Setting Policy

When the builder of the model rule was a rules proposal, perhaps there was a valid reason to discuss it. There no longer is. Whether you like or dislike the fact that it is still with us and will be for at least the next 3 years, it is a fact that everyone will need to live with. Let's move on.

And the classic ARF's can fly in any classic event, but with the absense of appearance or fidelity points just as always when you fly a plane that someone else had built (which you are). So they are not excluded, nor should they be given a special "honor" by the elimination of appearance points from those who did choose to build their planes. The BOM is still with us. Let's live with it.

The election process is also about over. So let's, please, move on and use the forum for its intent which is to help people design, build, and fly model airplanes. Let the real forum once again emerge from these ashes and let us start working together again.

For those of you who are campaigning for growth, give the newcomer here something that he wants to see. Give him something that can benefit him, and lets leave politics to the California Governor's race.

I agree 100%.. If you would please remove the thread that I started regarding "What Happens When BOM Goes Away" I would appreciate it. I think the whole issue is about nothing anyway.

I think there should be a forum for the people in our hobby that are politically motivated to sweeping change. Let them fight it out amonst themselves. I think that they will find that change for the sake of change itself is not all it's cracked up to be.

You are quite correct that this forums intent was to spread knowledge among our small group and to help the new commers. Politics doesn't really belong here. IMHO

VOTE for ARNOLD!!!

JUST TEASING MR. NEWMANN...

In Christ,

I agree that we are beating a horse. The problem is he just won't die. I actually told myself that I wasn't going to post anything else on this subject come "...heck or high water" BUT, I have some thoughts and just can't help myself.

You are right that the proposal to eliminate the BOM was soundly defeated this last rules change cycle. We are bound to live with it for the next three years. So be it! Let's move on! BUT if it is not discussed in an intelligent, thoughtful manner then how can we improve or move on to the next level?

The BOM rule which we have had for many years has been quoted here many times. (some correctly and some not). Tom N. pointed out that ,as written, it really is pretty cut and dried. You either build it all or not. The definition of "Completely" that has been going on with all these threads somewhat reminds me of the famous "...that depends on what the definition of "is" is".

Paul Walker gave a lot of credit to other people who made the B-17 possible. (Please don't anyone bust my tail on this). The point I am trying to make is: Paul would not gualify for BOM and Apperance points under the rules AS THEY CURRENTLY EXIST! (IMHO) I have also noted on some threads that a number of prominent flyers get pre-built components, include them in their planes and they get apperance points. What's up?

Now, (trying to head off a lot any flack) I happen to have the good fortune to be acquainted with several of these individuals. They are HONORABLE, HONEST men with integrity and I am proud to know them. There is no intent to "cheat, lie" here. It's just that over the evolvment of the hobby, friends helping each other, etc. is a way of life (and certainly adds to the enjoyment of the hobby). In my recent experience, I know very few people who build the model "completely". I have no problem with that at all. BUT,as this is a fact, why can't we revisit the BOM and see if we can fix it? I am certainly familiar with the ol' saying "...if it ain't broke don't fix it" BUT I think it must be broke or there wouldn't be so much conversation about it. If we move on and ignore this question for the next three years, then do you propose that we wait until two weeks before the deadline and then come up with a consensus? I have made the comment before that I think there is a HUGE diffence between an argument and a discussion. The second it goes from a discussion to an argument, you have lost a lot of chance for a reasoned solution to the real/percieved problem.

Can't disagree more. First, the fact that a *few* people believe in something passionately enough to make an issue of it does not imply anything is "broken" in any objective sense of the word. There are far more people discussing, say, the "fact" that the Apollo mission were faked - but just because they talk about it, doesn't lend it any credibility at all.

Second, "argument" is a very valid way, in fact the primary way, of resolving differences between people of honor. Arguments are not intrinsically negative. They *are* intrinsically adversarial, but that's not necessarily bad. Arguments are only negative when someone fails to follow the basic rules for arguements - called "rhetoric". The word rhetoric has gotten a bad rap due to it's widespread misuse in the popular media, but in reality, rhetoric is an accepted set of rules for arguing.

The two rhetorical principles that are routinely violated here are refusing to answer logical argument with logical counter-argument, and implying things in the adversary's argument that aren't really there.

1) Individual assaults aside, I see these discusions as very passionate exchanges by individuals that love this hobby. I would rather have someone to argue about something related to my hobby than have noone to talk to at all. It is a blessing to be able to discuss a topic with some of the most knowledgable and passionate people around. In some parts of the world, this kind of exchange may get you jailed or killed.

2) I think Aristotle said this: "In discussion, the truth is born".

And for the closing argument:

Thanks a bunch. I hope you got the private email I sent you and also hope you don't catch a bunch of flak for supporting my views. My email address is in SN as well as my phone #. ANYONE who wants to discuss the issues with me that are now in the forefront can darn sure reach me. You certainly don't have to apologize for your response. I respect anyone who makes a sincere effort to express their feelings and views. I said I was "out of here" but because you replied to me directly on this forum I felt I needed to respond as a courtesy to you. I don't feel this forum was intended to be a chat room between any two or three individuals. If people want to discuss issues with their buddys, then they need to pick up the phone or send them an email at their home. (Hey John, are you going to contest next week?, How's the Super Mega Stunter working)

Now, for all who might read this. I am darn sure out of these "discussions". This is to Bill but with some more thoughts to those of you who might read it. If you want to talk to me, see the above paragraph.

John, you change sides more then I do underwear. You support the Sport guy until it doesn't suit your needs then you jump over to the contest side. If someone challanges you you find a BS way of running from it. I've followed your advise and paid dearly for it. You have no clue when it comes to building great competiton planes and you are the one who needs to read the rules. Either be a Sport guy or a competiton guy. Either way stop this crap your doing. I hate doing this but it's time someone put you in your place.
By the way I live on PAMPA Street in Mesa AZ. big darn deal.

Don Stone