[NSRCA-discussion] Low Score Groan
Anthony Romano
anthonyr105 at hotmail.com
Sun Nov 26 17:45:16 AKST 2006
Let's see if I can do the short version.
At my first Nats and trying very hard to be a good judge on the Mastser's
line. The Muncie Senior Citizen group had volunteered to be scribes. This
was the first time I was using the scratch pad technique and having my
scribe copy from my scratchpad to the official score sheet. All is well for
the first few pilots. Everyone is working hard on putting up their best
flights and all of site 3 is as quiet as church. Halfway through one
sequence me scribe is struggling to read my far from perfect handwriting and
loudly proclaims," Is that a zzeerrrooo?"
The groan could be heard all the way to site one.
Anthony
>From: "Ron Lockhart" <ronlock at comcast.net>
>Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Low Score Groan
>Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:39:22 -0500
>
>Anthony, this is a great time to tell your Senior citizen scribe story.....
>Ron Lockhart
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Joe Walker" <vellum2 at bellsouth.net>
>To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 8:30 PM
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
>
>
> > Ahhh the low score groan. We all know and love it so...
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of george w.
> > kennie
> > Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 7:38 PM
> > To: NSRCA Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
> >
> >
> > <<<<All we can
> > ask is that people please try to pay attention and write scores that are
> > deserved. Even if it is a 4.>>>>
> >
> > That reminds me of the time, at the Nats, that I had to give Charlie
>Rock
>a
> > "2" for a maneuver and his wife was my scribe. 'Twas a little unnerving,
>but
> >
> > it was in 38 mph winds. The poor lady did emit an almost inaudible
>groan.
> > Georgie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Joe Walker" <vellum2 at bellsouth.net>
> > To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 5:40 PM
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
> >
> >
> > > Ok guys,
> > > I've been following this conversation for a while now and would like
>to
> > > throw my opinion into the ring...
> > >
> > > 1. It's not pilots vs. judges. We are the pilots AND the judges. We
> > > all know what it feels like to be sitting in the chair and to be in
>front
> > > of
> > > the chairs. Whether or not you sign your judge ID, people in general
>know
> > > what scores were given by whom at a local contest. The concept of
> > > "Transparent" scoring is really just a code word for communication.
> > > Judges
> > > need to be confident in their knowledge of the rules and be able to
>write
> > > down what they think the appropriate score and should feel comfortable
> > > telling a pilot after they land that they felt a certain maneuver was
> > > severely downgraded or zeroed because of X, Y or Z. Sometimes pilots
>get
> > > bent out of shape over a number they didn't like (yes, including me),
>but
> > > there shouldn't be anything wrong with asking a judge what they saw
>and
> > > why
> > > they marked it down. Certainly this will lead to lively discussions
>at
>a
> > > minimum. This is supposed to be a fun sport, not an exercise in
> > > frustration. Perhaps we can all try a little harder to talk to each
>other
> > > about questions we have and not get all bent and quit the sport.
> > >
> > > 2. People make mistakes. Almost all of the so called "flaws" in
> > > judging I have witnessed have been where people were just simply not
> > > watching the airplane flying in front of them. So, this begs the
>question
> > > "if I didn't see it, how can I write a score for it?". Honestly, who
>has
> > > actually written a "N/O" score recently? In the 20 years I have been
> > > involved in pattern, I've not seen it written once. Not in my
>district,
> > > not
> > > at the Nats, not in neighboring districts. People don't like to admit
> > > when
> > > they have missed something their sole purpose for sitting in the chair
>is
> > > to
> > > catch. It's human nature, right? So we need to make a bigger effort
>to
> > > simply pay attention and make sure our fellow judges do the same.
> > >
> > > Now, I'm not saying that sometimes people raise or lower scores for a
>name
> > > from time to time. Maybe it's a subconscious thing, maybe not. All
>we
> > > can
> > > ask is that people please try to pay attention and write scores that
>are
> > > deserved. Even if it is a 4.
> > >
> > > My 2 cents.
> > >
> > > Joe W.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Lance
>Van
> > > Nostrand
> > > Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 1:33 PM
> > > To: NSRCA Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
> > >
> > > Maybe that's your point, and if so, then it simply repeats what I said
> > > earlier that the PACSS scoring program allows judge initials. The
>system
> > > has the ability but no contests I've ever attended had anything other
>than
> > > voluntary judge initialing of score sheets. Also, a lot of judges are
> > > very
> > > uncomfortable discussing their observations and scoring. But its not
>where
> > > this thread started nor is it my point.
> > >
> > > I never said that the halo factor or judge competance were actual real
> > > issues on this thread. Rather, they are always part of the "usual
> > > suspects"
> > >
> > > when people speculate about what appears to be unexpected scores. An
> > > incident where this speculation was investigated, using sophisticated
> > > tools,
> > >
> > > and "proven" only bolsters the conspiracy theorists. Speculation is
>bad
> > > for
> > >
> > > pattern, can leave people feeling they have been "wronged" and reduces
> > > fun.
> > > When there are cases where people actually were "wronged" then that
>will
> > > increase speculation. Try saying "It's a good system and working
>fine."
> > > to
> > > those affected by impropriety and see what response you get.
> > >
> > > My point is that the best way to reduce damaging speculation is with
> > > transparency and facts. This reduces the window of what can be
>speculated
> > > upon. You mentioned Sarbanes-Oxley on a thread where you made the
>point
> > > that the appearance of impropriety was bad and a process that allows
> > > impropriety, even if it never occurs, is still illegal in the business
> > > world.
> > >
> > > Judging is the bedrock of contests. Continuous improvement is
>important.
> > > Sorry if this is appears harsh. I'm a little sensitive on topics that
>may
> > > affect pattern participation because I just saw the membership renewal
> > > rates
> > >
> > > and large numbers are not coming back. This may or may not have
>anything
> > > to
> > >
> > > do with their experience with judging, but this is one of the topics
>we
> > > need
> > >
> > > to be open about.
> > > --Lance
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Keith Black" <tkeithblack at gmail.com>
> > > To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 1:21 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
> > >
> > >
> > >> No Lance, the point is that our system already has the ability to
> > >> identify
> > >> judges.
> > >>
> > >> The halo factor and judging accuracy/competence is a different topic.
> > >>
> > >> If there is any action item related to our discussion it would be
>that
> > >> local
> > >> CD's should enforce what's already supposed to happen, which is
>judges
> > >> should always write down either their initials or judge number on
>score
> > >> sheets. However, at local contests even when judges don't write their
> > >> initials down it's normally pretty easy to figure out.
> > >>
> > >> Keith
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: "Lance Van Nostrand" <patterndude at comcast.net>
> > >> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 9:07 AM
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Alright. I'll agree for now. But there is a string attached. The
>next
> > >>> contest where you are in a near tie, and you fly a round you are
>proud
> > >>> of,
> > >>> and subsequently fall behind by 100 points you remember this.
>Instead
> > >>> of
> > >>> bending our ears off on speculation about your flying, the halo for
>the
> > >>> other guy, and judging in general, you must now recite your mantra,
> > >>> "It's
> > >> a
> > >>> good system and working fine."
> > >>>
> > >>> --Lance
> > >>>
> > >>> ----- Original Message -----
> > >>> From: "Keith Black" <tkeithblack at gmail.com>
> > >>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >>> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 7:51 PM
> > >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> > If I may be so bold as to summarize what I'm hearing from the
>opinions
> > >>> > I've
> > >>> > read, including mine (with exception of Lance possibly... not
>sure).
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Keep doing exactly what we're doing at both the local level and
>NATS
> > >>> > level.
> > >>> > It's a good system and working fine.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Keith Black
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > ----- Original Message -----
> > >>> > From: <jivey61 at bellsouth.net>
> > >>> > To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >>> > Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 9:26 AM
> > >>> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> >> I'm not Jim W either,but I would like to say about this hobby....
>the
> > >>> >> judge.. flyer relationship is the result of many hours of
>studying
> > >>> >> and
> > >>> >> practice.Locally we know who we fly in front of and how they
> > >>> >> judge.Some
> > >>> > are
> > >>> >> tighter judges than others and we know this.We accept this.We are
> > >>> > fortunate
> > >>> >> in the southeast to have some very good high status flyers that
>judge
> > >> and
> > >>> >> give their opinions on various aspects of this hobby.They act
>like
> > >> normal
> > >>> >> people and don't think they are better than anyone else. Jason is
>one
> > >> of
> > >>> >> them and when he speaks I listen like a sponge........ I tried
>to
> > >> sneak
> > >>> >> the humpty 3/4 roll down(did a 1/4 roll down) three times and he
> > >>> >> drew
> > >> a
> > >>> >> circle 3 times,because a circle is easy to draw.hehe. I knew I
>did
>it
> > >>> >> when
> > >>> >> it happened. All this told me... that I needed to concentrate on
>what
> > >>> >> I
> > >>> > was
> > >>> >> doing and he was telling me this in his score. It got to be our
>joke
> > >>> > between
> > >>> >> us. The moral of all this is read your raw scores and learn from
> > >>> >> them
> > >> .
> > >>> >> They were given for a reason and you are the beneficiary.
> > >>> >> If you have judges on the local level that will talk to you after
>the
> > >>> > flight
> > >>> >> ask them, what they saw, and why they did what they did. If they
>ca
>n
> > >>> >> remember they will tell you. This is especially needed in the
>lower
> > >>> > levels.
> > >>> >> When I started... the only coaching or input I got was at the
> > >>> >> contests
> > >> I
> > >>> >> went to and that is the hard way to learn.
> > >>> >> The business of defensive judging and initials on scoresheets on
>the
> > >>> >> local
> > >>> >> level is mute.We know who we fly in front of. At the Nats as RVP
> > >>> >> stated
> > >>> > the
> > >>> >> initials are used for other identity reasons and are necessary.
> > >>> >> I won't go into my Nats judging experiences here.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Jim Ivey
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Jim Ivey
> > >>> >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >>> >> From: "JShulman" <jshulman at cfl.rr.com>
> > >>> >> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >>> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 10:37 PM
> > >>> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> > I'm not JimW, but I know there have been a few contests where
>we
> > >> figure
> > >>> >> out
> > >>> >> > what judges gave what scores, if we don't already know who did.
>I'm
> > >>> >> > open
> > >>> >> to
> > >>> >> > telling anyone what judge I am. Ask Jim Ivey if I'm afraid to
>give
> > >>> >> > a
> > >>> >> > zero...lol. Doesn't seem to be an issue here, that I've seen...
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> > One thing that I am glad to see here in D3 is that if there is
>an
> > >>> >> > issue,
> > >>> >> > then we will spend some time and figure out how to correct it.
>At
> > >>> >> > Andersonville we discussed snaps and how they should be done
>after
> > >>> >> > there
> > >>> >> was
> > >>> >> > some "discussion" about what looks right and what looks wrong.
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> > Regards,
> > >>> >> > Jason
> > >>> >> > www.jasonshulman.com
> > >>> >> > www.shulmanaviation.com
> > >>> >> > www.composite-arf.com
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> > -----Original Message-----
> > >>> >> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > >>> >> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of
>Lance
> > >> Van
> > >>> >> > Nostrand
> > >>> >> > Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 10:23 PM
> > >>> >> > To: NSRCA Mailing List
> > >>> >> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> > Keith,
> > >>> >> > This is a fun hobby. I submit that if you are afraid to give
>an
> > >>> > accurate
> > >>> >> > score that you witnessed then you are doing a disservice. At a
> > >>> >> > local
> > >>> >> > contest you are kidding yourself if you think you have any
> > >>> >> > anonymity.
> > >>> >> > Instead of pretending its there, some cool discussion will
>raise
> > >>> >> > the
> > >>> > level
> > >>> >> > of pilot and judge. One big difference between a local and
>Nats
>is
> > >>> >> > that
> > >>> >> at
> > >>> >> > a local its highly likely that we will fly in front of the same
> > >> person
> > >>> >> that
> > >>> >> > we'll later judge. If there were some kind of inappropriate
> > >>> >> > judging
> > >>> > going
> > >>> >> > on, this is a natural damper. Since this damper is not in
>place
>at
> > >> the
> > >>> >> > Nats, that might change the checks and balances.
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> > I don't see anyone joining this discussion. Even JimW has not
> > >>> > responded.
> > >>> >> I
> > >>> >> > think we are in "no man's land". Thanks for responding.
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> > --Lance
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> > >>> >> > From: "Keith Black" <tkeithblack at gmail.com>
> > >>> >> > To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >>> >> > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 10:22 PM
> > >>> >> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> > > Lance, you make some very good points. For me this is a tough
> > >>> >> > > issue
> > >>> > with
> > >>> >> > > two
> > >>> >> > > very strong arguments on opposite sides.
> > >>> >> > >
> > >>> >> > > Simply put:
> > >>> >> > >
> > >>> >> > > Pro> If judges initials score sheets they'll be more
> > >>> >> > > conscientious
> > >>> >> about
> > >>> >> > > their judging and less incline to gouge someone they don't
>like.
> > >>> >> > >
> > >>> >> > > Con> If judges initial score sheets they may be hesitant to
>give
> > >>> >> deserved
> > >>> >> > > low scores to big name pilots and may fear retribution when
>they
> > >> fly.
> > >>> >> > >
> > >>> >> > > I think the Con is probably the more persuasive of these two
> > >> points,
> > >>> > at
> > >>> >> > > least at the NATS level, because when judges are required to
>put
> > >>> >> > > their
> > >>> >> > > judge
> > >>> >> > > number they still know they're accountable, but will be
> > >>> >> > > comfortable
> > >>> >> giving
> > >>> >> > > deserved low scores without fear of retribution. Also, at
>NATS
> > >>> >> > > if
> > >>> >> > > you
> > >>> >> see
> > >>> >> > > Joe Blow's name by some really low scores you receive and you
> > >>> >> > > don't
> > >>> > know
> > >>> >> > > Joe
> > >>> >> > > Blow human nature is to develop a bit of a grudge against Joe
> > >>> >> > > Blow.
> > >>> >> > > We
> > >>> >> > > don't
> > >>> >> > > need this kind of ill will in our community. I for one tried
>not
> > >>> >> > > to
> > >>> > pay
> > >>> >> > > attention to who was in the judges' chair at NATS because I
> > >>> >> > > didn't
> > >>> > want
> > >>> >> to
> > >>> >> > > subconsciously start associating my scores with individuals.
> > >>> >> > >
> > >>> >> > > At the local contest most people know each other and feel
>more
> > >>> >> comfortable
> > >>> >> > > discussing things so this is a different story. I initial my
> > >>> >> > > scores
> > >>> >> > > at
> > >>> >> > > local
> > >>> >> > > contests (when I remember). However, if a judge feels
> > >>> >> > > uncomfortable
> > >>> > that
> > >>> >> > > Joe
> > >>> >> > > Bigshot may grill them if they give a low score I don't think
>the
> > >>> > judge
> > >>> >> > > should have to give his initials as long as a judge number is
> > >>> >> > > used.
> > >>> >> > >
> > >>> >> > > Keith
> > >>> >> > >
> > >>> >> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >>> >> > > From: "Lance Van Nostrand" <patterndude at comcast.net>
> > >>> >> > > To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >>> >> > > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 8:22 PM
> > >>> >> > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
> > >>> >> > >
> > >>> >> > >
> > >>> >> > >> Del,
> > >>> >> > >> This is unfortunate and I've had a similar experience.
>Still,
> > >>> >> arranging
> > >>> >> > > our
> > >>> >> > >> rules to avoid behavior that we all know is inappropriate is
>a
> > >>> >> > >> disservice.
> > >>> >> > >> I would propose that anyone motivated to discuss CHANGING a
> > >>> >> > >> score
> > >>> >> should
> > >>> >> > > go
> > >>> >> > >> through the CD. But there are other valid motivations:
> > >>> >> > >> 1. To learn what downgrades, either specifically or in
>general
> > >>> >> > >> terms,
> > >>> >> > >> were
> > >>> >> > >> applied
> > >>> >> > >> 2. to understand a judges perspective and what they consider
> > >>> >> > >> very
> > >>> >> > > important
> > >>> >> > >> (weight heavily)
> > >>> >> > >> 3. others...
> > >>> >> > >>
> > >>> >> > >> This is not to question a score but to both learn what the
>pilot
> > >> can
> > >>> > do
> > >>> >> > >> to
> > >>> >> > >> improve and (of equal importance) to learn how other judges
> > >> approach
> > >>> >> the
> > >>> >> > >> evaluation. One thing I've noticed is that the "judgement"
>part
> > >> of
> > >>> >> > > judging
> > >>> >> > >> can influence scores and these flying defects are often just
>as
> > >>> >> > > controllable
> > >>> >> > >> as the hard and fast rules. I recently was downgraded by a
> > >>> >> > >> judge,
> > >>> > whom
> > >>> >> I
> > >>> >> > >> had a very friendly conversation with, because my center
> > >>> >> > >> manuvers
> > >>> > were
> > >>> >> > >> not
> > >>> >> > >> at the same altitude. Many may say that this should not
>have
> > >>> >> > >> been
> > >>> >> > >> downgraded, but this judges point was that the pilot that
> > >>> >> > >> controls
> > >>> > the
> > >>> >> > >> altitude better should get the better score. Don't flame on
> > >>> >> > >> this
> > >>> > rules
> > >>> >> > >> point! My point is that knowing that this is a perspective
>of
> > >> some
> > >>> >> > > judges,
> > >>> >> > >> and it is a thing that I can work on without disadvantaging
> > >>> >> > >> myself
> > >>> > was
> > >>> >> > > very
> > >>> >> > >> valuable information.
> > >>> >> > >>
> > >>> >> > >> We need to remember this is a fun hobby. If we are not
> > >>> >> > >> disputing
> > >> a
> > >>> >> > >> score,
> > >>> >> > >> we need to approach judge feedback with modesty and a sense
>of
> > >>> >> > >> humor.
> > >>> >> It
> > >>> >> > > is
> > >>> >> > >> a time of gathering information, not of making a
>counterpoint.
> > >> Many
> > >>> >> > >> times
> > >>> >> > > a
> > >>> >> > >> judge just can't remember, but I'm sure that they will
>remember
> > >> more
> > >>> > if
> > >>> >> > > they
> > >>> >> > >> know there will be no negative counterpoint. I would like
>to
> > >>> >> > >> see
> > >>> > judge
> > >>> >> > >> initials on the bottom of the score sheets, given these
> > >> guidelines.
> > >>> >> > >>
> > >>> >> > >> --Lance
> > >>> >> > >>
> > >>> >> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >>> >> > >> From: "Del K. Rykert" <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com>
> > >>> >> > >> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >>> >> > >> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 1:31 PM
> > >>> >> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
> > >>> >> > >>
> > >>> >> > >>
> > >>> >> > >> >I still remember the confrontation I experienced by the
>father
> > >>> >> > >> >of
> > >> a
> > >>> >> > >> >local
> > >>> >> > >> > competitor taking me to task on a maneuver that I gigged
> > >>> >> > >> > harshly
> > >>> > and
> > >>> >> > >> > the
> > >>> >> > >> > ensuing 30 minute debate with my finally pulling out my
>rule
> > >> book
> > >>> > and
> > >>> >> > >> > showing him the paragraph and specific reasons his son
> > >>> >> > >> > received
> > >>> >> > >> > the
> > >>> >> > >> > downgrades. Course he didn't agree the wings weren't level
>and
> > >> the
> > >>> >> > >> > model
> > >>> >> > >> > had
> > >>> >> > >> > noticeable climb when it should have been minor or no
>climb
> > >> before
> > >>> >> > >> > entry
> > >>> >> > >> > to
> > >>> >> > >> > spin. Wind was down the runway. Airplane fell out of spin
>in
> > >> last
> > >>> > 1/4
> > >>> >> > >> > of
> > >>> >> > >> > spin into spiral.
> > >>> >> > >> > Yes I could have reported this to the CD and made a bad
> > >>> > situation
> > >>> >> > >> > worse.
> > >>> >> > >> > How does that encourage participation in the sport? It
>did
> > >>> >> > >> > ruin
> > >>> > the
> > >>> >> > > rest
> > >>> >> > >> > of
> > >>> >> > >> > my flights as a contestant and left me with taste of why
>do
>I
> > >> want
> > >>> > to
> > >>> >> > >> > subject myself to this kind of abuse.
> > >>> >> > >> > Some in the sport are wound to tightly and will use any
> > >> excuse
> > >>> > to
> > >>> >> > >> > try
> > >>> >> > >> > to
> > >>> >> > >> > increase their edge. Thankfully it is the smallest of
> > >> minorities
> > >>> > but
> > >>> >> > >> > it
> > >>> >> > >> > does still exist. For this reason I always have my rule
>book
> > >> handy
> > >>> >> > >> > whenever
> > >>> >> > >> > I go to a contest and might be asked to judge. Shame the
>sport
> > >> has
> > >>> >> been
> > >>> >> > >> > reduced for some of us as defensive judging.
> > >>> >> > >> >
> > >>> >> > >> > Del
> > >>> >> > >> > nsrca - 473
> > >>> >> > >> > ----- Original Message -----
> > >>> >> > >> > From: "george w. kennie" <geobet at gis.net>
> > >>> >> > >> > To: "NSRCA Mailing List"
><nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >>> >> > >> > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 12:57 PM
> > >>> >> > >> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI sporting code on judge
> > >>> >> transparency
> > >>> >> > >> >
> > >>> >> > >> >
> > >>> >> > >> >> In spite of the fact that when I sit in the chair I
>ALWAYS
> > >>> >> > >> >> initial
> > >>> >> the
> > >>> >> > >> >> score
> > >>> >> > >> >> sheet at district events, I can state from experience
>that
> > >>> >> > >> >> it's
> > >>> >> > > probably
> > >>> >> > >> >> not
> > >>> >> > >> >> a good idea and I feel that the reason it's probably not
>done
> > >> at
> > >>> > the
> > >>> >> > > Nats
> > >>> >> > >> >> is
> > >>> >> > >> >> due to a "been there, done that" previous learning
> > >>> >> > >> >> experience.
> > >>> >> > >> >> There is just too much competitive passion on the part of
> > >>> > individual
> > >>> >> > >> >> pilots
> > >>> >> > >> >> to avoid personal conflicts escalating into personality
>wars
> > >> with
> > >>> >> long
> > >>> >> > >> >> lasting repercussions.
> > >>> >> > >> >> Think about it,.........how many times have you heard it
> > >>> >> > >> >> expressed
> > >>> >> > >> >> that
> > >>> >> > > a
> > >>> >> > >> >> particular judge has a reputation as a tough or BAD
>judge?
> > >>> >> > >> >> Too much knowledge can generate factional devisiveness
>which
> > >>> >> > >> >> is
> > >>> >> > > probably
> > >>> >> > >> >> best avoided.
> > >>> >> > >> >> G.
> > >>> >> > >> >>
> > >>> >> > >> >>
> > >>> >> > >> >>
> > >>> >> > >> >>
> > >>> >> > >> >>
> > >>> >> > >> >>
> > >>> >> > >> >>
> > >>> >> > >> >>
> > >>> >> > >> >>
> > >>> >> > >> >>
> > >>> >> > >> >>
> > >>> >> > >> >>
> > >>> >> > >> >>
> > >>> >> > >> >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >>> >> > >> >> From: "Anthony Romano" <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
> > >>> >> > >> >> To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >>> >> > >> >> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 9:07 AM
> > >>> >> > >> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI sporting code on
>judge
> > >>> >> > >> >> transparency
> > >>> >> > >> >>
> > >>> >> > >> >>
> > >>> >> > >> >>> Hi Jim,
> > >>> >> > >> >>> Good points. There is an easy way to start this. Every
>time
> > >> you
> > >>> >> judge
> > >>> >> > >> >>> legibly sign or initial your score sheets.
> > >>> >> > >> >>> To the conspirists, remember when questioning judges a
> > >>> >> > >> >>> little
> > >>> >> respect
> > >>> >> > >> >>> and
> > >>> >> > >> >>> courtesy goes a long way.
> > >>> >> > >> >>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>> Anthony
> > >>> >> > >> >>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>From: "Jim Woodward" <jim.woodward at schroth.com>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List
> > >> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'"
> > >>> >> > >> >>>><nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI sporting code on
>judge
> > >>> >> > > transparency
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 08:09:31 -0500
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>I think posting judges names along with the scores is
>more
> > >> than
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>a
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>fair
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>idea
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>and goes a long way toward increasing the transparency
>at
>a
> > >>> >> contest.
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>When
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>you increase the transparency, the "pilots" have a
>better
> > >>> >> > > understanding
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>and
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>good time. When the pilots are happy, they come back to
>the
> > >>> >> contests
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>and
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>maybe bring someone with them. If you notice, after a
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>contest
> > >>> > when
> > >>> >> > > our
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>friend who did not makes it calls and asks, ". how was
>the
> > >>> >> contest,"
> > >>> >> > > the
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>next question is ". how was the judging." Judging, or
> > >> problems
> > >>> >> with
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>judging, is such an intrinsic part of the pattern
>experience
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>that
> > >>> >> you
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>can't
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>separate it from the "description" of how the contest
>went.
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>1. What is interesting is that the "flight" takes place
>in
>a
> > >>> > public
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>forum - anyone can see it. As we watch it, more often
>or
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>not
> > >> it
> > >>> > is
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>watched
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>in small groups which include fellow class-competitors,
>or
> > >> more
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>experienced
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>pilots pointing out to younger pilots errors to look out
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>for.
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>2. The judges for the round are public information. IE
>-
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>you
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>can
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>look
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>out on the flight line and see who is judging
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>3. The pilot for the round is public information. IE -
>you
> > >> can
> > >>> >> look
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>out on the flight line and see who is flying.
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>Yet, "who" and "how" the scores were given remains a
>small
> > >>> > mystery.
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>A
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>lot
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>of folks do not want to be known as the guy who goes to
>the
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>CD
> > >>> > and
> > >>> >> > > asks
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>questions about the scoring and such. Or, is seen by
>their
> > >>> > fellow
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>competitors as being the CD hound.
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>Judge Training: Most judge training takes place in
>practice
> > >> and
> > >>> > at
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>contests. There is no better forum for judge training
>than
> > >> the
> > >>> >> > > contest
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>environment. When the tear sheets are posted for each
>round
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>with
> > >>> >> > > judge
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>identification, you can go and ask ". I watched that and
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>wondered
> > >>> >> why
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>you
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>gave it xyz score." This is an incredibly valuable
>moment
> > >> when
> > >>> > all
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>of
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>us
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>are gathered we do more to get the most out of it. As
>it
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>stands,
> > >>> >> > > after
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>the
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>round is posted the next comment is, ". well, I guess
>the
> > >> judges
> > >>> >> > > didn't
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>catch that zero.. (and similar comments)." These
> > >> conversations
> > >>> > are
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>already
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>taking place at the contest. Posting the tear sheets
>for
> > >>> > everyone
> > >>> >> > > would
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>bring these conversations into the open as a positive
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>element
> > >> of
> > >>> >> the
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>experience, and not add to the conspiracy theorists
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>ammunition
> > >>> >> (every
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>district has a prime person/competitor who is a judging
> > >>> > conspiracy
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>theorists).
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>Last thing, there are two judges for every 1 pilot,
>thus,
> > >> there
> > >>> > is
> > >>> >> > > 100%
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>more
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>judging work taking place than piloting work. We are
>there
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>to
> > >>> > fly,
> > >>> >> > > but
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>the
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>performance of the judges is every bit on display as the
> > >>> >> performance
> > >>> >> > > of
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>the
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>pilot. In the US we also tally the judges performance
>and
> > >> keep
> > >>> >> track
> > >>> >> > > of
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>them on the national scene. Posting the tear sheets
>with
> > >> judges
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>names
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>would
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>help this effort, allow for a GREAT training tool to be
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>available
> > >>> >> to
> > >>> >> > > the
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>CD
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>and fellow pilots, and become a "self-correcting-tool"
>to
> > >> those
> > >>> >> > > persons
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>who
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>to judge with bias (intentionally or not). As a judge,
>at
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>the
> > >>> > end
> > >>> >> of
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>the
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>round it would be great to know how my scores compared
>to
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>the
> > >>> > other
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>judge.
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>Each judge could discuss the round. When the tear
>sheets
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>are
> > >>> >> posted
> > >>> >> > > in
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>the
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>open, it will "promote" this conversation and I believe,
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>help
> > >> on
> > >>> >> many
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>levels. Also, if you as a judge know the scores and
>names
> > >> will
> > >>> > be
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>posted
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>after a round, I bet a lot of judge-lazy behavior will
>go
> > >> away,
> > >>> >> like
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>when
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>they/we have our head down and write scores, thus
>missing
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>30%
> > >> or
> > >>> >> more
> > >>> >> > > of
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>maneuvers.
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>Just some ideas.
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>Jim W.
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>> _____
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
>Behalf
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>Of
> > >>> >> Wayne
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 11:37 PM
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>To: NSRCA Mailing List
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI sporting code on
>judge
> > >>> >> > > transparency
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>Fred,
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>my point is post them...not leave loose tear sheets on a
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>table
> > >>> > for
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>pilots
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>to
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>take away from the table. This has been the practice at
>the
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>NATS.
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>They
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>need
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>to be posted in some way. Not just tossed as loose
>sheets
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>for
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>the
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>wind
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>and
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>pilots to remove from the public view
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>That is all my point was. I had a conversation with an
>FAI
> > >> pilot
> > >>> >> back
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>after
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>the NATS and he has been advocating this the past 3
>years
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>yet
> > >>> > still
> > >>> >> > > not
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>happening.
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>----- Original Message -----
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>From: Fred Huber <mailto:fhhuber at clearwire.net>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>To: NSRCA Mailing List
> > >> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 8:13 PM
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI sporting code on
>judge
> > >>> >> > > transparency
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>To me, "public" can be debated somewhat....
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>Its probably adequate to post them on a table where
>anyone
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>WHO
> > >>> >> WANTS
> > >>> >> > > TO
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>can
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>see them.
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>All the Pattern contests I have been to, the scores have
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>been
> > >>> > taped
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>to
> > >>> >> > > a
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>table where anyone who wanted to look had access. Good
> > >> enough.
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>Don't
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>make
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>it harder than it has to be.
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>----- Original Message -----
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>From: Wayne <mailto:Whinkle1024 at msn.com>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>To: NSRCA Mailing List
> > >> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 8:21 PM
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI sporting code on
>judge
> > >>> >> > > transparency
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>Public is not left on a table....Public is posted for
>the
> > >> world
> > >>> > to
> > >>> >> > > see.
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>check out the awesome job done by the Swiss at the last
>Euro
> > >>> >> Champs.
> > >>> >> > > Too
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>bad
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>we in the USA with more pattern flyers than anywhere
>else
> > >> can't
> > >>> > get
> > >>> >> > > with
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>the
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>program.
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>http://www.em06.ch/ranking_preliminary.asp
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>Wayne
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>----- Original Message -----
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>From: Lance Van <mailto:patterndude at comcast.net>
>Nostrand
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>To: NSRCA Mailing List
> > >> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 6:17 PM
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI sporting code on judge
> > >>> > transparency
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>To all rule-meisters,
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>I know there are some on this list that have deep
>insight
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>into
> > >>> > the
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>intent
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>and history of the F3A sporting code. I hope to either
>get
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>a
> > >>> > solid
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>answer
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>or pointed in the right direction. This is not an idle
> > >> request.
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>Part 5.1.8 Marking - last sentence
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>The scores given by each judge for each competitor shall
>be
> > >> made
> > >>> >> > > public
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>at
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>the end of each round of competition.
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>What level of transparency is mandated? Is it enough to
> > >> report
> > >>> > the
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>scores
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>from judge 1-4 or is it expected that the identity of
>the
> > >> judge
> > >>> > be
> > >>> >> > > known
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>as
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>well?
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>--Lance
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>> _____
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>_______________________________________________
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>> _____
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>_______________________________________________
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>> _____
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>No virus found in this incoming message.
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.7/537 -
>Release
> > >> Date:
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>11/17/2006
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>> _____
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>_______________________________________________
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>_______________________________________________
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >>> >> > >> >>>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >>> >> > >> >>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>>
> > >> _________________________________________________________________
> > >>> >> > >> >>> Get free, personalized commercial-free online radio with
>MSN
> > >>> > Radio
> > >>> >> > >> >>> powered
> > >>> >> > >> >>> by Pandora http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001
> > >>> >> > >> >>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> >> > >> >>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > >>> >> > >> >>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >>> >> > >> >>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >>> >> > >> >>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>
> > >>> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________
> > >>> >> > >> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > >>> >> > >> >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >>> >> > >> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >>> >> > >> >>
> > >>> >> > >> >
> > >>> >> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >>> >> > >> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > >>> >> > >> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >>> >> > >> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >>> >> > >>
> > >>> >> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >>> >> > >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > >>> >> > >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >>> >> > >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >>> >> > >
> > >>> >> > > _______________________________________________
> > >>> >> > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > >>> >> > > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >>> >> > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> > _______________________________________________
> > >>> >> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > >>> >> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >>> >> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> > --
> > >>> >> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > >>> >> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > >>> >> > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.11/543 - Release
>Date:
> > >>> >> 11/20/2006
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> > --
> > >>> >> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > >>> >> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > >>> >> > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.11/543 - Release
>Date:
> > >>> >> 11/20/2006
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> > _______________________________________________
> > >>> >> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > >>> >> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >>> >> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> _______________________________________________
> > >>> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > >>> >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >>> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >>> >
> > >>> > _______________________________________________
> > >>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > >>> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > >>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_________________________________________________________________
Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://get.live.com/messenger/overview
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list