Serial Numbers on AMA Ballots ????
09-23-2016, 08:22 AM
#151
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Not sure what you mean there, honestly. I get the continued attack/characterization thing because I'm a leader member ( did you apply yet), but are you saying the push back on the ama is coming from me, and others? I thought I was clear that I don't have a problem with in-house counting of ballots. Why do you keep trying to play the role of someone who has been attacked just because your comments aren't agreed with. So far I've seen no name calling etc, certainly not to the extent coming in other directions.
09-23-2016, 08:27 AM
#152
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
And where is that "red teaming" at the EC level? Not only is it not happening, members are actively advocating ignorance of an issue as a strategy! EVP brought up concern over safety, and his suggestion to use quantifiable methods to control risk was met with another EC member saying "we don’t want to call attention to numbers; there could be unintended consequences [emphasis added]."
It seems those operations would be a good place to start red teaming efforts. But the key to success of red teaming (and I've done a ton of it at NWC, combat planning, etc.) is to have someone running the red team that thinks as differently as possible from those on the blue team.
It seems those operations would be a good place to start red teaming efforts. But the key to success of red teaming (and I've done a ton of it at NWC, combat planning, etc.) is to have someone running the red team that thinks as differently as possible from those on the blue team.
09-23-2016, 08:32 AM
#153
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
At this point you probably realize anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion. The fact that you have volunteered not only as an AVP but a DVP is also being used a sort of a weapon. You are seemingly unable to voice an opinion on any issue. I applaud your restraint...and your service as well. When folks wonder why the AMA doesn't have a big presence here, why candidates looking for voters won't even avail themselves of a chance to interact with voters, they need only look at this. It's disappointing, truly.
09-23-2016, 08:37 AM
#154
Banned
My Feedback: (788)
At this point you probably realize anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion. The fact that you have volunteered not only as an AVP but a DVP is also being used a sort of a weapon. You are seemingly unable to voice an opinion on any issue. I applaud your restraint...and your service as well. When folks wonder why the AMA doesn't have a big presence here, why candidates looking for voters won't even avail themselves of a chance to interact with voters, they need only look at this. It's disappointing, truly.
09-23-2016, 08:42 AM
#155
First of all I think the Expo East and the Drome Summit are good ideas and benefit the hobby. I wouldn't mind a 3rd Expo somewhere in the center of the country like in Dallas, Colorado Springs, or Kansas City to make it easier for the members in the center of the country to attend.
As for the comments on the FAA regs the AMA can advise but they have no leverage over the FAA once they make up their minds. As for the lack of specifics on how to contact in the regulations this is common with all government agencies and Congressional actions. Read a couple bills in Congress sometime your head will spin. The explanation is to allow for changing technologies, logistics at individual locations etc.
Back to the election counting I have no beef with the current system and haven't seen anything but opinion put forth as fact to support doing anything different. If there have been past irregularities then now is the time to put up the evidence or if you have no evidence besides gossip, innuendo, and rumor, shut up. You are wasting our time with B.S. If you don't like the system then leave, no one makes you write the check for your AMA dues each year but you. The rest of us can live without having to listen to the rambling of a few obnoxious crackpot paranoids.
As for the comments on the FAA regs the AMA can advise but they have no leverage over the FAA once they make up their minds. As for the lack of specifics on how to contact in the regulations this is common with all government agencies and Congressional actions. Read a couple bills in Congress sometime your head will spin. The explanation is to allow for changing technologies, logistics at individual locations etc.
Back to the election counting I have no beef with the current system and haven't seen anything but opinion put forth as fact to support doing anything different. If there have been past irregularities then now is the time to put up the evidence or if you have no evidence besides gossip, innuendo, and rumor, shut up. You are wasting our time with B.S. If you don't like the system then leave, no one makes you write the check for your AMA dues each year but you. The rest of us can live without having to listen to the rambling of a few obnoxious crackpot paranoids.
09-23-2016, 09:06 AM
#156
......Name calling - This is something that I see going on a lot in here. Any name calling meant to degrade or put down a member will be removed immediately......
........There is one thing that IS NOT a violation of the rules. That is negative comments about the AMA. I have had members contacting me wanting me to remove posts that the only problem with was that they were saying something bad about the AMA. As long as the post is done in accordance with the RCU Community Rules it won't be removed. No organization is perfect, and the AMA is no different. Problems with an organization can only be fixed if they are brought out into the open and discussed by everybody. This forum is here specifically for discussions of the AMA, no matter if those items are good things or bad things about the AMA. All viewpoints will be allowed to be posted in this forum, as long as they comply with the RCU rules......
Ken
........There is one thing that IS NOT a violation of the rules. That is negative comments about the AMA. I have had members contacting me wanting me to remove posts that the only problem with was that they were saying something bad about the AMA. As long as the post is done in accordance with the RCU Community Rules it won't be removed. No organization is perfect, and the AMA is no different. Problems with an organization can only be fixed if they are brought out into the open and discussed by everybody. This forum is here specifically for discussions of the AMA, no matter if those items are good things or bad things about the AMA. All viewpoints will be allowed to be posted in this forum, as long as they comply with the RCU rules......
Ken
Nuff Said ..
09-23-2016, 09:39 AM
#158
Yep , but with not much to say other than to post a direct quote from Ken of what he expects for behavior in these threads . As I said yesterday , I'll walk away when there is conflict , and walk back in when I see I have something relevant to add to the discussion . And seeing the sentence of yours that I quoted , I believe the direct quote I posted from Ken is mighty relevant indeed .
Nuff Said ....
09-23-2016, 10:52 AM
#159
As to the application, it's partial, but it took a back seat to taking the 107 test, an out of state college visit, and some minor surgery. I'll get to it, but I fully expect it to end up in the trash alongside my ballot or, perhaps I'll get the courtesy of a denial. Given the lack of objective standards, particularly for the scientific technical category, not sure how they could justify the denial, but I'm confident they'll find a way.
Lastly, the pushback is on the idea for independent ballot counting, for spending more on fields where members fly than at Muncie, more transparency on financial issues, or a number of other issues. I would say that the College of Cardinals and the Nobility are, with few exceptions, vigorous defenders of the status quo - aka "the way we've always done it."
As for the spending outside of Muncie vs Muncie, I was not able to find specifics in the minutes for Muncie spending other than in 2016. Similarly, flying site grants were not consistently reported in the minutes either, in fact I found totals only for years 2016, 2013, 2009, and 2004. Perhaps the consistent absence of complete information is to obfuscate the allocation of dollars, perhaps just sloppy minutes recording, or outright omission. Regardless, its not easy to find the information. Why is it so difficult to find out how member's money is being spent?
09-23-2016, 01:30 PM
#160
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
As for the attention to the College of Cardinals and Nobility (EC & Leader Members), that's due to the special trust and confidence conferred on those groups by the organization, if not merely due to the agreement to "Conduct myself as befits a Leader" and/or "Always project a positive AMA public image." I don't know that belittling concerns of members in forums fits either, but that's just me.
As to the application, it's partial, but it took a back seat to taking the 107 test, an out of state college visit, and some minor surgery. I'll get to it, but I fully expect it to end up in the trash alongside my ballot or, perhaps I'll get the courtesy of a denial. Given the lack of objective standards, particularly for the scientific technical category, not sure how they could justify the denial, but I'm confident they'll find a way.
Lastly, the pushback is on the idea for independent ballot counting, for spending more on fields where members fly than at Muncie, more transparency on financial issues, or a number of other issues. I would say that the College of Cardinals and the Nobility are, with few exceptions, vigorous defenders of the status quo - aka "the way we've always done it."
As for the spending outside of Muncie vs Muncie, I was not able to find specifics in the minutes for Muncie spending other than in 2016. Similarly, flying site grants were not consistently reported in the minutes either, in fact I found totals only for years 2016, 2013, 2009, and 2004. Perhaps the consistent absence of complete information is to obfuscate the allocation of dollars, perhaps just sloppy minutes recording, or outright omission. Regardless, its not easy to find the information. Why is it so difficult to find out how member's money is being spent?
As to the application, it's partial, but it took a back seat to taking the 107 test, an out of state college visit, and some minor surgery. I'll get to it, but I fully expect it to end up in the trash alongside my ballot or, perhaps I'll get the courtesy of a denial. Given the lack of objective standards, particularly for the scientific technical category, not sure how they could justify the denial, but I'm confident they'll find a way.
Lastly, the pushback is on the idea for independent ballot counting, for spending more on fields where members fly than at Muncie, more transparency on financial issues, or a number of other issues. I would say that the College of Cardinals and the Nobility are, with few exceptions, vigorous defenders of the status quo - aka "the way we've always done it."
As for the spending outside of Muncie vs Muncie, I was not able to find specifics in the minutes for Muncie spending other than in 2016. Similarly, flying site grants were not consistently reported in the minutes either, in fact I found totals only for years 2016, 2013, 2009, and 2004. Perhaps the consistent absence of complete information is to obfuscate the allocation of dollars, perhaps just sloppy minutes recording, or outright omission. Regardless, its not easy to find the information. Why is it so difficult to find out how member's money is being spent?
09-23-2016, 01:45 PM
#161
I'm back with another relevant comment .......
Since you called out Franklin's sarcastic use of the "College of Cardinals" , which yes of course I do believe his intent is sarcasm , it now makes your use of your sig line to post sarcastic taunts to the board fair game to be called out as well , don't ya think ? So tell me , exactly how does the sarcastic sig lines "where is the fraud" and "Agenda brotherhood #4" make you look like the "better" RCU poster than Franklin's "Cardinals" sarcasm make him ?
You reap what you sow .........
09-23-2016, 01:47 PM
#162
I've said it before, for an organization you hold in such contempt, I'm at a loss to understand why you want to be a part of it, and now seek additional recognition as a Leader Member. Accusing the very group you want to be a part of of engaging in fraud and intentionally destroying your paperwork is disappointing. I get that they are not the organization you want them to be, but the accusations and the whole unwashed masses/cardinal things of late just doesn't seem in character. Nonetheless, go for it. Perhaps if you are more involved and participatory with clubs and the AMA in general your perspective will change.
As to why I want to continue being a part of it, let's just say I'm like an onion. Onions have layers. I have layers. Onions have layers. You get it? We both have layers.
You're right, they're not the organization I think they can be. At a time when our hobby can ill afford negative attention, we have senior leaders wanting to avoid discussions of numbers, lest they bring unintended consequences. I call that denial. And so long as the rest of the EC allows such comments, then it shows me that there's a dangerous cultural issue - one that could mean the end of the hobby as we know it. As I've said before, I'm trying to do what I can to get them to think differently. Like most organizations that are mired in "the way we've always done it," and thus blind to the changes that happened around them, my fear is that change will come too late - after that "one event" that Hanson spoke of in the most recent minutes.
09-23-2016, 02:18 PM
#163
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I'm back with another relevant comment ....... Since you called out Franklin's sarcastic use of the "College of Cardinals" , which yes of course I do believe his intent is sarcasm , it now makes your use of your sig line to post sarcastic taunts to the board fair game to be called out as well , don't ya think ? So tell me , exactly how does the sarcastic sig lines "where is the fraud" and "Agenda brotherhood #4" make you look like the "better" RCU poster than Franklin's "Cardinals" sarcasm make him ?
You reap what you sow .........
09-23-2016, 02:20 PM
#164
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
As to why I want to continue being a part of it, let's just say I'm like an onion. Onions have layers. I have layers. Onions have layers. You get it? We both have layers.
You're right, they're not the organization I think they can be. At a time when our hobby can ill afford negative attention, we have senior leaders wanting to avoid discussions of numbers, lest they bring unintended consequences. I call that denial. And so long as the rest of the EC allows such comments, then it shows me that there's a dangerous cultural issue - one that could mean the end of the hobby as we know it. As I've said before, I'm trying to do what I can to get them to think differently. Like most organizations that are mired in "the way we've always done it," and thus blind to the changes that happened around them, my fear is that change will come too late - after that "one event" that Hanson spoke of in the most recent minutes.
You're right, they're not the organization I think they can be. At a time when our hobby can ill afford negative attention, we have senior leaders wanting to avoid discussions of numbers, lest they bring unintended consequences. I call that denial. And so long as the rest of the EC allows such comments, then it shows me that there's a dangerous cultural issue - one that could mean the end of the hobby as we know it. As I've said before, I'm trying to do what I can to get them to think differently. Like most organizations that are mired in "the way we've always done it," and thus blind to the changes that happened around them, my fear is that change will come too late - after that "one event" that Hanson spoke of in the most recent minutes.
09-23-2016, 02:48 PM
#166
Perhaps our leaders, and fellow members, don't see a need to enhance a process that is working just fine. And by enhance, I mean spend a lot of money for no good reason other than to satisfy 4 or 5 people. If you could put forth a good case for doing that, as in show where the process isn't working,
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-...t-ballots.html
Almost 63% of the respondents voted for outside counting of the votes. Yes, I know, hardly a scientific poll, but I posted it to counter your comment, "other than to satisfy 4 or 5 people". Just more of your spin and deflection.
Regards,
Astro
09-23-2016, 02:52 PM
#168
I'm back with another relevant comment ....... Since you called out Franklin's sarcastic use of the "College of Cardinals" , which yes of course I do believe his intent is sarcasm , it now makes your use of your sig line to post sarcastic taunts to the board fair game to be called out as well , don't ya think ? So tell me , exactly how does the sarcastic sig lines "where is the fraud" and "Agenda brotherhood #4" make you look like the "better" RCU poster than Franklin's "Cardinals" sarcasm make him ?
You reap what you sow .........
Franklin isn't claiming to be representing the AMA here . You are . Your sarcastic taunts are an affront to the image of the very organization you claim to be "defending" here . That you can't see that makes your continued machinations all the more pathetic , IMO ......
Last edited by init4fun; 09-23-2016 at 03:02 PM. Reason: more typos again ...
09-23-2016, 03:15 PM
#169
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Let me direct you to the poll that was posted here a couple of days ago.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-...t-ballots.html
Almost 63% of the respondents voted for outside counting of the votes. Yes, I know, hardly a scientific poll, but I posted it to counter your comment, "other than to satisfy 4 or 5 people". Just more of your spin and deflection.
Regards,
Astro
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-...t-ballots.html
Almost 63% of the respondents voted for outside counting of the votes. Yes, I know, hardly a scientific poll, but I posted it to counter your comment, "other than to satisfy 4 or 5 people". Just more of your spin and deflection.
Regards,
Astro
09-23-2016, 03:18 PM
#171
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Sorry but I fail to see the humor in you calling out Franklin for something you do on an exponentially increased basis . Franklin's sarcastic "cardinal" posts are but what , one or two in this thread , and your sig line sarcastic taunts are at the bottom of every post you make all over the entire forum , and that somehow makes you "better" than he is ?
Franklin isn't claiming to be representing the AMA here . You are . Your sarcastic taunts are an affront to the image of the very organization you claim to be "defending" here . That you can't see that makes your continued machinations all the more pathetic , IMO ......
Franklin isn't claiming to be representing the AMA here . You are . Your sarcastic taunts are an affront to the image of the very organization you claim to be "defending" here . That you can't see that makes your continued machinations all the more pathetic , IMO ......
09-23-2016, 03:24 PM
#172
With all the chest thumping you do here about being a Leader Member of the AMA , that most certainly IS you claiming to represent the AMA , as that's what a Leader Member is supposed to do , represent the AMA .
Nice try though .
09-23-2016, 03:26 PM
#173
Astro
09-23-2016, 03:43 PM
#174