rules proposals final result

[Lance Van Nostrand]

Really?  And what about the individuals that submit their own proposals in
direct conflict to member survey and with no known team discussion.  Are
they "us"?  And what about all the discussion over whether the member survey
had "leading" questions or didn't ask someone's favorite question.  Did it
truly represent "us"?
   Truth is, we is all us.  We need ethical and competent behavior from
everyone if this organization is to thrive because of us (and not despite
us).

--Lance

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "george kennie" <geobet at gis.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: rules proposals final result


> I, for one, contacted my Contest Board Member expressing my viewpoint on
"all"
> the proposals listed for consideration by the Board.
> In my opinion, the Contest Board has demonstrated, by it's actions, that
it is
> definitely NOT "us"!!!!!
>
> Lance Van Nostrand wrote:
>
> > bob, I agree with you.  I wonder how many people actually contacted
their
> > AMA contest board member to remind them of the survey results and to
> > represent?  We are in a volunteer organization where a few activists can
> > have disproportionate influence.  This can be good or bad.
> > --Lance
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bob Pastorello" <rcaerobob at cox.net>
> > To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 9:04 AM
> > Subject: Re: rules proposals final result
> >
> > > Considering that many of the contest board members are "us", what
would it
> > > accomplish by negating their efforts, however we may feel about it?
> > > Would not it be more effective to attempt to build relationships WITH
the
> > CB
> > > members, rather than risk alienating them by ignoring the rules they
voted
> > > in?
> > >
> > > Or am I just showing my naivete?
> > >
> > > Not arguing, just posing a question that occured to me....
> > >
> > > Bob Pastorello
> > > rcaerobob at cox.net
> > > www.rcaerobats.net
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "John Ferrell" <johnferrell at earthlink.net>
> > > To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> > > Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 8:56 AM
> > > Subject: Re: rules proposals final result
> > >
> > >
> > > > Control freaks get pretty mad when you ignore them..Of course that
is
> > part
> > > > of the fun of ignoring them!
> > > >
> > > > But it is counter productive to injure the game.
> > > >
> > > > John Ferrell
> > > > http://DixieNC.US
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <moleski at canisius.edu>
> > > > To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 7:35 AM
> > > > Subject: RE: rules proposals final result
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > --On Sunday, May 09, 2004 5:31 AM -0400 "Thomas C. Weedon"
> > > > <weedon at wwnet.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > ... take offs and landings are just as aerobatic as a loop of
roll
> > and
> > > > should be
> > > > > > judged as such.
> > > > >
> > > > > Agreed.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Perhaps AMA is pushing us back to the NPAC idea where we can be
in
> > > > charge of our
> > > > > > own destiny; ya think?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I do.
> > > > >
> > > > > The best thing to do with control freaks is to walk
> > > > > away from them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Marty

=====================================
# To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.