Missing references...

What happened to that highly popular, really long thread where we were discussing that naughty subject which has been outlawed?

I know who owns this site and I know who runs it.

But this is getting to be more than just annoying.

Dan,

I suspect if we discussed it, it wouldn't be a issue. Problem is, any sort of discussion rapidly devolves into a screaming match with some really professional level name calling. Some are for it, some agin it and that's apparently just the way it is. I don't suspect that Len would have much of a problem with a reasoned discussion that was calm and persuasive with actual facts and considered opinions brought to bare.

Yea, that's what we get. Sure. I don't blame Len. Trying to police such a discussion, editing out the name calling and general hue and cry would be a full time job. He's nice enough to provide this board and last I looked, I wasn't getting charged a nickel. He gets to make the rules and I have no problem with that. If he doesn't want to spend his time as referee in a schoolyard fight, I'm not going to gainsay him.

This an issue that folks are, for whatever reason, quite passionate about and they tend to let their passion do the talking instead of their reason.

You're right, it needs to be discussed. But I suspect this isn't the forum.

Randy, Dan, Leonard,
No arguments with any of you.
Unfortunately, in this day and age, I am convinced that people carry on written "conversations" like they do "spoken" conversations. Research shows that the vast majority of people do not comprehend what the other person is saying, they are too intent on what they, themselves, are going to say next. So a whole lot is said, but almost none of it is *heard*. We are a nation that has very few good listeners.
I believe our written conversations get to be the same.
Opinions are like noses. We all have them, and most of them smell. hahahaha

Bill <><

The interesting thing about this, Dan, is I am getting complaints from people on both sides. Do you know why I don't want to talk about it? Because I get complaints from people on both sides. I can't satisfy both sides, so let's don't talk about it.

As to what happened to that thread, it was deleted at the request of the person who originated it. OK?

I believe you were taking him out to lunch. You can talk about it there.

>The interesting thing about this, Dan, is I am getting
>complaints from people on both sides. Do you know why I
>don't want to talk about it? Because I get complaints from
>people on both sides. I can't satisfy both sides, so let's
>don't talk about it.
>
But you addressed this very issue in the thread which no longer exists. Change the channel, flip the page, go to another thread, read a different column, etc., etc.

One side can be satisfied with discussing this unmentionable topic because it has a direct bearing on their chosen hobby.

The side which does not want to discuss said topic can easily and completely ignore it.

As one who does enjoy the exchange, and who learned a couple new things from deleted thread, the naysayers have effectively closed me off from this subject. I have done nothing, nor would I take any action which closes them off from any discussion at all.

This is an arbitrary decision which makes no sense to me.

Especially when both sides can indeed be accomodated. Tell the whiners to do what I do when coming across a thread in which I have no interest at all, for whatever reason: Go to another thread and leave those other guys alone.

>As to what happened to that thread, it was deleted at the
>request of the person who originated it. OK?

No, it's not okay. I can understand, at least partially, why someone might *request* that a thread be deleted. Agreeing to do so is quite another thing. A lot of us saw reason to contribute--please note correct use of the word--to that thread. Some people, evidently not me, had good points to put forward. And so they did.

I don't believe they took time to make a contribution merely to see it all whisp away within a few day's time. As they had a certain level of involvement, maybe they needed to be asked for their opinion concerning the tearing down of that which they had assembled.

>
>I believe you were taking him out to lunch. You can talk
>about it there.

Actually, Brett has been given the fabulous opportunity to take me to lunch, the idea being he can help subsidize my trip to Albany, nicely offsetting higher gas prices we are currently dealing with.

And, hey! What happened to the "ARFs, ARCs" thread I started in an attempt to head off misinformation being spread to NW contestants known to be planning on using an ARF at the NW Regionals this weekend?

Who requested that thread be deleted? It certainly wasn't me, and as there are strong indications threads may or may not be removed from this forum based on input from originator, one must wonder what is going on.

And he deeply and most abjectly apoligizes.

Oh wait, that was Dan.

Never mind.

Dan,

This is one time I 100% agree with you. I thought the "forbidden subject" was being dealt with in a most constructive manner by the vast majority of respondents. I put my two cents worth in the mix and then left town for a few days to attend my daughter's wedding. When I got back, I logged in hoping to see what had been offered in my absence. Gone!

Disappointing to say the least because up to that point, I thought it had been a very civil and reasoned discussion about a subject which is certainly not going to go away. At every contest I have attended in the past three years this gets talked about around the pool, in the motel rooms, between rounds, on the practice circles, etc...

Len, It is your ball, bat and field so you can make the rules and those who choose to play must do so by your rules. But this is supposed to be a forum and by definition "...a public meeting place for open discussion". SSW would allow this discussion to to be open to many more people than just the groups of 4-6-20 (pick a number) who get together at local contests or in the shop working on planes.

If it can't be discussed here, then where can we discuss it? As far as complaints from both "sides", I feel you're trying to do the impossible. You can't please "all the people, all the time" and to try to do so is an exercise in futility (IMHO).

I was told by a past World and Nats champions who now writes articles for MA and SN. "John, if you aren't making at least half the people who read your stuff mad, then you aren't saying anything. It goes with the territory". This was in reference to my column in SN.

I would hope you would reconsider your position and allow this to continue. I too gained a respect for some of the other positions and reasons for same which were expressed by those who contributed to the deleted thread. It's a shame that couldn't have continued (IMHO).

John, I respect and value your opinion, but this whole thing about the Builder of the Model reminds me of a lot of church meetings I have seen throughout the years. People get upset about something and start arguing back and forth in the middle of the meeting. But all this time while they are arguing and discussing, nobody makes a motion. So the whole argument is for nothing. People get mad and leave, and nobody every makes a motion. If you want to change the time of service, make a motion. If a motion is made and seconded, then we can have a discussion, and in the end vote on it. Then, when the vote is made, let's live with it. But let's not argue about it before a motion is made.

In this particular case a motion was made (rules proposals were made and submitted). We cussed and discussed it, here and elsewhere. I allowed the discussion because it was appropriate at the time. Then the vote was made. Now, those who lost don't want to live with it. There is no motion on the table but they want to keep talking and get enough people mad until they either leave or simply get so discusted with hearing about it that they finally give in the next time.

Well, there is no motion on the table. We cannot at this time even make a motion to put on the table. Everyone is firmly entrenched in their positon. There is nothing to be gained by discussing a motion that doesn't exist. We just make people mad and they leave. So, let's let the topic rest, OK?

Wouldn't it be something if the Republicans gained the White House and the Democrats griped and complained about it for the next four years? Come to think about it, they have. But that is the way of political parties. Political parties do not accept what the other side does or believes in. You oppose them because...well, they are the other party. Let's don't make this into a political party debate. It's a hobby, guys. Let's have fun.

Len,

Although I think I understand your reasoning, I also believe there is another ingredient in the stew pot. In the example you gave of Church meetings, which could be expanded to include: City Council meetings, School board meetings etc... These are things that are decided in a very short time frame.

The rules change cycle for AMA has a three year time frame. Yes, it was proposed and voted down last cycle. But things have changed since then as far as the climate in which we are pursuing this hobby. Our society moves so fast in this day and age that it is very hard IMHO to keep up with the changing parameters and to come to a consensus of opinion. Your three year old computer is just one example. (You don't have a 3 year old computer, but I do.)

BOM will be brought up at the next rules cycle and it may be voted down again. It may also pass. Without discussion, how may we hear everyone's viewpoint and make a decision which will best advance the hobby in the future?

Argument / Discussion: There is a HUGE difference here. In my experience, heated argument resolves nothing more than to make the participants angry and no constructive or beneficial solutions come from this. On the other hand, reasoned discussion usually has positive results or at the very least a respect for the other person's point of view.

Will all due respect, I vote for letting this discussion continue and would only delete those few comments that use foul language or personal attacks on individuals who contribute to the discussion.

Hmm, last time I looked, the Republicans had been griping for 8 years. Matter of fact they have still been griping for the last 4 years!

Somewhat on this topic, I have been given a lot of Stunt News from the early 90's. I have to confess that it is amazing that B*M was as contentious then as now, and a lot of the names are the same--and their positions don't seemed to have changed!

IMHO,

It is not the rule it is the enforcement, or lack of enforcement that is the problem.

Mr. John Ashford,

All well said and highly persuasive. Good job.

I'd like to point out that when I invite people into my home, even though I own the house, am furnishing the food and drinks and there are subjects I would just as soon not discuss as there will be no resolution put forth (abortion, for example), as we cannot hope to effectively deal with the issue, no minds will be changed on either side, I've "seen that movie" a great many times, if that's the way the discussion goes, so be it.

I would *never* think of interfering in my guests freely exchanging ideas and points of view. After all, the gathering has that as its primary purpose.

If someone, anyone, does not care for the topic(s) being discussed in a particluar group, they can meander around until they find another conversation. Or grab some salt and a knife, wandering through my vegetable garden picking and eating good stuff.

Were one of my guests to complain about a specific topic of conversation, asking that I put a stop to it, the first thing I would do is look at them as if they were crazy. If they persisted, I would pull out my well-worn, "Well, I'm a libertarian, small 'l' please note, so you won't get a sympathetic hearing from me." Were they to still be in a funk, I would be more than happy to get cars moved out of their way so they could leave, if that was their decision.

As host I suppose the power to yell "Shut up!!" at one group or to forbid discussion of specific topics is within my power. But I would never be such a poor host as that.

Somebody tell me why this analogy, as related to this site, is wrong in any way.

The B * M controversey and discussion on this board is highly entertaining for a whole host of us lurkers!

>The B * M controversey and discussion on this board is
>highly entertaining for a whole host of us lurkers!
>
>
>
>

And so it was that I ferreted out our own King of One-liners, Mr. De Hill.

I do envy you so, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

Dan,
Dare I say it...........
here goes........ "I am in agreement with you on this".
There, I said it.....
I am a firm believer in the "TV remote" analogy.
Bill <><

Dan,
I have never felt so in tune with you. Like it or not roll on.

your friend:

Mr. Neumann,

The respondents to this thread seem to be:

1. Keeping their cool and offering views in a very civil manner.

2. Expressing the desire to continue the BOM discussion and all feel this is the best place to do that.

I don't see any "nay-sayers" as yet. So that brings up a question. Has this thread perhaps convinced you to re-think your position and allow BOM to be discussed?

If the answer is no, then I will abide by your decision and not mention it again. I obviously hope you don't do that for all the reasons outlined in my previous posts.

The ball is in your court.

>Mr. Neumann,

> Has this thread perhaps convinced you to re-think
>your position and allow BOM to be discussed?
>
>If the answer is no, then I will abide by your decision and
>not mention it again.

No.

There still is no motion on the table to discuss. In a democracy we vote on the issues and then we live by the decisions made. Let's live with it.

I move that we continue the BOM discussion.
Do I hear a second?

I'll second it just for grins

Now we need to ask Mr Newman if he will put up a poll so it can be voted on.

As Len noted, it's a topic that can be talked to death without resolution. I suppose I just don't care all that much. As Dan has said repeatedly, it's just not an issue around here. BOM, no BOM, it will make little difference to me ultimately. Won't change my approach even a little. I'll still not likely ever own one.

Besides, watching Dan fly that ARF Flight Steak is a riot. Wouldn't miss it.

So, if you guys want to badger Len into allowing more BOM nonsense, carry on. I'll lurk and laugh my backside off. It is very entertaining.