<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<STYLE>P {
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16414" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">It may seem backwards... but the harder
someone has to work to be ALLOWED to compete, the hmore people will want to
prove they are good enough to compete.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">NASCAR is a good example... its essentially
impossible for "Joe Average" to get a chance to drive in the Indy 500. But
you'll find thousands of dirt tracks with people trying to prove they could
outdrive the guys who do get there...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Make something exclusive and people will work
to be included.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=rickwallace45@hotmail.com
href="mailto:rickwallace45@hotmail.com">Rick Wallace</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA Mailing List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, April 30, 2007 12:46
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule
8.1.1/Prefer No Qualification</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Agree with Ron, Mike Hester and others. What's
broken here? What's the problem we're trying to fix? <BR>For the record, Nats
attendance from 1995-2006 has been dropping in all classes except Masters -
trend line shows: (based on Nats attendance information from Don Ramsey's
website)<BR>Sportsman/ Intermediate trends DOWN from 21 to about
16<BR>Advanced trends DOWN from 22 to about 19<BR>Masters trends UP from abot
36 to about 41<BR>FAI trends DOWN from about 39 to about 25 <BR> <BR>So
why are we discussing qualifiers? If anything we should be discussing how to
prevent the demise of Pattern? <BR> <BR>My $.02<BR>Rick <BR>NSRCA
2972<BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<HR>
From: ronlock@comcast.net<BR>To: nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>Date:
Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:13:06 +0000<BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule
8.1.1/Prefer No Qualification<BR><BR>
<DIV>Whatever we are "fixing" with a NATS qualification system, doesn't seem
worth</DIV>
<DIV>the number of things that get broken by the qualification
process.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ron Lockhart</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">--------------
Original message -------------- <BR>From: Gray E Fowler
<gfowler@raytheon.com> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif
size=2>Tony</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>I think any kind
of qualifications for the NATS is a bad idea, for several reasons.
</FONT><BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>1. For 99.9% of us this is a
hobby. We can call it a sport, but its a hobby. Why? Because 99.9% of us
work a real job, and very very few make any money from participation in
this hobby. </FONT><BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>2. Elevate the
stature of the NATS? To who? The Canadians? The Mexicans? The Anti AMA
organization who does not have a NATS? We have a "Worlds" and it
requires qualification, so in essence this is already what you are asking
for. Right now anyone who goes to the NATS has a higher (false) stature at
the local level anyway.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=s! size=2>3. Because it
is a hobby, with contests run by hobbyist, and most AMA people are
volunteers, I cannot imagine how in the world the AMA or NSRCA could ever
organize and execute and fair qualification system. I derive this
opinion based on the "many" (sarcasm) people within both the AMA and NSRCA
that line up at nomination time to serve as an officer. Local AMA
clubs, AMA regional reps, and especially the NSRCA has a hard time finding
anyone to do day to day work. If you volunteer to be nominated, you can
almost be assured that you can be President.... Heck the NSRCA is so
loaded with politics that officers quit in the middle of
terms, and people execute personal agendas both in the rules formation and
even personal aspects at the NATS. AMA and NSRCA should only promote to
increase participation.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>4.
There are some who may only attend the NATS and do well and even win. Why
would we want to make them a! ttend l ocal stuff to qualify when they do
not need it. This applies mostly the top FAI guys. They do not need the
local level to excel, and they can step in at the NATS and kick eveyone's
butt. Why inconvienience them from their job, family or whatever? If
they can show up at the NATS and win is that not still getting the
best?</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>5. Last-I used to be
much more involved with pattern than I am now. My kids are of the age that
it is more important to spend time doing their activities than mine, as
they will be gone before I realize it. I cannot make 6-7 contests (in 6
months) like I used to, and making the NATS is tough too, but if I did
decide that I could make the NATS, the last thing I would want to worry
about is having to make 3 contests in a row to "qualify" for the NATS.
Actually this point is the same as #1-its a HOBBY. Those whom want
different move up to FAI and "qualify" for the Worlds.</FONT>
<BR><BR><BR><FONT face=sans! size=2>A suggestion.....</FONT> <BR><FONT
face=sans-serif size=2>Start with the FAI USA team. Why does that
selection contest allow whomever wants to show up fly at that contest?
Implement a qualification sytem for the USA team selection contest first.
The Semi-Pros (not so sure we have 100% "pros" anywhere) in these ranks
should love it, because then those top 6 (who are we kidding... it may
only be 5 who truly have a chance) nationwide flyers going for those 3
spots do not have to sit thru 3 days of wannabe FAI schmoes.</FONT>
<BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>I cannot imagine that a qualification
system would do anything but hurt NATS attendence. I do not understand the
point of it at all. The NAT is not overloaded. I agree that it is
not bad to discuss anything, but if you really think this is a #1 priority
topic (I have not seen any others tossed out there), then I think it shows
your personal disconnect with the AMA pattern community,402,403,404.
</FONT><BR><BR>< FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Signed,</FONT>
<BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Peace, Love and Smarter
Missiles.........</FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2><BR><BR>Gray
Fowler<BR>Senior Principal Chemical Engineer<BR>Radomes and Specialty
Apetures<BR>Technical Staff Composites Engineering<BR>Raytheon</FONT>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>--Forwarded Message Attachment--<BR>From:
gfowler@raytheon.com<BR>To: nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>Subject:
Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule 8.1.1<BR>Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:21:39
+0000<BR><BR><PRE>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR><A href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG Free
Edition. <BR>Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/781 - Release Date:
4/30/2007 9:14 AM<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>