<!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>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></FONT></BODY></HTML>