<!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 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#d8d0c8>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>IMAC's not leaving the nats. They just
started an extra roving contest for those who consider it to far to drive to
muncie. 60 limit was set by IMAC, not the ama. IMAC wanted to use
just one site, thus the limit, that's what the membership wanted.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>On the contrary, practically all the imac guys have
gone to pipes and have tried to quiet down their planes. Just because it's
a big plane, doesn't mean it's an imac plane.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
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=divesplat@yahoo.com href="mailto:divesplat@yahoo.com">Ed Deaver</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, May 09, 2004 8:23 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: rules proposals final
result</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Don't know if anyone has heard but IMAC is leaving Muncie for the Nats
starting next year, posted on the IMAC website.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I am curious as to the why and wherefor and could it have something to do
with this current discussion???</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>IMAC has in my mind totally left the noise issue and planes are once
again getting loud. They have changed their rules to a zoneless box
which I only see as making the box bigger(not smaller as wished) Also,
in my experience, this group of fliers typically HATE RULES and despise
rules enforced. Also, the IMAC Nats had been limited to a specific
number of pilots now, by the AMA(I think)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So, possibly, the sentiment is simply rather than comply, we just won't
play anymore!!!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Whereas Pattern guys and NSRCA has tried to enforce, change rules, reword
mukky areas to get to as clear a set of guidelines as possible. Of
course this procedure will never be done, only a work in progress.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>All of this begs the question, do we want to have the Nats in Muncie
every year? Is the approval of AMA really needed, or how can we work
with them etc etc.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This is not a blast to IMAC or trying to bring IMAC to the NSRCA List but
felt the info may fall along the same lines.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>ed<BR><BR><B><I>Lance Van Nostrand
<patterndude@comcast.net></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Really?
And what about the individuals that submit their own proposals in<BR>direct
conflict to member survey and with no known team discussion. Are<BR>they
"us"? And what about all the discussion over whether the member
survey<BR>had "leading" questions or didn't ask someone's favorite question.
Did it<BR>truly represent "us"?<BR>Truth is, we is all us. We need ethical
and competent behavior from<BR>everyone if this organization is to thrive
because of us (and not despite<BR>us).<BR><BR>--Lance<BR><BR>----- Original
Message ----- <BR>From: "george kennie" <GEOBET@GIS.NET><BR>To:
<DISCUSSION@NSRCA.ORG><BR>Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 12:29 PM<BR>Subject:
Re: rules proposals final result<BR><BR><BR>> I, for one, contacted my
Contest Board Member expressing my viewpoint on<BR>"all"<BR>> the
proposals listed for consideration by the Board.<BR>> In my opinion, the
Contest Board has demonstrated, by it's actions, that<BR>it is<BR>>
definitely NOT "us"!!!!!<BR>><BR>> Lance Van Nostrand
wrote:<BR>><BR>> > bob, I agree with you. I wonder how many people
actually contacted<BR>their<BR>> > AMA contest board member to remind
them of the survey results and to<BR>> > represent? We are in a
volunteer organization where a few activists can<BR>> > have
disproportionate influence. This can be good or bad.<BR>> >
--Lance<BR>> ><BR>> > ----- Original Message -----<BR>> >
From: "Bob Pastorello" <RCAEROBOB@COX.NET><BR>> > To:
<DISCUSSION@NSRCA.ORG><BR>> > Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 9:04
AM<BR>> > Subject: Re: rules proposals final result<BR>>
><BR>> > > Considering that many of the contest board members
are "us", what<BR>would it<BR>> > > accomplish by negating their
efforts, however we may feel about it?<BR>> > > Would not it be
more effective to attempt to build relationships WITH<BR>the<BR>> >
CB<BR>> > > members, rather than risk alienating them by ignoring
the rules they<BR>voted<BR>> > > in?<BR>> > ><BR>> >
> Or am I just showing my naivete?<BR>> > ><BR>> > >
Not arguing, just posing a question that occured to me....<BR>> >
><BR>> > > Bob Pastorello<BR>> > >
rcaerobob@cox.net<BR>> > > www.rcaerobats.net<BR>> >
><BR>> > ><BR>> > > ----- Original Message
-----<BR>> > > From: "John Ferrell"
<JOHNFERRELL@EARTHLINK.NET><BR>> > > To:
<DISCUSSION@NSRCA.ORG><BR>> > > Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 8:56
AM<BR>> > > Subject: Re: rules proposals final result<BR>> >
><BR>> > ><BR>> > > > Control freaks get pretty mad
when you ignore them..Of course that<BR>is<BR>> > part<BR>> >
> > of the fun of ignoring them!<BR>> > > ><BR>> >
> > But it is counter productive to injure the game.<BR>> > >
><BR>> > > > John Ferrell<BR>> > > >
http://DixieNC.US<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > -----
Original Message -----<BR>> > > > From: "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
<MOLESKI@CANISIUS.EDU><BR>> > > > To:
<DISCUSSION@NSRCA.ORG><BR>> > > > Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004
7:35 AM<BR>> > > > Subject: RE: rules proposals final
result<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > >
> --On Sunday, May 09, 2004 5:31 AM -0400 "Thomas C. Weedon"<BR>> >
> > <WEEDON@WWNET.NET>wrote:<BR>> > > > ><BR>> >
> > > > ... take offs and landings are just as aerobatic as a
loop of<BR>roll<BR>> > and<BR>> > > > should be<BR>>
> > > > > judged as such.<BR>> > > > ><BR>>
> > > > Agreed.<BR>> > > > ><BR>> > >
> > > Perhaps AMA is pushing us back to the NPAC idea where we can
be<BR>in<BR>> > > > charge of our<BR>> > > > >
> own destiny; ya think?<BR>> > > > ><BR>> > >
> > Yes, I do.<BR>> > > > ><BR>> > > > >
The best thing to do with control freaks is to walk<BR>> > > >
> away from them.<BR>> > > > ><BR>> > > > >
Marty<BR><BR>=====================================<BR># To be removed from
this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm<BR>and follow the
instructions.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>