[NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-12 - who looks bad?
Keith Black
tkeithblack at gmail.com
Wed Jul 4 09:39:36 AKDT 2007
Matthew, the nonsense on this mailing list may make the NSRCA look bad to
some, but I
personally think the officers have been very dignified by not allowing
themselves
to be drawn into the muck after Eric shot off all his accusations. It seems
to me
that their attempt not to get in a pissing match with Eric has provided no
opportunity
for us to hear both sides and therefore I don't know how any of us can make
a judgment.
To accept the rantings of a spurned member as truthful is beyond gullible.
In fact,
his statement about Dave hand picking judges for finals was clearly false
because
Don Ramsey has picked finals judges for many years. The fact is we don't
know how many rounds were used in the bias tests, we don't know what
software
they used, we don't know who did the evaluation, what witnesses they had,
etc., etc.?
One could say that if the NSRCA was justified they would have explained this
on the list but
perhaps they're smart enough to know that doing so is not appropriate or
healthy
for the NSRCA. I applaud the NSRCA officers for maintaining a civil manner
and I
wish Eric was as interested the NSRCA's well being.
Keith Black
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Frederick" <mjfrederick at cox.net>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-12 computer science.
> Glad you caught that, Keith... mine wasn't intentional, though... like I
> said, I'm rusty. Doesn't incrementing a char move it to the next ACSII
> character in the line? Is that why it's an infinite loop? It's been so
long
> since I did any programming in C... I did do some Java a little over a
year
> ago, which is similar, but different. I can't remember all those stupid
> little nuances... that's why I still have all my texts. I have no problem
> understanding algorithms, but when it comes to junk like that my brain
just
> chooses not to retain all the info. And yes... this is MUCH better than
all
> the political crud. Frankly I think everyone involved in that whole
> situation looks bad. I think the NSRCA looks bad for over-stepping its
> bounds when it comes to enforcing AMA rules, I think the AMA looks bad for
> not disqualifying the pilots who approached a judge (I'm still wondering
how
> the heck they knew who the specific judge was... that's supposed to be
> anonymous), and I think Eric looks bad for not just accepting the crap
that
> happened and moving on. Like I said... anyone who knows how to program (or
> even use Excel) and has minimal statistical training could have proven a
> bias... the problem is that software already exists for that in FAI, but
it
> requires a judge to have judged more than one round... I'm not going to
> point out the obvious reasons why it requires more than one round. Good
luck
> to everyone at this year's Nats. Wish I could say I'll see you there...
> maybe next year.
>
> Matt
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Keith Black" <tkeithblack at gmail.com>
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 11:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-12 computer science.
>
>
> > Matthew,
> >
> > syntax error: you didn't define cnt.
> >
> > And by the way, though in principal I agree with you about the int
> > declaration (depending on John's intent) in C or C++ it's perfectly
> > acceptable to increment (++) a char.
> >
> > Keith
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Matthew Frederick" <mjfrederick at cox.net>
> > To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 10:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-12 computer science.
> >
> >
> >> John,
> >> What language is that for? C/C++? I don't think that function would
work
> >> because doing math with a data type char provides unpredictable
results.
> > It
> >> looks like a function that would return the number 255 to the function
> > that
> >> called it, but I would have written it like this:
> >> int foo(void){
> >> int num;
> >> for(num = 0; cnt < 255; num++){
> >> }
> >> return num;
> >> }
> >>
> >> Or better yet:
> >> int foo(void){
> >> return 255;
> >> }
> >>
> >> Or even better yet, if you know the number that will always be
returned,
> >> just make it a global constant and be done with it... Also I've never
> >> intialized 2 variables in a FOR statement before. Didn't know it was
> >> possible, and not quite sure I would ever need to. If the language
shown
> > was
> >> not C/C++, then maybe in that language you can in fact do math with
data
> >> type char, but why would you store numbers as text? It takes far more
> > space
> >> to store them. Keep in mind, I haven't done actual programming in a
> >> couple
> >> of years so I am a little rusty (I don't consider working with access
> >> databases and excel to be programming although some knowledge is
> >> helpful).
> >>
> >> Matt
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "John Pavlick" <jpavlick at idseng.com>
> >> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 9:16 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-12 computer science.
> >>
> >>
> >> > OK, what does this do?
> >> >
> >> > char foo(void)
> >> > {
> >> > char cnt, num;
> >> >
> >> > for(cnt = 0, num = 0; cnt < 256; cnt++)
> >> > {
> >> > num++;
> >> > }
> >> > return num;
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > John Pavlick
> >> > http://www.idseng.com
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "Matthew Frederick" <mjfrederick at cox.net>
> >> > To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> > Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 4:22 AM
> >> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> I'd like to see the code myself... I've got quite a bit of Computer
> >> >> Science
> >> >> training.
> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >> From: "Fred Huber" <fhhuber at clearwire.net>
> >> >> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 3:23 PM
> >> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>> What computer language was the program written in?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Send me the source code.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >>> From: "W. Hinkle" <whinkle1024 at msn.com>
> >> >>> To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 10:25 AM
> >> >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Dave is a good pilot but character being beyond reproach is a bit
of
> > a
> >> >>>> stretch. Ask John Glizellis about when Dave shot him down and
> >> >>>> haggled
> >> >>>> over
> >> >>>> the price. This was to replace a brand new model with less than 30
> >> >>>> flights
> >> >>>> on it at the NATS. The incident was at the NATS during practice at
> > the
> >> >>>> AMA
> >> >>>> field. We all make mistakes, but to penny pinch the guy that just
> > cost
> >> >>>> his
> >> >>>> new model part way through the Nationals. JR had to step in and
> > forced
> >> >>>> the
> >> >>>> hand. If it had not been for Dave the sponsorship threat Dave
would
> >> >>>> still
> >> >>>> be
> >> >>>> argueing the price of a new built model. Dave replaced it after
some
> >> >>>> debate
> >> >>>> with JR. This is not character beyond reproach? Dave may be a good
> > guy
> >> >>>> just
> >> >>>> don't be on the same freq. He'll tell how poor your model is built
> > and
> >> >>>> its
> >> >>>> not worth the price of a professional built kit.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I'll agree that both parties in this fight are not angels. I'm not
a
> >> >>>> fan
> >> >>>> or
> >> >>>> Eric's but my question to this forum
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Why is the NSRCA involved at all?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Doesn't the NSRCA have better things to do with its time and
energy
> >> >>>> than
> >> >>>> lynching a judge at the request of a couple pilots that have
> > character
> >> >>>> beyond reproach?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I feel this is another sign of the NSRCA just wasting resources,
> >> >>>> time
> >> >>>> and
> >> >>>> money in the name of being the Savior of pattern flying. Beware
> > people
> >> >>>> beware. Come on. Getting two of Dave's best buddies in D1 to write
a
> >> >>>> program
> >> >>>> to damn a person that they and David hate with a passion. To me is
> >> >>>> smells
> >> >>>> like old shellfish. These were the same judges who claimed in the
> > past
> >> >>>> the
> >> >>>> judge that gave the zero was the one that got it right.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> The NSRCA has no business in this arena. I find it appalling the
> > Board
> >> >>>> even
> >> >>>> had this on the agenda. I also find it appalling that a ruling was
> >> >>>> made,
> >> >>>> then Eric was notified of the charges and the conviction. As Eric
> >> >>>> stated,
> >> >>>> no
> >> >>>> statistics can determine what the judge actually saw or better yet
> > what
> >> >>>> the
> >> >>>> pilot actually flew. So Eric's scores were below the average for a
> >> >>>> given
> >> >>>> pilot. Maybe the pilot flew below average in Eric's eyes. This is
> >> >>>> why
> >> >>>> the
> >> >>>> NATS uses more than one judge. This is a fact of life. This looks
> > very
> >> >>>> one
> >> >>>> sided by the NSRCA.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> The NSRCA has no place in this squabble.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>From: "John Pavlick" <jpavlick at idseng.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] Chapter-5 Going too far.
> >> >>>>>Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 01:27:00 -0400
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>Len,
> >> >>>>> All of the people involved were from D1 - I thought the good ol'
> > boys
> >> >>>>>were in D2 and D3! <LOL>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>John Pavlick
> >> >>>>>http://www.idseng.com
> >> >>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >>>>> From: Leonard Rudy
> >> >>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> >> >>>>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 8:47 PM
> >> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> John,
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> The conflict may have blossomed like a Hockey Game
Conflict,
> >> >>>>> but
> >> >>>>> in
> >> >>>>>the NHL
> >> >>>>> those "with the power" hear both sides and let each side
present
> >> >>>>> their
> >> >>>>>case before
> >> >>>>> the powers to be assign penalties. After the penalties are
> > imposed,
> >> >>>>> the
> >> >>>>>player or
> >> >>>>> individual still has the right to appeal the decision.
> >> >>>>> You say Eric should take whatever the powers to be want
and
> >> >>>>> don't
> >> >>>>>make any
> >> >>>>> noise or waves.
> >> >>>>> This is a clear message to others who will be judging at
> > meets
> >> >>>>> in
> >> >>>>>the future. DO NOT GIVE THE GOOD OLD BOYS GROUP any low or bad
> > scores
> >> >>>>>or
> >> >>>>>you may be on the receiving end of some form of penalty that you
> >> >>>>>will
> >> >>>>>not
> >> >>>>>like.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Len Rudy
> >> >>>>> "Life is easier if you learn to plow around the stumps" or in
> >> >>>>> other
> >> >>>>>words, do not
> >> >>>>> hand out low scores to the Good Old Boys or you will pay dearly
> > for
> >> >>>>> it
> >> >>>>>one way or
> >> >>>>> another.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Fred Huber <fhhuber at clearwire.net> wrote:
> >> >>>>> The penalty does not appear appropriate...
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> It also sounds like it was not applied in a manner consistant
> > with
> >> >>>>> the
> >> >>>>>rules system.
> >> >>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >>>>> From: John Ferrell
> >> >>>>> To: Don Ramsey ; NSRCA Mailing List
> >> >>>>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 8:12 AM
> >> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I have the good fortune to not be involved in this dispute.
I
> > am
> >> >>>>>only aware of the conflict.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Not being very good at staying out of arguments, I offer
the
> >> >>>>>following observations:
> >> >>>>> A heated difference of opinions occurred.
> >> >>>>> Every one involved is considered a valuable asset to the
> > Pattern
> >> >>>>>Game.
> >> >>>>> Things were said that should not have been said.
> >> >>>>> Every one thinks they are right.
> >> >>>>> There was probably at least one (or may be several) bad
> > call(s)
> >> >>>>> by
> >> >>>>>some one.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> The conflict blossomed like a Hockey Game Conflict and the
> >> >>>>> net
> >> >>>>>result was those with the power and responsibility treated it like
a
> >> >>>>>Hockey
> >> >>>>>Game Conflict! A serious "time out" was assigned to the individual
> >> >>>>>at
> >> >>>>>the
> >> >>>>>focal point of the conflict. It was their duty to put the problem
on
> >> >>>>>ice.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> The expectations of the rest of us who value the game and
its
> >> >>>>>players is that right or wrong the referee's call must be honored.
> > The
> >> >>>>>referee has the power to impose further penalties if the
individual
> >> >>>>>continues to make waves. Right or wrong, this is the was disputes
> >> >>>>>are
> >> >>>>>handled in the world of competition.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> If the individual was drawn into the conflict by goading it
> >> >>>>> is
> >> >>>>> still
> >> >>>>>he who gets the penalty.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Conflict resolution is not something that is natural to the
> >> >>>>> human
> >> >>>>>condition. Conflict is.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Eric needs to take the penalty and get on with things.Those
> >> >>>>> in
> >> >>>>> power
> >> >>>>>need to accept that the penalty has been applied and to continue
the
> >> >>>>>game.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> WE ALL need to be aware that we either play nice or get
sent
> > to
> >> >>>>> the
> >> >>>>>showers!
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Another factor to consider is that the higher profile one
> >> >>>>> achieves
> >> >>>>>in this sport the greater the need to hold that individual to
higher
> >> >>>>>standards.
> >> >>>>> Eric is certainly a "high profile" player.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> John Ferrell W8CCW
> >> >>>>> "Life is easier if you learn to plow
> >> >>>>> around the stumps"
> >> >>>>> http://DixieNC.US
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >>>>> From: Don Ramsey
> >> >>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> >> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 7:32 PM
> >> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I would like to thank Eric for the nice complement in his
> >> >>>>> comment,
> >> >>>>>"To circumvent this conflict of interest problem and to keep the
> >> >>>>>Nationals
> >> >>>>>above reproach, I steeped out of line and asked Don Ramsey to
> >> >>>>>independently
> >> >>>>>choose the judges, Dave could not refuse this method, but I will
> >> >>>>>tell
> >> >>>>>you
> >> >>>>>that he got extremely mad at me for doing it."
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I must respond that for good or bad I've been choosing
the
> >> >>>>> finals
> >> >>>>>judges for many years. I started that process when Jeff Hill was
> > Event
> >> >>>>>Director. It must also be stated that I've never had any pressure
> >> >>>>>of
> >> >>>>>any
> >> >>>>>kind from contest management regarding who I choose to judge. I
try
> > to
> >> >>>>>pick the best candidates and rotate those so no single judge can
> >> >>>>>influence
> >> >>>>>the outcome extradionarly.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Don
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >>
>
>>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> > ---
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>>> 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: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/863 - Release
> >> >>>>> Date:
> >> >>>>>6/23/2007 11:08 AM
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >> >>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> >>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >>
>
>>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> > -------
> >> >>>>> Building a website is a piece of cake.
> >> >>>>> Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >>
>
>>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> > -------
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>>> 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: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.9/872 - Release Date:
> >> >>>> 6/26/2007
> >> >>>> 6:43 PM
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>> 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
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list