Open Letter to QCUSA (and Judge's Identity Revealed)

[dismiss@earthlink.net (The Judge)]

>There have been a number of topics concerning the Quattro Club raised on the
>digest.  I will be happy to speak to QUATTRO CLUB MEMBERS personally to
>address any issues or concerns.  You may email me at Qculubusa@aol.com and i
>will get back to you or request my phone number and give me a call! All
>issues mentioned will be addressed in the Quarterly or through mailings to
>club members. Since the digest is not comprised exclusively of quattro club
>members it should not be used as a forum to discuss club matters.  I was also
>advised by Dan of this.  Thank you.

I totally disagree with  the above statement.  This post makes it seem as
if the QCUSA is only interested in dealing with QCUSA members (note caps in
orginal post), and not those who are contemplating joining.  It again goes
on to say "[a]ll issues mentioned will be addressed in the Quarterly or
through mailings to club members."  Does this mean that perspective members
need not inquire as to QCUSA practices and procedures?  Is an explanation
only given to paying QCUSA members?  It appears as though if you are not a
member, then your issue is not addressed (as you do not have access to
mailings or the Quarterly).

Furthermore, the statement "[s]ince the digest is not comprised exclusively
of quattro club
members it should not be used as a forum to discuss club matters" is
totally inappropriate.  It appears (from the Quatterly Spring '96 issue)
that it is perfectly fine for the QCUSA to advertise the Q-List, but it is
not acceptable to discuss the QCUSA on the Q-List.

>From the very same Spring '96 Quarterly:

"The definitive Audi Quattro web hangout.  Answers all of your Quattro
needs.  Home of the 'quattro-digest'.  Point your web browser to:
http://coimbra.ans.net/quattro.html"

Now if the QCUSA can point its members to the Q-List, does the QCUSA expect
the members will not discuss the QCUSA on the Coimbra page?  Is this an
inherently one-way deal?  If the QCUSA feels that it can call this list the
"definitive Audi Quattro Web hangout" and advertises it as a tool that
"answers all of your Quattro needs," then why aren't the
practices/procedures of the QCUSA not included as suitable subject matter
for discussion?

Semantically speaking, I would certainly think that the QCUSA falls under
the category of "...all your Quattro needs" and would be a ripe topic for
discussion.  Moreover, if this is the "definitive Audi Quattro web
hangout," then why is it not appropriate to discuss the QCUSA?  If we are
definitive, then are we not to cover ALL aspects of the Quattro, including
the QCUSA?

The post from QCUSA seems to me to be utterly defensive and rude.  Instead
of posting that type of view, where are the explanations for lack of
benefits and high event costs?  If membership is to be increased, I do not
see how baiting the Q-List  with a cavalier "Members-Only" attitude will
help.  I do not think that an explanation to many of those who are
considering the QCUSA with a "don't ask if not paid" point of view gets
anywhere with PR or increased membership.

Full disclosure (or at least partial explanations) would be nice, if not
required.

Sincerely,
C. Todd Bottke

better known as

The Judge
90 80Q (Terror of Los Angeles)
86 VW  Scirocco 16V Wolfsburg
85 5KCS  (not missed at all)