Why is it?

A few months back there were two very hot subjects on this forum.

One was the debate on the Builder of the Model rule. There were several rules change proposals offered including a rules change proposal to dump it. And it lost in its first vote.

The other debate was on President of PAMPA: Keith Trostle vs. John Brodak. John campained with a letter to the membership appealing to the sport modeler who happens to be in the majority of PAMPA membership. Keith didn't campain. John won.

OK, I like the builder of the model rule. I have openly stated that. I openly supported Keith for president. I also stated that.

There was a hot debate on both issues. The vote on both issues is over. Why is it that I have never heard a thing on this forum about the vote for president? Those of us who lost accept and support what happened. It is the way we do things. But the anti-BOM people don't. They keep whining and griping and I am fed up.

It was voted on. It is done. It is over. Both issues are over. The BOM people can accept that just as those who voted for president accept the outcome of that election. It is done. It is over.

AS A MATTER OF POLICY, FROM HERE ON OUT THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER DISCUSSION ON BUILDER OF THE MODEL RULE. NOT UNTIL THE NEXT ELECTION. NOT UNTIL THERE IS ANOTHER PROPOSAL AND IT IS TIME TO VOTE. ANY ATTEMPT THAT I SEE TO BRING IT UP I WILL DELETE. ANY ATTEMPT.

LET'S GET ON WITH IT AND TALK ABOUT AIRPLANES.

>A few months back there were two very hot subjects on this
>forum.
>
>One was the debate on the Builder of the Model rule.

>The other debate was on President of PAMPA:

>There was a hot debate on both issues.

Hi Leonard
,
No argument from me over this.
It seems that the human nature loves to assert it's own opinions that directly conflict with other's. This might be why there is so much talk about these issues. They strike the emotional/argumental nerve.

>LET'S GET ON WITH IT AND TALK ABOUT AIRPLANES.

My "Question of the day" was/is a direct incentive to do just this. No animosity, no controversy, no arguments, just "TALK ABOUT AIRPLANES". What is each person's favorite "DESIGN" of all time.

As I write this reply, there have been over 40 views, but no one has a favorite design in the bunch. Maybe it isn't about airplanes at all.

In Stunt,
Bill <><

Thanks Len,

This is precisely why I stayed out of it. My feelings have been expressed openly and strongly here and other places and need not be restated until such time as the debate is relevant again.

Roger that...

Len,

With all due respect, I hope you don't do this because I have noticed that the last few times the BOM thing has come up, there has been (for the most part) a civil discussion about the issue. Previously when this came up it got personal and nasty and I didn't like that at all.

At one point there were only two options mentioned: Leave it alone or get rid of it entirely. The more recent threads have had sugestions for some "middle ground" and perhaps modification of the rule to adapt to our changing enviornment. I have found these different points of view to be most enlightning and these have led me to think more about ways to perhaps come to a consensus and certainly a belief that there may be more than one way to "skin a cat".

IHMO this issue is not going to go away. It will definitely be re-submitted in the next rules cycle. I know of no other forum where the arguments, suggestions, etc.. can be evaluated, discussed, etc.. than here. As long as the respondents keep it civil and clean, let it continue.

I certainly agree we should abibe by the decisions that are made and live with it until the time comes when those change. Your point about no discussion about Brodak vs. Trostle proves the point that our membership accepts the decisions of the voters. The fact that the BOM is still a bone of contention leads me to believe that more discussion, not less, would be benificial.

>IHMO this issue is not going to go away.

No, it will not. In fact, with the proliferation of cheap ARF's it will continue to be an even more popular subject.

It will definitely
>be re-submitted in the next rules cycle. I know of no other
>forum where the arguments, suggestions, etc.. can be
>evaluated, discussed, etc.. than here. As long as the
>respondents keep it civil and clean, let it continue.

True. I agree.

This whole thing gives me the whillies... isn't this America?

What possible harm could DISCUSSING anything to do with TOY AIRPLANES have on our society as a whole?

SSW Forum has taken a giant step backwards. It is sad day.

Egos, hot air, elitism--on high, a waste of precious time for older guys, other than building and flying. My gosh, its a wonder anybody can rip themselves away from their opinions and get into the air!

Some dead horses are easier to beat than others....

I've been looking at several amateur radio forums
lately, and the same arguments keep coming up
over & over & over...

I'm working on the next election

Leonard Neumann for PAMPA Pres.......

THE BOM is a MUTE point IMHO.

The PAMPA Pres. Let's see where we are after the worlds and nats....give JOHN a YEAR THEN we (USA) need to hit the idea of changing to FIA format or stay in the stone age. PAMPA need a direction in the PA stunt ONLY. PAMPA neededs to works hard with AMA. I think I'll get hit hard on this. HOWEVER, when it comes down to PA STUNT It's a world event.........times change.

Scott(I'll be under my ROCK)Riese

Scott,

You're going to regret the "Stone age" refference.

Scott,
I predict that you will be fortunate on this one. It will probably be overlooked..........
Mainly because it wasn't I who said it!! LOL!!!!!!
Bill (reveling in my ability to be flamed) Little <><

Scott,

You'll be sorry!

>>THE BOM is a MUTE point IMHO<<

Uh, I think that would be MOOT point. It's anything but mute.

edit: sorry, typo

>
>AS A MATTER OF POLICY, FROM HERE ON OUT THERE WILL BE NO
>FURTHER DISCUSSION ON BUILDER OF THE MODEL RULE. NOT UNTIL
>THE NEXT ELECTION. NOT UNTIL THERE IS ANOTHER PROPOSAL AND
>IT IS TIME TO VOTE. ANY ATTEMPT THAT I SEE TO BRING IT UP I
>WILL DELETE. ANY ATTEMPT.
>
>LET'S GET ON WITH IT AND TALK ABOUT AIRPLANES.

It's your board and you have the right to do as you see fit. However, to stiffle conversation about something like BOM is rather infintile.
If you don't like BOM discussions then don't read or participate in them. For that matter, anyone that is tired of reading about BOM can simply choose not to read about it. If you want to keep the rest of us from discussing something that you don't agree with on your forum that's your call, but it truely is petty.

Perhaps the reason that the election results are not brought up is because it concerns personalities rather than an old obsolete rule established and protected by old men that didn't and don't want unskilled teens and pre teens beating them at the flying field. This is EXACTLY why it was established and anyone that doesn't believe or admit it is either naive or part of the good ole boy network that exists in every human endeavor including CLPA.

Yes, you are correct about the proposed rule changes to the BOM being soundly defeated, but that don't make it right. You old guys that are heavily involved with the rules process really ought to reflect on what, if anything, you are doing for the FUTURE of this hobby. Is the BOM the future? If you really think so then pull your head out and look around. Do you see very many youths that have the potential to build like Randy or Windy? Do you think there will be just as many people building quality models 20 years from now or do you think most people will be flying and competing with ARF's?

Frankly Len the BOM posts have been some of the MOST interesting posts on your forum for the past several months. One only has to look at the hits, along with replies to see which topics are the favorites of this forum and it's not the ones about the deck height of an FP 40.

I'm surprised you haven't banned posts on ARF Flite Streaks powered by OS .20FP's

Before I finish let me say I have great admiration for every modeler that participates where the BOM is the rule. I become one of the most frustrated people on the planet when I try to build something. I'd be lucky to get 10 points for my abortions, but the day is coming when, like the rest of the world, we will be more interested in the flying than the pretty/shiney. This will in no way take away the feeling of pride that someone should have for building a 20 point finish by themselves.

This will certainly please several people here, but like Pauley, Fubar, and Floyd C I've grown tired of this place. Time for me to log off Stuka for good. Or at least until the next election

See you all at the circle but not here.

Rick,

As much as I like you and enjoy your comments, IMHO you are way out of line here. This is exactly the type of response that I don't much care for. Personal (in the extreme) and general for the folks you consider "old men".

I am acquainted with several "old men" who have opinions on this subject but don't wish to be identified by name who agree that this should change. They are standing back, watching and trying to make up their mind as to how best to perpetuate the hobby/sport which all of us "old men" LOVE.

A suggestion: Before you respond; take a deep breath, grab a cold one, think about your response for more than 2 seconds and then continue.

You may have noticed that I just did the very thing that I busted your tail for, but it wasn't personal in this context. Perhaps some of the other forum users will "grab a cold one, think a bit", before responding.

Getting REAL PERSONAL: I'll be at Texarkana and I have a Super Clown with a place to tie a Streamer. I'll kick your tail in slow combat but would understand if you don't have room to bring one in your vehicle. (That's a real good excuse for "wimping out")

Thank you, Len. You have my support.

It is appearing that my own post is heading off into the same direction, so I shall lock it down.

And in answer to the "why?" We are constantly bickering. It is not an attempt to abide by the rule or to understand it. It is a constant attempt to re-define it. We can't/won't until, unless there is another rule change.

When the time comes to elect another president, we can talk about that. When the time comes to offer our suggestions for rule changes, we can talk about that. Today, however, is the time to work with what we have.

>There was a hot debate on both issues. The vote on both
>issues is over. Why is it that I have never heard a thing
>on this forum about the vote for president? Those of us who
>lost accept and support what happened. It is the way we do
>things. But the anti-BOM people don't. They keep whining
>and griping and I am fed up.

The difference is that they are not unrelated. John has clearly established his desire to "address the ARF issue" as a function of PAMPA, and this is of course interpreted by some as shorthand for "get rid of <<unmentionable subject>>. Changing the direction and purpose of PAMPA, radically, away from the intended purpose (common voice to AMA for national competition issues), was a campaign point for John. This was later somewhat equivocally retracted, but too late to influence the election.

Of course the threats and hate mail that circulated during the election left everyone with a bad taste, but I attribute that to John's rabid supporters instead of John. I still fail to grasp why any PAMPA officials should be threatened (not physically, at least, this time) for doing their jobs, but apparently that's just the way it is.

This of course invigorated the anti-<<unmentionable topic>> proponents. That's why it's still going on. I think that the fair way to address the points John raised is to address the points - not the messenger.

Note that the next SN District 10 column is largely dedicated to the <<unmentionble>> topic. It's relevent to District 10 because the primary concern with the "new direction" PAMPA in this area is that John appears to be an "anti -<<unmentionable subject>> advocate, and the overwhelming, vast, majority of District 10 members are strongly in favor of the <<unmentionable subject>> but are concerned that it will be trampled by the "New PAMPA". Concerned to the point of proposing some rather extreme measures. These are all quite premature, if not completely off base.

I just don't think it makes sense to make radical decisions in *anticipation* of something happening, based on a few ambiguous comments in private mail and John's columns.