<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18812"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=156365016-04082009><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>OOps,
I should have read all the posts first. Sorry</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=156365016-04082009><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial>Jim</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT size=2
face=Tahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]<B>On Behalf Of </B>J N
Hiller<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:37 AM<BR><B>To:</B> General
pattern discussion<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection &
Weighing<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=812523516-04082009><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Do
some of these folks fly in more than one event?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=812523516-04082009><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial>Jim</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV dir=ltr class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT size=2
face=Tahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]<B>On Behalf Of
</B>krishlan fitzsimmons<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, August 03, 2009 8:39
PM<BR><B>To:</B> General pattern discussion<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>
<H3>09SO - RC Soaring</H3>
<H5>Total Registrants - <U>146</U></H5>
<TABLE style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse"
id=ctl00_ContentPlaceHolder1_rptEvents_ctl09_gvSubEvent border=1
rules=all cellSpacing=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TH scope=col>Event #</TH>
<TH scope=col>Name</TH>
<TH scope=col>Open</TH>
<TH scope=col>Senior</TH>
<TH scope=col>Junior</TH></TR>
<TR>
<TD style="WIDTH: 75px">441</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 300px">HL Thermal Soaring</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 60px">38</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 60px">1</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 60px">1</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD style="WIDTH: 75px">442</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 300px">Thermal Soaring Two Meter</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 60px">46</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 60px">1</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 60px">1</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD style="WIDTH: 75px">444</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 300px">Thermal Soaring Unlimited</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 60px">104</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 60px">3</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 60px">3</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD style="WIDTH: 75px">445</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 300px">F3B Thermal Soaring</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 60px">0</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 60px">0</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 60px">0</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD style="WIDTH: 75px">446</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 300px">F3H Cross Country Soaring</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 60px">0</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 60px">0</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 60px">0</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD style="WIDTH: 75px">456</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 300px">F3J</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 60px">45</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 60px">2</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 60px">0</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD style="WIDTH: 75px">460</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 300px">RES Function (RES)</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 60px">71</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 60px">1</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 60px">3</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD style="WIDTH: 75px">461</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 300px">Nostalgia (NOS)</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 60px">21</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 60px">0</TD>
<TD style="WIDTH: 60px">0</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR><BR>
<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT color=#0000bf size=3 face="comic sans ms">Chris
</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR><BR>--- On <B>Mon, 8/3/09, Ron Van Putte
<I><vanputte@cox.net></I></B> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><BR>From:
Ron Van Putte <vanputte@cox.net><BR>Subject: Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing<BR>To: "General pattern
discussion" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>Date:
Monday, August 3, 2009, 8:32 PM<BR><BR>
<DIV class=plainMail>Maybe Tony Stillman can tell us. I didn't
see the number of entrants posted for Soaring. Waiting for
thermals is a personal problem; we don't get to wait for less
wind.<BR><BR>Ron VP<BR><BR>On Aug 3, 2009, at 10:05 PM, <A
href="/mc/compose?to=rcmaster199@aol.com"
ymailto="mailto:rcmaster199@aol.com">rcmaster199@aol.com</A>
wrote:<BR><BR>> I don't know much about the Soaring event. If I
were to hazard a guess, it would be 1- more pilots and 2- waiting
for thermals is less predictable<BR>> <BR>> MattK<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: Ron Van
Putte <<A href="/mc/compose?to=vanputte@cox.net"
ymailto="mailto:vanputte@cox.net">vanputte@cox.net</A>><BR>>
To: General pattern discussion <<A
href="/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>>
Sent: Mon, Aug 3, 2009 10:55 pm<BR>> Subject: Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing<BR>> <BR>> Not
too long ago, R/C Aerobatics had five days; the fifth day was a
"rain day", just in case. When AMA decided to shorten the Nats, they
took away our rain day. I was OK with that, BUT I don't see that the
Nats are any shorter and, in looking over the Nats News, I noticed
that R/C Soaring has NINE days. What's with that?<BR>> <BR>>
Ron VP<BR>> <BR>> On Aug 3, 2009, at 9:44 PM, krishlan
fitzsimmons wrote:<BR>> <BR>> > The $100 that we pay for
the entry is small potatoes compared to > what we spend on the
nats. Think about the time off work, all the > practice leading
up, the expenses. I estimate that with the time I > took off
work, and everything else that it cost me about (well I > won't
say, or I will get crucified on here, lol). Raise my rate to >
$200 and pay someone to weigh planes. Pay some judges. Pay some >
zero judges. Pay for a few more days so that everyone gets equal
> exposure judging. Whatever has to be done to make it fair for
all. > Why settle for "well, it's sorta ok the way it is, not
perfect, but > ok" when we can change it? I can't understand why
people don't want > to make it better.<BR>> ><BR>> >
Chris<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>>
><BR>> > --- On Mon, 8/3/09, Derek Koopowitz <<A
href="/mc/compose?to=derekkoopowitz@gmail.com"
ymailto="mailto:derekkoopowitz@gmail.com">derekkoopowitz@gmail.com</A>>
wrote:<BR>> ><BR>> > From: Derek Koopowitz <<A
href="/mc/compose?to=derekkoopowitz@gmail.com"
ymailto="mailto:derekkoopowitz@gmail.com">derekkoopowitz@gmail.com</A>><BR>>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection &
Weighing<BR>> > To: "General pattern discussion" <<A
href="/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>>
> Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 7:28 PM<BR>> ><BR>> >
Rules are rules and we should enforce them for everyone - not just
> the select few that make the finals. I would bet that the
majority > of everyone that attends the Nats is compliant with
the rules we > have today.<BR>> ><BR>> > Chris: I
don't have any problems working to process planes - I > think the
time would be fun to meet all the attendees and say hi. I > don't
normally get to do that and this will give me an opportunity > to
meet everyone. I'm also not looking to do this in lieu of my >
judging duties either... I view my judging assignment as an >
essential part of attending the Nats and look forward to it every
> time. If someone is going to cheat by replacing servos or
whatever > just to make weight then shame on them... perhaps
Chad's solution > is the best one to weigh planes after they fly
but that just makes > the logistics even harder I think since we
don't have the enclosed > tents to do this and also enough scales
etc. for each site.<BR>> ><BR>> > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at
5:29 PM, John Konneker <<A
href="/mc/compose?to=jlkonn@hotmail.com"
ymailto="mailto:jlkonn@hotmail.com">jlkonn@hotmail.com</A>> >
wrote:<BR>> > Not the point I was trying to make.<BR>> >
Please reread the last two sentences of my note below.<BR>> >
ONLY legal planes would make the finals, semifinals and place if
> the procedure that has been in place were followed.<BR>>
> Respectfully,<BR>> > JLK<BR>> ><BR>> > Date:
Mon, 3 Aug 2009 17:24:22 -0700<BR>> > From: <A
href="/mc/compose?to=derekkoopowitz@gmail.com"
ymailto="mailto:derekkoopowitz@gmail.com">derekkoopowitz@gmail.com</A><BR>>
><BR>> > To: <A
href="/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection &
Weighing<BR>> ><BR>> > Then why even bother to have the
rules? How about noise and size? > Should we eliminate those
rules as well? No one checks weight, size > and noise locally...
so why should we bother having a rule for it > and enforcing it
at the Nats?<BR>> > I don't buy it that attendance will
diminish.<BR>> ><BR>> > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 5:16 PM,
John Konneker <<A href="/mc/compose?to=jlkonn@hotmail.com"
ymailto="mailto:jlkonn@hotmail.com">jlkonn@hotmail.com</A>> >
wrote:<BR>> > I have to agree with Chris.<BR>> > As
someone has pointed out there are basically two types that >
attend the Nats.<BR>> > Those that go to renew friendships and
for the social aspects and > those that are trying to
win.<BR>> > I have been told by more than one pilot attending
that they aren't > concerned about their plane<BR>> > being
overweight since they have no chance of making the finals or >
placing and are there for the fun.<BR>> > I think you will see
an even further decrease in attendance if > everyone gets weighed
at checkin.<BR>> > The way it has been til now would be fine
IF it was followed and > enforced.<BR>> > Otherwise it's
just more search for the guilty, punish the innocent.<BR>> >
JLK<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Date: Mon, 3
Aug 2009 19:57:03 -0400<BR>> > From: <A
href="/mc/compose?to=cjm767driver@hotmail.com"
ymailto="mailto:cjm767driver@hotmail.com">cjm767driver@hotmail.com</A><BR>>
> To: <A href="/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection &
Weighing<BR>> ><BR>> > I think we are making this more
difficult than necessary (not aimed > at anyone in particular - I
just jumped in on Chris's response). We > go through the process
of weighing the potential winners and > finalists already - why
not just mandate that the officials APPLY > the rule that already
exists. No lee way or interpretation > necessary. Why weigh and
measure if we are going to say "oh never > mind, that's ok" when
they fail inspection. If they had applied the > existing rule,
this discussion would not be going on. To implement > a new
procedure (weighing all at check in) is going to need a bunch >
of extra help to do and do we really want to have somebody >
inventory EVERY item on the plane too in order to ensure they don't
> change props, wheels, rx battery, etc after inspection? Who is
> going to volunteer to do that to 100+ airplanes? The current
way > has worked just fine and would still be fine IF THE RULE AS
IT > EXIS TS WAS APPLIED. Simple. Let's not make an overly
elaborate > witch hunt in response to what happened.<BR>>
><BR>> > Chris (the other one)<BR>> ><BR>>
><BR>> > krishlan fitzsimmons wrote:<BR>> > Where do
they weigh at a worlds event? Outside in the wind?<BR>>
><BR>> > Just curious.<BR>> ><BR>> >
Thx!<BR>> ><BR>> > Chris<BR>> ><BR>>
><BR>> > --- On Mon, 8/3/09, <A
href="/mc/compose?to=dkrev@shaw.ca"
ymailto="mailto:dkrev@shaw.ca">dkrev@shaw.ca</A> <<A
href="/mc/compose?to=dkrev@shaw.ca"
ymailto="mailto:dkrev@shaw.ca">dkrev@shaw.ca</A>> wrote:<BR>>
><BR>> > From: <A href="/mc/compose?to=dkrev@shaw.ca"
ymailto="mailto:dkrev@shaw.ca">dkrev@shaw.ca</A> <<A
href="/mc/compose?to=dkrev@shaw.ca"
ymailto="mailto:dkrev@shaw.ca">dkrev@shaw.ca</A>><BR>> >
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing<BR>>
> To: "General pattern discussion" <<A
href="/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>>
> Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 12:30 PM<BR>> ><BR>>
> We got weighed after each round at the worlds..... Just saying
:-)<BR>> > Sent from Dave's Crackberry<BR>> ><BR>>
> -----Original Message-----<BR>> > From: John Fuqua <<A
href="/mc/compose?to=johnfuqua@embarqmail.com"
ymailto="mailto:johnfuqua@embarqmail.com">johnfuqua@embarqmail.com</A>><BR>>
><BR>> > Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:35:25<BR>> > To:
'General pattern discussion'<<A
href="/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection &
Weighing<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Better be prepared
to weigh 4 or 5 sets of batteries with each > competitor
as<BR>> > well as airplanes.<BR>> ><BR>> > That's
the thing with glow. Only dry weight counts. You can load as >
much<BR>> > fuel as you wish to any weight! Electric stuck at
a fixed max T.O. > Weight.<BR>> ><BR>> >
-----Original Message-----<BR>> > From: <A
href="/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
> [mailto:<A
href="/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A>]
On Behalf Of Derek<BR>> > Koopowitz<BR>> > Sent: Monday,
August 03, 2009 12:37 PM<BR>> > To: General pattern
discussion<BR>> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection
& Weighing<BR>> ><BR>> > I don't see an issue with
this... we will put a sticker on all items<BR>> > including
all packs that a competitor will use. If a competitor really<BR>>
> wants to cheat then they will do it... nothing we can do will
stop > that.<BR>> > I'm also hoping that random inspections
will keep people honest and > the fear<BR>> > that if you
do fail then you will be disqualified.<BR>> ><BR>>
><BR>> > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Jay Marshall
<<A href="/mc/compose?to=lightfoot@sc.rr.com"
ymailto="mailto:lightfoot@sc.rr.com">lightfoot@sc.rr.com</A>>
> wrote:<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>>
><BR>> > I have some concern that the proposals put forward
will really work.<BR>> > If the plane is inspected at check-in
then there is too much > opportunity to<BR>> > change
things. In particular, batteries, which are a normally >
removable<BR>> > item, can be changed to decrease on increase
the weight. Do we > "sticker" the<BR>> > battery pack? This
means the plane must be disassembled for > inspection and<BR>>
> that only that battery pack can be used. At present fuel tanks
can > also be<BR>> > under/over filled to adjust ballast
for windy conditions.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>>
> If this is a serious problem, perhaps there are other
solutions.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> >
Planes could be placed in an impound/inspection area
immediately<BR>> > before a flight and fully fueled. The
inspection could happen here and<BR>> > shouldn't delay the
flow of the contest.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>>
> Another possibility is to adopt a "standard" weight for a
battery<BR>> > pack, then weigh electric planes empty. The
"standard" could change as<BR>> > technology changes.<BR>>
><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > As John Pavlick will
tell you, all major race winners undergo a<BR>> > teardown and
inspection.<BR>> ><BR>> > Jay Marshall<BR>>
><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> >
_______________________________________________<BR>> >
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > <A
href="/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
> <A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>>
><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> >
_______________________________________________<BR>> >
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > <A
href="/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
> <A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>>
> _______________________________________________<BR>> >
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > <A
href="/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
> <A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>>
><BR>> ><BR>> >
_______________________________________________<BR>> >
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > <A
href="/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
> <A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>>
><BR>> > No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<BR>> > Version: 8.5.392 /
Virus Database: 270.13.43/2280 - Release Date: > 08/03/09
17:56:00<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> >
_______________________________________________<BR>> >
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > <A
href="/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
> <A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>>
><BR>> ><BR>> >
_______________________________________________<BR>> >
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > <A
href="/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
> <A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>>
><BR>> ><BR>> > -----Inline Attachment
Follows-----<BR>> ><BR>> >
_______________________________________________<BR>> >
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > <A
href="/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
> <A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>>
><BR>> >
_______________________________________________<BR>> >
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > <A
href="/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
> <A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>>
<BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> <A
href="/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
<A href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> <A
href="/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
<A href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR><A
href="/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR><A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>