Moving forward Internettenly
06-09-2009, 10:10 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moving forward Internettenly
Good news for AMA'ers with computers-
Muncie stepped forward to provide more electronic service to its membership.
Could help consolidate the hit & miss district systems of electronic comms & info
Even though it took a while
its nice to see them moving more into the instant information age.
I hope the trend continues.
In that light, couldnt we move some member-muncie interaction to the net
to reduce the 'legwork' and stff load of getting stuff done?
like Online Waiver app & registry
or Sanctioning process?
Message board is nice, what can we do next
Muncie stepped forward to provide more electronic service to its membership.
Could help consolidate the hit & miss district systems of electronic comms & info
Even though it took a while
its nice to see them moving more into the instant information age.
I hope the trend continues.
In that light, couldnt we move some member-muncie interaction to the net
to reduce the 'legwork' and stff load of getting stuff done?
like Online Waiver app & registry
or Sanctioning process?
Message board is nice, what can we do next
06-09-2009, 10:24 AM
#2
RE: Moving forward Internettenly
Best be careful speaking of that subject. I posted a link to the subject and it was promptly removed with a long "explanation" ???.
That explanation is available if you should email me. No PMs.
06-09-2009, 10:41 AM
#3
RE: Moving forward Internettenly
ORIGINAL: Hossfly
Best be careful speaking of that subject. I posted a link to the subject and it was promptly removed with a long "explanation" ???.
That explanation is available if you should email me. No PMs.
Best be careful speaking of that subject. I posted a link to the subject and it was promptly removed with a long "explanation" ???.
That explanation is available if you should email me. No PMs.
there is no need for you to email anybody why your link was removed.I'm not hiding anything here, and Iwill be more than happy to post out in the open why your link was removed. You post was removed because you posted a link to a competing discussion forum. Our rules state:
POSTING LINKS:
Our policy on linking to other websites is pretty simple. Members may link to any other site that provides information that helps answer another member's question or is just of specific interest to members of that particular forum. One of the most basic tenets of the Web is the open exchange of information, and the RCU forum managers wholeheartedly support this type of exchange. Members may NOT link to sites which require registration or membership to view the content, including offsite chat room discussions.
The only other type of linking (besides porn and spam as mentioned previously above in our rules, of course) that will not be allowed on our site is when members solicit people to leave our site to a competing service. That's just common sense. We won't allow people to use our site to promote a competing service any more than a brick-and-mortar store would allow his competitor to paste flyer's all over his walls. However, people are always welcome to link to any non competing online resource in order to share useful information with fellow members.
Our policy on linking to other websites is pretty simple. Members may link to any other site that provides information that helps answer another member's question or is just of specific interest to members of that particular forum. One of the most basic tenets of the Web is the open exchange of information, and the RCU forum managers wholeheartedly support this type of exchange. Members may NOT link to sites which require registration or membership to view the content, including offsite chat room discussions.
The only other type of linking (besides porn and spam as mentioned previously above in our rules, of course) that will not be allowed on our site is when members solicit people to leave our site to a competing service. That's just common sense. We won't allow people to use our site to promote a competing service any more than a brick-and-mortar store would allow his competitor to paste flyer's all over his walls. However, people are always welcome to link to any non competing online resource in order to share useful information with fellow members.
Ken
06-09-2009, 11:44 AM
#4
RE: Moving forward Internettenly
Our district has a discussion forum too. Real lively place, last time I checked a message was left there in 2005.
What goes on at the AMA's official site should be looked at as "food" for topics to discuss here.
At first I thought the idea of the AMA being in competition with RCU was laughable, but now I suppose the AMA has the means to muscle into the discussion forum business seeing as though they aren't playing with real money like any other unsubsidized business entity.
What goes on at the AMA's official site should be looked at as "food" for topics to discuss here.
At first I thought the idea of the AMA being in competition with RCU was laughable, but now I suppose the AMA has the means to muscle into the discussion forum business seeing as though they aren't playing with real money like any other unsubsidized business entity.
06-09-2009, 12:28 PM
#5
Senior Member
My Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Pine Bluff, AR,
Posts: 1,504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Moving forward Internettenly
Good post KE
Good Lord, it never ends does it.
Hmmm. I seem to remember a link being allowed for the BFC site that requires registration and membership. Maybe it has been removed now.
Our district has a discussion forum too. Real lively place, last time I checked a message was left there in 2005.
What goes on at the AMA's official site should be looked at as "food" for topics to discuss here.
At first I thought the idea of the AMA being in competition with RCU was laughable, but now I suppose the AMA has the means to muscle into the discussion forum business seeing as though they aren't playing with real money like any other unsubsidized business entity.
What goes on at the AMA's official site should be looked at as "food" for topics to discuss here.
At first I thought the idea of the AMA being in competition with RCU was laughable, but now I suppose the AMA has the means to muscle into the discussion forum business seeing as though they aren't playing with real money like any other unsubsidized business entity.
RCKen
Members may NOT link to sites which require registration or membership to view the content, including offsite chat room discussions.
Members may NOT link to sites which require registration or membership to view the content, including offsite chat room discussions.
06-09-2009, 01:18 PM
#6
RE: Moving forward Internettenly
[quote]ORIGINAL: Robotech
Good post KE
[quote]
Our district has a discussion forum too. Real lively place, last time I checked a message was left there in 2005.
What goes on at the AMA's official site should be looked at as
Robo, try bringing something of substance to the table besides 1 lines slams of what other's have to say. You will then become an asset to this forum instead of the opposite.
06-09-2009, 04:27 PM
#7
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Moving forward Internettenly
Whether or not it is actual competition
( vs defined Competition by RCU)
would really be set by the moderation and political opposition policy of the Muncie board.
What many here consider 'Hater' or 'Anti-AMA' posts
could be seen by the muncie board as simply another approach for the betterment of AMA.
IF the muncie board stifles opposition speech,
then it is not really competing with RCU
where ALL ideas for AMA are allowed
<edit append>
But it is still defined as competition by RCU and unlinkable
which is something we can live with without too much greif
( vs defined Competition by RCU)
would really be set by the moderation and political opposition policy of the Muncie board.
What many here consider 'Hater' or 'Anti-AMA' posts
could be seen by the muncie board as simply another approach for the betterment of AMA.
IF the muncie board stifles opposition speech,
then it is not really competing with RCU
where ALL ideas for AMA are allowed
<edit append>
But it is still defined as competition by RCU and unlinkable
which is something we can live with without too much greif
06-09-2009, 04:43 PM
#8
Senior Member
My Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Pine Bluff, AR,
Posts: 1,504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Moving forward Internettenly
ORIGINAL: combatpigg
Robo, try bringing something of substance to the table besides 1 lines slams of what other's have to say. You will then become an asset to this forum instead of the opposite.
Robo, try bringing something of substance to the table besides 1 lines slams of what other's have to say. You will then become an asset to this forum instead of the opposite.
06-09-2009, 04:52 PM
#9
Senior Member
My Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Pine Bluff, AR,
Posts: 1,504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Moving forward Internettenly
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
Whether or not it is actual competition
( vs defined Competition by RCU)
would really be set by the moderation and political opposition policy of the Muncie board.
What many here consider 'Hater' or 'Anti-AMA' posts
could be seen by the muncie board as simply another approach for the betterment of AMA.
IF the muncie board stifles opposition speech,
then it is not really competing with RCU
where ALL ideas for AMA are allowed
<edit append=""></edit>
But it is still defined as competition by RCU and unlinkable
which is something we can live with without too much greif
Whether or not it is actual competition
( vs defined Competition by RCU)
would really be set by the moderation and political opposition policy of the Muncie board.
What many here consider 'Hater' or 'Anti-AMA' posts
could be seen by the muncie board as simply another approach for the betterment of AMA.
IF the muncie board stifles opposition speech,
then it is not really competing with RCU
where ALL ideas for AMA are allowed
<edit append=""></edit>
But it is still defined as competition by RCU and unlinkable
which is something we can live with without too much greif
You have already mentioned a few items you would like to see but I don't see them posted "over there". Get the ball(s) rolling man.
06-09-2009, 04:53 PM
#10
RE: Moving forward Internettenly
What are you talking about? I do nothing unprovoked.
It's OK to disagree, that is part of what makes this forum tick. Just do so with a little bit of respect and reason.
Point out what I said in my first post that caused you to call to God.
It's OK to disagree, that is part of what makes this forum tick. Just do so with a little bit of respect and reason.
Point out what I said in my first post that caused you to call to God.
06-09-2009, 04:59 PM
#11
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Moving forward Internettenly
Robo
???
Post #4 draws attention to the difference of a subsidized board vs a stand alone board.
RCU has no deep pockets patron to float it as long as they want it floated.The muncie board can run with the fiduciary solvency of PPP or MA, for as long as Muncie wants to subsidize it
On the other hand if it's no more than say, what was in post #4, then Iwouldn't expect your post to stay up long or get any results
Post #4 draws attention to the difference of a subsidized board vs a stand alone board.
RCU has no deep pockets patron to float it as long as they want it floated.The muncie board can run with the fiduciary solvency of PPP or MA, for as long as Muncie wants to subsidize it
06-09-2009, 05:54 PM
#12
Banned
My Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Newberry, FL
Posts: 5,925
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Moving forward Internettenly
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
Robo
???
Post #4 draws attention to the difference of a subsidized board vs a stand alone board.
RCU has no deep pockets patron to float it as long as they want it floated.The muncie board can run with the fiduciary solvency of PPP or MA, for as long as Muncie wants to subsidize it
Robo
On the other hand if it's no more than say, what was in post #4, then Iwouldn't expect your post to stay up long or get any results
Post #4 draws attention to the difference of a subsidized board vs a stand alone board.
RCU has no deep pockets patron to float it as long as they want it floated.The muncie board can run with the fiduciary solvency of PPP or MA, for as long as Muncie wants to subsidize it
Just Google - Michael S. Kranitz
President & CEO
Michael Kranitz is the principal architect of Kaango and its President and CEO. Kranitz was also the principal software developer and application creator for the RCUniverse.com community site which is owned and operated by Kaango. Prior to his involvement in RCUniverse and Kaango, Kranitz founded Denver-based DriveOff.com and sold it to an MSN/Ford joint venture in 2000 after building it to 77 employees and more than 3,500 member dealerships. Kranitz also served as Vice President of MSN Autos (f/k/a MSN CarPoint) at the time.Kranitz created the Kaango network from the ground up and established the company's industry relationships before selling an 80% share of the company to Kaango Ventures, LLC, a consortium owned by Hearst and MediaNews Group. Kranitz is a highly trained public speaker and has become an industry-recognized authority and presenter in the newspaper, auto and hobby industries.
06-09-2009, 06:16 PM
#13
RE: Moving forward Internettenly
Was the road to RCU's success paved with guaranteed backing?
My point is that at first glance, the AMA site would seem to be no competition for RCU, but the more I think about it, the more I see RCU's point about disallowing direct links over there.
My point is that at first glance, the AMA site would seem to be no competition for RCU, but the more I think about it, the more I see RCU's point about disallowing direct links over there.
06-09-2009, 07:13 PM
#14
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Moving forward Internettenly
Red
before Kango gets out?
Sure, Kango has money,
but they have money because they dont have money pits like PPP & MA
leeching away funds that could be used for lobbying or SuperKango'ing or Internet to Ultranet upgrades or whatever
Deep Pockets is not just the ability to fund losses forever,
but the willingness to fund million dollar losers forever.
How many years of RCU hemorrhaging $1mil will Kango put up with
(while the Kango Kwior preached that opposing the $1mil loss was AntiKango talk)before Kango gets out?
Sure, Kango has money,
but they have money because they dont have money pits like PPP & MA
leeching away funds that could be used for lobbying or SuperKango'ing or Internet to Ultranet upgrades or whatever
Deep Pockets is not just the ability to fund losses forever,
but the willingness to fund million dollar losers forever.
06-09-2009, 08:14 PM
#15
RE: Moving forward Internettenly
OK Ken, no secrets eh?
Then please explain:
Then please explain:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ken: >>
Ken: >>
Nathan,
I just got in the hotel from Top Gun where I had a very good conversation with Dave Mathewson about this forum. Dave and I have been in contact the last several months working towards a few things that will make this forum more valuable to both our members and the AMA. We both agreed to several things that we both think will be good. I''m not going to give out any details now as we still have to work those details out. But suffice it to say we will be moving towards making this thread more valuable to everyone.
Ken
I just got in the hotel from Top Gun where I had a very good conversation with Dave Mathewson about this forum. Dave and I have been in contact the last several months working towards a few things that will make this forum more valuable to both our members and the AMA. We both agreed to several things that we both think will be good. I''m not going to give out any details now as we still have to work those details out. But suffice it to say we will be moving towards making this thread more valuable to everyone.
Ken
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RCKen just sent you a private message at 6/8/2009 6:34 PM:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your thread has been removed
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your post titled: You ask, you get, Be happy. has been removed from AMA Discussions ( http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/tt.asp?forumid=74 ) Reason: Linking to competing discussion forum. Sorry Horrace, but our rules do not allow links to competing discussion forums. And before you come back with they aren't really competition I'll tell you that they only way for us to FAIRLY apply this rule to Hobby Discussion Forums is to not allow any of them. So linking to the AMA's new discussion forum isn't going to be allowed here. And just to make sure, I did run this past Marc and Nathan just to make sure they agree, which they do.POSTING IMAGES: Forum members are allowed to embed images in their messages by linking to an image that exists on another site or downloading it from their computer's harddrive. In addition to the copyright restrictions mentioned above, users should also refrain from embedding any images of a sexual or offensive nature. Any links to clearly offensive or porn!
ographic materials will be removed immediately at the moderator's discretion.POSTING LINKS: Our policy on linking to other websites is pretty simple. Members may link to any other site that provides information that helps answer another member's question or is just of specific interest to members of that particular forum. One of the most basic tenets of the Web is the open exchange of information, and the RCU forum managers wholeheartedly support this type of exchange. Members may NOT link to sites which require registration or membership to view the content, including offsite chat room discussions.The only other type of linking (besides porn and spam as mentioned previously above in our rules, of course) that will not be allowed on our site is when members solicit people to leave our site to a competing service. That's just common sense. We won't allow people to use our site to promote a competing service any more than a brick-and-mortar store would allow his competitor to!
paste flyer's all over his walls. However, people are always welcome
to link to any non competing online resource in order to share useful information with fellow members.Ken
- End of Private Message (PM) -
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your thread has been removed
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your post titled: You ask, you get, Be happy. has been removed from AMA Discussions ( http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/tt.asp?forumid=74 ) Reason: Linking to competing discussion forum. Sorry Horrace, but our rules do not allow links to competing discussion forums. And before you come back with they aren't really competition I'll tell you that they only way for us to FAIRLY apply this rule to Hobby Discussion Forums is to not allow any of them. So linking to the AMA's new discussion forum isn't going to be allowed here. And just to make sure, I did run this past Marc and Nathan just to make sure they agree, which they do.POSTING IMAGES: Forum members are allowed to embed images in their messages by linking to an image that exists on another site or downloading it from their computer's harddrive. In addition to the copyright restrictions mentioned above, users should also refrain from embedding any images of a sexual or offensive nature. Any links to clearly offensive or porn!
ographic materials will be removed immediately at the moderator's discretion.POSTING LINKS: Our policy on linking to other websites is pretty simple. Members may link to any other site that provides information that helps answer another member's question or is just of specific interest to members of that particular forum. One of the most basic tenets of the Web is the open exchange of information, and the RCU forum managers wholeheartedly support this type of exchange. Members may NOT link to sites which require registration or membership to view the content, including offsite chat room discussions.The only other type of linking (besides porn and spam as mentioned previously above in our rules, of course) that will not be allowed on our site is when members solicit people to leave our site to a competing service. That's just common sense. We won't allow people to use our site to promote a competing service any more than a brick-and-mortar store would allow his competitor to!
paste flyer's all over his walls. However, people are always welcome
to link to any non competing online resource in order to share useful information with fellow members.Ken
- End of Private Message (PM) -
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Something up there does NOT jive.
Is RCU planning a new organization to take over or compete against AMA?
Horrace Cain
AMA L-93
06-09-2009, 08:30 PM
#16
RE: Moving forward Internettenly
Hossfly,
I have nothing to explain. What you posted is everything that has happened up to this point. I am working on something with Dave Mathewson to increase the the value of this forum to both the AMA and RCU. All the details haven't been worked out yet, so I can't give any more information than that. And that is on an agreement I made with Dave when we discussed this. When everything is completed we will post the information here.
As to my PM to you. It's exactly what I said in the PM, and posted here earlier in this thread. It is against RCU Community Rules to post links to competing discussion forums. The rule has been in place from the beginning of RCU and hasn't changed at all. As I stated twice already, the only way to FAIRLY apply this rule to to REMOVE ALL links to ANY discussion forum that deals with this hobby. This is how I treat every link similar to this one. It's always been that, and it's always going to be that way.
There aren't any secrets about any of this.
Ken
I have nothing to explain. What you posted is everything that has happened up to this point. I am working on something with Dave Mathewson to increase the the value of this forum to both the AMA and RCU. All the details haven't been worked out yet, so I can't give any more information than that. And that is on an agreement I made with Dave when we discussed this. When everything is completed we will post the information here.
As to my PM to you. It's exactly what I said in the PM, and posted here earlier in this thread. It is against RCU Community Rules to post links to competing discussion forums. The rule has been in place from the beginning of RCU and hasn't changed at all. As I stated twice already, the only way to FAIRLY apply this rule to to REMOVE ALL links to ANY discussion forum that deals with this hobby. This is how I treat every link similar to this one. It's always been that, and it's always going to be that way.
There aren't any secrets about any of this.
Ken
06-09-2009, 10:08 PM
#17
RE: Moving forward Internettenly
Ken; "This is how I tread every link similar to this one."
06-09-2009, 10:10 PM
#18
RE: Moving forward Internettenly
ORIGINAL: Hossfly
Thank you Mr. Ken. You do that so very well. I am impressed. I shallnowtake my leave of this subject.
Ken; "This is how I tread every link similar to this one."
Ken
06-10-2009, 07:10 AM
#19
Senior Member
My Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Pine Bluff, AR,
Posts: 1,504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Moving forward Internettenly
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
Robo
???
Post #4 draws attention to the difference of a subsidized board vs a stand alone board.
RCU has no deep pockets patron to float it as long as they want it floated.The muncie board can run with the fiduciary solvency of PPP or MA, for as long as Muncie wants to subsidize it
Robo
On the other hand if it's no more than say, what was in post #4, then Iwouldn't expect your post to stay up long or get any results
Post #4 draws attention to the difference of a subsidized board vs a stand alone board.
RCU has no deep pockets patron to float it as long as they want it floated.The muncie board can run with the fiduciary solvency of PPP or MA, for as long as Muncie wants to subsidize it
This thread was started with a sort-of positive post about a new endeavor by the AMAfor it's members.
By post #4 it had started it's inevitable slide into an Anti-AMA rant by one of the usual suspects.
Now, only a handfull of posts later, it has ended up in the predictable state of decay with derogatory references to MA and PPP.
It's the reason many folks including myself have stayed away from this forum lately.
Just sayin'................
06-10-2009, 09:30 AM
#20
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Moving forward Internettenly
Robo
My reference to the solvency of the other projects is only derogatory if those projects have problems.
Read this again with your imagination set to think that MA & PPP had good financial sitting-
"The muncie board can run with the fiduciary solvency of PPP or MA"
If MA & PPP were doing great, then that would be a compliment... wouldnt it.
Would it be better if I used the scholarship program or the exhibition team
as examples of things that get funded for as long as muncie wants to fund them? That is not derogative of the team or the scholarships, its just a financial fact.
Unlike the 'for profit' RCU board, the AMA board is not going to profit or even pay its own way, by design
...right?
Why do you feel we should put blinders on so we can act like this is the first thing muncie will subsidize?
Anyhoo,
rather than just propagating the negativity and talking about each other,
lets talk about what Muncie is doing and what else that can do with the internet.
If you want a positive thread,
post positive things in it so we can discuss positives
My reference to the solvency of the other projects is only derogatory if those projects have problems.
Read this again with your imagination set to think that MA & PPP had good financial sitting-
"The muncie board can run with the fiduciary solvency of PPP or MA"
If MA & PPP were doing great, then that would be a compliment... wouldnt it.
Would it be better if I used the scholarship program or the exhibition team
as examples of things that get funded for as long as muncie wants to fund them? That is not derogative of the team or the scholarships, its just a financial fact.
Unlike the 'for profit' RCU board, the AMA board is not going to profit or even pay its own way, by design
...right?
Why do you feel we should put blinders on so we can act like this is the first thing muncie will subsidize?
Anyhoo,
rather than just propagating the negativity and talking about each other,
lets talk about what Muncie is doing and what else that can do with the internet.
If you want a positive thread,
post positive things in it so we can discuss positives
06-10-2009, 11:53 AM
#22
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Moving forward Internettenly
ORIGINAL: wildbill-RCU
Does this mean Muncie no longer views us as BOTTOM FEEDERS ?????
wildbill-rcu
Does this mean Muncie no longer views us as BOTTOM FEEDERS ?????
wildbill-rcu
Suckling on the teat isn’t usually considered bottom feeding even though in most cases teats usually hang low.
Seriously, I hope the new AMA forum can help disseminate real and factual info but I’m afraid it will probably just become a place of worship and flag-waving all the while denigrating the non-AMA modeler as was the case when I first found this forum.
06-10-2009, 12:03 PM
#23
Senior Member
My Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Pine Bluff, AR,
Posts: 1,504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Moving forward Internettenly
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
Robo
My reference to the solvency of the other projects is only derogatory if those projects have problems.
Read this again with your imagination set to think that MA & PPP had good financial sitting-
"The muncie board can run with the fiduciary solvency of PPP or MA"
If MA & PPP were doing great, then that would be a compliment... wouldnt it.
Would it be better if I used the scholarship program or the exhibition team
as examples of things that get funded for as long as muncie wants to fund them? That is not derogative of the team or the scholarships, its just a financial fact.
Unlike the 'for profit' RCU board, the AMA board is not going to profit or even pay its own way, by design
...right?
Why do you feel we should put blinders on so we can act like this is the first thing muncie will subsidize?
Anyhoo,
rather than just propagating the negativity and talking about each other,
lets talk about what Muncie is doing and what else that can do with the internet.
If you want a positive thread,
post positive things in it so we can discuss positives
Robo
My reference to the solvency of the other projects is only derogatory if those projects have problems.
Read this again with your imagination set to think that MA & PPP had good financial sitting-
"The muncie board can run with the fiduciary solvency of PPP or MA"
If MA & PPP were doing great, then that would be a compliment... wouldnt it.
Would it be better if I used the scholarship program or the exhibition team
as examples of things that get funded for as long as muncie wants to fund them? That is not derogative of the team or the scholarships, its just a financial fact.
Unlike the 'for profit' RCU board, the AMA board is not going to profit or even pay its own way, by design
...right?
Why do you feel we should put blinders on so we can act like this is the first thing muncie will subsidize?
Anyhoo,
rather than just propagating the negativity and talking about each other,
lets talk about what Muncie is doing and what else that can do with the internet.
If you want a positive thread,
post positive things in it so we can discuss positives
What was thepoint of dragging it there in the first place?I'll be logged into their new site from time to time. Maybe I'll see some of the folks that hang out here B*****n about everything and anything the AMA does over there trying to effect positive change rather than propagating this endless circle j***.
Maybe not.
06-11-2009, 04:34 AM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Snow Hill,
MD
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Moving forward Internettenly
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
Good news for AMA'ers with computers-
Muncie stepped forward to provide more electronic service to its membership.
Could help consolidate the hit & miss district systems of electronic comms & info
Good news for AMA'ers with computers-
Muncie stepped forward to provide more electronic service to its membership.
Could help consolidate the hit & miss district systems of electronic comms & info