[NSRCA-discussion] Proposals Survey

Fri Feb 17 19:13:21 AKST 2012

Enough..

G

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 17, 2012, at 10:10 PM, Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com> wrote:

> Have a good night Mr. Curtis.  Who exactly is attacking who?  You infer we are going to lie about the results.  You have me all wrong sir.  If people don't want the proposals, they will not go through.  It's really that simple.  If you have something to say to me, my phone number is 979-595-7990.  I have received two threatening phone calls and numerous belittling emails.  Feel free to jump aboard.  All we're trying to do is do the right thing.  Sorry you feel so terrible and if you think all the banter going on isn't attacking us, you have another thing coming.  There are plenty of people, including Derek Koopowitz who can see the results and are easily verified.  Again, I have no agenda.  I make weight and regardless of what the AMA decides, I will continue to abide by the rules as structured in the end.  By the way, it was my idea to have the survey because I felt it very important to get everyone's input before submitting anything to anyone.
> 
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Dan Curtis <warrior523 at att.net> wrote:
> Okay, that is it!  I asked because I want to know, I have served on the board for several years prior and we were asked to prove darn near everything we did, including surveys.  So if you want to attack with a C'mon Man so be it.  From the views you expressed on RCU we know how you stand on the main issue of weight, from the minutes of the meetings for this year we know that you were able to select "volonteers" to complete your committee, we know that the preamble was written in a way to present the board as being for the proposed changes, so we know that some seem to have an agenda.  You asked for it so you got it.  So it would appear that we have no real verifiable way of supporting survey results one way or the other.
>  
> I seldom post on this forum, since it usually just banter between old friends and foes and full of insider jokes but these so called proposals are things that should be discussed on this forum.  They should have been discussed prior to being placed in any type of survey.  They affect our sport and I believe your survey will show that they would effect it adversely.  We have been through all of this before, over and over on weight.  It seems like a resurecting ghost that we can't keep underground.  
>  
> The fact that you seem so defensive of your baby also adds to my doubt about this whole fiasco.  Now, lay off  the attacks and either answer the questions or ingnore them, your choice Mr. Chairman.
>  
> Dan
> 
> From: Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Fri, February 17, 2012 9:34:22 PM
> 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposals Survey
> 
> Dan,
>   It was actually 16 times you voted including your original.  I've taken care of the extras for you.  As far as factual, really?  Do you honestly think that way?  They will be factual because we are here to serve you.  If the majority says they don't like something, what would be the purpose of doing it?  If we wanted to push our own agendas, why even have a survey? C'mon Man!
> 
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Dan Curtis <warrior523 at att.net> wrote:
> Well, lets hope that is true, I only voted about 15 times so not a problem.
>  
> One other question, how will we know the results are factual? 
>  
> Dan
> 
> From: Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Fri, February 17, 2012 9:25:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposals Survey
> 
> Hi Dan,
>    It just makes more work for me (which I'm sure Keith H. would enjoy greatly as he seems to have his panties in a wad).  We have several filters in place so I'll just filter out the duplicate entries.  We will know who is trying to "pad the results".  There were several folks that were having trouble accessing the system so we had to remove the one time per user.  Either way, only the initial entry will be taken and if a bunch go in just to screw it up for everyone, we'll just shut it down.  You're right, it makes it a bit useless when people do that.
> 
> Have a good weekend,
> Scott
> 
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Dan Curtis <warrior523 at att.net> wrote:
> Guys,
>  
> When the survey was put up on the website I filled it out and submitted my answers.  Then I could not get back in to the survey.  Which I assume was to stop a person from voting more than once.  Well, I was on the website earlier tonight and for the heck of it I hit the survey link and low and behold I was back in and was able to fill the survey out again.  If I hit submit, I get the results sumitted message.  It appears that a person can vote as many times as they see fit now.  I had another person or two try the same thing with the same results.  Is this feature okay or is it making the survey results a bit useless?
>  
> It may still be only countng the first time you voted or submitted but that is not the way it appears.  Anybody got an answer???
>  
> Dan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Scott A. McHarg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Scott A. McHarg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Scott A. McHarg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120218/4079e935/attachment.html>