PAMPA-Demanding apology

I read the letter from the West coast crew in the PAMPA mag.

In my view the whole thing kind of gives me the willies.

Here is the situation as I see it:

Two guys have a private conversation at a contest regarding the PAMPA meeting. The two guys happen to be PAMPA "leadership". Words were exchanged, some heated, some even maybe innappropriate. A bunch of other guys overheard the conversation and did not like what was said.

So, in response the bystanders demand IN PRINT that the one of the guys involved in the conversation apoligize to the other IN PRINT in front of the entire organization. (Oh, and as a side effect the group of perked eared friends broadcasts the event to the entire organization--a very nice collateral effect). As far as I know this was always a private conversation, it was in no way a conversation held as a function of PAMPA (say in a directors meeting or similar).

I myself, had no idea that Warren was so incapable of taking care of himself in a one-on-one conversation. He always seemed to be very capable of demanding respect and of giving as good as he gets (that has always been my impression at least).

This whole thing seems like when the neighbor calls the police and has me fined when my dog barks too much. I was raised that if the neighbor's dog is barking, you tell the neighbor to shut his dog, you do not call the police on your neighbors.

I agree.

Hey 'Zilla,

Be careful, you weren't there (well, neither was I and I have no clue what you're talking about). Nonetheless, as it turns out, it's ALL my fault and I'm sorry (eyes turned downwards, feeling all sad about it all).

There, I feel better, does everyone else? If so I guess we can go back to arguing over whether or not a Fox 35 is worth a hoot.

Tools

PS What I really wonder about is whether or not a control line airplane's trim is affected by latitude or hemishpere?

Your review of the chronology and facts is a little off. Warren and John's argument at VSC was public not private. John, then went to SN to air his disagreement with Warren. Warren did not and has not talked or written about any of the above. John has now used the President's column again in SN to air his disagreement with others. The minutes of the PAMPA meeting disagree with John's column. Who are we to believe, the minutes or John??

This is one of the reasons I don't race go carts any more and I have NO interest in flying my airplane in contests. People get too serious about the hobby. Why can't we all fly our airplane and have FUN.

Gary,

That's your position, but allot of us like competition. In fact if it weren't for contest flying I'd get bored with it pretty quick, it would be like practicing you pool game all by yourself.

Don't think that fun flying will keep disagreements from ocuring either, I've seen grown men nearly come to blows over who's turn it was on the circle on a Friday evening. Anywhere there are people there will be conflict eventually. Its how we handle it that makes the difference. A disagreement within an organization isn't necessarily a bad thing, just unpleasant for a while.

-snip- I've seen grown men nearly come to blows
>over who's turn it was on the circle on a Friday evening.

Randy,
Is this why you have the field in your back yard...lol...? However, that gets back to the shooting pool alone. Better to have someone with you even if you do have a little order disagreement.

I have not been following the posts in great detail, but your comment about disagreement in a group is correct. Hopefully with a little time, we will be over this and talking about what winter projects we are building (or putting together).

Gary,
This sounds like an excuse, not a reason. I don't think John or Warren affect your local contest at all. Please, get over your fear, and go to a contest. Just start out as a runner or something.
Chris...

Heck, I'm mystified at any perceived threat to serious competition by ANY individual (or PAMPA sub-group). It takes a long time to change rules, and changes have to be properly voted on.. Right? That process has always worked fine in the past, will it fail us now?

As one of the great unwashed (non-serious competition flyer, although I once was on the PAMPA EC), I have seen no evidence of such a threat. I must not be paying attention.

Can someone let me in on the specifics? I'm not talking about harsh words or ego clashes or disrespect between individuals, I'm looking for a SPECIFIC threat to serious competition. Can someone spell out what is worrying them? (Can it be campaigned against?)

This subject reminds me of modern political ads, full of simplistic generalizations and nebulous "threats". Sorry, I'm not buying it. Change my mind, call out something SPECIFIC to worry about here.

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"For my birthday I got a humidifier and a de-humidifier.. I put them in the same room and let them fight it out." -Steven Wright

>Your review of the chronology and facts is a little off.
>Warren and John's argument at VSC was public not private.

Was this "public" meeting a PAMPA function, or was it simply out in public view? In other words, were the two guys in question presiding over a PAMPA meeting, or speaking to one another wearing their "PAMPA hats", or was their conversation just out in the open?

>John, then went to SN to air his disagreement with Warren.
>Warren did not and has not talked or written about any of
>the above. John has now used the President's column again
>in SN to air his disagreement with others. The minutes of
>the PAMPA meeting disagree with John's column. Who are we
>to believe, the minutes or John??

What are you talking about? Where was Warren attacked? Where has John "aired his disagreement with others"? You mean discussing the events of the Executive Board meeting? I think that IS THE FUNCTION OF THE PRESIDENT, TO DISCUSS THE GOINGS ON IN PAMPA. Maybe John felt this issue was a hot button and should be addressed. Once again the function of the President.

which stunt news was this disagreement aired? thanks

>I read the letter from the West coast crew in the PAMPA mag.

I know people love to oversimplify things but this is hardly as you characterize.

>In my view the whole thing kind of gives me the willies.
>
>Here is the situation as I see it:
>
>Two guys have a private conversation at a contest regarding
>the PAMPA meeting. The two guys happen to be PAMPA
>"leadership". Words were exchanged, some heated, some even
>maybe innappropriate. A bunch of other guys overheard the
>conversation and did not like what was said.
>
>So, in response the bystanders demand IN PRINT that the one
>of the guys involved in the conversation apoligize to the
>other IN PRINT in front of the entire organization. (Oh, and
>as a side effect the group of perked eared friends
>broadcasts the event to the entire organization--a very nice
>collateral effect). As far as I know this was always a
>private conversation, it was in no way a conversation held
>as a function of PAMPA (say in a directors meeting or
>similar).
>

Wrong. Nothing was said, and the entire incident was closed, until John chose to use his president's column (July/Aug SN, page 3, Section labelled "Elected VS. Appointed) to vent his anger at Warren by publically uprbraiding him. That the part that (if you read the vast majority of the responses here) that virtually *no one* thinks was an appropriate move.

Using SN in this way makes it a public incident, and an issue for PAMPA members to comment on. Warren is responsible for the most important PAMPA function, and John is the PAMPA president. John also erronously believed that it was his job to appoint the NATs ED. This of course is not a function of PAMPA. We advise, but the AMA chooses the ED.

Had this incident remained as a private matter between individuals, as it should have, none of this would be happening now. Just like dozens and dozens of similar incidents in the past between various players, only a few of which ever became public knowledge. No one said a word about it before the July SN. Now maybe it's a new PAMPA policy to air every personal grudge in public, but if so, I certainly want to express my opinion on the wisdom and propriety of that.

I would also suggest that you attempt at least cursory research before summarizing and strongly opining on incidents that you have no personal knowledge of, and have not even read and/or understood the other responses.

> I would also suggest that you attempt at least cursory
>research before summarizing and strongly opining on
>incidents that you have no personal knowledge of, and have
>not even read and/or understood the other responses.

Sorry. I get the feeling that no amount of research would be enough.

You assume a lot, Brett.

I appears that John felt lies about the incident with Warren were being spread around the Internet in certain e-mails. He addressed the issue in his column maybe becasue he felt he needed to address all the members becasue of the campaign that he felt was being waged against him.
You are right, I have no copies of the e-mails. Do you?

The Internet makes it easy to distribute propoganda, maybe John assumed the distribution was greater than it really was (which is easy to do).

Sometimes I think that you honestly feel that anyone sees an issue from another side than yourself, they must be misinformed.

>You are right, I have no copies of the e-mails. Do you?

Yes. They are private, and will remain so unless Warren and John want to make them public.

>The Internet makes it easy to distribute propoganda, maybe
>John assumed the distribution was greater than it really was
>(which is easy to do).

Well, to be strictly accurate, the first email I received was Johns response, in which he expanded the respondents to include the PAMPA EC.

>Sometimes I think that you honestly feel that anyone sees an
>issue from another side than yourself, they must be
>misinformed.

No, Brad, when you have clearly not read any of the relevant previous messages, nor the relevant SN articles, I consider you uninformed. In fact, everthing discussed in this thread is also contained in the thread from yesterday, which you could have read and then commented on with relevance. But I suspect that this would not have served your purposes as well - i.e. presumably to "spin" the thing the way you wanted (nice use of West Coast, takes me back to 1993...), and maximize the attention paid to Brad "Godzilla, Smasher of Cities" Walker.

But that's just my take on it.

> No, Brad, when you have clearly not read any of the
>relevant previous messages, nor the relevant SN articles, I
>consider you uninformed.

I have both SN issues in front of me. I have read all the articles in question. At what point did you get the idea I have not?

Like I said you ASSUME A LOT.

Also, I just ASSUMED you had copies of the offending e-mails. It was just an assumption. Once again you are privy to information which you are unwilling to share and are calling the rest of misinformed.

The only way I knew of the e-mails at all was that I READ JOHN'S MENTION OF THEM IN STUNT NEWS!

n fact, everthing discussed in
>this thread is also contained in the thread from yesterday,
>which you could have read and then commented on with
>relevance. But I suspect that this would not have served
>your purposes as well - i.e. presumably to "spin" the thing
>the way you wanted (nice use of West Coast, takes me back to
>1993...), and maximize the attention paid to Brad "Godzilla,
>Smasher of Cities" Walker.
>
> But that's just my take on it.
>
> Brett

I did not see any need to comment on the other thread. We should call you Brett Buck "Policer of Stunt Forums". Maybe we should all have to e-mail you to get permission to start a new thread now?!

Leonard!!! Great idea over here!!!! Brett Buck approves all new threads! We should have done this years ago, it would save us all so much typing.

I have no spin on this. I just commented on what I had read in SN . You are doing the spinning here, don't point the SpinDoctor brand at me. I did not put a one page rant in SN.

I called you the West Coast crew. I refer to myself as being one of the Dallas Crew or Texas Crew, simple geography. No dig intended.

I refer to the opening of this thread. Your responses here have done nothing to change the original statements.

>> No, Brad, when you have clearly not read any of the
>>relevant previous messages, nor the relevant SN articles, I
>>consider you uninformed.
>
>I have both SN issues in front of me. I have read all the
>articles in question. At what point did you get the idea I
>have not?

When virtually every line of your original response proved to be factually inaccurate, and easily proven so in the relevant articles and posts.

You did spell your name right, which, I guess, is something.

>
>Like I said you ASSUME A LOT.
>
>Also, I just ASSUMED you had copies of the offending
>e-mails. It was just an assumption. Once again you are
>privy to information which you are unwilling to share and
>are calling the rest of misinformed.
>
>The only way I knew of the e-mails at all was that I READ
>JOHN'S MENTION OF THEM IN STUNT NEWS!
>
>n fact, everthing discussed in
>>this thread is also contained in the thread from yesterday,
>>which you could have read and then commented on with
>>relevance. But I suspect that this would not have served
>>your purposes as well - i.e. presumably to "spin" the thing
>>the way you wanted (nice use of West Coast, takes me back to
>>1993...), and maximize the attention paid to Brad "Godzilla,
>>Smasher of Cities" Walker.
>>
>> But that's just my take on it.
>>
>> Brett
>
>I did not see any need to comment on the other thread. We
>should call you Brett Buck "Policer of Stunt Forums". Maybe
>we should all have to e-mail you to get permission to start
>a new thread now?!

Yes, very amusing. We are all paying attention to you now, Brad.

There are generally accepted courtesies when posting to USENET, and message boards. You clearly are unware or intentionally ignore these. As long as you reserve the right to ignore these common courtesies, and additionally, post your usual mix of interesting information, utter b.s. and slanted drivel, I will reserve the right to point it out. Or do consider *yourself* the arbiter?

> When virtually every line of your original response
>proved to be factually inaccurate, and easily proven so in
>the relevant articles and posts.

Where, in your head? You really need to stop answering the voices.

No facts have been shared here. I did originally miss the e-mail link, but I have since corrected that in a second view of John's original statement (the mag was in the other room at the time).

> You did spell your name right, which, I guess, is
>something.

Real superman aren't you?

> Yes, very amusing. We are all paying attention to you
>now, Brad.

You know what is so funny? YOU are accusing ME of being an attention whore.

While you regularly have more words in print in SN than anyone else and have set records for number of posts on all the boards!

I am truly sorry to here that all of my posts have been, in your opinion, BS or drivel. Feel free to skip them if you wish. I thought we had several good exchanges on the Internet that had proven fruitful, I guess I was wrong.

You know, once you gave me a pretty good ribbing. I had said or posted something somewhere and it was coming under great scrutiny. You said something to the effect of "well, what did you expect?" I have heeded that advice,

Well, Brett, what did you guys expect people might say about attacking the Prez of PAMPA in a one page rantr in SN?

Everyone would go "Yaaaaa, thanks you guys for showing us the way"?

I was present during the discussion between John and Warren at the VSC. In fact, I was probably the closest person to them at the time. I had my back to them and there was a pillar between them and me. I heard raised voice or voices, but could not distinguish a single word. So, even though I was right there, all I know about what was said is from heresay, and I treat it as such.

I sure am glad the mail is slow in Long Beach and I haven't got my Stunt News yet. I think I'll skip reading that page of Stunt News and spend the time building.
Happy Landings

Jim,

If what you say is true, and I no reason to doubt you, why did John go public with his President's column in SN? Seems to me, the best thing would have been to keep it quiet and private. But, John made it public and in my opinion abused his privileges as President. As President one is expected to be circumspect about one's words and behaviour. I can let the first column attack go, but to do it twice is foolish and ungentlemanly. I voted for John and I expect better. I also expect him to obey the charter and bylaws of PAMPA. He is the President of PAMPA and must follow its charter even if he disagrees with it or resign. He can use the parliamentary process to attempt a charter change, but until the charter and bylaws are amended, he is to uphold them as they exist. He has no choice in that regard.

Tom,

I think that if we all behaved in person, in print and on the internet as magnanamous gentelmen much could be resolved.

All I can really say about all this is WOW!

I mean WOW! I thought this was toy airplanes?? Or is it politics?

Just a week ago this board was all chummy and happy and everyone liked everyone else. Now look at it.

A-s-s showing is a real common thing around here, but in Stunt News.

I have to laugh, it simply makes me laugh.

Laugh outloud funny!