[NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?

Kevin Smith auto7832 at bellsouth.net
Mon Feb 4 09:46:27 AKST 2008


Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?Uh, you just think your staying out of this thread! LOL
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Mark Atwood 
    To: NSRCA Mailing List 
    Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 11:41 AM
    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?


    Offlist...

    You're alive! :)  I'm staying the hell out of this thread.  I'll get people pissed at me.  But what good is winning a class if the only reason you won is because the guy that's better than you didn't show up???  WTF?? 

    Anyway...another story for another day.

    What's the scoop on control horns?

    -Mark


    On 2/4/08 11:03 AM, "Jerry Stebbins" <JAStebbins at worldnet.att.net> wrote:


      After reading a bunch of the posts I have a couple questions. 
      1. Since Masters is the destination class for all of AMA Pattern, how can it be "TOO difficult"??, that is what it should be!!
      I can understand problems with "kinds of maneuvers" like "rollers", too many/multiple "snaps",etc. as in FAI, that  make the plane designs need to be more maneuver specific. Those aspects are controllable by specific constraints written into the Sequence Process Development Documentation.
      2. I recognize there are pilots that do not have the resources (time/money/mentors), or the inclination to spend the time it takes to "Master Masters". That is an individual circumstance that each of us has to handle. How does making the sequences easier so more pilots can get higher scores with less effort become a viable solution, instead of defeating the "best of the best" status of the Masters class. 
       If the AMA Membership flying Pattern (mostly NSRCA) wants to provide a class to accommodate those circumstances, then what will be the litmus test of "having enough of X<Y<Z<" to force them into the Masters class, or qualify for the pre-Masters class. Try to put that into an equation that all would deem "fair and equitable". I would suggest if that is what it takes to eliminate the yearly trek back through all this discussion-with no substantive changes- let a body of those concerned come up with an analysis/study/evaluation/findings/recommendations/rules by which it can be discussed and voted upon. 
      Asbestos jacket on
      Jerry


        ----- Original Message ----- 
         
        From:  vicenterc at comcast.net 
         
        To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  
         
        Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 9:49  PM
         
        Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed  topic to killing Masters?
         

         
        In conclusion, as Joe said, we need to make sure that we do  something to "limit the creep in sequence difficulty that has been  occurring in the Masters class".  For sure this will make easier for  Advanced pilots to move up to Masters.  If some of the Masters pilots  want more level we need to add another class or they need to go and fly  FAI-F3A. 
         
         
         
        --
        Vicente "Vince" Bortone
         
         
         

          --------------  Original message -------------- 
          From: Bob Kane  <getterflash at yahoo.com> 
            
          My  sentiments are in line with Joe's . . . . . . 
           
           
          Bob Kane
          getterflash at yahoo.com  


           
          -----  Original Message ----
          From: Joe Lachowski  <jlachow at hotmail.com>
          To: NSRCA Mailing List  <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
          Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2008  1:20:19 PM
          Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing  Masters?

            We've voted on this several times already in the past and the  answer is always NO. 
           
          You will lose half the Masters  pilots.  Guarantee I'll be gone. We need to limit the creep in sequence  difficulty that has been occuring. I don't know about you guys, but I don't  like having the international community dictating to us what we fly here in  the US. You want to fly FAI sequences, go fly FAI and take your lumps. You  know we have beaten this subject to death a number of times already. I'm  tired of it already.
           
          As far as the so called professional  pilots willing to participate in local contests, as a CD, if they don't  support the local level contests, you just eliminate the class an save some  money. That should send a clear signal. I really don't think  making  changes for getting more of the so called professionals  involved will amount to anything. The vast majority of  top pilots do participate in local events. Th! ere are very few  who chose not to. I think I can count them on one hand. Heck, maybe a couple  of fingers.<g>
           
          Why is there such a huge Masters class?  Most Masters pilots either don't have the skill or time to master rolling  circles and integrated rollers in a sequence to move up to FAI. Face  it, we like to consider ourselves perfectionists at what we do. Who wants  to go to a contest and hack through a manuever that could potentially  be a crash experience.  Masters is a great success as it is. Leave  it alone.
           
          There was mention of sequence length. We can adjust  Masters if we wanted to to shorten the sequence. By the way the current  sequence is a little long, but the 09' sequence is definitely shorter in  time length.


           

            From:  GAA at owt.com
            To: nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us
            Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008  08:43:58 -0800
            Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing  Masters?

             
            I disagree with Master flying the FAI P  schedule. I think we should let the membership vote on this issue and  implement what the majority want.

             
             
            --Gordon

             
            From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us  [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us] On Behalf Of  vicenterc at comcast.net
            Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 8:18  AM
            To: johnfuqua at embarqmail.com; NSRCA Mailing List; 'NSRCA  Mailing List'
            Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to  killing Masters?

             
             
             
            I think the idea is that the destination class (if we changed to  FAI-F3A) will fly the F-Schedule also.  I see very strong advantages  from judging point of view.  Both classes Masters and FAI-F3A will  know the P schedule really well since both are flying the same  maneuvers.  I expect that the judging level is going to be  improved.  Yes, the Masters pilots will need to learn the  F-Schedule.  Finally, I think more professional pilots will be  willing to participate in local contests because we will have more  competition at the FAI-F3A level.  I think if we do this  could be fun that is the general agreement.
             
             
             
            Regards,
             
             
             
            --
            Vicente "Vince" Bortone
             
             
             

              --------------  Original message -------------- 
              From: "John Fuqua"  <johnfuqua at embarqmail.com> 
                 
              I have been following this discussion  with some relutance to jump in.  As a current Masters pilot and old  time F3A flyer I to once pushed to have the Master schedule be the P  schedule.  But you guys need to look at what FAI has done to the P  schedule.  Here is link to the F3A rules.  http://www.fai.org/aeromodelling/documents/sc4   

              FAI has reduced the total maneuvers to  19 including a non scored takeoff and landing.   AMA Master is  23 including a scored takeoff and landing.  

               
               
              Going to FAI would certainly speed  things up (which is what FAI intended for large contests like WC to  speed up the prelims and get to the real contest).

               
               
              Not sure this is what AMA/NSRCA  membership wants for a destination class.

               
               
              John

               
              From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org  [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of  Del Rykert
              Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 7:14  AM
              To: NSRCA Mailing List
              Subject: Re:  [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?

               
               
               
              Hi Dave..

                   

              I never saw  anyone suggesting to do away with the Masters class.. I have  thought of another restriction/factor. Some of the FAI maneuvers require  a specific designed plane to do them well. If you don't have such an  aircraft in your stable you can be looking at a prohibitive change to  switch to those type of planes or live with the self imposed handicap.  Granted, some of the best can make a good showing in FAI type maneuvers  but when needing the 1 point advantage in a high K-Factor maneuver it  does drive the contestants to seek the best sled that works for  them. 

               
               
              A good friend pointed out  something I had lost sight of once.  He acquired a newer designed  airplane to his stable that performed the maneuvers he was flying  so much easier. The design choice alone was raising his scores by almost  1 point per maneuver. With only a little bit of practice with new plane.  He never appreciated the handicap he self imposed until having  better equipment. Heck.. I still have coreless servos and not a digital  do I own..  How far behind am I? LOL.  

               
               
                  Del 
               


                -----  Original Message ----- 
                 
                From:  Dave Burton <mailto:burtona at atmc.net>  
                 
                To:  'NSRCA Mailing  List' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us>  
                 
                Sent:  Saturday, February 02, 2008 7:33 PM
                 
                Subject:  Re: [NSRCA-discussion] F at locals?
                 

                 
                 

                Del,  Ive never advocated doing away with the Masters class. I only  suggested adopting the most current FAI P maneuver schedule and fly  Masters as a separate class as we do today. Masters pilots would not  be required to advance to the FAI class unless they chose to do so.  Seems to me like it solves several problems. It allows a CD to have  more flexibility in arranging flight lines, a larger pool of  knowledgeable judges, eliminates the need for NSRCA (or others) to  come up with a new schedule periodically for the Masters Class. I dont  think there is any difference in the difficulty level of the P  schedule and the Masters schedule today and would not require any  greater skill level than Masters does today IMO. 


                Dave  Burton


                 
                 
                 
                 

                From: Del  Rykert [mailto:drykert2 at rochester.rr.com] 
                Sent: Friday,  February 01, 2008 7:09 PM
                To: NSRCA Mailing  List
                Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] F at  locals?


                 
                 
                 

                Hi  Dave

                 

                 
                 
                 

                I'm  not trying to imply that I have the correct answer to that  question. Not all people that advance through the AMA classes  have the desire or deep pockets to handle being competitive at the FAI  level. Some Master fliers in the past have told me the time commitment  is high to be competitive in FAI class. Higher than they can accept.  That may be the biggest reason. Not certain. But  they do enjoy the difficulty and challenge of flying masters and if  told they had to move to FAI or if pointed out and made to move up to  FAI some would choose to leave. I see it as part of the dues some are  willing to commit to play. Some drop out after making it to  intermediate. Others after reaching advanced. Some have stayed and  still fly those classes but r! eal! iz e the y don't have the time,  desire, money, to move up and be challenging or at least make a decent  showing they can accept for themselves. I believe the competitive  factor varies with us all and what we are willing to commit to fly  pattern.  

                 

                 
                 
                 

                I'm  even suspect their are other issues that escape us and why  they are happy to fly Masters.      

                 

                 
                 
                 

                    Del



                   

                  -----  Original Message ----- 

                   

                  From: Dave Burton <mailto:burtona at atmc.net>   

                   

                  To: 'NSRCA  Mailing List' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us>  

                   

                  Sent: Friday,  February 01, 2008 6:10 PM

                   

                  Subject: Re:  [NSRCA-discussion] F at locals?

                   

                   
                   

                  Del,  whats the difference between FAI type schedules and Masters  schedules? You are correct about previous proposals not being  accepted. I have submitted a rules change twice for Masters to fly  the P schedule and it was defeated both times. Wont do that again,  but I never understood the opposition to it.


                   
                   
                   
                   

                  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org  [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of  Del Rykert
                  Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 3:24  PM
                  To: NSRCA Mailing List
                  Subject: Re:  [NSRCA-discussion] F at locals?


                   
                   
                   

                  So  it would be acceptable to you to drive some away from pattern as it  has been clearly stated that some Master fliers by choice do not  want to fly FAI type schedules.  It has been voted on with  surveys and discussed on this list in the past to not use that  approach. 

                   

                   
                   
                   

                      Del 



     

    -----  Original Message ----- 

     

    From: vicenterc at comcast.net  

     

    To: NSRCA  Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us>  

     

    Sent:  Friday, February 01, 2008 11:48 AM

     

    Subject: Re:  [NSRCA-discussion] F at locals?

     

     
     
     

    I believe that FAI rules states that it  is required more than 2 days event to fly F schedule.  I  am sure that someone out there is going to be able to find if I am  correct or not.  Of course, we can use the AMA rules and  the CD can override this if he announces the change with  time.   
     
     

     
     
     

    I agree that in Masters we  should fly the current P schedule.  This will make  a natural transition when moving Masters to F3A.  The  rules should be changed to make the F3A class the final  destination of AMA classes.  In other worlds,   Masters should not be the final destination as it is now.
     
     

     
     
     

    --
    Vicente "Vince" Bortone
     
     

     
     
     

    -------------- Original message  -------------- 
    From: "Tony" <tony at radiosouthrc.com>  
     

    Those  are the very reasons that I stopped flying FAI.  The FAI  rules state that the F patterns are for Regional, National and  International events, and are not designed to be flown at a  local contest.  


     
     

     
     
     

    Tony  Stillman, President


    Radio  South, Inc.


    139  Altama Connector, Box  322


    Brunswick,  GA  31525


    1-800-962-7802


    www.radiosouthrc.com <http://www.radiosouthrc.com/> 

      




----------------------------------------------------------------------------



    From:  nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org  [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf  Of Anthony Romano
    Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008  8:36 AM
    To: NSRCA Mailing List
    Subject:  [NSRCA-discussion] F at locals?


     
     

    Another  good point Jason. The more that the F is flown and judged the  better we all get at it. I can fly Masters or the P with equal  mediocrity but the F always just scared me off. Maybe one  of my goals for this year will be to learn it. Now if everyone  promises no laughing I might try it.
     From comments I  have hear a lot of guys just don't want to deal with  rollers.
     
    Anthony






----------------------------------------------------------------------------



    From:  jshulman at cfl.rr.com
    To:  nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
    Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008  19:08:38 -0500
    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging by  committee?

     

    Problem  with that is that we're finding that enough FAI guys don't  want to fly F... so why hold 2 FAI- P classes? I  understand getting to know 1 sequence is easier to judge,  but the Masters and FAI guys should be able to have a handle on  the other class without much work. Its probably just me,  but if FAI were to fly both P and F, then having "Masters" fly P  might be a more Masters class this way. Then again, I may be off  in left field, or is this right? And since now both the Team  Trials and Worlds pick the winning teams at the end of the  contest (after F) it would make more sense to start flying F  locally so it's not a shock come Nats time.


    Regards,
    Jason
    www.jasonshulman.com <http://www.jasonshulman.com/> 
    www.shulmanaviation.com <http://www.shulmanaviation.com/> 
    www.composite-arf.com <http://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  Dave Burton
    Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 6:53  PM
    To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
    Subject: Re:  [NSRCA-discussion] Judging by committee?

     

    There  is  a way to solve the peer judging and several other  problems with changing maneuver schedules for Masters  class.


    Let  Masters class fly the most current FAI  P schedule as a  separate class. This provides a way that FAI class can judge  Masters and be completely familiar with the maneuvers and  Masters class can judge FAI and be completely familiar with the  schedule. Then the rules committee does not have to come up with  a new schedule periodically as it changes every other year just  like FAI. The schedules (P & Masters) are so close in  difficulty that flying the P schedule should not be any problem  for masters class flyers.


    OK,  Flame suit on!


     
     
     
     

    From:  nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org  [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf  Of Mark Atwood
    Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008  3:56 PM
    To: NSRCA Mailing List
    Subject: Re:  [NSRCA-discussion] Judgeing by commitee?


     
     

    For  our matrix version, the A& B masters groups, we effectively  ran 2 contests.  The scorer set up a second masters only  contest for the B panel to enter their scores.  It worked  quite well with only a little confusion.  

    It did a  great job of picking the top 5 guys and getting them into the  top 8.  Im pretty sure you could argue that 7-12th place  might have had some variance...but I think thats true regardless  of the format.

    -Mark


    On 1/31/08 3:49 PM,  "Anthony Romano" <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>  wrote:
     


      I  suspected this would require super- human objectivity as well as  be a logistical nightmare. However, everyone reall knows the  sequence. Really like the matrix system but not sure how much  work that makes for the scorer. Anyone have any thoughts on how  to score that
      One idea that was kicked around in  D1 was fly an extra round in Masters to generate an extra throw  away. Each round two masters pilots judge and don't fly rotating  through the entire class. It seems like the time required would  work out the same because the group had two less pilots but  again lot of objectivity ( conscious and unconscious ) required  especially as the contest end grew near.  
     
    Anthony
      





----------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Date:  Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:14:15 -0500
    From:  atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
    To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org;  nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us
    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]  Judgeing by commitee?

    Anthony,

    I have to agree  with Jim, but for different reasons.  We did this about 4  years back at our district championships with the masters class.   We had 17 pilots in masters, and only one (me) in FAI, and  another 6 or 7 in advanced.  So getting any judging at all  would have required heavily using the Intermediate and Sportsman  classes to judge, OR, heavily burdening the few Advanced  guys...and sitting through 17 masters flights is a looooong  sentence.

    So we did the peer judging scenario.   Given the options, it worked very well.  But it  requires some serious juggling to even try and make it work  well.  We ! used p! e e! r judgi ng for 4 of the 6 rounds.   Two flight lines, with a rolling panel of judges.  5  judges on each line, tossed high and low by maneuver leaving 7  pilots not judging at any given time.  This allowed the  person before and after each flight some time to prep and  decompress before having to jump in the chair for 5 flights and  then start over on the second line.

    Its a VERY VERY VERY  busy process, not to mention that unless you completely randomly  resort the flight line each round, the pilot will be judged but  the same group...or maybe more importantly NOT judged by the  same group each round.

    It worked...but it was messy.   I would only do it again if we were presented with the  same grossly offset numbers of entries.   

    On a  related note... A better solution was tried a few years later  when we had similar numbers (16 masters pilots)

    We  created 2 classes of masters...A and B.   we still  used FAI and Advanced j! u! dges,! but we were also able to  sprinkle in B judges for A and vice versa.  We did 4 rounds  for each group.  Took the top 4 from each group and  combined them and they flew the last 2 rounds as a Finalists  group (with the other 8 judging and flying in their own group  for the bottom 8 spots.)

     This was MUCH more  workable, and I think netted a fairer event in the long  run.

    -Mark

      


    On 1/31/08 2:46  PM, "Woodward, Jim" <jim.woodward at baesystems.com>  wrote:
     

    Hey  Anthony,
     
    **** Attempting a 50 words or less  approach without too much regard for political correctness  *****
     
    I dont think peer judging works.  I dont  think it sends the right message about problem solving or  achieving a more accurate score per maneuver for each pilot.    Psychology 101 would predict that it does not foster  the right mindset or circumstances for a competitive environment  (Reality TV shows like Survivor are based on one form or another  of peer judging).  
     
    The #1 component that must  be correct for it to work is that all pilot/judges see and  subtract about the exact same number of points per maneuver see  the same downgrades.  The situation doesnt compute if one  judge is off from the others or uses impression judging.  A  bunch of stuff should probably be in place for this to! work l  ike:  ! ! large n umber of judges, drop high score, drop  low score, etc. The highest caliber of honor, integrity, and  judge-education is required by all competitors to make this  work.  
     
    I witnessed this as a Masters pilot  watching the FAI contest.  I watched the flying and this  scenario VERY close. My opinion is that I would chose not to  compete in FAI in a peer judging scenario.  
     
    Thanks,

    Jim  W.
     

     
    CONFIDENTIALITY  NOTICE: This  e-mail message, includ! ing any attachments, is for the sole use  of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and  propr! iet! ar y inf ormation.  Any unauthorized review,  use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are  not the intended recipient(s), please contact the sender by  reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.  






----------------------------------------------------------------------------



    From:  nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us] <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us%5D>   On Behalf Of Anthony Romano
    Sent: Thursday,  January 31, 2008 1:44 PM
    To:  nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us
    Subject:  [NSRCA-discussion] Judgeing by commitee?

    Finally got a  chance to read the current K-factor and saw a note on the  Tangerine contest. The article mentioned FAI was judged by a  commity of the FAI pilots. Could someone please provide details.  Do you think you could keep your objectivity? ! For tho se that  were there how did it work out? Sound interesting because you  would finally be judged by pilots wh! o know the FAI rules and  the sequence.
     Could this be a solution for the overs!  ized Ma sters class? Obvious drawbacks too, but trying to  inspire some  thought.
     
    Anthony
     
     
      






----------------------------------------------------------------------------




    Helping  your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You IM, we  give. Learn more. <http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join>  






----------------------------------------------------------------------------



    _______________________________________________
    NSRCA-discussion  mailing list
    NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
    http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


     
     

     
      





----------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Helping  your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You  IM, we give. Learn more. <http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join>  
      





----------------------------------------------------------------------------



    _______________________________________________
    NSRCA-discussion  mailing list
    NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
    http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


     
     

     
      





----------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Shed  those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser! Learn more. <http://biggestloser.msn.com/> 






----------------------------------------------------------------------------



    _______________________________________________
    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


          Need  to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail®-get your  "fix". Check it out. <http://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx>   


          -----Inline Attachment  Follows-----

          _______________________________________________
          NSRCA-discussion  mailing list
          NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
          http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


           

----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Never miss a thing. Make  Yahoo your homepage. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>  



         

------------------------------------------------------------------------


        _______________________________________________
        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

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20080204/d1e7a0e4/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 49 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20080204/d1e7a0e4/attachment-0001.gif 


More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list