<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2719.2200" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=441344315-09122002>It
sounds like "AMA" does not want to relinquish control of the "sacred-cow"
(pattern). Its such a dam* shame that we even have to use them. The
only reason anyone from the "modern" era, or the ARF era of the last years joins
AMA, is because when you want to join a club, they say, "you can't join unless
you have AMA insurrance." Then, you have to decide, "do I want to fly from
a street or field, or do I want to fly from a runway?" Then, you need AMA
to enter a contest. No body says, "join AMA because they represent our
needs and look out for our best interest." I haven't heard of one
situation where a club was about to loose a field, and the AMA interviened an
the cclub was saved.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=441344315-09122002></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2><SPAN class=441344315-09122002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=441344315-09122002>I have
not been around "since-the-beginning," so I'm sure I don't have the same
appreciation that someone was there, then, has for the AMA. It is for
certain that many rc fliers do not join ama, and many do only because they HAVE
to, to belong to a club, or want to attend a contest. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=441344315-09122002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=441344315-09122002>The
conference room at the AMA is totally over-the-top. Anyone who had the
"judging" class there can attest to that. There were tall-back leather chairs
and microphones at each position. I've been to a number of business
(that are profit driven), that have no where near that type of facility.
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=441344315-09122002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=441344315-09122002>Set me
straight, but I just don't see the benefit we get from them anymore.
However, they are now catering to the "small field flyer" with a new
column. I don't think someone who buys a small plane they fly in the drive
way is going to join the AMA either. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=441344315-09122002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=441344315-09122002>The
editorial column states (paraphrasing), that they do not see the "arf"
assemblers as "modelers", and that the "arf" people don't have the same
concerns, and that they can't envision any serious issues for
the "arf" people. Well, the people who buy ARFs, are usually at the
club field flying AEROBATICS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just this weekend, there were all sorts of "ARFs" flying AEROBATICS, and in my
humble opinion, they are served well by an aerobatic column. Plus,
sometimes, they will scare the sh*t out of you with an over the pits flyby with
a manuever goes bad. It would seem that a larger percentage of "risk" or
"litigation" would come from this type of flying, and that an effort to better
train them would be good to reduce insurance risks, versus turn a blind
eye. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=441344315-09122002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=441344315-09122002>Ranting,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=441344315-09122002>Jim</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Terry Terrenoire
[mailto:amad2terry@juno.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, December 08, 2002 5:52
PM<BR><B>To:</B> discussion@nsrca.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Annex
Proposal<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>I would think exactly the oposite would be true. SIGs do a lot of the
work that would have to be done by AMA. SIGs are actually </DIV>
<DIV>SAVING AMA money, not costing!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Terry T.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 19:36:21 -0600 "Bob Pastorello" <<A
href="mailto:rcaerobob@cox.net">rcaerobob@cox.net</A>> writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; MARGIN-LEFT: 10px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>For those not familiar - on RC Universe (<A
href="http://www.rcuniverse.com">www.rcuniverse.com</A>) there is an entire
FORUM dedicated to "AMA Issues"....If you have some time to kill, go
browse...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> You'll see that there
appears to be a "trend" developing in how the EC views, endorses,
legislates, controls and directs C-O-M-P-E-T-I-T-I-O-N.... perhaps
there is waning interest on THEIR side for the "high maintenance"
(read administrative expense/overhead) SIGs....</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Of course, I don't *know*....just speculating a
bit....</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR>Bob Pastorello IMAC 1320<BR>NSRCA 199, AMA 46373<BR><A
href="mailto:rcaerobob@cox.net">rcaerobob@cox.net</A><BR><A
href="http://www.rcaerobats.net">www.rcaerobats.net</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=buddybrammer35@hotmail.com
href="mailto:buddybrammer35@hotmail.com">Buddy Brammer</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, December 08, 2002 7:03
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Annex Proposal</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P>Ron </P>
<P>I think you should post your original of this thread on the NSRCA site
with bold letters and an eye catching Icon <IMG height=12
src="http://graphics.hotmail.com/emthdown.gif" width=12 NOSEND="1">of
someone doing something un appropriate to us, just in case there are
those who visit the site but don't take part in the discussion forum who
may be intrested.</P>
<P>Another place that it could be posted is R/C Universe I feel sure that
it is monitored by many who may be intrested also</P>
<P>Sorry I couldn't find the proper Icon </P>
<P>Buddy<BR><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: "Mike Hester" <KERLOCK@ATTBI.COM>
<DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: discussion@nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>>To: <DISCUSSION@NSRCA.ORG>
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: Annex Proposal
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 18:03:36 -0800
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>----- Original Message -----
<DIV></DIV>>From: "Ron Van Putte" <VANPUTTE@NUC.NET>
<DIV></DIV>>To: <DISCUSSION@NSRCA.ORG>
<DIV></DIV>>Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 9:32 AM
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: Annex Proposal
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> > Jerry Stebbins wrote:
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > > Ron, it appears to me that we should let the AMA
process run it's
<DIV></DIV>> > > course. Let them make their decision based on
the facts, and put it out
<DIV></DIV>> > > for all to examine. Then we should have the
opportunity to demand a
<DIV></DIV>> > > truthful, and logical response to the process,
and the basis for their
<DIV></DIV>> > > decision. The Board is, by definition, supposed
to be responsive to the
<DIV></DIV>> > > Membership!
<DIV></DIV>> > > I am against any compromise that has no
rationale as to why the proposed
<DIV></DIV>> > > approach is wrong.We have the IMAC precident on
our side.If we
<DIV></DIV>> > > compromise, then that says our proposal is not
sound.
<DIV></DIV>> > > Because Steve and Dave have some kind of
insight, I wonder what/who is
<DIV></DIV>> > > driving this decision. I would rather have them
( the Board ) explain,
<DIV></DIV>> > > if they reject the proposal out of hand, why
they are discriminating
<DIV></DIV>> > > between the SIG's, and then we can determine the
action, legal or
<DIV></DIV>> > > otherwise, that we want to take.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > Does anyone not agree with the above?
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > Ron Van Putte
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > =====================================
<DIV></DIV>> > # To be removed from this list, send a message to
<DIV></DIV>> > # discussion-request@nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>> > # and put leave discussion on the first line of the
body.
<DIV></DIV>> > #
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>=====================================
<DIV></DIV>># To be removed from this list, send a message to
<DIV></DIV>># discussion-request@nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>># and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
<DIV></DIV>>#
<DIV></DIV></DIV><BR clear=all>
<HR>
MSN 8 helps <A href="http://g.msn.com/8HMHEN/2023">ELIMINATE E-MAIL
VIRUSES.</A> Get 2 months FREE*. </BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>