procedures

Just another comment for all in general. In trying to cool a certain issue I locked down certain topics, and, yes, deleted a few others. I try to run fair and balanced. I try to allow a lot of lee way in topics and discussions. But I also set rules. And I also reserve the right to delete, and to do so without question.

In the past I have had several people resurrect topics that I deleted. I had to delete them again. There are times I will contact people when doing so in order to explain to them why I am doing so. But if I delete a topic, I have done so for a reason. If you have a question as to the reason, you can contact me direct. But you are a guest here. This is not a democracy. I reserve editorial rights. The lawyers will go after me, not you.

LAST EDITED ON Sep-24-04 AT 10:44 AM (CDT)
 
There goes the second post I've written to this forum on this subject. Where does one go for equal time? I suppose I could have written it and buried it in one of the other posts and it may have survived longer. I made it a separate post because I wanted it to be read. I wasn't looking for a consensus of opinion; I just wanted my opinion to be read. I insinuated nothing, and avoided the word "we". I wrote the message telling it like I see it. I get pretty tired of people giving their so-called opinion using the word "we". I wonder who the we represents? Is it the courtly we as used by monarchs, does the we mean me and my yes men and hangers on, does the we merely mean me and the frog in my pocket?

Like you said Leonard, your forum your rules. I can respect that and live with it, no choice really. I didn't really enjoy writing the message, and trust me I mulled it over for the last three days before posting it. I still believe it deserves a read. And before the deadline of the election. Not much chance of it now

I was sorry to see the lawyer cop-out there was nothing in the message that could not survive legal scrutiny.

Tom Perry

Note: edited to correct mis-spelling

>There goes the second post I've written to this forum on
>this subject. Where does one go for equal time?

It's a wide, wide, world out there.
Finance your own web page and post what you please.

>There goes the second post I've written to this forum on
>this subject. Where does one go for equal time? I suppose
>I could have written it and buried it in one of the other
>posts and it may have survived longer. I made it a separate
>post because I wanted it to be read. (snip)

Tom, I am trying to shut this thing down. I was locking everything down and new posts were coming up. I just decided to delete. I had already deleted three other threads that I felt were deflamatory. I was not trying to take sides. I don't feel there should be sides.

But I also hate to see the bitter feelings that some have towards each other without having the opportunity to see where they are coming from. This is why I put the post up that I did. It will still be misunderstood. That is the name of the game.

>I was sorry to see the lawyer cop-out there was nothing in
>the message that could not survive legal scrutiny.
>
>Tom Perry

That was a comment simply stating I have responsibility concerning this board. If someone gets angry, they get angry at me for not shutting somebody down. If I do shut them down then that person gets angry at me because they didn't get "equal time". I think the subject has been aired adequately. (More than adequately, and we don't need more personal attacks.)

Len,

You, of course, have the right to edit this board as you see fit. If people really want and un-moderated free-for-all, they can take it to Usenet. While I do disagree with you on some things (discussion of the BOM being one), I understand that some people can get carried away and occasionally topics degenerate into name-calling and accusation; a situation you need to address.

Thanks for hosting this board. I appreciate it.

Len,

Thank you. These personality issues get very destructive.

Fred

To be completely "fair and balanced", how about deleting that offensive thread "Does Mr Brodak post here?" as well? When I read its opening snot-o-gram, I immediately thought of the lion in the Wizard of Oz, saying "put-em up.. put-em up..". How juvenile.

And, please delete your OWN thread, continuing the "let's spank and humiliate John Brodak some more" theme (if rather softly). You wouldn't want us to get the idea that YOU are also trying to run John off, do you?

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law." -George W. Bush

>To be completely "fair and balanced", how about deleting
>that offensive thread "Does Mr Brodak post here?" as well?
>When I read its opening snot-o-gram, I immediately thought
>of the lion in the Wizard of Oz, saying "put-em up.. put-em
>up..". How juvenile.
>
>And, please delete your OWN thread, continuing the "let's
>spank and humiliate John Brodak some more" theme (if rather
>softly). You wouldn't want us to get the idea that YOU are
>also trying to run John off, do you?

There is a lot that was said here that should not have been said publicly. Sometimes I think we forget this is a public (and world-wide) forum. At the time that the above was posted, I was still trying to sort things. John had just registered and I thought maybe he did, indeed, want to make a statement. I was allowing for that to happen. A also do not blame him for not responding, nor should he feel goaded into responding.

And, to your final question, I have already stated my public support for John. I may disagree with him at times as you may, and have a right to disagree with me. But I will support him.

I like both candidates for Vice president, but I can only vote for one. I will also support here whoever gets elected. I just hope we don't turn this thing into a political party thing (sport flyers verses contest flyers or whatever) because then we will all lose.

Len,
You provide a truly wonderful source of information and modeling support. You do a great job. And it IS your board; run it the way you want.
Nick Vanmatre

Len,

What was the reason for locking down the thread about Dave Cook's proposal? It has nothing to do with current PAMPA issues or BOM. I thought that he had a very unique idea on appearance judging. So what gives?

Steven Yampolsky

>Len,
>
>What was the reason for locking down the thread about Dave
>Cook's proposal? It has nothing to do with current PAMPA
>issues or BOM. I thought that he had a very unique idea on
>appearance judging. So what gives?

I just started locking down everything that looked like it could be potentially hazardous. Although it had to do with appearance judging and could, indeed, have merit, I was afraid of the dreaded BOM argument starting up again and didn't want to have to face another crisis right after the other. Anything one says to it is going to draw 5 counter arguments.

I, too, will have a proposal to bring forward when the time comes. Right now isn't the time to bring it forth, either. Let's live with what we have, let people make logical proposals on whatever they feel will serve as an improvement to what we have when the appropriate times comes, and then make our usual logical and reasoned out responses.

Taken from someone still a "newbie" - even though I participated in some of this BS - it gives a bad impression to those trying to get {back} in the hobby.

BTW, you should take the entire exercise as an extreme accomplishment, Len. It's all a giant example of how much your forum has become an integral part of the hobby. Many spend hours programming and setting up forums, only to have no participants.

I know - it's happened to me - on more than one occasion.

You deleted my masterpiece, o my. On rereading it sounded somewhat wordy and over literary (of course it was over the top). Dear Dutch Uncle Leonard as always I obey. Thanks for refereeing and keeping things in balance. Necessary, very necessary.

Len,

>>Although it had to do with appearance judging and could, indeed, have merit, I was afraid of the dreaded BOM argument starting up again and didn't want to have to face another crisis right after the other.<<

While I understand your concern, I think you have to be careful of cutting something off because it might be a problem. That's a sure way for folks to lose interest entirely. If I have to constantly consider whether or not a topic I start or contribute to might go bad and be cut off, well, it sort of takes the reason for posting in the first place. Why bother.

Certainly dump offensive stuff or character assassination or clearly and demonstrateably bad information, but to start locking threads because they might be a problem or turn into one is going to cause larger problems.

Just my opinion.

Len

Thanks for providing a forum of such great interest to Stunt flyers. It is a PRIVILEGE to use YOUR FORUM to post and reply to items which interest me.

I see nothing unreasonable in the way you run the forum and even if didn't agree with you, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to say so.

Thanks again,

>Len
>
>Thanks for providing a forum of such great interest to Stunt
>flyers. It is a PRIVILEGE to use YOUR FORUM to post and
>reply to items which interest me.
>
>I see nothing unreasonable in the way you run the forum and
>even if didn't agree with you, it wouldn't be appropriate
>for me to say so.
>
>Thanks again,
>
>Al

What he said! Thanks again,
Len...

>While I understand your concern, I think you have to be
>careful of cutting something off because it might be
>a problem. That's a sure way for folks to lose interest
>entirely. If I have to constantly consider whether or not a
>topic I start or contribute to might go bad and be cut off,
>well, it sort of takes the reason for posting in the first
>place. Why bother.
>
>Certainly dump offensive stuff or character assassination or
>clearly and demonstrateably bad information, but to start
>locking threads because they might be a problem or turn into
>one is going to cause larger problems.
>
>Just my opinion.

Yes, but the title of the article by Dave Cook was "A look at the BOM Rules situation." And even the first (and only) response that it got indicated that it was going to be a bomb. I would like for a person to propose a rule change and then discuss it, or at least to say, "This is what I am thinking of proposing, what do you think?" rather than discuss a whole bunch of hypothetical rules changes. It reminds me of the one post earlier of someone proposing 80 foot lines and a whole bunch of stuff with no rational behind any of it.

Again, some of what Dave proposes may have some validity for consideration (I am not saying such a rule change should be proposed or that if proposed we should or should not pass it. I am merely saying it may have some validity for consideration. But, as with a lot of the BOM controversy he makes some assumptions that are not necessarily true, and gets off into the question of what is the builder of the model and the "average kit" thing. Certainly his assumption that an ARF might soon be considered an "average kit" is fallacious as this is a prebuilt airplane, pure and simple. It is an aiprlane in a box. It is not a kit. And the wording "completely constructed" cannot be misinterpreted. But that is the problem. We get off into the debate of semantics and miss the real point of what he was proposing.

How do we open up these discussions withut hashing and rehashing? And how do we keep people from getting their tempers flaring? Right now we need a little peace. Pax vobiscum.

Geeeawwdd I'm glad I don't moderate a forum anymore. Always someone who thinks their masterpiece is worth something more than the stream of 1's and 0's that it actually is.

Len,

Oh, I agree. And it's been made pretty clear what's OK and what's not. And I have no problem with that at all. Again, as I've said in the past: your forum, your rules and no complaints from me.

It would be nice if folks could be civil and discuss topics like BOM, direction of PAMPA and various power packages without it turning into a name calling verbal brawl, but I suppose that is one of the limitations of this sort of exchange. Without an ability to see someone saying something, words can be taken wrong or the intent of a post can be missed. I think you've done an admirable job of letting things go until they clearly needed to stop and I commend you for your patience on more than a couple of occasions. I was just concerned that if people start totally avoiding topics like the BOM even when it relates to a pertinent discussion, it gets a bit restrictive. Like listening to a professional athelete interviewed; all form and no content.

>It would be nice if folks could be civil and discuss topics
>like BOM, direction of PAMPA and various power packages
>without it turning into a name calling verbal brawl, but I
>suppose that is one of the limitations of this sort of
>exchange. Without an ability to see someone saying
>something, words can be taken wrong or the intent of a post
>can be missed.(snip)

Yes, and that is part of the problem. People miss the real issues, and break off into camps like Republicans and Democrats. It won't be long and we will have political parties and conventions before we nominate candidates for office. I wonder if we could get federal funding for the election. (Just watch those chads when you vote).

>I was just concerned that if people start totally
>avoiding topics like the BOM even when it relates to a
>pertinent discussion, it gets a bit restrictive. Like
>listening to a professional athelete interviewed; all form
>and no content.

I agree here as well, and occasionally people will make reference to BOM which is OK. But we have run out of debate themes on these issues and keep saying the same thing over and over which starts to get people mad. How often have we heard *** about the issue, and then someone feels if he doesn't say ### in return *** will be allowed to stand. So one person ***s and another ###s and here we go again. The BOM arguments are in the archives. When there are new proposals or new arguments, we can discuss them.

We are allowed to disagree with one another, but we need to support one another and serve a common cause. When we start breaking into camps, we lose the cause.

I use a big prop and you use a small prop. No problem. I use this engine, you use that engine, no problem. But when you start to tell me I can't use my prop, or must use your engine--big problem. We need to see and understand that concept when we start to debate issues. Unfortunately BOM becomes that type of issue because, by its very nature, it restricts your form or airplane or my form of conpetition. That's why there are contests for both. Your airplane is allowed in some contests without BOM. My airplane is allowed in others with BOM which allows for appearance points. Take one or the other away and there is much bitter unhappiness.

Len,

I'm happy you took action.

Thanks.

I'm sure many feel the same way.

Paul, Belgium

I am still fairly new to this forum and want to say thank you Leonard.

I'm new also and have been enjoying the forum very much. Let me say reading this thread reminds me of a local c/l club meeting. More political talk than c/l talk. Ha Ha