<!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 6.00.2900.2627" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 bgColor=#ffffff leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7>
<DIV>You do have your flame suit on, don't you Eric? :-)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ken</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=pattern4u@comcast.net href="mailto:pattern4u@comcast.net">Grow
Pattern</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> Monday, June 13, 2005 5:53 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Landing Direction; Spins,
and Snaps. . .</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Ach! I just hemorrhaged,</DIV>
<DIV> The
real issue is that we have different opinions creating two camps. It is
normally a simple exercise to resolve these types of debate. We take
a democratic vote. The majority wins and we move on. This is not the
case and not what happened or happens here. The last survey vote was
ignored and an individual proposal made. (It is more PC to say "individual"
than "private"). It looks like that he survey vote will not even be waited for
on landing direction.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Mark Atwood encourages individual action and this type of proposal
making. It sounds good at first until the contest board gets five
different proposals on the same subject or even fifty. (Of course
you might not know but there is a pre-filter on the front of the AMA contest
board system that I have yet to decode?).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It does beg the question of what is the point of belonging to a society
if you don't support the gathering of survey answers like scoring 0
through 10 for take-offs and landings. Are you a society member when you agree
and an individual AMA member when you don't?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I took a bunch of heat for recanting what happened in the last cycle.
Individuals made an individual proposal that not only was in direct opposition
to the majority vote but also is causing a ton of explanation and translation
work that falls back on the society and its officers. It does not
inconvenience the individual proposers.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Pointing out the individuals and their involvement and official AMA
record of their involvement did get me some more direct and indirect
hostile e-mail. There was even financial pressure put on the
NSRCA because of my explanations of what went down. There was nothing in
what I wrote that was a personal attack. They finally keyed in on my
"teaser" about not living in Florida as being a mortal insult. I guess the
smiley was just not cutting it? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>My replies to the direct e-mail were/are simple. <STRONG>You wrote, you
signed it, stand by what you did, stop trying to shoot the messenger, listen
to the feedback and observe the confusion when proposals are not coordinated
and "English/rules book" processed by our (the NSRCA)
resources.</STRONG> You know, I did not see any offers to help or correct
the situation, from the proposing individuals. I did see our very own Don
Ramsey do work to try and clean it all up. I do see judging schools spending
inordinate amounts of time on the subject. I do expect personal attacks
to continue to be made in my direction. It always does when you hit a
nerve.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Eric.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT id=role_document face=Arial color=#000000 size=2><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>>
<BR>><BR>> From: discussion-request@nsrca.org <BR>>
[mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Keith Black<BR>> Sent:
Monday, June 13, 2005 10:19 AM<BR>> To: discussion@nsrca.org<BR>>
Subject: Re: Landing Direction<BR>> <BR>> Marguerite,<BR>>
<BR>> Actually, I don't think you're alone on this issue. The NSRCA
poll <BR>> showed overwhelmingly that the membership wanted scored t/o and
<BR>> landings as did the public outcry after the majority's desires were
<BR>> disregarded. Apparently even the contest board would have voted to
<BR>> keep the old rule but the question was worded in such a way to
confuse <BR>> two of the contest board members.<BR>> <BR>> Now
that the new messed up rule has caused so much confusion I think <BR>>
everyone is getting so fed-up with it that many would rather have <BR>>
nothing at all than what we have now. To me this has more to do with <BR>>
being sick of all the ridiculous discussions than a real desire of <BR>>
pattern pilots to not score t/o and landings.<BR>> <BR>> I for one
have been paying attention to take-offs and landings this <BR>> year and
find it a real shame that we don't have those beautiful <BR>> centered
liftoffs and gentle climb outs. The new guys coming into <BR>> sportsman
will miss out on this discipline.<BR>> <BR>> Keith<BR>>
<BR>> <BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></BODY></HTML>