The Bluebird Project

...they want to borrow ours too... Notwithstanding dispute of the claim that it's 'yours', when it was paid for by donations against your own website stating that the aim was to return K7 to Coniston, and without any legal agreement assigning any reward or part ownership of the boat to BBP as 'rewa...

[...what is impossible to fathom is just how all the bluster was supposed to have us put the whole shebang on a wagon and wave it goodbye without finalising the deal. Is the concept of returning someone's property to them without trying to hold them to ransom really all that difficult to fathom? I ...

...everyone who has contributed to the project or the building of the Ruskin Annex is entitled to an opinion one way or the other. Indeed. And if they contributed on the basis of a very clear statement that the object was to return the boat to Coniston, as existed on the home page of this website u...

Neat. So you're only here to troll. Thanks for admitting it. Not at all. I have a very long-standing interest in, and family connections to, Bluebird. You will see that my profile on this forum dates back many years, even.... certainly long before you became a member. I'm posting here because there...

Perhaps without people like you stirring the pot all the time, both sides might actually be able to cast their personalities aside for long enough to come up with something that works for both parties, and the future of K7. I think you need to stand back and take a long, hard look at Billy's behavi...

Sam 68. Better if you post under your real name, carries more weight. Why? You wouldn't have heard of me, so I might as well just call myself something mundane (how about Bill Smith? There's a nice, bland average name for you?) and you wouldn't know any difference. Meanwhile, if Billy Liar is so (r...

Surely the logical conclusion has to be that the later document somehow affects the earlier one in a way that they don't want to reveal. No, the logical conclusion is that they don't feel it to be relevant. If it exists, then it only came into being after the restoration was substantially completed...

There's been no deflection. Well, why don't you address the issue of your legal commitments under the earlier agreement, then, and why both mentioning a document that you're not prepared to produce? If it's relevant, publish it. Otherwise, STFU trying to create a distraction when one doesn't exist.

Renegadenemo wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 3:08 pm It is very relevant, that's why it wasn't published with the 2006 one. A little mystery for the sleuths, perhaps.

Well, you seem desperate to deflect attention away from the very clear earlier documents, so I repeat: why don't you publish it yourself?

The arguments about the 2006 DoG can forever go in circles. Only if they're being led by someone who can't see where he's going because he has his head up his arse. The document is perfectly clear to everyone else. the question asked was why the museum hasn't breathed a word about their Confirmator...