AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

Regulation passed the House

Reply
Old 02-25-2012, 07:19 PM
  #601
lopflyers
Thread Starter
 
lopflyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,520
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

I think we should just be happy and grateful that AMA ans us with all those letters last year pulled this.
There is a law now that separates model airplanes from FAA. That alone is a heck of a lot more than what we had last year.
There is a lot of ways to skin a cat. For now let's be happy that we can still fly our models in the US of A like we have being doing it for 75 yrs without any interference from our favorite uncle.[8D]
lopflyers is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2012, 06:51 AM
  #602
KidEpoxy
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

Quote:
Quote:
I'm sorry it pains you to hear that congress set it up so there could be another side.
This is a lie. I never said anything like this.
First,
I didnt say you said it, I made an observation.
A lie is like when you made an observation,
but then when I called on it you did claim I said it and even tried a failed quote to show me saying it
-thats what a lie is

. . .

secondly-

you didnt say it??
Are you sure??

oh, well, if you think you didnt say anything like that,
then I will just apologize for not being clear enough in my wording of my observation,
and reword my statement as to clearly not make up things you didnt say.

Hows about this appeasing rephrase of me noting your reaction to my post-
I'm sorry it seems(to me) to pain you so,
hearing that congress set it up so there could be another side
.

Sure looks like just mentioning the others had gotten you undies in a bunch
and you resorted to lashing out all Jr Moderator on me over it,
rather than understanding the law was indeed talking about ama as well as non-ama folks as doing Non-CBO operations.
Heck, just ask Silent what Ilona said about doing something sooooo non-AMA that you should carry your own insurance cause Muncie wont cover ya... sounds exactly like an AMA member operating outside of AMA rules & congressional CBO protection.
KidEpoxy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2012, 07:04 AM
  #603
KidEpoxy
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

Lop
Quote:
I think we should just be happy and grateful that AMA ans us with all those letters last year pulled this.
Letters?
What letters?

You talking about the AMA letter campaign
that started AFTER the senate voted UNANIMOUSLY to have our amendment?
Those letters?

Cause I'm thinking those letters didnt travel back in time and influence the guys that had already voted unanimously. And I am also thinking those letters didnt garner us more senate support, since it was already UNANIMOUS BEFORE the letters
.... they couldnt make it 'more unanimouser' could they?

Or are you talking about some other letters that actually did something other then get canned responses?


You want to be grateful to the AMA,
then say how great it was that we finally started doing For Real Lobbying.
That is a great thing and we should be trumpeting that we actually are doing THAT now.



We start lobbying for real, and congress practically writes us a blank check to get FAA off our back.
Why on earth didnt we do this back in '82 in response to AC91-57 and its 400ft Everywhere junk?
KidEpoxy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2012, 07:33 AM
  #604
KidEpoxy
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

804
Quote:
No, you nitpicked my post, apparently because I didn't mention non-cbo, when Brad's post, and my reply,
had absolutely nothing to do with non-cbo,
wrong
just because you fail to recognize that it has to do with AMA member ops outside of congress' CBO protection,
dont mean that it has nothing to do with ops outside of congress' CBO protection.

I believe you guys are still hung up with mistakenly confusing the terms CBO and AMA as synonymous.
You can be an AMA member and choose not to fly within congress' protection of CBOs,
and just like AMA, that only means you dont get congress' law protection
(just as you wouldnt get AMA's insurance protection if you fly outside AMA rules)
heck, right now my club is within the new 5mile requirement zone for congress protection,
so if we havent gave notice of operating then we are not under congress' protection
yet
we are still well inside AMA's requirements and protections.
And what did AMA just tell us clubs & members to do right now?
Do Nothing & wait.... even though we clearly are within the 5mile of a federal law




You guys are trying to nitpick over a stipulation
that only applies to qualifying for Congressional CBO protection,
when the very obvious and simple and free & easy solution
is to just choose to operate as an AMA member without using or trying to use congressional CBO protections.

You guys are getting real upset over your tangent to Sports question being so easily handled,
and now you have warped the circumstance sooo far you even lost track of the question.
Just because your tangent dont fit my solutions to sports questions dont make my solutions to his query off topic (to your tangent)
KidEpoxy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2012, 08:40 AM
  #605
804
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan, IN
Posts: 1,167
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

Epoxy,
You clearly have a problem.
I'm done with this garbage,
and with you.
The mods can do as they please.

804 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2012, 09:40 AM
  #606
NorfolkSouthern
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,568
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

Epoxy is right: The letter writing campaign didn't get underway until the Senate voted unanimously to protect aircraft modeling. If the DIY crowd wishes to start a CBO now, they can do just that, and still have all the tech gadgets they want, as long as it's not for commercial purposes and the model (and yes, you CAN model drones, too) stays within sight. I don't think they were ever a target of the FAA in the first place. The FAA is only after the commercial interests and law enforcement agencies who would profit from using their airspace, and I believe a lot of that will be aimed towards generating more revenue from taxes and licensing fees. The rest of us who go to the field and fly our toys, well, we just don't have the deep pockets.

NS
NorfolkSouthern is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2012, 10:21 AM
  #607
TexasAirBoss
 
TexasAirBoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,972
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

The House passed the reconciled version of theFAA Reauthorization Bill of 2012 on 2-6-2012. Making it throughreconciliationwas not assured. Legislators will often place items in a Bill on the insistence of their constituency. That does not mean it will survive. In fact, they know that it often will not survive. But they look good back homefor the apparent effort.What we won was significant. I doubt that it would have happened withoutthe AMA members support. Thats my opinion.
TexasAirBoss is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2012, 12:28 PM
  #608
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,913
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

Quote:
I fail to see any mention of california or caltrans in your post that I quoted. your rant was about arizona and its attempt to duplicate and then enforce federal immigration law and the federal response to arizona's action.
That is off topic, but you have the facts completely wrong.  Arizone did not attempt to duplicate any federal law, their law only requires there officers to abide by federal laws in place. 
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2012, 12:37 PM
  #609
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,913
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Regulation passed the House


Quote:
ORIGINAL: United_Pilot

The House passed the reconciled version of theFAA Reauthorization Bill of 2012 on 2-6-2012. Making it throughreconciliationwas not assured. Legislators will often place items in a Bill on the insistence of their constituency. That does not mean it will survive. In fact, they know that it often will not survive. But they look good back homefor the apparent effort.What we won was significant. I doubt that it would have happened withoutthe AMA members support. Thats my opinion.

It's now signed by the President. No worry about it falling out of the bill now.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2012, 04:09 PM
  #610
TexasAirBoss
 
TexasAirBoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,972
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Regulation passed the House


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

Quote:
I fail to see any mention of california or caltrans in your post that I quoted. your rant was about arizona and its attempt to duplicate and then enforce federal immigration law and the federal response to arizona's action.
That is off topic, but you have the facts completely wrong. Arizone did not attempt to duplicate any federal law, their law only requires there officers to abide by federal laws in place.

Actually, the Arizona Law required brown people to carry proof of their citizenship.They could be arrested if they could not proof theirstatus.And yes, your comments were off topic and incorrect.You Georgia boysshould read a paper now and then and stop rewriting history.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us...s/24immig.html


And yes, we know the Bill was signed into law. I say we have the AMA to thank for that.
TexasAirBoss is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2012, 04:18 PM
  #611
JohnShe
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Regulation passed the House


Quote:
ORIGINAL: NorfolkSouthern

Epoxy is right: The letter writing campaign didn't get underway until the Senate voted unanimously to protect aircraft modeling. .....
Actually the senate voted unanimously only to put the amendment into the bill. After the letter campaign to both houses of congress, they passed the bill without removing the amendment. i don't believe that either vote was unanimous but is doesn't matter. We won! We won! Yeahhh, yeahhh, yeahhhhh! Boy am I hoarse.

I don't see the airport issue as a big deal. The law recommends that clubs establish long term arrangements with the airports. Only the lone rangers might have a problem.


JohnShe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2012, 04:44 PM
  #612
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Regulation passed the House


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

I wasn't actually asking about CalTrans, though that would be interesting as well. I was asking Silent about the issues at his club as they have a nearby airport insisting that they fly sailplanes below 400 feet. How this would work alongside the local laws and restrictions.
As I tried to indicate in an earlier post, I have no clue what you are talking about. None of the clubs I belong to have any issues with altitude nor are they near any airports.
Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2012, 07:35 PM
  #613
KidEpoxy
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

JohnShe
Quote:
I don't see the airport issue as a big deal. The law recommends that clubs establish long term arrangements with the airports. Only the lone rangers might have a problem.

I'll do this again-

Quote:
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation
It dont say 'lone wolfs' beg for permission.
It dont say 'lone wolfs' have to get special preferential treatment cause we are their buddy.
It says 'lone wolfs' provide them notice.... not ask them to review/accept/approve/ordain the notice given.


Lone wolfs seem to have it pretty good




now, should a cbo modeler find themselves at a fixed base of ops within 5m of airport,
congress also gave some advice of what we should do.
Note how the actual words used are not saying Shall/Must/Will do.
Quote:
(model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).

so, the regular way its done if we choose to fall under cogress' protection
(which means there is no congressional requirement to do so if you choose not to seek congress' protection)
is that we modelers TELL them what the deal is, in the form of 'prior notice',
and we have the option to follow congress' advice for us to mutually-agree upon on a set procedure with them.
("Mutually-agreed upon" dont mean "surrender and do what you're told")
KidEpoxy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2012, 07:51 PM
  #614
JohnShe
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Regulation passed the House


Quote:
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy


so, the regular way its done if we choose to fall under cogress' protection
(which means there is no congressional requirement to do so if you choose not to seek congress' protection)
is that we modelers TELL them what the deal is, in the form of 'prior notice',
and we have the option to follow congress' advice for us to mutually-agree upon on a set procedure with them.
("Mutually-agreed upon" dont mean "surrender and do what you're told")
First off, there is no such thing as congressional protection. I don't know what dark place you have pulled this bizarre idea out of. But you might want to wash the santorum off of it.

Secondly, I have said this before. And I'll say it again. If a lone ranger nails a notice to the tower door and goes flying, in all likelihood, law enforcement will appear. They will confiscate and probably destroy the lone ranger's equipment and throw his kiester in jail. If he really wants to fly, he will negotiate an arrangement with the airport for when, where and how high he can fly. It will just be more difficult because he won't have a CBO to back him up.


JohnShe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2012, 10:05 PM
  #615
KidEpoxy
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

Quote:
First off, there is no such thing as congressional protection.
???
Did you not read the law?

What do you call it
when congress protects modeling by making FAA harassment of cbo ops unlawful?

Is it too much of a leap for you to see that as congressional protection?
It came from congress.
It is protecting us.
What do you call it? Potato Salad?

Hmm, maybe Muncie dont consider what congress did as to be 'protection'
however, as seen at http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...odel-aviation/
Quote:
President signs FAA bill, includes protection for model aviation

Last week, Congress passed the first FAA Reauthorization bill in more than four years. The Bill included a special provision for model aircraft protecting it from FAA regulations.
I guess muncie DOES say its from "congress" and is "protection".
I would have figured all devout AMA followers
would know better than to contradict stuff muncie says, lest ye be labled AntiAMA



Quote:
Secondly, I have said this before. And I'll say it again. If a lone ranger nails a notice to the tower door and goes flying, in all likelihood, law enforcement will appear. They will confiscate and probably destroy the lone ranger's equipment and throw his kiester in jail.
wow, drama much?


that is an absolutely fascinating speculation.
Tell us, since you seems to know just so much about the law getting enforced onto us,
just what law would that modeler be charged with breaking?


or are you going to add some new special parameters to the simple act of giving notice-
like he is on someone else property, or that models are noisy, or that he has a warrant for parking tickets, or your county has a Destroy ALL Models ord that requires cops to stomp toy planes ... or some other Special case that results in him getting arrested for his Specialness rather than for notifying the airport?


So, how about telling us the actual law in violation
that you forecast will get the law enforcement out and destroying our equipment just for giving notice to an airport.
KidEpoxy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2012, 11:20 PM
  #616
TexasAirBoss
 
TexasAirBoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,972
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

I think that the notification process will be a non-event in 99.9999% of the cases. After all, is anyone really flying very near an active runway and aligned with it ? I doubt it. And if they are then they would have been negligent to not coordinate some procedures long ago. If you are no such a hazard to aviation then the notification process is a minor technicality. I see no need to fear it.

I think the big surprise to many clubs is that they may be closer to airports then they realize. If you look at a VFR sectional Chart you will be amazed just how many private airports there are. Private fields with a handful of airplanes or maybe just one airplane are located all over the countryside. As I read the new Law (for AMA/CBOers), we must notify even these tiny airports.

The public airports are run by bureaucrats, city, county, or state. Even if the FAA has operations located at the airport, the airport manager will be a city, county , or state employee. These bureaucrats may promulgate laws against MA, although they should have no cause to (unless they feel MA operations pose a threat to safety. But again, we already know not to fly at the end of an active runway)

I wish this discussion could move linearly. We seem to be going in circles.
TexasAirBoss is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 06:22 AM
  #617
rgburrill
 
rgburrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Trumbull, CT
Posts: 1,818
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Regulation passed the House


Quote:
ORIGINAL: United_Pilot


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

Quote:
I fail to see any mention of california or caltrans in your post that I quoted. your rant was about arizona and its attempt to duplicate and then enforce federal immigration law and the federal response to arizona's action.
That is off topic, but you have the facts completely wrong. Arizone did not attempt to duplicate any federal law, their law only requires there officers to abide by federal laws in place.

Actually, the Arizona Law required brown people to carry proof of their citizenship.They could be arrested if they could not proof theirstatus.And yes, your comments were off topic and incorrect.You Georgia boysshould read a paper now and then and stop rewriting history.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us...s/24immig.html


And yes, we know the Bill was signed into law. I say we have the AMA to thank for that.
And you should stop getting your political inforamtion from the left wing New York Times.
rgburrill is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 06:42 AM
  #618
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

Here's an amusing bit of information about news sources:

Quote:
Results showed that viewers of Sunday morning news shows were the most informed about current events, while Fox News viewers were the least informed. In fact, FDU poll results showed they (Fox News viewers) were even less informed than those who say they don’t watch any news at all.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoz...poll-suggests/

BTW - Forbes is one of the least left leaning publications there is.
Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 08:05 AM
  #619
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,913
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Regulation passed the House


Quote:
ORIGINAL: JohnShe


Quote:
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy


so, the regular way its done if we choose to fall under cogress' protection
(which means there is no congressional requirement to do so if you choose not to seek congress' protection)
is that we modelers TELL them what the deal is, in the form of 'prior notice',
and we have the option to follow congress' advice for us to mutually-agree upon on a set procedure with them.
("Mutually-agreed upon" dont mean "surrender and do what you're told")
First off, there is no such thing as congressional protection. I don't know what dark place you have pulled this bizarre idea out of. But you might want to wash the santorum off of it.

Secondly, I have said this before. And I'll say it again. If a lone ranger nails a notice to the tower door and goes flying, in all likelihood, law enforcement will appear. They will confiscate and probably destroy the lone ranger's equipment and throw his kiester in jail. If he really wants to fly, he will negotiate an arrangement with the airport for when, where and how high he can fly. It will just be more difficult because he won't have a CBO to back him up.


The FAA doesn't call law enforcemen on trivial matters. But if they did there would be no law for them to charge the modeler with.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 08:15 AM
  #620
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,913
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

Quote:
First off, there is no such thing as congressional protection.
Please take a civics course before you embarrass yourself again.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 08:20 AM
  #621
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,913
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

Quote:
Actually, the Arizona Law required brown people to carry proof of their citizenship.
US law requires that all immagrints carry documents. The Arizone law simply required police to check their documents.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 08:24 AM
  #622
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,913
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Regulation passed the House


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

Here's an amusing bit of information about news sources:

Quote:
Results showed that viewers of Sunday morning news shows were the most informed about current events, while Fox News viewers were the least informed. In fact, FDU poll results showed they (Fox News viewers) were even less informed than those who say they don’t watch any news at all.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoz...poll-suggests/

BTW - Forbes is one of the least left leaning publications there is.
Informed means you understand the issues as reported by Forbes and the NYTimes. Fox had a similar poll, guess what it said?
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 08:31 AM
  #623
KidEpoxy
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

Guys
Its not important WHAT states' foreigner laws say,
its important that the Fed took states to court for trying to have ANY foreigner laws... the current Executive branch is shutting down local laws that they feel step into FedOnly domain.
What that means for AMA members is
that we can cite that court/gov precedent when locals try to have ANY laws that step into Fed domain... like say.. the US NAS.

If locals cannot write foreigner laws because its a FedOnly subject,
then they likewise cannot rewrite FAA airspace classes and NAS Use ceilings

(thats an important part right there,
" 400ft " is not an air floor to protect THEIR ground items,
its LOCALS trying to set a air ceiling for Fed Authorized NAS Users)
KidEpoxy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 08:40 AM
  #624
KidEpoxy
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

Sport
Quote:
But if they did there would be no law for them to charge the modeler with.
You know that,
I know that,
lots of folks here know that
... but that truth interferes with the drama coming from the pots-stirrer


. . .

PilotF
Quote:
I think that the notification process will be a non-event in 99.9999% of the cases. After all, is anyone really flying very near an active runway and aligned with it ? I doubt it. And if they are then they would have been negligent to not coordinate some procedures long ago. If you are no such a hazard to aviation then the notification process is a minor technicality. I see no need to fear it.
yup

Quote:
I wish this discussion could move linearly. We seem to be going in circles.
I keep having to debunk the same garbage getting posted over & over
KidEpoxy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 09:07 AM
  #625
Red Scholefield
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Newberry, FL
Posts: 5,925
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

Quote:
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

I keep having to debunk the same garbage getting posted over & over
It is a shame that while the rest of us are enjoying building and flying models, you have been relegated to such an onerous task of garbage debunking. I would complain to whomever dumped this heavy responsibility on you. It just isn't fair!

Never in the history of modeling have so many been indebted to the dedication of one individual for bringing light into the dark corners.


Red Scholefield is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:07 AM.