classic Bike show rolls onto Shepton Mallett show ground for the weekend. There will be owners clubs, make clubs, representatives from the VMCC and other organisations promoting the clubs and looking for new membership.  A lesson could be learned...

[keithmroberts]

6 hours ago, chaz said:

Well, to answer my question.... no.

I think the issue is that the WFA is run entirely by volunteers, so although executive or other members could presumably claim expenses for manning  stalls at events, it is always a labour of love, and one that takes more time out of the lives of those unpaid volunteers.

Maybe there is a case for seeking additional volunteers to man stands at some events, but if, for example, WFA material such as clothing or the excellent map disks are to be sold as well then  extra work is also needed for accounting and stock purposes as well as the usual pitch hire and transport issues. Of course it would be good to see more of a presence, but it is probably unrealistic to expect the volunteers involved, some of whom actually have families and lives in addition to their great War interests to undertake many of these events.

 

[chaz]

point understood Keith, but same applies to the bike show. all are riders, members of the club, unpaid and also with families.

[John(txic)]

13 hours ago, Ann Murray said:

 - at academic conferences, I like most others are regularly confronted by other scholars challenging the validity of research.  Being told we haven't considered this or that would be pretty tame.

 

 

 

In my (thankfully) few exposures to academe, I was frankly appalled at the cattiness, petty point-scoring and rudeness exhibited by them...Academe is not a good model to follow.

 

 

 

[Chris_Baker]

13 hours ago, Ann Murray said:

... For me, the monthly meetings and opportuntity to exchange knowledge with other people is the most important aspect. ...

 

 

It is often said that the real strength of the Association lies in its branches. Yet the condundrum remains that it is not necessary to be a member of the Association to attend a branch meeting and to enjoy the benefits of the networking that you describe.

[Gareth Davies]

12 hours ago, Ann Murray said:

Gareth, I'm lost. As I cannot see it, can you point out where exactly  you challenged me on the use of the GWF as a forum for discussing the WFA? From what I understand, you want feedback on the WFA, what's good, bad, etc. 

 

 

In your post #112 you said "this is not the place for it". In my response in post #121 I said "This is absolutely the place to have this discussion."

9 hours ago, Hedley Malloch said:

Gareth, so you don’t think how the WFA communicates with its members and the outside world could be relevant to all three questions laid out in your opening post of this thread?

 

Is that a statement or a question? If the latter would you please make it clearer. 

[Buelligan]

10 hours ago, Hedley Malloch said:

Gareth, so you don’t think how the WFA communicates with its members and the outside world could be relevant to all three questions laid out in your opening post of this thread?

I do.  Being openly rude and aggressive to other people is never a good look, no matter correct you may be.  And I don't think the OP is particularly correct.

 

Honestly, if this thread is an example of how the WFA relates to and interacts with, its members and potential members, it needs to up its game substantially.

 

I entered this conversation without strong feelings (apart from, as I've already mentioned, the shock and dismay surrounding the Butte decision), completely willing to be persuaded and charmed.  I'm now left with the feeling that outsiders and their thoughts are absolutely not welcome.  The response to Ann's contribution is shocking.  Bizarre.

[Gareth Davies]

First, I don't speak for the WFA. I am an individual trying to help the WFA turn itself into something that is appropriate for the post-centenerary world of 2020 onwards. You would be very wrong to make a connection between my style of comms and the style of comms of any other posters, and the WFA.  The issue is the WFA, not whether the GWF is the place or not to discuss the WFA or any other side arguments.  

 

Second, what wasn't "particularly correct" in the OP?  You have made a statement without any corroboration.

 

 

[Buelligan]

I'm sorry, perhaps you misunderstand me, I didn't mean the original post, I meant the original poster.  I shouldn't have used an acronym. 

[Gareth Davies]

On 23 January 2020 at 23:57, Don Regiano said:

 

and I think Ann ought to re-read the start of this thread to see what it is about if "this is not the place for it".  I don't think the OP was looking for replies only from sycophants.

 

Spot on Don, thank you. 

[Buelligan]

If you've read that, you'll have read my response to it so there's no need for me to reiterate it.

[Gareth Davies]

On 24 January 2020 at 09:24, Buelligan said:

I'm not so sure about that, given his testy replies to me and another poster.  However, I would say - if there are no problems at all, nothing needs changing and everything is perfect, why ask for thoughts and opinions?

 

If you want peoples' ideas, if they're good enough to take the time to provide them in a cogent form, why not consider them, pass them on, use them, even?  This is how things are improved so that they become more useful, interesting and popular for a greater number of people (which, I believe, is the point of the exercise),

 

Testy?  Someone said something that wasn't true and I corrected them. Simples. 

 

You seem to have completely misunderstood what I am trying to do. I am not in any way shape or form trying to defend the WFA. I am trying to help it improve. I wan't comments on the WFA. What I don't want are comments on whether this forum is the place to air them or not. And what I don't want are conspiracy theories. 

[Gareth Davies]

5 minutes ago, Buelligan said:

I'm sorry, perhaps you misunderstand me, I didn't mean the original post, I meant the original poster.  I shouldn't have used an acronym. 

 

OP isn't an acronym. It's an initialisation. Unless you pronounce it op (as in the abbreviated form or operation), then it would be an acronym. But that would be odd.

 

Please do tell me in which ways I am not "particularly correct"?

[Hedley Malloch]

22 minutes ago, Buelligan said:

I do.  Being openly rude and aggressive to other people is never a good look, no matter correct you may be.  And I don't think the OP is particularly correct.

 

Honestly, if this thread is an example of how the WFA relates to and interacts with, its members and potential members, it needs to up its game substantially.

 

I entered this conversation without strong feelings (apart from, as I've already mentioned, the shock and dismay surrounding the Butte decision), completely willing to be persuaded and charmed.  I'm now left with the feeling that outsiders and their thoughts are absolutely not welcome.  The response to Ann's contribution is shocking.  Bizarre.

 

I am sad to say it, but I completely agree. The decision to sell BdW is one thing; handling the fall-out is another. But both are linked by a corporate mentality one can only describe as blinkered.

 

Yet most WFA members seem very happy with it all. There is no incentive to change. It is only when outsiders or a handful of critical insiders become involved (as here) that tensions become exposed. However there is a crisis - membership is declining at 2-300 a year. In any other business a loss of market on this scale this would normally prompt a wholesale re-evaluation of purpose, scope, organisation and relationships with members. A new openness could be signalled by the ceremonial and highly public dismissal or resignation of key management. There is no sign of any of this. As a member of the WFA for nearly 30 years, I am fearful for the future.

Edited 27 January , 2020 by Hedley Malloch

[Buelligan]

4 minutes ago, Gareth Davies said:

 

Testy?  Someone said something that wasn't true and I corrected them. Simples. 

 

You seem to have completely misunderstood what I am trying to do. I am not in any way shape or form trying to defend the WFA. I am trying to help it improve. I wan't comments on the WFA. What I don't want are comments on whether this forum is the place to air them or not. And what I don't want are conspiracy theories. 

 

What you want and what people choose to give are often different things.  I've learned this.  You can choose to be rude and aggressive to people when they answer the questions you've asked in ways that don't please you.  Please don't expect them to receive responses like that positively.  That's not how humans work.

[Gareth Davies]

I have not been rude. I have not been aggressive. I may have been critical of people saying things that simply aren't true and I may have disagreed with people who have expressed opinions on things outside of the questions I posed in my original post, but I have never been rude nor have I been aggressive. 

[Gareth Davies]

7 minutes ago, Hedley Malloch said:

 

I am sad to say it, but I completely agree. The decision to sell BdW is one thing; handling the fall-out is another. But both are linked by a corporate mentality one can only describe as blinkered.

 

Yet most WFA members seem very happy with it all. There is no incentive to change. It is only when outsiders or a handful of critical insiders become involved (as here) that tensions become exposed. However there is a crisis - membership is declining at 2-300 a year. In any other business a loss of market on this scale this would normally prompt a wholesale re-evaluation of purpose, scope, organisation and relationships with members. A new openness could be signalled by the ceremonial and highly public dismissal or resignation of key management. There is no sign of any of this. As a member of the WFA for nearly 30 years, I am fearful for the future.

 

Which is why I am doing my ******* best to get it changed. Why can't you people get this into your heads? I am not the issue. I am not the WFA - I am one of only a very few people who has stepped forward to get things changed. My OP (which is not an acronym) was (at least I thought it was) very clear. Answer my questions. If you have answered them, jog on.  

[Knotty]

Gareth,

In answer to #1

a) Yes, /always intended to, and did so when retired. / Stand To and sundry benefits + standing order for membership helps with bank rewards😁

b) N/A

c) N/A

 

[Hedley Malloch]

16 minutes ago, Gareth Davies said:

Which is why I am doing my ******* best to get it changed. Why can't you people get this into your heads? 

 

 and in your OP we have this:

 

1.  If you want to libel someone, please go elsewhere. In fact please keep individual names out of this.  

2.  If you want to say something was/is bad, please tell me why and what should be being done instead, and please add what you have done to try and change things.  

3.  If you have nothing to say on the subject but want to show how wonderfully clever you are, as with Rule 1 please go elsewhere. 

 

I am sorry Gareth, but the sort of language is not what is required if you want to encourage people to participate, to give their ideas. It does not signal that the WFA is open for business. And you have put yourself forward as the WFA rep.

 

On a personal level, I am not used to being addressed as 'you people'. It may be an acceptable form of parlance in some organisations (eg the Army) when addressing the lower ranks, but elsewhere it has severe limitations.

[keithmroberts]

Gareth and Hedley

 

I'm no longer a mod, but you are both trying to get some serious thoughts out here. Please, the thread would be better for cooler and less emotive words, however well intentioned.

 

Keith

[Gareth Davies]

I most certainly have not put myself forward as the WFA rep. 
 

As for “you people “, the fact that you are not used to it is irrelevant. I’m not used to lots of things that happen on here but me not being used to someone doesn’t strike me as  a valid criterion for criticism.

 

For the absence of doubt I do NOT represent the WFA. I am just a simple member who cares about the WFA and, rather than snipe from the sidelines I have decided to try and make a difference. 

[stiletto_33853]

Wow,

Can I make a polite suggestion?? Would it be possible to stick to Gareth's three questions in his original post?? I think a lot of people are well aware of the WFA, pro and against. At least people like Gareth have put their head above the parapet and are attempting to seek people's viewpoints to attempt to improve matters. This is generating into farce and not helping matters in the slightest. Just a suggestion.

 

Andy