scalford hall hifi show 2011

The earlier you pay the lower the rate, apparently.

 

You really do amaze me at times, you whinge and bitch about the wam not running the show, now you whinge and bitch about how they go about it. If they feel, that as the show will be a forum run and organised event they need to collect some money up front so be it. It may simply be that they want to ensure all the costs are covered before the day, with any risk of a loss being spread around forum members who are prepared to shoulder a little each, of any loss, rather one or two carry the entire thing. I would have thought that should fit in with your community idea on the future of Hi-Fi. In addition you do not know what the hotel are asking for (any more than I do). It could be that as the show does not have a commercial organisation behind it, they want paying in advance, rather than taking the hotel out of commision for a weekends normal use, and risk not being paid.

May I suggest that you let the organisers get on and do it in their own way. Any one that can bring organisation, sense of purpose, and structure to an event such as this deverves a pat on the back, rather than a sniper shooting off at every chance.

 

You amaze me at times, you winge and bitch about me just expressing the things *normal* forums would find normal. I am not allowed to post advice at Wigwam, so I post my opinion here and at Subjectivist. And if you say it is none of my business you are being daft. I made it my business this year with a £500 contribution to the cost in order that the last show went ahead.

Have you never booked a hotel for a future stay over the phone or internet???? All they want from you is a credit card number, even for events. That is all I have done with the Marriott Hotel for the London Bake-Off - so I do have experience.

You confuse whinging and bitching with advice from experience, I don't confuse your whinging and bitching with anything else other than what it is!

And once again if the vultures wish to appear with their dissing lies again. I wish the show every success and would help it in anyway. All I am doing is showing a simpler path than the forum has taken - simples!

 

Put these words in order to form a common phrase .. "Grapes + Sour"

 

Deja-vu - here we go again - here come der vultures

PLEASE tell why I should have a feeling of sour grapes, when I have been telling James (and all and sundry who want to listen) he should be doing exactly what he has now done now for the last two years. So, far from sour grapes, it should be mission achieved! *ALL* I am saying is there is an easier way of doing it than the faff you are all now getting involved with. If you enjoy the faff, then carry on, faff seems to be part of the wigwam ethos from what I read, so I suppose it should be expected - IF UNNECESSARY!

This post is another example of what I said in a previous post "some people are so far up the wrong end of the stick as to be in another reality".

 

Richard they want to ensure it's all paid up front so that there is no burden on one person on the day, and no one to fall out with because the debt has been pre-burdened.

Also as `i posted the earlier you pay the less they charge.

 

Now that makes sense!

 

I think you've summed yourself up perfectly, let's see how many disagree with me?

 

I hope I do not fall into you Vulture with dissing lies class, I have said nothing in this or any other post that is a dissing lie, or anything near. Yes I have pre booked Hotels many times, both over the phone and the internet, and am very aware of what needs to done. I, and I assume many others would not be willing to brandish a credit card about for a £4.5k debt, that may or not be covered by the show. If you are, then fine for you, but not me.

You are the one who has been banging on about community being the way forward for hi-fi. The next wam show, should it go as planned will be that, a community show, paid for and organised by a community.

As far as the £500 you paid to show last time around, great, You have a company involved in the industry and large part of that could be offset as a justifiable business expense, most wammers are not, and therefore can not. Your exhibitors fee may very well have helped, or saved this years show, but that had a commercial outfit behind it, and gives you nothing at all to do with the next one.

As to it being a simpler path, may be it is, and may be it is not, but it does rather depend on one member of the wam being prepared to carry the risk of the debt. Again if you have done it for your London bake off, bully for you, thats your decision, but it does not mean every one else has to follow your lead.

For myself, I will quite happily chuck a few quid into the pot to help ensure the show goes ahead, and hopefully so will many others. I would also be quite happy to see the Vinyl stall, and may be some of the smaller 'furniture' makers involved, but I would far rather the show financed itself without the involvement of kit makers, in fact I would go so far as to say that if it can not finance itself without such income then it should be allowed to die.

 

So it all boils down to you (and some others) saying I am not allowed to comment or have a veiw, well b*llocks to you, I will say what I want when I want to.

 

At what point did I say you where not allowed to comment. I dont have a problem with you having an opinion, or giving it, whereas you seem to take any comment that has a differing view point as being a personal attack.
I merely pointed out that being one of the paying trade exhibitors last year gave you no say for the next show. As far as the outside world looking in is concerned you just paid to exhibit. You may see it differently to that, but I doubt any one else does.

As to saying what you want, when you want, fine, thats what the exchange of ideas on a public forum is all about. Just don't be surprised when others feel, and do the same.

 

Yet again complete nonsense, and just another version of some polluted reality. *I* did not post in reply to you. *Your* initial contribution was a reply to me. Telling me basically that I should not comment and had no right to a view. Do you recognise reality now. if not go read your post again.

 

I certainly do not recognies your reality.

 

Then you are even incapable of reading your own posts.

 

Richard, Dudy never said what you claim, all he said was that you shouldn't snipe at the event/organisers, he never told you to shut up.

Please re-read his posts

 

I assure you I am more than capable of reading, and understanding my posts, which you seem to be unable to do, at best misreading them or at worst turning them into some kind of personal attack. It must be use of the English Language, if so I appologise. As SQ said, I was trying to suggest that you stop sniping at the what the Wam is doing to arrange, and finanace nexy years show.

We are obviously not going to see eye to eye to on how the Scalford hall show needs to be run to make it a community event, rather than a trade show in drag.

I happen to think that the wam have for it right, collect as much money from exhibitors and attendees in advance as possible, reduce the financial risk to any one individual, and spread what risk remains among willing members. If that proves to be a financial failure, let it die as obviously the ''community'' do not want it, or least not if they have to pay for it.

As you are having problems understanding my posts, maby it is best that I just say, yes Mr Dunn, you are of course correct, someone should just bankroll the thing and to hell with the consequences, and leave it at that.

So on that note, yes Mr Dunn, you are of course correct.

 

Once again it is you, once again it is twisting reality for some bizarre purpose.

"May I suggest that you let the organisers get on and do it in their own way. Any one that can bring organisation, sense of purpose, and structure to an event such as this deverves a pat on the back, rather than a sniper shooting off at every chance."

How can this be interpreted in any other way than "So it all boils down to you saying I am not allowed to comment or have a view". Does anyone speak and understand English here?

Which led to "*I* did not post in reply to you. *Your* initial contribution was a reply to me. Telling me basically that I should not comment and had no right to a view." Which is what the top quote says quite clearly.

So perhaps you nose poking in yet again doesn't understand what it is poking at

No normal person could interpret this intervention in any other way than I state. I gave a simple opinion and bit of advice that if I had been a member at Wigwam I would have done and said in *exactly* the same way, but some perverted version of reality, with a pre concieved idea that I mean the Scalford Show some ill, which if I have to say once more that I don't, will lift the number of times I have said and proved it, well into double figures. So if people are incapable of reading posts, or just prefer their own delusions, then what the **** is the point of this conversation, none

SQ ended the conversation with a perfectly good explanation that they would get a discount, it explained it, satisfied my point and my curiosity, end of! So a *constructive* question and answer took place apart from the intervention of this gonk accusing me of having no right to comment and to mind my own business.

It can be interpreted no other way.

 

yes Mr Dunn, you are of course right,

 

What the **** is this now about, it just gets worse. I have never once suggested that trade should be involved with the show. In fact on numerous occassions if you were capable of reading my posts in clear English have stated that the trade should not be involved, apart from maybe sponsorship. I have recomended over and over and over again in private to James and in public on the forums that he does exactly what he is doing now and runs it himself, and all he needs in order to do it is a credit card - that was my only point of disagreement. Now, once again, I say SQ has answered that point for me perfectly adequately.

 

yes mr dunn, you are of course right........

Excuse me Mr Moderator but should this

<deleted>

be classed as a Ad hominem on me, and as Mr Dunn has been very keen to cry foul when he see's something in the same vain aimed at him, cry foul, should I not do the same.