Bob Mitchell

Red, as somone holding a leadership postion within AMA, how do you justify or defend your actions in attempting to have others removed as AMA members or in publishing personal information about other AMA members that they have chosen not to divulge?

Do you really believe that these are the types of things that someone in a leadership position in an organization should be doing?

Bob Mitchell

It appears on threads where you have posted.

KidEpoxy

Frank
Its not like Red hasnt had time to confron his accusers
and give his side as to why he is doing these things.
What justifications would you accept for such misbehaving?


If you are interested in setting up a scale of justice with stuff on both sides,
lets see some of what the other side has to offer:

Oh, great, denial of it even happening.
Of course, it is not RED that is saying it never happened.
Red has not tried to make that claim for a very good reason.
Just as Red has not tried to come up with any justification for why he did it... he doesnt have a very good reason to have done it.

Frank
As far as I am concerned for hearing both sides,
we have accusers with evidence on one side,
and the AMA D5 Appointee choosing not to speak (taking 5th?) on the other.

and that is probably a wise choice on his part,
to not dig the hole any deeper that Mucie & D5 cant ignore/protect their D5 guy anymore

Bob Mitchell

I haven't.

What I have done is refuse to be a party to his plans, requested that he send no more unsolicited emails and publicly called him on it when he revealed personal information that was not public knowledge. I think both of those actions are appropriate.

As I've said, I do not agree with the premise of this thread.

KidEpoxy

Its hard to submit a letter to Muncie

"We the undersigned ten AMA members from across the country,
have had the following harassments and 3rd party disclosures by Red"

if we dont first get on the internet to see if it is 5, 10, 15,
or if it turns out to be 37 guys Red harassed that we havent heard from yet.

Private correspondence is not the way to display a pattern of problematic activity.
First gather up the evidence by publicly asking those violated to come forward,
THEN compile the list of problems and its dates to present to Muncie
showing the history & pattern of unacceptable activities while holding a AMA district position.

Silent-AV8R

There is no denial, but then again I have not seen the emails, etc. that are alleged to have been sent, nor seen any other proof beyond the accusations of those who feel they have been wronged. Keep in mind that simply saying a thing does not make it true.

So give me a break. File a complaint with the AMA or Tony Stillman.

KidEpoxy

which is calling folks saying it, like.... ME, a liar.


Its a matter of your opinions that something isnt true
hitting up against our stating the facts that it is true.

Case in point:
Some folks are of the opinion that my signature here is in some way violating AMA acceptable activities.
They like to present that as if it were fact.
But in actual fact my signature is not violating any Muncie standards.... DM hasnt directed me to cease.

Just because you dont have all the facts,
does not give you permission to dispute facts testimonial or make facts up,
or call the folks presenting facts liars

The Toolman

He's basically calling all of us liars, but remember...he's from "The Peoples Republic of Kalifornia" where everybody is innocent. Even OJ

I think he's trying to bait some of us to post these pms on the forum here or send a copy to him, an then accuse us of doing the same thing red is doing.



Ron

KidEpoxy

never mind...
post pulled by user

Muroc1

Ken,

I don't get it. Let's step back and take a deep breath and look at what we know. I know you are good at this so here are the facts.

1. OP makes an accusation with zero proof.
2. People jump on board and immediately convict the person as being guilty of all charges.


Is that all of them? Did I get that right?


Now, my question is, what makes us better than anyone else to judge someone? Is it because some don't like the accused? Can that be the reason? I just don't feel comfortable sending someone to the gallows not knowing all the facts.

Do I want to know all the facts? No. I do not. It's none of my business and I can't see how it is anyone else's. The matter is between the OP and the person of interest. (of who we do not really know who that is because we have seen no proof)

That's just how I see it.

Frank

The Toolman

You know what Frank, you always have your nose stuck in everything, and this doesn't concern you one dang bit. But since you like to keep things stirred up, I will say that there is a lot more than one of us that he sent this crap to.

You are doing the same as av8r or whatever his name is an calling us all a liar.

Why don't you go back over to the sissy's forum an keep your nose outta things that don't concern YOU


PSQuit being such a wishy washy person too..........Its sickning



Ron

804

My Feedback: (1)

Frank,
Add me to the list of folks here who have gotten e-mails from Red. I haven't gotten any regarding membership revocation, but about the "bottom-feeder" thing, and the Three Stooges parody,(which I thought was funny).
Enough of us have received them, it's not a far stretch to imagine LCS's story to be true.

So, since I agree with Red about the bottom feeder issue(his request was to petition our DVP's to grant Stick's wish), and because I thought the other thing was amusing, I haven't been that bothered by Red.

Otoh, I don't like how far things have gone.

I fully agree with Stick on the best course of action, for now.

Silent-AV8R

No, what it means is that making an accusations does not make it true. Grow up. If you are going to make accusations, then you should be prepared to prove them, that is all my statement says.

This is the reason we have courts for instance and the concept of innocent until proven guilty. But you and a host of others here like to use RCU as your personal little Kangaroo Court where your word is Gold and anyone who questions you or does not immediately agree with you is belittled and ridiculed. It is very wearisome.

You are not a liar until it is shown that you are not telling the truth. Simply asking for that proof is not calling you a liar. Only a child would interpret as being called a liar.

KidEpoxy

Frank

Ok, lets take it slowly and all get on the same page.


1. OP makes an accusation with zero proof.
Another way to look at that is:
1. OP testifies as witness that events occurred, and we have heard no conflicting testimony or denial.

2. People jump on board and immediately convict the person as being guilty of all charges.
many of these people are not just random forum goers
that have read about something bad happening to other folks and want to mob up.
We can see that a bunch of them have had similar 1st person experience from that D5 appointee,
thereby adding their testimony to present a pattern of abuse


Remember Frank,
no matter how much documentation, pictorial evidence, and witnesses one has lined up,
to support claims against another party...
when the other guy refuses to show up for court
you win without opening your briefcase.

We havent heard if that AMA position holder is going to justify or deny doing it.
Should he deny it, then we open the briefcase and win the test of truth.




As one of the victims that can clearly identify just who it was that wronged me,
I can with a clear conscious do just that in my case.

Now, seeing that I can easily judge him when he did it to me,
I dont have too hard a time believing he did it to others as well as me.
Especially since he never denies it even when called on it.

This is not a group of 3rd party hearsay-ers that want to mob up.
It is a group of victims that know exactly who the culprit is that wronged them.
For uninvolved readers to question the motivation of the victims, thats easy:
We dont like having been wronged by AMA position holders, and are aghast at hearing the pattern & history of it going on unchecked by AMA.


The OP started this by bringing up that AMA guys attempts to get folks kicked out of AMA for conduct.
The the conduct in my case is something that AMA does not consider unacceptable.
However, the OP points out that Red's conduct pattern
is very likely to be something AMA would find unacceptable.



good news, we havent posted all the emails containing the dirt
so you should be happy about that much at least

wait... didnt you just say you dont want to know all the facts,
and in the same breath now complain that we havent posted the evidence yet?

The Toolman

I'm telling ya, Frank is wishy washy...He's one of those guys in school that everybody couldn't stand, because he would always be switching sides in the middle of the stream. I won't say on here what we really called people like that, but I think you know what is was.........



Ron

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

I might be stupid, but showing up in a kangaroo court in front of lynch mob is not a good idea.

And if the lynch mob wants to pursue it further, be my guest. Since it took over 300 posts to figure out how to stop getting MA and then someone had to point the mob to it, I am not terribly worried this will go any further - with or without merit. When some of the defamation of AMA leaders comes up be ready to defend it. Anything else I might post here in my own defense wouldn't make it past the moderators under their rules of the game they outlined earlier on this thread.

The Toolman

Well ol'buddy, I could give a dang less what you wanna tell ama about me.....What do ya think about that pops?





Ron

Stickbuilder

Red,

Please go back and read my last post to you. You would do well leaving your gas can at home. And not pour it on the fire.

Bill, AMA 4720

Blue_Sky

There's where you're wrong. This is the most competently managed forum I've ever experienced. Those "rules of the game" you talk about are actually fair rules based on honesty and ethics. We all adhere to the same "rules." I've had plenty of posts removed. You have too.

You have to go beyond what you think the "politics" are. You have to understand that "bottom feeders" aren't out to get you or destroy the AMA. You understand that, right? "Bottom Feeders" is a punch in the mouth to an organization we belong to and pay money to, but isn't growing in the direction that will attract all modelers.

I hope you weather the storm and patch things up with all parties.

Muroc1

Ken,

Thanks for reply. And no, I don't want to go any futher into the weeds about this.

Like I said, it's not for me judge anyone. I leave that up to a higher power.

Frank

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

OK

Here is a copy one of the emails Red sent to some of our members:



From: [email protected]
To: chxxxxn@xxxxxx adxxin@xxxxxxxx; mwxxxen@xxxxxx; dxxxxx07@xxxxxxxx; Johxxxxane@xxxxxxxx; truexxxxxerry@xxxxxxx; tylerxxxelers@xxxxxxxx
Subject: TUFF
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:44:57 -0500










Rumor has it that Mark Humphrie's club, Texas
Unlimited Fun Flyers, has lost their
benefactor, and because of their zero dues policy my lose access to your field
at Northside Park. Anything to this?



Red Scholefield
AMA 951 Dist. V
Leader
Member/CD
-

Hmmm....

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Mark, would that be Red spreading rumor?

Yes, I believe it would.

Robotech

My Feedback: (9)

Spreading rumors? Well, yes, he says so in the first line. It's certainly none of his business.

I'll go on record as supporting Stick's position though. A kinder and gentler Stick I might add.

Bob Mitchell

You noticed that too, huh?

Hossfly

Just my opinion is that at this point, Red has heard some unofficial information, thus "rumor." It appears to me that Red is trying to confirm or unconfirm such information. Just because I read the newspaper, and listen to TV/Radio news is no reason that before I make any commitments concerning such information, I cannot try to confirm any such points that I may wish to use in my personal business.

As far as this thread is concerned, I will not join in any movement to remove any AMA member from AMA membership. AMA has had adequate reason to throw my butt out, if disagreeing with AMA policy/action or suspecting various leaders, elected, appointed, and/or hired of using their positions to attain personal gain with no regards for the damage to model aviation that could result, is a factor for removal from AMA under the OP's original quote of Bylaws.

As far as Red is concerned, he and I were friends for years. Then his archenemy, the late Jim Mcneil was appointed to a committee referencing the right of an AMA officer to remove a CD rating on the field. Also more rights of DVPs to inactivate an individual's membership were in question. Since I was the DVP that first set up and got EC approval for a CD training program, the Jim McNeil asked me to be a member of that committee. I accepted.
Now Red went into rage. He had no use for me. I was the enemy. Well, I simply could not convince Red, et. al. that I accepted the position to PREVENT JM from getting what he wanted. I did it and put an end to such dictatorship at least up until now.
Later on Red finally realized that, through a common friend's finally convincing Red what I had actually accomplished. Thankfully, the other DVP on the committee was too lazy to intervene. Red and I again became friends.
Now comes me with my agenda for the EVP position, and Red is RCU moderator, RCU Forum chief, gets a column in MA, and again I become the enemy as is well evidenced on this forum and others. BTW I went way back on this forum. A whole lot of threads where Red agreed with me seemed to have vanished. Oh Well, shot happens.

The above are related because it provides food for thought. Red's personality, as I gather it, guides him to whatever he deems in his best interest at the moment. I have no fear of Red as he can do nothing against me, regardless of what he does, that could in any way effect my real life. If he has sent letters degrading me I have no knowledge of such.

For all the hype in this thread about what an AMA Leader should do, well, the REAL LEADER does just that. HE LEADS as his own learned intellect so deems he should. IMO, he is NOT one that simply bounces on the end of a few strings and speaks as others so direct. True LEADERS are not the puppet for others, nor are they simply trying to satisfy their own personal desires. They work to obtain objectives that their intellect suggests would make the organization a better place. That is why you do not find Leaders in a flock. Like Eagles they are found one at a time.

Horrace Cain
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
George Washington