Still waiting........

Topic #11246: Enlighten Me......

Marvin responded with the same sentiments, but no one responded with corrections to my understanding of the problem.

Seems everyone just wants to argue about what is or isn't being done.
I want to know where I missed the point, point out my fallacies.
If I have it correct, then stop all the BS and follow procedures. If I have it wrong, correct me.

Regards,
Bill <><

>Topic #11246: Enlighten Me......
>
>Marvin responded with the same sentiments, but no one
>responded with corrections to my understanding of the
>problem.
>
>Seems everyone just wants to argue about what is or isn't
>being done.
>I want to know where I missed the point, point out my
>fallacies.
>If I have it correct, then stop all the BS and follow
>procedures. If I have it wrong, correct me.
>
>Regards,
>Bill <><
>
>When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his
>friends.
>Japanese Proverb

I guess nobody really knows the answer. They would rather complain than do anything about it. I myself am trying to contacta our PAMPA pres. Might have to go thru dist. VP.DOC:(

LAST EDITED ON Nov-12-04 AT 08:31 AM (CST)
 
>>Topic #11246: Enlighten Me......
>
>I guess nobody really knows the answer. They would rather
>complain than do anything about it. I myself am trying to
>contacta our PAMPA pres. Might have to go thru dist.
>VP.DOC:(

Thanks for the reply, DOC. I'm with you. Seems that complaining is the real reason for many to be here lately.
Bill <><

Still waiting................

>>>Topic #11246: Enlighten Me......
>>
>>I guess nobody really knows the answer. They would rather
>>complain than do anything about it. I myself am trying to
>>contacta our PAMPA pres. Might have to go thru dist.
>>VP.DOC:(
>
>Thanks for the reply, DOC. I'm with you. Seems that
>complaining is the real reason for many to be here lately.
>Bill <><
>
>Still waiting................
>
>When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his
>friends.
>Japanese Proverb

Personally buddy, I kind of get a kick out of seeing arguments on SSW. Not really the total shouting matches, but the freewheeling debates are just the sort of thing that is great over the internet. I think its a great way for people to air everything out without getting into fistfights. The Fancher/Al Rabe arguments of a few years ago (the ones regarding the existence of lifting tails, etc) were epic in my book.

The only stuff that ever turned me off were the occasional curmudgeons who NEVER had anything positive to say about anybody or anything-remember some of those winners?

Oftentimes people react negatively to change. Do it myself. Now PAMPA is changing and some find that very unsettling. Ways of doing things will have to change, what we do might change, who is doing it will change. It puts a lot of people on edge. It will work itself out. Just like American politics, the country didn't explode when George W. won re-election. Hopefully the folks who fly model planes will still be talking to each other and sharing a great hobby when all is said and done.

>Topic #11246: Enlighten Me......
>Seems everyone just wants to argue about what is or isn't being done.
>I want to know where I missed the point, point out my fallacies.

You've probably made a lot of mistakes, but I can only help with a couple.
First, I'd avoid reading the arguments at all.
Second, I'd remember that the people arguing on this board represent a small percentage of the CL flyers out there.
No where near "everyone", thank goodness.

>>Topic #11246: Enlighten Me......
>>Seems everyone just wants to argue about what is or isn't being done.
>>I want to know where I missed the point, point out my fallacies.

>
>You've probably made a lot of mistakes, but I can only help
>with a couple.

Yeah, Preston, I did make a mistake just the other day. I thought I was wrong which, off course, was a mistake.

>First, I'd avoid reading the arguments at all.

Very hard to do when the board is filling up with complaints on what the current PAMPA President is doing, and he doesn't appear to have the power to actually make policy or change by-laws by himself. We are *supposed* to be controlled by an EC, which we elect.

>Second, I'd remember that the people arguing on this board
>represent a small percentage of the CL flyers out there.
>No where near "everyone", thank goodness.

Yeah, but the ones stirring the pot are ones that, admittedly, are "in the know".

>
>Preston

Regards,
Bill <><

>>Topic #11246: Enlighten Me......
>>Seems everyone just wants to argue about what is or isn't being done.
>>I want to know where I missed the point, point out my fallacies.
>
>You've probably made a lot of mistakes, but I can only help
>with a couple.
>First, I'd avoid reading the arguments at all.
>Second, I'd remember that the people arguing on this board
>represent a small percentage of the CL flyers out there.
>No where near "everyone", thank goodness.
>
>Preston

Preston, Bill, and everyone else, I have tried to stay out of this, but there are a number of people, such as yourselves, who seem to want to argue "Stick your head in the sand and it will go away." Or, "If we ignore it, we can pretend it isn't there."

I admit that a lot of the arguing isn't accomplishing a thing. Too many people are arguing the wrong point. The problem surfaced when John's article came out in Stunt News saying he had submitted his by-law change proposals to the EC and they would shortly be in our hands for a vote. When the directors read this and they had not seen it and knew it had NOT been submitted to them, they were, understandable, upset. If John had merely said "I am going to submit them to the executive council" and "If they are approved they will be sent to the membership" there would not have been an outcry. Anyone has that right.

Now, however, after seeking them out, the draft proposals have gotten into the hands of the other members of some of these other members and it appears that this is a total rewrite turning PAMPA into a general CL organization, while at the same time giving the president new and unprecedented powers, stripping much of these from the Executive Council itself.

If John wants to start a general CL organization, it has been said many times that he is free to do so. He knows, however, that it won't fly because it would have no appeal without a variant of Stunt News and the input of the very competition minded "experts" (some of you have been using the term "elitests" which really grates on me) that some of you want to do without. If the experts are not a part of this group, you lose. A sport organization, by itself, without them will fail.

Let's face it, the competition minded Precision Aerobatic people who founded PAMPA do not need the sport flyers. But they embraced you, and welcomed you into their organization. You call them "elitests" but they will help you at every turn. They will help you to become a competition minded person and beat them if you want. They will help a novice set up his plane. They will help a crashed flyer rebuild his plane so he can get it back into the air and beat them at a contest. Funny how "elitest" they are.

Just remember this, if you turn this into a sport organization and lose them, you lose. They don't need you. You do need them.

"Just remember this, if you turn this into a sport organization and lose them, you lose. They don't need you. You do need them.

Leonard Neumann"

You just put it in a nutshell Leonard.

>Preston, Bill, and everyone else, I have tried to stay out
>of this, but there are a number of people, such as
>yourselves, who seem to want to argue "Stick your head in
>the sand and it will go away." Or, "If we ignore it, we can
>pretend it isn't there."
>
Len, I disagree completely. My head is completely out of the sand and I see that our sky isn't falling, by any means.

>I admit that a lot of the arguing isn't accomplishing a
>thing. Too many people are arguing the wrong point. The
>problem surfaced when John's article came out in Stunt News
>saying he had submitted his by-law change proposals to the
>EC and they would shortly be in our hands for a vote. When
>the directors read this and they had not seen it and knew it
>had NOT been submitted to them, they were, understandable,
>upset. If John had merely said "I am going to submit them
>to the executive council" and "If they are approved they
>will be sent to the membership" there would not have been an
>outcry. Anyone has that right.
>

Understandably, upset? I'm starting to understand that they are primed and loaded to be upset, and over the smallest little niggling things! It's juvenile, and particularly inappropriate to whine about it here, when the questions could easily be solved by people simply TALKING TO EACH OTHER.

Casting aspersions on our President accomplishes nothing.

>Now, however, after seeking them out, the draft proposals
>have gotten into the hands of the other members of some of
>these other members and it appears that this is a total
>rewrite turning PAMPA into a general CL organization, while
>at the same time giving the president new and unprecedented
>powers, stripping much of these from the Executive Council
>itself.
>

It appears? To whom? Perhaps those actual draft proposals should be made visible to all of us, so we can make our own judgements. Would that result in mayhem? (Could we possibly TRUST the membership to see such things?)

I'd really like to know what those "new and unprecendented powers" really are. Maybe I could be convinced of their nefarious intents.

>If John wants to start a general CL organization, it has
>been said many times that he is free to do so. He knows,
>however, that it won't fly because it would have no appeal
>without a variant of Stunt News and the input of the very
>competition minded "experts" (some of you have been using
>the term "elitests" which really grates on me) that some of
>you want to do without. If the experts are not a part of
>this group, you lose. A sport organization, by itself,
>without them will fail.
>

I suspect John is simply trying to do what he perceives as his job as President.

As for the "experts", I've found them pretty much similar to most of the people in PAMPA, very willing to share things and help others. It hasn't been necessary to kiss their butts at all. Perhaps my experience has been different - people have always been there to help me, and I've helped some too. It's the PAMPA way.

Say, do we want an "experts only" organization? Perhaps we can return to those glorious days when PAMPA had a couple hundred members? Perhaps a 6-page (3 sheet) newsletter?

>Let's face it, the competition minded Precision Aerobatic
>people who founded PAMPA do not need the sport flyers. But
>they embraced you, and welcomed you into their organization.
> You call them "elitests" but they will help you at every
>turn. They will help you to become a competition minded
>person and beat them if you want. They will help a novice
>set up his plane. They will help a crashed flyer rebuild
>his plane so he can get it back into the air and beat them
>at a contest. Funny how "elitest" they are.
>

Funny how this seems to me to actually be a NON-PROBLEM, Len, it's another projection! Something like: 1) PAMPA tries to appeal to the average sport flier, 2) succeeds, 3) sports fliers take over, 4) BOM is flushed and ARFs take over, 5) non-competitors start controlling all the competition, writing new rules, violating protocol, etc 6) mediocrity sets in, 7) disgusted "experts" leave PAMPA, 8) PAMPA flounders without its "experts", etc.

(What have I left out of the projection?)

>Just remember this, if you turn this into a sport
>organization and lose them, you lose. They don't need you.
>You do need them.

We all need each other. And we need to start treating each other accordingly.

Life is too short to waste it, bickering over such things. Give our PAMPA President a chance to serve the organization.

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"A friend loves at all times." -Proverbs 17:17

LAST EDITED ON Nov-13-04 AT 08:47 PM (CST)
 
>Len, I disagree completely. My head is completely out of the
>sand and I see that our sky isn't falling, by any means.
>Understandably, upset? I'm starting to understand that they
>are primed and loaded to be upset, and over the smallest
>little niggling things! It's juvenile, and particularly
>inappropriate to whine about it here, when the questions
>could easily be solved by people simply TALKING TO EACH
>OTHER.

>I suspect John is simply trying to do what he perceives as
>his job as President.
>
>Life is too short to waste it, bickering over such things.
>Give our PAMPA President a chance to serve the organization.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Larry,Bill,et al:

The real issue here ,which seems to eternally get lost in the emotion of arguing over individual pet peeves,is principle.All other arguments aside, the president does not "run" PAMPA. He serves the board of trustees as executive officer. It is not in the purview of the president, regardless of intentions, good or bad, to offer changes in the bylaws to the membership. His duty is to follow the bidding of the board. He certainly is free to offer amendments to the board for consideration, as may any member. Those recommendations, however must be debated and passed by the board before they can be promulgated to the membership for a vote.

This debate is far from trivial.It is about the orderly progression of change, if any, by rule of law,as opposed to dictat. It has nothing to do with "us vs them", or sport flyers vs NATS competitors. Although these may be subjects of such proposals, the proposals, per se(I always wanted to use that properly), are not the issue. The ethics of following the existing bylaws is the issue.

Is the sky falling? I don't think so, but when it does, I'd like to be prepared. As to the merits of the proposed changes let's wait and see, but let's also insist on doing it by the book. Remember; Mussolini made the trains run on time, and pal of his was elected by a vast majority popular vote, and Stalin got 100% of it.

>>>Topic #11246: Enlighten Me......
>>>I want to know where I missed the point, point out my fallacies.
>
>Preston, Bill, and everyone else, I have tried to stay out
>of this, but there are a number of people, such as
>yourselves, who seem to want to argue "Stick your head in
>the sand and it will go away." Or, "If we ignore it, we can
>pretend it isn't there."

Len, that reply doesn't make sense. I have not said what you are implying.

>
>I admit that a lot of the arguing isn't accomplishing a
>thing. Too many people are arguing the wrong point. The
>problem surfaced when John's article came out in Stunt News
>saying he had submitted his by-law change proposals to the
>EC and they would shortly be in our hands for a vote. When
>the directors read this and they had not seen it and knew it
>had NOT been submitted to them, they were, understandable,
>upset. If John had merely said "I am going to submit them
>to the executive council" and "If they are approved they
>will be sent to the membership" there would not have been an
>outcry. Anyone has that right.
>
>Now, however, after seeking them out, the draft proposals
>have gotten into the hands of the other members of some of
>these other members and it appears that this is a total
>rewrite turning PAMPA into a general CL organization, while
>at the same time giving the president new and unprecedented
>powers, stripping much of these from the Executive Council
>itself.
>
>If John wants to start a general CL organization, it has
>been said many times that he is free to do so. He knows,
>however, that it won't fly because it would have no appeal
>without a variant of Stunt News and the input of the very
>competition minded "experts" (some of you have been using
>the term "elitests" which really grates on me) that some of
>you want to do without. If the experts are not a part of
>this group, you lose. A sport organization, by itself,
>without them will fail.

Whoa there, big boy. You are replying to something other than what I wrote. I am pretty good friends with a couple of the "Elite of the 'Elite'." Elite is not always a BAD term.
My post is, and never was, a legitimate question as to how PAMPA actually works. DO NOT include me in your *grouping* of "some of you" above.

>
>Let's face it, the competition minded Precision Aerobatic
>people who founded PAMPA do not need the sport flyers. But
>they embraced you, and welcomed you into their organization.
> You call them "elitests" but they will help you at every
>turn. They will help you to become a competition minded
>person and beat them if you want. They will help a novice
>set up his plane. They will help a crashed flyer rebuild
>his plane so he can get it back into the air and beat them
>at a contest. Funny how "elitest" they are.

Again, you are generalizing, not in any way referring to what I have posted. Actually I have been considered an "Elite" in a few areas other than CLPA. Didn't hurt MY feelings, actually made me feel pretty good that I was in the category of the Best of the Best. Look up Elite, and I didn't use that term in either post, YOU have added it.
>
>Just remember this, if you turn this into a sport
>organization and lose them, you lose. They don't need you.

Who is *YOU*?

>You do need them.

And believe it or not, everyone who flys competitively in PAMPA does need everyone else who does the same. I do fly in contests, and have flown in the NATS. I have been a column writer in Stunt News for a couple years. But I own no Walker Trophy, or other NATS crown. Am I any less a part of PAMPA because of it?

Len, I really feel that you are being too general in your response. You did not reply to any of my *questions*. I expect that you will delete this, or not respond, or lock it down, or maybe ban me. I would suggest that none of these reponses on your part would be indicitive of who I believe you are or the image you wish to project.

I hold no ill will towards you, or anyone else. But to be honest, you missed the point.

Thanks,
Bill <><

Bill and Larry (and everyone else) if I offended you, I am sorry. I have been readong so much of this junk coming from people who truly do want to change PAMPA into a sports organization that my head is swimming. But there was a challenge here that was stating if someone doesn't respond then what we have said (I don't even know what you said) must stand.

There are how many threads going on this subject right now? Way too many.

I will say it again, if John had merely written that he was "going to be proposing an amendment (or amendments) to the by-laws and that these would be submitted to the EC and IF they were approved they would then go to the general membership" all would have been well. No one would have said anything. But he stated he had done so and that they were going to be presented to the general membership as if they were already approved.

There is a whole lot more to this whole issue that is not out in public. Let's leave it buried for now. Let this go to the EC and let them work it out. Unless you know all the facts, you really don't know any.

Leonard What you said is realy wrong "Let's face it, the competition minded Precision Aerobatic people who founded PAMPA do not need the sport flyers" There would be very few contest with out the sport flyers or even those who are not flyers who do all the work at contests. There would not be any Hunterville contest with out all those who work to put it on and many are not even PAMPA members. Some of the Judges haven't flown in years and some of them judge at the nats. Now if you turn this all around these same contests could all be run without PAMPA. WE realy don't need PAMPA to have contests.
Ed

>Leonard What you said is realy wrong "Let's face it, the
>competition minded Precision Aerobatic people who founded
>PAMPA do not need the sport flyers" There would be very few
>contest with out the sport flyers or even those who are not
>flyers who do all the work at contests. There would not be
>any Hunterville contest with out all those who work to put
>it on and many are not even PAMPA members. Some of the
>Judges haven't flown in years and some of them judge at the
>nats. Now if you turn this all around these same contests
>could all be run without PAMPA. WE realy don't need PAMPA to
>have contests.
>Ed

Eddy, this is one good example of those cases where we talk past each other and both agree on the same issues. You are absolutely correct that we don't need PAMPA to have contests. But we need something. And PAMPA serves well as the SIG it is intended to be. But at the local contests???

OK, that said, why do sport flyers join PAMPA? For Stunt News and perhaps the help they can get from the "experts" (call them contest flyers, serious competitors, whatever). After all, if they don't fly competitively and don't plan to, why join a competition organization?

I agree that there are many "volunteers" (OK, you are volunteered) at contests, many of whom may not be directly involved. We use kids or wives as runners and signer uppers. But...

If they are not members of PAMPA and you don't need PAMPA to run your contests, we are in agreement, aren't we? PAMPA doesn't need them, they don't need PAMPA.

But without the top echelon guys doing their development, helping the newbies along, publishing their articles and Stunt News itself, none of the sport flyers would even bother to join PAMPA. After all, what's in it for them besides that? So, again, PAMPA doesn't need them (but welcomes them and embraces them). They do, however, need the others.

That's why a sports organization off by itself wouldn't work. That's why even the sports flyers need PAMPA to keep to its charter.

Len,
Thank you.
I am in no way hoping to change the original intent of PAMPA. I believe what I said as to the procedures that must be followed are correct.
We (PAMPA members) elect the EC, and they are in charge. I still believe they are going to do the right thing for PAMPA keeping in mind its origins.
Bill <><