Annex Proposal

Sun Dec 8 12:21:20 AKST 2002

Now there's an idea,  you know, correct me if I'm wrong, but back when the
Nats went around the country, wasn't there a bigger turnout?  Maybe the
threat of not having the AMA host the nationals might get them thinking a
little.

If the AMA is not interested in publishing info on our SIG, as per previous
threads, then, apart from the insurance, how does the AMA promote our
discipline?  Certainly not by holding the Nats in Muncie!  How much
publicity does that raise?  The locals seem ambivalent to it.  A great deal
more press interest would be generated if held somewhere else.

rgds

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of ANDY HERIDER
Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 8:31 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Annex Proposal

Hello everybody,

I want to let you know about another SIG that had trouble with the AMA. The
LSF (League of Silent Flight) a few years back had a riff with the AMA. The
AMA didn't want to listen to the LSF on some of their proposals. The LSF
then retaliated against the AMA by holding their own nationals at a
different location non affiliated with the AMA. The AMA then realized if
they didn't let the LSF make some of their own decisions that they weren't
going to have a AMA soaring nationals. The bottom line is the AMA wants and
needs the revenue generated by the SIG's. If your going to allow one SIG to
compile their own rules, maneuvers, etc. then all of the SIG's should enjoy
the same freedom. We all contribute equally so we should all benefit
equally. I think we have a real good and just arguement. I think that we
need to talk to some of the other SIG's and see exactly how things were done
when they were up against the wall like we are.

Andy Herider
AMA 70491
NSRCA 2212

-----Original Message-----
Date: Sun 12/08/02  1:04 PM
From: Buddy Brammer  <discussion at nsrca.org>
To:  discussion at nsrca.org
CC:
Subject: Re: Annex Proposal

<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>I am also in full agreement.</P>
<P>Buddy Brammer<BR><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: Bill Glaze <BILLGLAZE at TRIAD.RR.COM>
<DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: discussion at nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>>To: discussion at nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: Annex Proposal
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 12:51:29 -0600
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>I am in full agreement. Bill Glaze
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Ron Van Putte wrote:
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> > Jerry Stebbins wrote:
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > > Ron, it appears to me that we should let the AMA process
run it's
<DIV></DIV>> > > course. Let them make their decision based on the facts,
and put it out
<DIV></DIV>> > > for all to examine. Then we should have the opportunity to
demand a
<DIV></DIV>> > > truthful, and logical response to the process, and the
basis for their
<DIV></DIV>> > > decision. The Board is, by definition, supposed to be
responsive to the
<DIV></DIV>> > > Membership!
<DIV></DIV>> > > I am against any compromise that has no rationale as to why
the proposed
<DIV></DIV>> > > approach is wrong.We have the IMAC precident on our side.If
we
<DIV></DIV>> > > compromise, then that says our proposal is not sound.
<DIV></DIV>> > > Because Steve and Dave have some kind of insight, I wonder
what/who is
<DIV></DIV>> > > driving this decision. I would rather have them ( the
Board ) explain,
<DIV></DIV>> > > if they reject the proposal out of hand, why they are
discriminating
<DIV></DIV>> > > between the SIG's, and then we can determine the action,
legal or
<DIV></DIV>> > > otherwise, that we want to take.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > Does anyone not agree with the above?
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > Ron Van Putte
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > =====================================
<DIV></DIV>> > # To be removed from this list, send a message to
<DIV></DIV>> > # discussion-request at nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>> > # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
<DIV></DIV>> > #
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>=====================================
<DIV></DIV>># To be removed from this list, send a message to
<DIV></DIV>># discussion-request at nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>># and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
<DIV></DIV>>#
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>The new <a
href="http://g.msn.com/8HMHEN/2018">MSN 8:</a> smart spam protection and 2
months FREE* </html>

--
This message was sent using 3wmail.
Your fast free POP3 mail client at www.3wmail.com
=====================================
# To be removed from this list, send a message to
# discussion-request at nsrca.org
# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#

=====================================
# To be removed from this list, send a message to 
# discussion-request at nsrca.org
# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#