<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;">Well said Bill. I agree, conditions will always change in our sport. Rules will follow. They always have. Some people won't agree with them (as always) but things change, and that's just the way it is.<br><br>For me, I don't care one way or the other. Glow or E.. S'all the same to me. Just different takeoff and landing weights. That's the only difference in the two. The way I look at it, I am not flying against a motor setup, but against pilots. Bring your A game, cuz I'm bringing mine.. <img src="http://mail.yimg.com/a/i/mesg/tsmileys2/04.gif"><br><br><div><strong><em><font color="#0000bf" face="comic sans ms" size="3">Chris </font></em></strong></div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div><br><br>--- On <b>Mon, 2/9/09, billglaze <i><billglaze@bellsouth.net></i></b> wrote:<br><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255);
margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;">From: billglaze <billglaze@bellsouth.net><br>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Electric/IC ...was Arming Plug/Receptacle Problem<br>To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><br>Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 7:21 PM<br><br><pre>I would suggest that factoring in the REASON for a rule change, could grossly<br>change the idea of "ruining" every sport. Four strikes and you're<br>out? Five downs and out? 55 mph for a national speed limit? I'd suggest<br>that all rules should be continuously looked at in their context. Whimsical<br>changes? No. favoring somebody or some group? No. Rules changed for changing<br>conditions? Yes. Or so I see it. Maybe I'm just old school. Very, very<br>old school.<G><br>Bill<br>----- Original Message ----- From: "Atwood, Mark"<br><atwoodm@paragon-inc.com><br>To: <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><br>Sent: Monday, February 09,
2009 10:10 PM<br>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Electric/IC ...was Arming Plug/Receptacle<br>Problem<br><br><br>> <br>> Can someone explain to me why we care if the rules favor something?<br>They're the rules. If I wanted to fly Turbine because I think it's the<br>best option, should they change the rules to accommodate my choice?? I thought<br>we MAKE our choice based on how it fits the rules...not the other way around. <br>We have always designed our planes to fit the rules, not altered the rules to<br>fit our planes. Why does this change suddenly because a new power plant is<br>getting close to being viable (it's already there)?? Makes no sense.<br>> <br>> If new batteries came out that weighed 1/3 as much with twice the<br>capacity, suddenly the rules would grossly "favor" electric...and you<br>know what? We would all change, because we pick our equipment to be<br>competitive.<br>> <br>> Changing the rules ruins almost
every game, every sport. If eliminates<br>the ability to plan. It limits product selection because manufacturers are even<br>LESS sure of the market. Old products are obsoleted that much quicker...etc.<br>> <br>> Ok...I'm done. Can I fly Turbine pattern now??<br>> <br>> -Mark<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> Vicente "Vince" Bortone<br>> ----- Original Message -----<br>> From: "Richard Strickland" <pamrich47@hotmail.com><br>> To: "General pattern discussion"<br><nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><br>> Sent: Monday, February 9, 2009 4:02:59 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central<br>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Electric/IC ...was Arming Plug/Receptacle<br>Problem<br>> <br>> The rules already favor IC--but we've been down that road...<br>> RS<br>> _______________________________________________<br>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<br>> <br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<br></pre></blockquote></td></tr></table><br>