AMA executive council accountability
12-30-2015, 06:36 AM
#76
My question only requires a YES or a NO answer.
Do you think the AMA did EVERYTHING they possibly could to avoid the mess we find ourselves in...?
If I thought they DID do everything possible [but failed], then I would applaud an honest effort and so on and so forth.
So this is my most basic question for folks to consider.
Did the AMA make the most honest effort possible to protect us from the inevitable government crackdown on drones or not...?
Last edited by combatpigg; 12-30-2015 at 06:43 AM.
12-30-2015, 06:51 AM
#77
And the presumption here is what..that the AMA didn't distance themselves and now look where we are? Nothing in the registration process even hints that this move would have made a difference. The FAA already knew our position on registration, they did what they wanted, and it didn't matter if what you fly is a .6 pound foamy or and 12 pound warbird. The govt wasn't going to take time to differentiate the myriad of aircraft entering the national air space just to satisfy our membership.
12-30-2015, 08:15 AM
#79
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Well, I think this is one of those can't win situations they find themselves in. You can't really dismiss this by saying "regardless if the situation was avoidable"...it simply wasn't. But, based on all of the press releases the AMA issued which clearly indicated their displeasure at the process (which they were criticized for issuing), as well as them filing legal actions, I'd have to say they sure did try to resist. And they have been criticized for that as well, naturally.
Do you think the AMA did EVERYTHING they possibly could to avoid the mess we find ourselves in...?
If I thought they DID do everything possible [but failed], then I would applaud an honest effort and so on and so forth.
So this is my most basic question for folks to consider.
Did the AMA make the most honest effort possible to protect us from the inevitable government crackdown on drones or not...?[/QUOTE]
Well, you might not get the response you want or are looking for when you force people to answer they way you want. Also, the question itself is opinion based, it can't be quantified with factual information (even after the fact). To the average poster here, I'm going to guess it looks like a trap question, and only one answer is desired. You can already figure out that most here will answer NO, and that will be followed by the requisite +1, and "i'm glad I'm not the only one who can see this". And the fact that people who won't answer yes or no will be criticized will bear that out, if anyone bothers to answer in the affirmative. Make the question less restrictive, with the ability to explain the answer, and you might find more responses. If that's what the goal of he question really is. That, and try to not jump all over someone with names, or stereotypes like "progressives" etc etc, that might lead to a better discussion where it might be possible to consider alternative viewpoints.
That, or perhaps this is a good question for a poll. A bit of advice, careful on the wording, folks 'round there parts are veery particular on poll question structure!
12-30-2015, 08:18 AM
#80
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once you figure this out and come to terms with that, you will the figure out the AMA is about R/C aviation. Not the preservation of one mode of flight.
Last edited by TimJ; 12-30-2015 at 08:26 AM.
12-30-2015, 08:23 AM
#81
My question only requires a YES or a NO answer.
Do you think the AMA did EVERYTHING they possibly could to avoid the mess we find ourselves in...?
When I ask questions like these, I know pretty well in advance who will be reluctant to answer and I also know why.
Last edited by combatpigg; 12-30-2015 at 08:26 AM.
12-30-2015, 08:26 AM
#82
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Well, you might not get the response you want or are looking for when you force people to answer they way you want. Also, the question itself is opinion based, it can't be quantified with factual information (even after the fact). To the average poster here, I'm going to guess it looks like a trap question, and only one answer is desired. You can already figure out that most here will answer NO, and that will be followed by the requisite +1, and "i'm glad I'm not the only one who can see this". And the fact that people who won't answer yes or no will be criticized will bear that out, if anyone bothers to answer in the affirmative. Make the question less restrictive, with the ability to explain the answer, and you might find more responses. If that's what the goal of he question really is. That, and try to not jump all over someone with names, or stereotypes like "progressives" etc etc, that might lead to a better discussion where it might be possible to consider alternative viewpoints.
That, or perhaps this is a good question for a poll. A bit of advice, careful on the wording, folks 'round there parts are veery particular on poll question structure!
That, or perhaps this is a good question for a poll. A bit of advice, careful on the wording, folks 'round there parts are veery particular on poll question structure!
Case closed, point proven. At least you are honest about your intentions, usually after the fact, I'll give you that. But there is nothing novel in that, it's visible from miles away.
So, when does the poll go up?
12-30-2015, 08:35 AM
#83
So, when does the poll go up?[/QUOTE]
I don't have any use for a poll here, but feel free to host one of your own.
12-30-2015, 08:45 AM
#84
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
And here I was thinking you were looking for real answers to your question...... Looks like your intended prey fell for the carefully laid out question trap once again and answered! If only I had seen it coming.
Oh well, I thought a poll would have been fun. It's been at least a week or so since the last one.
man this quoting thing is messed up today....systems must be slowing down or taking some time off.
12-30-2015, 08:54 AM
#85
Sorry, but I don't buy it... the slippery slope started with computer programmable radios that allowed you to automate and mix functions.
It started when the pin board disappeared and 72mhz was not needed. The aircraft had better control and could not be knocked out of the sky by simply turning on another radio tuned to that frequency.
It started with mechanical gyros on the tails of helicopters, that progressed to accurate computer chip gyros from the gaming industry.
It really started with airplanes and helicopters using Lithium Polymer batteries with high power density, quick discharge and recharge rates.
Everything that it took to put a multi-rotor in the air evolved from model airplanes and helicopters. As the proud parents of the multi-rotor, you want to throw the baby to the crocs. Nice parenting skills.
It started when the pin board disappeared and 72mhz was not needed. The aircraft had better control and could not be knocked out of the sky by simply turning on another radio tuned to that frequency.
It started with mechanical gyros on the tails of helicopters, that progressed to accurate computer chip gyros from the gaming industry.
It really started with airplanes and helicopters using Lithium Polymer batteries with high power density, quick discharge and recharge rates.
Everything that it took to put a multi-rotor in the air evolved from model airplanes and helicopters. As the proud parents of the multi-rotor, you want to throw the baby to the crocs. Nice parenting skills.
Astro
12-30-2015, 09:51 AM
#87
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: TITUSVILLE FLORIDA NY
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do you like the flying field closures in the Washington DC area.
Perhaps your field will be next?
So because there are many agencies of government that are effective and do good
are they all good?
Are we to ignore the agencies that are ineffective and do harm ?
I did not say all government is bad, but it seems like you feel because of the good
we should acquiesce to the bad.
You, are engaging in reductio ad absurdum, not me.
In the above post and I believe prior posts none of the suggested scenarios are absurd,untenable and considering
today closures of fields, false.
At least that is Wikipedias take on reductio ad absurdum, yeah I had to look it up.
Perhaps your field will be next?
So because there are many agencies of government that are effective and do good
are they all good?
Are we to ignore the agencies that are ineffective and do harm ?
I did not say all government is bad, but it seems like you feel because of the good
we should acquiesce to the bad.
You, are engaging in reductio ad absurdum, not me.
In the above post and I believe prior posts none of the suggested scenarios are absurd,untenable and considering
today closures of fields, false.
At least that is Wikipedias take on reductio ad absurdum, yeah I had to look it up.
12-30-2015, 09:57 AM
#89
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: TITUSVILLE FLORIDA NY
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THE AMA WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE
[h=1] U.S. Senate Committee On Commerce, Science, & Transportation Senator John Thune, Chairman * Senator Bill Nelson, Ranking Member [/h]
March 24, 2015, but Amazon was in attendance.
Did they do all they could ?
They were out flying their drones.
[h=1] U.S. Senate Committee On Commerce, Science, & Transportation Senator John Thune, Chairman * Senator Bill Nelson, Ranking Member [/h]
March 24, 2015, but Amazon was in attendance.
Did they do all they could ?
They were out flying their drones.
12-30-2015, 02:16 PM
#90
[QUOTE=porcia.............
And here I was thinking you were looking for real answers to your question......[/QUOTE]
This question is what I want forum viewers / readers to reflect on as the dust settles.
This is one of the most important questions [to me] because this is the bottom line when I evaluate the performance of anyone I have working for me.
And here I was thinking you were looking for real answers to your question......
[/QUOTE]This question is what I want forum viewers / readers to reflect on as the dust settles.
This is one of the most important questions [to me] because this is the bottom line when I evaluate the performance of anyone I have working for me.
12-30-2015, 04:23 PM
#91
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: TITUSVILLE FLORIDA NY
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Combat
My Uncle and myself have been curious about the AMA's possible lawsuit against the FAA.
Will the AMA really bring action against the FAA?
What will be the result of the action?
Whatever the answers are, I believe in holding people accountable, especially people who
I have a fiduciary relationship with, as we all do with the AMA.
The AMA has employed former FAA employees in key AMA board positions with pretty bad results.
I want the AMA to realize their membership is watching every move they make concerning this FAA issue. We expect complete transparency
and accountability on their part. No half hearted legal efforts designed to pacify their membership will be acceptable.
It is interesting that Chad Budreau, did not identify by name, the lawyer or lawyers of the primary firm or the operators, whatever that is.
My Uncle asked"Who will be the law firm representing the AMA ?
Only that they are "internationally recognized". So are certain jewel thieves. Ha Ha
That seems kind of evasive.
Why not just tell us the names, even if the batting line could change?
Here is the exchange between my Uncle and a representative from the AMA concerning the possible lawsuit
------Forwarded message------
From: M.F.
Date: Wed, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:20 PM
Subject: Forthcoming Legal Representation
To: Bill Pritchett >
Dear Mr Pritchett;
Would you kindly advise me whether the most recent letter sent to our members ( me included) with regards holding off registration because the AMA has indicated that it intended to defend the interests of it’s members which may include taking the FAA into Federal Court for violating existing statutory congressional arrangements.
I specifically refer to USC #336 – As well I would ask who will be the Law Firm representing the AMA ? And if that firm has a history of any connection with the FAA, as that may not be in our best interests depending on they appeared in an adversarial matter.
Respectfully Requested
M.F.
From: Chad Budreau
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 1:23 PM
To: M.F.
Cc: Bill Pritchett
Subject: Re: Forthcoming Legal Representation
Mr. F,
Bill Pritchett asked if I could reply to your email.
Yes, we are working with legal counsel to address the US Court of Appeals. As you correctly indicated, the FAA registration runs counter to Congress’ intent in Section 336. We consult with a few legal operations, but the primary firm we use is internationally recognized and specializes in aviation and aerospace. Their Principals include former FAA staff who are intimate with FAA’s policy making procedures including the previous manager of the FAA Unmanned Aircraft Integration Office James H. Williams.
Best,
Chad
Chad Budreau
Academy of Model Aeronautics
765.287.1256 x227
My Uncle and myself have been curious about the AMA's possible lawsuit against the FAA.
Will the AMA really bring action against the FAA?
What will be the result of the action?
Whatever the answers are, I believe in holding people accountable, especially people who
I have a fiduciary relationship with, as we all do with the AMA.
The AMA has employed former FAA employees in key AMA board positions with pretty bad results.
I want the AMA to realize their membership is watching every move they make concerning this FAA issue. We expect complete transparency
and accountability on their part. No half hearted legal efforts designed to pacify their membership will be acceptable.
It is interesting that Chad Budreau, did not identify by name, the lawyer or lawyers of the primary firm or the operators, whatever that is.
My Uncle asked"Who will be the law firm representing the AMA ?
Only that they are "internationally recognized". So are certain jewel thieves. Ha Ha
That seems kind of evasive.
Why not just tell us the names, even if the batting line could change?
Here is the exchange between my Uncle and a representative from the AMA concerning the possible lawsuit
------Forwarded message------
From: M.F.
Date: Wed, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:20 PM
Subject: Forthcoming Legal Representation
To: Bill Pritchett >
Dear Mr Pritchett;
Would you kindly advise me whether the most recent letter sent to our members ( me included) with regards holding off registration because the AMA has indicated that it intended to defend the interests of it’s members which may include taking the FAA into Federal Court for violating existing statutory congressional arrangements.
I specifically refer to USC #336 – As well I would ask who will be the Law Firm representing the AMA ? And if that firm has a history of any connection with the FAA, as that may not be in our best interests depending on they appeared in an adversarial matter.
Respectfully Requested
M.F.
From: Chad Budreau
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 1:23 PM
To: M.F.
Cc: Bill Pritchett
Subject: Re: Forthcoming Legal Representation
Mr. F,
Bill Pritchett asked if I could reply to your email.
Yes, we are working with legal counsel to address the US Court of Appeals. As you correctly indicated, the FAA registration runs counter to Congress’ intent in Section 336. We consult with a few legal operations, but the primary firm we use is internationally recognized and specializes in aviation and aerospace. Their Principals include former FAA staff who are intimate with FAA’s policy making procedures including the previous manager of the FAA Unmanned Aircraft Integration Office James H. Williams.
Best,
Chad
Chad Budreau
Academy of Model Aeronautics
765.287.1256 x227
12-30-2015, 04:54 PM
#92
Hi Combat
My Uncle and myself have been curious about the AMA's possible lawsuit against the FAA.
Will the AMA really bring action against the FAA?
What will be the result of the action?
Whatever the answers are, I believe in holding people accountable, especially people who
I have a fiduciary relationship with, as we all do with the AMA.
The AMA has employed former FAA employees in key AMA board positions with pretty bad results.
I want the AMA to realize their membership is watching every move they make concerning this FAA issue. We expect complete transparency
and accountability on their part. No half hearted legal efforts designed to pacify their membership will be acceptable.
It is interesting that Chad Budreau, did not identify by name, the lawyer or lawyers of the primary firm or the operators, whatever that is.
My Uncle asked"Who will be the law firm representing the AMA ?
Only that they are "internationally recognized". So are certain jewel thieves. Ha Ha
That seems kind of evasive.
Why not just tell us the names, even if the batting line could change?
Here is the exchange between my Uncle and a representative from the AMA concerning the possible lawsuit
------Forwarded message------
From: M.F.
Date: Wed, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:20 PM
Subject: Forthcoming Legal Representation
To: Bill Pritchett <mailto:[email protected]%3cmailto:billp@mod elaircraft.org>>
Dear Mr Pritchett;
Would you kindly advise me whether the most recent letter sent to our members ( me included) with regards holding off registration because the AMA has indicated that it intended to defend the interests of it’s members which may include taking the FAA into Federal Court for violating existing statutory congressional arrangements.
I specifically refer to USC #336 – As well I would ask who will be the Law Firm representing the AMA ? And if that firm has a history of any connection with the FAA, as that may not be in our best interests depending on they appeared in an adversarial matter.
Respectfully Requested
M.F.
From: Chad Budreau
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 1:23 PM
To: M.F.
Cc: Bill Pritchett
Subject: Re: Forthcoming Legal Representation
Mr. F,
Bill Pritchett asked if I could reply to your email.
Yes, we are working with legal counsel to address the US Court of Appeals. As you correctly indicated, the FAA registration runs counter to Congress’ intent in Section 336. We consult with a few legal operations, but the primary firm we use is internationally recognized and specializes in aviation and aerospace. Their Principals include former FAA staff who are intimate with FAA’s policy making procedures including the previous manager of the FAA Unmanned Aircraft Integration Office James H. Williams.
Best,
Chad
Chad Budreau
Academy of Model Aeronautics
765.287.1256 x227
My Uncle and myself have been curious about the AMA's possible lawsuit against the FAA.
Will the AMA really bring action against the FAA?
What will be the result of the action?
Whatever the answers are, I believe in holding people accountable, especially people who
I have a fiduciary relationship with, as we all do with the AMA.
The AMA has employed former FAA employees in key AMA board positions with pretty bad results.
I want the AMA to realize their membership is watching every move they make concerning this FAA issue. We expect complete transparency
and accountability on their part. No half hearted legal efforts designed to pacify their membership will be acceptable.
It is interesting that Chad Budreau, did not identify by name, the lawyer or lawyers of the primary firm or the operators, whatever that is.
My Uncle asked"Who will be the law firm representing the AMA ?
Only that they are "internationally recognized". So are certain jewel thieves. Ha Ha
That seems kind of evasive.
Why not just tell us the names, even if the batting line could change?
Here is the exchange between my Uncle and a representative from the AMA concerning the possible lawsuit
------Forwarded message------
From: M.F.
Date: Wed, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:20 PM
Subject: Forthcoming Legal Representation
To: Bill Pritchett <mailto:[email protected]%3cmailto:billp@mod elaircraft.org>>
Dear Mr Pritchett;
Would you kindly advise me whether the most recent letter sent to our members ( me included) with regards holding off registration because the AMA has indicated that it intended to defend the interests of it’s members which may include taking the FAA into Federal Court for violating existing statutory congressional arrangements.
I specifically refer to USC #336 – As well I would ask who will be the Law Firm representing the AMA ? And if that firm has a history of any connection with the FAA, as that may not be in our best interests depending on they appeared in an adversarial matter.
Respectfully Requested
M.F.
From: Chad Budreau
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 1:23 PM
To: M.F.
Cc: Bill Pritchett
Subject: Re: Forthcoming Legal Representation
Mr. F,
Bill Pritchett asked if I could reply to your email.
Yes, we are working with legal counsel to address the US Court of Appeals. As you correctly indicated, the FAA registration runs counter to Congress’ intent in Section 336. We consult with a few legal operations, but the primary firm we use is internationally recognized and specializes in aviation and aerospace. Their Principals include former FAA staff who are intimate with FAA’s policy making procedures including the previous manager of the FAA Unmanned Aircraft Integration Office James H. Williams.
Best,
Chad
Chad Budreau
Academy of Model Aeronautics
765.287.1256 x227
Could this be it? Dentons?
http://www.dentons.com/en/find-your-...aerospace.aspx
12-30-2015, 05:04 PM
#93
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
THE AMA WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE
U.S. Senate Committee On Commerce, Science, & Transportation Senator John Thune, Chairman * Senator Bill Nelson, Ranking Member
March 24, 2015, but Amazon was in attendance.
Did they do all they could ?
They were out flying their drones.
U.S. Senate Committee On Commerce, Science, & Transportation Senator John Thune, Chairman * Senator Bill Nelson, Ranking Member
March 24, 2015, but Amazon was in attendance.
Did they do all they could ?
They were out flying their drones.
So how did this whole thing work out for Amazon? Can you or your uncle comment on that? Did their attendance at this committee hearing lead to a positive outcome for Amazon?
Also, link still doesn't work.
12-30-2015, 06:58 PM
#95
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: TITUSVILLE FLORIDA NY
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the link to the committee and the testimony presented
http://www.commerce.senate.gov/publi...-9938-2017A3E8
or google US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation with date
meeting 3/24/15
or if you prefer here is every ones testimony but I think the site has video testimony .it has all testimony broken down by witness
Paul Misener i from Amazon
http://www.commerce.senate.gov/publi...-9938-2017A3E8
or google US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation with date
meeting 3/24/15
or if you prefer here is every ones testimony but I think the site has video testimony .it has all testimony broken down by witness
Paul Misener i from Amazon
- 3 24 15 UAS Hearing QFRs_Dillingham Gerald.pdf (173.9 KBs)
- 3 24 15 UAS Hearing QFRs_Villasenor John.pdf (158.4 KBs)
- 3 24 15 UAS Hearing QFRs_Misener Paul.pdf (219.6 KBs)
- 3 24 15 UAS Hearing QFRs_Gilligan Margaret.pdf (236.9 KBs)
- 3 24 15 UAS Hearing QFRs_Morris John.pdf (155.7 KBs)
- 3 24 15 UAS Hearing QFRs_VanderWerff Jeff.pdf (236.6 KBs)
12-30-2015, 07:25 PM
#96
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Here is the link to the committee and the testimony presented
http://www.commerce.senate.gov/publi...-9938-2017A3E8
or google US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation with date
meeting 3/24/15
or if you prefer here is every ones testimony but I think the site has video testimony .it has all testimony broken down by witness
Paul Misener i from Amazon
http://www.commerce.senate.gov/publi...-9938-2017A3E8
or google US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation with date
meeting 3/24/15
or if you prefer here is every ones testimony but I think the site has video testimony .it has all testimony broken down by witness
Paul Misener i from Amazon
- 3 24 15 UAS Hearing QFRs_Dillingham Gerald.pdf (173.9 KBs)
- 3 24 15 UAS Hearing QFRs_Villasenor John.pdf (158.4 KBs)
- 3 24 15 UAS Hearing QFRs_Misener Paul.pdf (219.6 KBs)
- 3 24 15 UAS Hearing QFRs_Gilligan Margaret.pdf (236.9 KBs)
- 3 24 15 UAS Hearing QFRs_Morris John.pdf (155.7 KBs)
- 3 24 15 UAS Hearing QFRs_VanderWerff Jeff.pdf (236.6 KBs)
Say..of those folks who testified, want to guess how many just happened to pop on in on the odd chance someone had questions for them? Wait what.... they had to be invited? You don't say, a person or group can't just barge in and demand to be heard? That's an interesting list, certainly not the most representative of ALL interested parties now is it? Wonder if folks from NASA and Google were off flying their drones that day?
12-30-2015, 08:02 PM
#97
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: TITUSVILLE FLORIDA NY
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So google the title
The pdfs present the testimony directly to you any way just a click away.
I think you don't really want to read the testimony.
So ,You would consider the AMA attending a meeting concerning model aircraft
barging in ?
Inviting the AMA would be a stretch, right?
Yeah not having the AMA at the FAA meeting would be so much better, for the FAA.
No, NASA and Google weren't droning it,
the AMA board was flying their DJI complimentary drones.
The pdfs present the testimony directly to you any way just a click away.
I think you don't really want to read the testimony.
So ,You would consider the AMA attending a meeting concerning model aircraft
barging in ?
Inviting the AMA would be a stretch, right?
Yeah not having the AMA at the FAA meeting would be so much better, for the FAA.
No, NASA and Google weren't droning it,
the AMA board was flying their DJI complimentary drones.
12-30-2015, 08:14 PM
#98
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
So google the title
The pdfs present the testimony directly to you any way just a click away.
I think you don't really want to read the testimony.
So ,You would consider the AMA attending a meeting concerning model aircraft
barging in ?
Inviting the AMA would be a stretch, right?
Yeah not having the AMA at the FAA meeting would be so much better, for the FAA.
No, NASA and Google weren't droning it,
the AMA board was flying their DJI complimentary drones.
The pdfs present the testimony directly to you any way just a click away.
I think you don't really want to read the testimony.
So ,You would consider the AMA attending a meeting concerning model aircraft
barging in ?
Inviting the AMA would be a stretch, right?
Yeah not having the AMA at the FAA meeting would be so much better, for the FAA.
No, NASA and Google weren't droning it,
the AMA board was flying their DJI complimentary drones.
If you're not familiar with committee hearings, the calling of witnesses etc, read up on it, or better yet write to your representatives and ask them how it works. They might tell you that every interested or involved party in the world isn't going to be called as a witness, that's just how it goes. Gee, not so long ago hearings were held on Planned Parenthood and they weren't invited to testify. Imagine that? Blaming someone for not getting invited is so transparent it's comical. This is a new one even for the most rabid of the anti-AMA folk. I do like though how you changed from noting that they weren't called as witnesses, to now saying "attending the meeting". Two completely different things, but why split hairs right? By the way, can you provide a list of all those folks who "attended" the testimony but didn't actually testify?
12-30-2015, 09:10 PM
#99
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (86)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mayhill, New Mexico TX
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that even though several of those on this thread are preaching compromise ("even though it sucks"), and give in because it's no big deal, we should continue fight the unwinnable fight, try to stuff the genie back in the bottle or whatever we have to do. Here's why -
Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.
Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.
Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
12-30-2015, 10:21 PM
#100
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: TITUSVILLE FLORIDA NY
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, when the AMA was not invited to testify,
What was there response to us?
Or do you believe the have no obligation to keep us informed?
Were they vocal?
Outraged ?
Bothered?
Did the AMA express any disappoint, shock , indignation over not being invited in the MA magazine?
Any e-mails ?
I don't remember if they did or did not.
Should they have communicated anything to us about their absence?
My use of the terms invited or attended was in response to language used in other posts.
How could I blame the AMA for not being invited?
I could blame them for not telling us about it, or not wanting to attend.
But splitting hairs is your way
Your really are concerned with blaming someone aren't you?
But the AMA is not a someone , is it?
You kind of lost sight of that.
It is a organization, of people, who are entrusted with a fiduciary responsibility.
That responsibility is to represent our goals provide us with insurance , information in a monthly magazine and emails.
It is an entity, not a person, even though it is comprised of people.
But you insist on anthropomorphizing this entity solely to prove your point and then you classify people who are anti-AMA as
being infected with rabies. Again you revert to your type which is to employ ad hominem argumentation to bolster your position.
Something, I believe, I have not done in any of these posts.
As clever as you may be, I do not think you are as clever as you consider yourself to be.
As far as providing a list of all the "folks" your reference,(what was this hearing held in a barn) who "attended" (why the ") but did not testify,
I have done enough of your homework for you. I think you are fully capable of finding the information you want on your own.
Remember, when you do it yourself , that builds self-esteem.
So please, and I am not blaming you or accusing you, imputing ,for not doing it on your own, yet, feel better now.
Do it yourself.
[h=2][/h]
What was there response to us?
Or do you believe the have no obligation to keep us informed?
Were they vocal?
Outraged ?
Bothered?
Did the AMA express any disappoint, shock , indignation over not being invited in the MA magazine?
Any e-mails ?
I don't remember if they did or did not.
Should they have communicated anything to us about their absence?
My use of the terms invited or attended was in response to language used in other posts.
How could I blame the AMA for not being invited?
I could blame them for not telling us about it, or not wanting to attend.
But splitting hairs is your way
Your really are concerned with blaming someone aren't you?
But the AMA is not a someone , is it?
You kind of lost sight of that.
It is a organization, of people, who are entrusted with a fiduciary responsibility.
That responsibility is to represent our goals provide us with insurance , information in a monthly magazine and emails.
It is an entity, not a person, even though it is comprised of people.
But you insist on anthropomorphizing this entity solely to prove your point and then you classify people who are anti-AMA as
being infected with rabies. Again you revert to your type which is to employ ad hominem argumentation to bolster your position.
Something, I believe, I have not done in any of these posts.
As clever as you may be, I do not think you are as clever as you consider yourself to be.
As far as providing a list of all the "folks" your reference,(what was this hearing held in a barn) who "attended" (why the ") but did not testify,
I have done enough of your homework for you. I think you are fully capable of finding the information you want on your own.
Remember, when you do it yourself , that builds self-esteem.
So please, and I am not blaming you or accusing you, imputing ,for not doing it on your own, yet, feel better now.
Do it yourself.
[h=2][/h]