Dues Increase commentary
10-04-2005, 07:24 AM
#1
Dues Increase commentary
The following was posted on RCC by Director Blaquiere and it does a good job of laying it on the line when talking about the dues increase. I liked Jean from day one on the board. No political correct BS when dealing with issues. Unfortunately, after he posted this, a few clowns went on the usual "deflect and attack" discussion spin and it's degenerated into a personal attack, once again, on our office staff. 
------------------------
Greetings all,
It's very difficult to be brief on such a hot and wide issue...but I'll try. No one likes to pay for something that we cannot hold in our hands and use for our enjoyment. It is always better to use the cash to buy things that we can fly. So, I'll try to take things one step at a time and attempt to explain and justify payments and responsibilities being there.
Firstly, flying radio controlled airplanes is not one of those casual activities that we can enjoy like playing with a toy. R/C planes are not toys; they are real planes reduced in size and are just as capable of causing damage, and even worse, kill. Therefore, regulations are needed...and insurance just like driving or riding vehicles.
Secondly, anything that flies from 6 inches to unlimited abvove ground is under the control of Transport Canada whether we like it or not. This TC responsibility was emphasized by the government sight after the famous 9 / 11 event. However, TC was not equipped nor manned to regulate and control R/C. So, they turned to MAAC and invited us to participate in the TC program by accepting to be part of the quasi-government process responsible for ALL model aircraft flight. MAAC agreed and the process is now ongoing for MAAC to be recognized in the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CAR) as the official canadian agency governing model flight. This is a very good thing because we know what modelling is all about. Had we refused, TC would then have lumped us with some other sport flying groups such as gliders or ultra-lights and we would then have been subjected to some if not many of their rules. That could have been disastrous for modelling as we now know it.
So, you know that our most enjoyed activity is subject to a higher authority and we have no choice. But you also now know that we enjoy the leasure of still governing ourselves provided we do it within basic parameters such as safety, respects of certain rules, and covered by insurance.
WOW! I did use that ugly word "insurance". Well, insurance is usually not the issue; it's the premiums that seem to be the most annoying torn.
Let me simply state that MAAC is not only insurance or the magazine. It's also safety standards that reduces the risk factor and protects us from hunting others and being hurt ourselves. It's also the national association that represents all of us with Communications Canada to protect ALL our frequencies. Do you realize that we enjoy the use of 50 channels...but really, we could also do well with half of that and still have fun. Some years ago we only had ten. Had we not stood up being vocal, we would most likely have lost a number of them to other commercial and industrial uses. Frequencies to fly with are an essential tool of our hobby and we need to protect them for future generations.
MAAC representation with Transport Canada is another essential service that needs to be there for members to enjoy the hobby. Cooperation with our neighbor association and internationnally through the Aero Club of Canada and the FAI is again mandatory so that our hobby can be fully exercised al all levels of competition and representation. You locally up through Canada internationnally is the full extent of what our hobby is.
But, what does that have to do with me flying my plane at the end of my dad's farm? I'm not bothering anyone and I don't need insurance. So, I don't need MAAC. Right?
WRONG.
The frequencies you use are legal and exclusively dedicated to our use. The airspace you fly in is available because TC allows it. The rules of safety are there to protect and inform you the risks can be minimized by obeying them and flying consistant with them. Like fishermen and golfers who like to boast about their beauty and skills, pilots also love to do this at times. Flying alone is seldom rewarding...clubs and flying sites are a better place for such.
Flying R/C is in some way like driving a car. Nothing will happen and if something happens, it will generally happen to someone else. It's tru that people can go through life without a single mishap. But, mishaps do happen to some people sometimes..and the next time could be you.
So, what will happen if the misfortune hits you right where it hurts? Let's say your plane jams by a glitch or an interference of an battery failure or even a fly-away. That likke bird now goes on its own until it runs out of fuel or the wether brings it down somewhere..AND NOT UNDER YOUR CONTROL. It hits something or someone causing substantial damage which results in a claim or even worse a lawsuit. High priced lawsuits are common these days and $4,000,000. would not be impossible. What would you do with your home owners insurance if the max. coverage purchased something like $1,000,000. You would be hard pressed to get out of that one unless you could afford a very expensive lawyer etc. You could be facing financial ruin and disaster for yuo family and others. All that just to save a $1.50 per week. This is ridiculous and most unwise.
Why not check with you homeowners insurance agent and determine what you coverage actually is. You may be very surprised to find out that what you assumed was not really there. 9/11 has changed a lot of things and the insurance domain is no exception. Insurance coverage for midelling (R/C) is no longer easy to come by. By the way, if anyone knows a company that would be willing to provide us with comparable coverage at a reduced premium, please come forward and provide us with the information. And, don't forget to verify with your Homeowners 'ins...you may have a very unpleasant surprise. You may well not be covered at all.
Oh yea... planes do crash and we have flyaways. Ontarion had a flyaway several years ago and the trainer type plane was recovered several later acfross the Canada-US border. It had crossed lake Ontario and flew 28 miles before coming to rest in a farmer's field having run out of fuel. England had a flyaway only a few years ago and the trainer flew 8 miles into a park sttriking an 11 year old girl on the head killing her instantly.
Accidentssafety should be the concern of ALL who fly models because a mishap will certainly touch public opinions and may even force local authorities to legislate against model flying. Many cities that I know already have those by-laws and everyone bears the crunch of. From first hand knowledge, all are due to individuals fly alone without respect for what or who is around them and are often times derelicks and self serving egocentrists. Be very considerate of public opinion and legal authorities because their reactions affect all of us everywhere.
MAAC's dues are going up because:
The leadership failed to recognize the need for minimum increases over a period of more than years.
The insurance premiums for general membership coverage has increased from $32,000. three years ago to a bit over $126,000. for the current year.
The World Scale Event held in Tilsonburg On causedloaaes of revenues and funds of close to $72,000.
Office maintenance, supplies, and equipment and employee salaries and benefits expenses have also incresed...as we all know.
Zone directors promotion and expenses budget has droped below the poverty level.
There is a need to set up a legal funds because we are occasionnally threatened with lawsuits or subject to ridiculous demands that cost money to research and produce documents that do not serve their useful purpose.
We were well below the US AMA fee and even now if we compare insurance coverage.
Money is need for special projects. Wouldn't it be nice if we had a fund available for colateral to help clubs buy their flying fields. Wouldn't it be nice if we had space available for a Museum where we could present our history and safely display our artefacts.
We need to invest in promotion so that we can draft within our ranks all those 15,000 fliers who presently fly without MAAC.
MAAC is certainly not an ugly thing hanging over our head continuously pinching our wallets. It is not to be viewed and such a negative cumbersome watchdog. MAAC is our collective corporate body to represent us and also as a helpmeet to overcome some problems and solve issues.
It is important that we all make it work...otherwise we may end up destroying it just for the sake of an opinion.
LET'S MAKE IT WORK...start by attending your zone meeting. Then, invite your zone director to your meeting ang give him 10 minutes to explain MAAC. Understanding the need for MAAC will make you proud of its presence.
Jean Blaquiere
------------------------
Greetings all,
It's very difficult to be brief on such a hot and wide issue...but I'll try. No one likes to pay for something that we cannot hold in our hands and use for our enjoyment. It is always better to use the cash to buy things that we can fly. So, I'll try to take things one step at a time and attempt to explain and justify payments and responsibilities being there.
Firstly, flying radio controlled airplanes is not one of those casual activities that we can enjoy like playing with a toy. R/C planes are not toys; they are real planes reduced in size and are just as capable of causing damage, and even worse, kill. Therefore, regulations are needed...and insurance just like driving or riding vehicles.
Secondly, anything that flies from 6 inches to unlimited abvove ground is under the control of Transport Canada whether we like it or not. This TC responsibility was emphasized by the government sight after the famous 9 / 11 event. However, TC was not equipped nor manned to regulate and control R/C. So, they turned to MAAC and invited us to participate in the TC program by accepting to be part of the quasi-government process responsible for ALL model aircraft flight. MAAC agreed and the process is now ongoing for MAAC to be recognized in the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CAR) as the official canadian agency governing model flight. This is a very good thing because we know what modelling is all about. Had we refused, TC would then have lumped us with some other sport flying groups such as gliders or ultra-lights and we would then have been subjected to some if not many of their rules. That could have been disastrous for modelling as we now know it.
So, you know that our most enjoyed activity is subject to a higher authority and we have no choice. But you also now know that we enjoy the leasure of still governing ourselves provided we do it within basic parameters such as safety, respects of certain rules, and covered by insurance.
WOW! I did use that ugly word "insurance". Well, insurance is usually not the issue; it's the premiums that seem to be the most annoying torn.
Let me simply state that MAAC is not only insurance or the magazine. It's also safety standards that reduces the risk factor and protects us from hunting others and being hurt ourselves. It's also the national association that represents all of us with Communications Canada to protect ALL our frequencies. Do you realize that we enjoy the use of 50 channels...but really, we could also do well with half of that and still have fun. Some years ago we only had ten. Had we not stood up being vocal, we would most likely have lost a number of them to other commercial and industrial uses. Frequencies to fly with are an essential tool of our hobby and we need to protect them for future generations.
MAAC representation with Transport Canada is another essential service that needs to be there for members to enjoy the hobby. Cooperation with our neighbor association and internationnally through the Aero Club of Canada and the FAI is again mandatory so that our hobby can be fully exercised al all levels of competition and representation. You locally up through Canada internationnally is the full extent of what our hobby is.
But, what does that have to do with me flying my plane at the end of my dad's farm? I'm not bothering anyone and I don't need insurance. So, I don't need MAAC. Right?
WRONG.
The frequencies you use are legal and exclusively dedicated to our use. The airspace you fly in is available because TC allows it. The rules of safety are there to protect and inform you the risks can be minimized by obeying them and flying consistant with them. Like fishermen and golfers who like to boast about their beauty and skills, pilots also love to do this at times. Flying alone is seldom rewarding...clubs and flying sites are a better place for such.
Flying R/C is in some way like driving a car. Nothing will happen and if something happens, it will generally happen to someone else. It's tru that people can go through life without a single mishap. But, mishaps do happen to some people sometimes..and the next time could be you.
So, what will happen if the misfortune hits you right where it hurts? Let's say your plane jams by a glitch or an interference of an battery failure or even a fly-away. That likke bird now goes on its own until it runs out of fuel or the wether brings it down somewhere..AND NOT UNDER YOUR CONTROL. It hits something or someone causing substantial damage which results in a claim or even worse a lawsuit. High priced lawsuits are common these days and $4,000,000. would not be impossible. What would you do with your home owners insurance if the max. coverage purchased something like $1,000,000. You would be hard pressed to get out of that one unless you could afford a very expensive lawyer etc. You could be facing financial ruin and disaster for yuo family and others. All that just to save a $1.50 per week. This is ridiculous and most unwise.
Why not check with you homeowners insurance agent and determine what you coverage actually is. You may be very surprised to find out that what you assumed was not really there. 9/11 has changed a lot of things and the insurance domain is no exception. Insurance coverage for midelling (R/C) is no longer easy to come by. By the way, if anyone knows a company that would be willing to provide us with comparable coverage at a reduced premium, please come forward and provide us with the information. And, don't forget to verify with your Homeowners 'ins...you may have a very unpleasant surprise. You may well not be covered at all.
Oh yea... planes do crash and we have flyaways. Ontarion had a flyaway several years ago and the trainer type plane was recovered several later acfross the Canada-US border. It had crossed lake Ontario and flew 28 miles before coming to rest in a farmer's field having run out of fuel. England had a flyaway only a few years ago and the trainer flew 8 miles into a park sttriking an 11 year old girl on the head killing her instantly.
Accidentssafety should be the concern of ALL who fly models because a mishap will certainly touch public opinions and may even force local authorities to legislate against model flying. Many cities that I know already have those by-laws and everyone bears the crunch of. From first hand knowledge, all are due to individuals fly alone without respect for what or who is around them and are often times derelicks and self serving egocentrists. Be very considerate of public opinion and legal authorities because their reactions affect all of us everywhere.
MAAC's dues are going up because:
The leadership failed to recognize the need for minimum increases over a period of more than years.
The insurance premiums for general membership coverage has increased from $32,000. three years ago to a bit over $126,000. for the current year.
The World Scale Event held in Tilsonburg On causedloaaes of revenues and funds of close to $72,000.
Office maintenance, supplies, and equipment and employee salaries and benefits expenses have also incresed...as we all know.
Zone directors promotion and expenses budget has droped below the poverty level.
There is a need to set up a legal funds because we are occasionnally threatened with lawsuits or subject to ridiculous demands that cost money to research and produce documents that do not serve their useful purpose.
We were well below the US AMA fee and even now if we compare insurance coverage.
Money is need for special projects. Wouldn't it be nice if we had a fund available for colateral to help clubs buy their flying fields. Wouldn't it be nice if we had space available for a Museum where we could present our history and safely display our artefacts.
We need to invest in promotion so that we can draft within our ranks all those 15,000 fliers who presently fly without MAAC.
MAAC is certainly not an ugly thing hanging over our head continuously pinching our wallets. It is not to be viewed and such a negative cumbersome watchdog. MAAC is our collective corporate body to represent us and also as a helpmeet to overcome some problems and solve issues.
It is important that we all make it work...otherwise we may end up destroying it just for the sake of an opinion.
LET'S MAKE IT WORK...start by attending your zone meeting. Then, invite your zone director to your meeting ang give him 10 minutes to explain MAAC. Understanding the need for MAAC will make you proud of its presence.
Jean Blaquiere
10-04-2005, 09:37 AM
#2
RE: Dues Increase commentary
Amusing isn't it, the MAAC webmaster runs a different site that slags the MAAC office staff
from [link]http://www.rccanada.ca/bb/viewtopic.php?t=18091&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45[/link]
what ever happened to no maac politcs and "Jason shut down this thread".
Bottom line - the vast majority join for the insurance at approx $9.70 per member up from $2.00 per member a few years ago.
Succesive MAAC boards have not toppled the issue that all the majority wants is INSURANCE, you can offer all the window dressing you want like , museum, magazine, rules, archives. committees, sanctions, record keeping etc etc etc etc, but it still comes down to the cost of membership verses the insurance product.
Jean's attempt is noble but becasue you now have a membership that has to join for the insurance and not want to join you will not have a warm fuzzy membership, there is no passion for maac among the majority - it is seen as an insurance provider.
Solution - perhaps varying membership levels to pay for the window dressing.
from [link]http://www.rccanada.ca/bb/viewtopic.php?t=18091&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45[/link]
what ever happened to no maac politcs and "Jason shut down this thread".
Bottom line - the vast majority join for the insurance at approx $9.70 per member up from $2.00 per member a few years ago.
Succesive MAAC boards have not toppled the issue that all the majority wants is INSURANCE, you can offer all the window dressing you want like , museum, magazine, rules, archives. committees, sanctions, record keeping etc etc etc etc, but it still comes down to the cost of membership verses the insurance product.
Jean's attempt is noble but becasue you now have a membership that has to join for the insurance and not want to join you will not have a warm fuzzy membership, there is no passion for maac among the majority - it is seen as an insurance provider.
Solution - perhaps varying membership levels to pay for the window dressing.
I do not buy any of this "bargain" junk. MAAC is poorly managed thats what bugs me about huge due increases. If the management of MAAC were paid a salary based on how the company preformed you bet there would be a lot less over budget spending (Ford does have a better idea). But since management (much like our government) is spending money they they are not accountable for why should they take the tough stance and trim the fat. As for wages it is unbelievable that we pay a secretary what we pay ours. Case in point my wife who was a hospital medical records department head supervising over 20 employes, takeing all kinds of upgrading courses, ie computer skill, management skills, at her own expense, was paid very little more than MAAC pays our secretary to process membership cards and answer the phone.
Sure in the over all picture $75.00 is not a lot, I am very tired of how my money is managed and how MAAC is managed. It seems that our president and some of our board are more interested in beating up on a 26 year term zone director because he takes a stand for his zone. The insurance committee screwed up the insurance policy and will not admit it. Budget over runs. Lord knows how much energy wasted on the "Nats Party snafu". Annual meetings held where the cost of transportation to get the members to it is way out of line. And the list goes on.
_________________
Cliff Russell
MAAC 3971L
You only need two tools: WD-40 and Duct Tape. If it doesn't move and should, use the WD-40. If it shouldn't move and does, use the duct tape.
Sure in the over all picture $75.00 is not a lot, I am very tired of how my money is managed and how MAAC is managed. It seems that our president and some of our board are more interested in beating up on a 26 year term zone director because he takes a stand for his zone. The insurance committee screwed up the insurance policy and will not admit it. Budget over runs. Lord knows how much energy wasted on the "Nats Party snafu". Annual meetings held where the cost of transportation to get the members to it is way out of line. And the list goes on.
_________________
Cliff Russell
MAAC 3971L
You only need two tools: WD-40 and Duct Tape. If it doesn't move and should, use the WD-40. If it shouldn't move and does, use the duct tape.
10-05-2005, 07:22 AM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Claremont,
ON, CANADA
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Dues Increase commentary
ORIGINAL: kenair
Amusing isn't it, the MAAC webmaster runs a different site that slags the MAAC office staff
Amusing isn't it, the MAAC webmaster runs a different site that slags the MAAC office staff
10-05-2005, 08:53 AM
#4
RE: Dues Increase commentary
I agree Jim. Jason can't be expected to filter all posts. Unfortunately, he relies upon a few to keep him informed of contrary opinion, many of whom post the most blatant derogatory comments there.
.................and they're quick. <chuckle> I would barely finish typing my comments when the cencorship hammer would appear.
My stuff never got to the level of some of the posts that are tolerated by the censorship watchdogs. It's about who you are, not what you post. My name attached to anything would touch off a tirade from the ususal bunch regardless of the content.
Jason's contract to look after the MAAC website does place him in a potentially touchy spot with board issues and personal slams to the paid staff being tolerated on RCC.
If I were the vindictive type, I could begin a whiny letter campaign to the board about negative MAAC dirty laundry business being aired out on his site, but it's not my style and I think it's a good thing to have open discussion on issues. If he receives flak on the issue, it will be from that same usual crowd who feel nothing should be discussed openly.....................unless it is "them" doing the
discussing and the opinion is in their favour.
Sincerely,
Spindoctor.
.................and they're quick. <chuckle> I would barely finish typing my comments when the cencorship hammer would appear.
My stuff never got to the level of some of the posts that are tolerated by the censorship watchdogs. It's about who you are, not what you post. My name attached to anything would touch off a tirade from the ususal bunch regardless of the content.
Jason's contract to look after the MAAC website does place him in a potentially touchy spot with board issues and personal slams to the paid staff being tolerated on RCC.
If I were the vindictive type, I could begin a whiny letter campaign to the board about negative MAAC dirty laundry business being aired out on his site, but it's not my style and I think it's a good thing to have open discussion on issues. If he receives flak on the issue, it will be from that same usual crowd who feel nothing should be discussed openly.....................unless it is "them" doing the
discussing and the opinion is in their favour.
Sincerely,
Spindoctor.
10-05-2005, 09:10 AM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Deep River, ON, CANADA
Posts: 3,299
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
RE: Dues Increase commentary
ORIGINAL: Sharpy01
I agree Jim ---- It's about who you are ---- My name attached to anything would touch off a tirade from the ususal bunch regardless of the content ---- but it's not my style ---- to have open discussion on issues --- nothing should be discussed openly ---unless --- the opinion is in their favour
Sincerely,
Spindoctor.
I agree Jim ---- It's about who you are ---- My name attached to anything would touch off a tirade from the ususal bunch regardless of the content ---- but it's not my style ---- to have open discussion on issues --- nothing should be discussed openly ---unless --- the opinion is in their favour
Sincerely,
Spindoctor.
Now I see why you are called the spin doctor
10-05-2005, 09:38 AM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Claremont,
ON, CANADA
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Dues Increase commentary
ORIGINAL: Sharpy01
If I were the vindictive type, I could begin a whiny letter campaign to the board about negative MAAC dirty laundry business being aired out on his site.
If I were the vindictive type, I could begin a whiny letter campaign to the board about negative MAAC dirty laundry business being aired out on his site.
I tend to be more wary of subtle manipulators than blatant blowhards. Perhaps Jason thinks the same. Maybe this is why you get shut down so quickly; you have more potential to cause harm....
10-05-2005, 10:49 AM
#7
RE: Dues Increase commentary
ORIGINAL: Jim_McIntyre
Advice for those who are looking for a more effective venue to vent their frustration Marc? [>:]
Advice for those who are looking for a more effective venue to vent their frustration Marc? [>:]
) As a matter of fact, I request that any sheeite disturbers reading this, DON't begin such a campaign with the board because it's petty and a waste of their time.
ORIGINAL: Jim_McIntyre
I tend to be more wary of subtle manipulators than blatant blowhards. Perhaps Jason thinks the same. Maybe this is why you get shut down so quickly; you have more potential to cause harm....
I tend to be more wary of subtle manipulators than blatant blowhards. Perhaps Jason thinks the same. Maybe this is why you get shut down so quickly; you have more potential to cause harm....
I've not participated in any of those recent dicussions that have brought out that same bunch of "blatant blowhards" with their rude, uninformed and mean-spirited personal comments. With or without me (and no, I'm not in there anywhere as a secret nicname) the nasty stuff keep flaring.
Jim, if the same stardard was used to "blacklist" for all, then there would be at least 5 names within those discussion that would not be adding their comment. It's about who you are, NOT the content of the contribution.
10-05-2005, 12:26 PM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Claremont,
ON, CANADA
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Dues Increase commentary
Ah! It's a conspiracy thing! 
From my viewpoint, Jason built his site with a different model in mind than many of the more commercial sites like this one. RCCanada appears to be modelled on the social environment, kind of like the rec room of the 70's. Although not everyone may agree, and have different methods of verbalizing their disagreements, everyone is expected to to respect the views of other. When someon gets out of hand, and it's drawn to his attention, he has to evaluate if the parties involved are simply blowing off steam or are truly there to cause trouble. When a dispute arises, and you find one participant has a legacy of posts with a particular theme (Sh*t disturbing), I suspect it's a simple choice. I do know ... he warns you before booting you.
From my viewpoint, Jason built his site with a different model in mind than many of the more commercial sites like this one. RCCanada appears to be modelled on the social environment, kind of like the rec room of the 70's. Although not everyone may agree, and have different methods of verbalizing their disagreements, everyone is expected to to respect the views of other. When someon gets out of hand, and it's drawn to his attention, he has to evaluate if the parties involved are simply blowing off steam or are truly there to cause trouble. When a dispute arises, and you find one participant has a legacy of posts with a particular theme (Sh*t disturbing), I suspect it's a simple choice. I do know ... he warns you before booting you.
10-05-2005, 01:21 PM
#9
RE: Dues Increase commentary
ORIGINAL: Jim_McIntyre
Ah! It's a conspiracy thing!
From my viewpoint, Jason built his site with a different model in mind than many of the more commercial sites like this one. RCCanada appears to be modelled on the social environment, kind of like the rec room of the 70's. Although not everyone may agree, and have different methods of verbalizing their disagreements, everyone is expected to to respect the views of other. When someon gets out of hand, and it's drawn to his attention, he has to evaluate if the parties involved are simply blowing off steam or are truly there to cause trouble. When a dispute arises, and you find one participant has a legacy of posts with a particular theme (Sh*t disturbing), I suspect it's a simple choice. I do know ... he warns you before booting you.
Ah! It's a conspiracy thing!
From my viewpoint, Jason built his site with a different model in mind than many of the more commercial sites like this one. RCCanada appears to be modelled on the social environment, kind of like the rec room of the 70's. Although not everyone may agree, and have different methods of verbalizing their disagreements, everyone is expected to to respect the views of other. When someon gets out of hand, and it's drawn to his attention, he has to evaluate if the parties involved are simply blowing off steam or are truly there to cause trouble. When a dispute arises, and you find one participant has a legacy of posts with a particular theme (Sh*t disturbing), I suspect it's a simple choice. I do know ... he warns you before booting you.
I must admit over the past year I have noticed that a number of posts from certain people have gone unchecked when they should not have. As someone way out on the fringes who knows none of the individuals involved in the discussions personally I find that there has appeared to be some bias for dealing with "unruly" characters....I am sure Jason does the warning thing but there are a few unmentionables that should have received enough warnings (IMO) to lose their right to post.
I hate to agree with Marc (good thing I didnt have lunch yet or I might lose it right now
).....but in this case I think his argument of selective banning has some merit.In all fairness I have probably said some things over the years on public forums that should have earned me a "ticket straight to banville" (Xbox Live term sorry
)....however I never received one
10-05-2005, 02:09 PM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Deep River, ON, CANADA
Posts: 3,299
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
RE: Dues Increase commentary
Is that a breath of fresh air I smell?
Getting back to Marc's original post -- he is clearly in favour of supporting MAAC in this issue -- (you are, aren't you Marc?) --- so why did this go off the rails?
Ah yes, it was that iniquitous Ken, who triggered Jim, who was tweaked by Marc, who was dumped by Jim, then --- ohmygod --- defended by Chad-------
Hmmm, what about the actual topic, or is it worth discussing -- being a fait accompli -- and also probably the correct course of action?
Getting back to Marc's original post -- he is clearly in favour of supporting MAAC in this issue -- (you are, aren't you Marc?) --- so why did this go off the rails?
Ah yes, it was that iniquitous Ken, who triggered Jim, who was tweaked by Marc, who was dumped by Jim, then --- ohmygod --- defended by Chad-------
Hmmm, what about the actual topic, or is it worth discussing -- being a fait accompli -- and also probably the correct course of action?
10-05-2005, 02:13 PM
#11
RE: Dues Increase commentary
ORIGINAL: Jim_McIntyre
I suspect it's a simple choice. I do know ... he warns you before booting you.
I suspect it's a simple choice. I do know ... he warns you before booting you.
.........those same folks that Chad has noticed, I'm sure, are the same that I speak of. They are down-right mean-spirited at times.
They're ignorant Jim. If that's ok with you, then so be it, but I somehow felt a strange sense of obligation (and enjoyed) challenging that crowd because they'd quickly show their underbelly for readers. Hopefully it taught readers that not everybody is who they appear to be on these discussion boards. It made them aware that there were different opinions and maybe even shed some light on the complexities of some of the issues and the players that they would not have had otherwise.
One doesn't have to be a rocket-scientist reading recent posts there that that same small core dislike Keith Morrison as well because he stands up to them. Keith and I disagreed with many issues related to MAAC, but we never got ugly with one another and even consider him a friend. What does that tell you? Keith was a MAAC poster-boy and probably has done more selfless work for this association than anyone in the last 10 years, but look how they treat him? Why? Because he disagrees and is articulate and has held to his opinion and beliefs despite being attacked personally and failed to bend to the bullying techniques. They whined to the board, they wrote letters, they slammed him on the internet, they imply conflict of interest............? Keith never used those techniques while I was on the board.
I ruffed a lot of feathers and stirred a few pots, but I've didn't go running to the board for bans and demanded apologies every time someone disagreed with me on a model airplane issue? Jim, some of these clowns were phoning my employer!.................because of my model airplane views? Is that normal? Is that something that makes any sense to you? The same people who would publicly slam the only paid people within our organization, the only people who depend on MAAC for real life issues? They compare them with "secretaries" without a clue as to their job description, they suggest incompetence and hint at corruption, They unfairly compare them to their own family members who live in different regions and do different jobs. It's crap Jim. It's BS Jim.
..........it's not nice.
10-05-2005, 02:44 PM
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Claremont,
ON, CANADA
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Dues Increase commentary
If I am to believe what you are writing (and I'm not saying I don't), then clearly you annoyed some of these same people enough to trigger some extreme behaviour. I have heard that a call to you employer was a direct response to a slanderous statement you made about an individual, and that you made a public apology at an AGM for this statement ... please correct me if I'm wrong here ....
What I still fail to understand is why you feel Jason should take these unrelated (and probably unknown to him) interactions into account when vetting postings....[sm=confused.gif]
Yes, I can see how one could interpret a political stance on the hit & miss editing but, I think it's more a direct result of feedback or lack thereof. IOW, Jason tends to read the threads that interest him (limited time) and vette those he doesn't read, only if they're brought to his attention. I say this because I was once accused of the same thing when I ran a BBS (many moons ago) and this was exactly the situation. I also know Jason has a real job and family and flies .... being in a similar situation, I don't know where he finds the time to maintain the technical side of the site, let alone babysitting some of you guys....
I will agree that some people on forums (this one included) could express their opinions in a more polite/socially acceptable manner.
So ... you weren't warned eh? I guess your reputation preceded you.
What I still fail to understand is why you feel Jason should take these unrelated (and probably unknown to him) interactions into account when vetting postings....[sm=confused.gif]
Yes, I can see how one could interpret a political stance on the hit & miss editing but, I think it's more a direct result of feedback or lack thereof. IOW, Jason tends to read the threads that interest him (limited time) and vette those he doesn't read, only if they're brought to his attention. I say this because I was once accused of the same thing when I ran a BBS (many moons ago) and this was exactly the situation. I also know Jason has a real job and family and flies .... being in a similar situation, I don't know where he finds the time to maintain the technical side of the site, let alone babysitting some of you guys....
I will agree that some people on forums (this one included) could express their opinions in a more polite/socially acceptable manner.
So ... you weren't warned eh? I guess your reputation preceded you.
10-05-2005, 03:38 PM
#13
RE: Dues Increase commentary
ORIGINAL: Jim_McIntyre
If I am to believe what you are writing (and I'm not saying I don't), then clearly you annoyed some of these same people enough to trigger some extreme behaviour. I have heard that a call to you employer was a direct response to a slanderous statement you made about an individual, and that you made a public apology at an AGM for this statement ... please correct me if I'm wrong here ....
What I still fail to understand is why you feel Jason should take these unrelated (and probably unknown to him) interactions into account when vetting postings....[sm=confused.gif]
Yes, I can see how one could interpret a political stance on the hit & miss editing but, I think it's more a direct result of feedback or lack thereof. IOW, Jason tends to read the threads that interest him (limited time) and vette those he doesn't read, only if they're brought to his attention. I say this because I was once accused of the same thing when I ran a BBS (many moons ago) and this was exactly the situation. I also know Jason has a real job and family and flies .... being in a similar situation, I don't know where he finds the time to maintain the technical side of the site, let alone babysitting some of you guys....
I will agree that some people on forums (this one included) could express their opinions in a more polite/socially acceptable manner.
So ... you weren't warned eh? I guess your reputation preceded you.
If I am to believe what you are writing (and I'm not saying I don't), then clearly you annoyed some of these same people enough to trigger some extreme behaviour. I have heard that a call to you employer was a direct response to a slanderous statement you made about an individual, and that you made a public apology at an AGM for this statement ... please correct me if I'm wrong here ....
What I still fail to understand is why you feel Jason should take these unrelated (and probably unknown to him) interactions into account when vetting postings....[sm=confused.gif]
Yes, I can see how one could interpret a political stance on the hit & miss editing but, I think it's more a direct result of feedback or lack thereof. IOW, Jason tends to read the threads that interest him (limited time) and vette those he doesn't read, only if they're brought to his attention. I say this because I was once accused of the same thing when I ran a BBS (many moons ago) and this was exactly the situation. I also know Jason has a real job and family and flies .... being in a similar situation, I don't know where he finds the time to maintain the technical side of the site, let alone babysitting some of you guys....
I will agree that some people on forums (this one included) could express their opinions in a more polite/socially acceptable manner.
So ... you weren't warned eh? I guess your reputation preceded you.
Jason read the thread, hell he even posted in said thread regarding the comments in question.......he knows what was said....the thread remains open, the comments remain in the thread....and to my knowledge nobody has been banned.
Threads have been shut down for a lot less than what has gone on in that one.
10-05-2005, 04:09 PM
#14
RE: Dues Increase commentary
ORIGINAL: Jim_McIntyre
If I am to believe what you are writing (and I'm not saying I don't), then clearly you annoyed some of these same people enough to trigger some extreme behaviour.
If I am to believe what you are writing (and I'm not saying I don't), then clearly you annoyed some of these same people enough to trigger some extreme behaviour.
ORIGINAL: Jim_McIntyre
I have heard that a call to you employer was a direct response to a slanderous statement you made about an individual, and that you made a public apology at an AGM for this statement ... please correct me if I'm wrong here ....
I have heard that a call to you employer was a direct response to a slanderous statement you made about an individual, and that you made a public apology at an AGM for this statement ... please correct me if I'm wrong here ....
ORIGINAL: Jim_McIntyre
What I still fail to understand is why you feel Jason should take these unrelated (and probably unknown to him) interactions into account when vetting postings....[sm=confused.gif]
What I still fail to understand is why you feel Jason should take these unrelated (and probably unknown to him) interactions into account when vetting postings....[sm=confused.gif]
ORIGINAL: Jim_McIntyre
So ... you weren't warned eh? I guess your reputation preceded you.
So ... you weren't warned eh? I guess your reputation preceded you.
10-05-2005, 04:09 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Deep River, ON, CANADA
Posts: 3,299
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
RE: Dues Increase commentary
ORIGINAL: Jim_McIntyre
So ... you weren't warned eh? I guess your reputation preceded you.
So ... you weren't warned eh? I guess your reputation preceded you.
Jim, that is not acceptable. Smiley or not, that comment was pure spite. It is unworthy of you
10-05-2005, 08:41 PM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Headingley, MB, CANADA
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Dues Increase commentary
Got to agree on the level of content on the other site. However I would agree with Marc that banning may not be required. Most of the (gray's anatomy - page 137 fig 1)'s are self identifying themselves as such so in some ways it does no harm. Jim while I understand you're desire to defend Jason (I have dealt with him only once or twice, but feel he is a good sort), you also appear to be defending the posts and posters. Have I misinterpreted?
Jeff H
Jeff H
10-05-2005, 08:56 PM
#17
RE: Dues Increase commentary
I really don't have anything personal with Jason either. Besides a few exchanges to put a plug in for his site when he first got started, (when I was still writing the cyber column in the Mag) We haven't spoken or exchanged any dialogue so I have no basis for judgement?
The reality is that now that he's one of the few on the MAAC payroll, he walks a finer line, particularly if he is participating or perceived to be condoning negative/personal comments about the board and particularly, other employees on the MAAC payroll.
The reality is that now that he's one of the few on the MAAC payroll, he walks a finer line, particularly if he is participating or perceived to be condoning negative/personal comments about the board and particularly, other employees on the MAAC payroll.
10-05-2005, 09:20 PM
#18
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Calgary,
AB, CANADA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Dues Increase commentary
Actually, just like me, Jason is an independant contractor and a product supplier to MAAC.
An easy mis-understanding ... I even had to remind a director once that he was in no way my boss, but rather that the association was a client.
An easy mis-understanding ... I even had to remind a director once that he was in no way my boss, but rather that the association was a client.
10-05-2005, 10:07 PM
#19
RE: Dues Increase commentary
Fair enough, but you know yourself Keith, that your opinion and perception thereof has been guarded at times due to your contract/service arrangement with the association.
........However, I note an increase in your informed opinion as of late................and I like it.
........However, I note an increase in your informed opinion as of late................and I like it.
10-06-2005, 07:30 AM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Claremont,
ON, CANADA
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Dues Increase commentary
ORIGINAL: britbrat
Jim, that is not acceptable. Smiley or not, that comment was pure spite. It is unworthy of you
ORIGINAL: Jim_McIntyre
So ... you weren't warned eh? I guess your reputation preceded you.
So ... you weren't warned eh? I guess your reputation preceded you.
Was it?
It wasn't meant that way ... Marc and I have been sparring for some time and he often referrs to his reputation similarly. I'd lke to think he didn't take that comment with spite....
Let me state that I hold no spite against anyone here, I respect differing opinions when they are not spiteful in essence. Much like a conversation at the field, I reserve the right to take friendly pokes at those I feel mature enough to handle it, and expect to receive the same. Anything less would be far too dry and boring to retain my limited attention.
<Edited to remove misplaced smiley that altered intended meaning>
10-06-2005, 08:29 AM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Claremont,
ON, CANADA
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Dues Increase commentary
Ok, now that that's cleared up, back on topic.
Jean's makes some good points. It's difficult to summarize (and even quantify) all that MAAC does, even Jean's summary is incomplete but will suffice for this discussion. I doubt many knew this much (or even thought of it). This is obvious from the many posts equating MAAC to insurance only.
If you want my opinion of what MAAC does poorly ... it's public relations. Not only is the public unaware but, the members and various bodies (government and otherwise) that should be, are unaware or have been until recently. Is this MAAC's fault? Yes ... So it's Henry's fault right? Wrong. Committees and their chairman are co-ordinating bodies. Without activities, there is very little to co-ordinate. In an organization this size, we can't simply throw money at public relations like large corporations do. Like most volunteer organizations, it's up to the membership to do the footwork, relying on the committee where appropriate to facilitate communications amongst these members. If you haven't contacted the public relations committee, you're at fault for this lack, don't blame them. The same applies to all committees. The aforementioned thread on RCCanada has taken a similar turn regarding youth and parkflyers etc. Everyone likes to blames MAAC ... what they don't realize is we are all MAAC ... we are blaming ourselves for not doing something to address a problem. This is why I get annoyed with people criticising MAAC, they are criticising you and me ... and themselves, for not investigating/actioning these wonderful ideas they post all over the internet.[sm=idea.gif]
Jean's makes some good points. It's difficult to summarize (and even quantify) all that MAAC does, even Jean's summary is incomplete but will suffice for this discussion. I doubt many knew this much (or even thought of it). This is obvious from the many posts equating MAAC to insurance only.
If you want my opinion of what MAAC does poorly ... it's public relations. Not only is the public unaware but, the members and various bodies (government and otherwise) that should be, are unaware or have been until recently. Is this MAAC's fault? Yes ... So it's Henry's fault right? Wrong. Committees and their chairman are co-ordinating bodies. Without activities, there is very little to co-ordinate. In an organization this size, we can't simply throw money at public relations like large corporations do. Like most volunteer organizations, it's up to the membership to do the footwork, relying on the committee where appropriate to facilitate communications amongst these members. If you haven't contacted the public relations committee, you're at fault for this lack, don't blame them. The same applies to all committees. The aforementioned thread on RCCanada has taken a similar turn regarding youth and parkflyers etc. Everyone likes to blames MAAC ... what they don't realize is we are all MAAC ... we are blaming ourselves for not doing something to address a problem. This is why I get annoyed with people criticising MAAC, they are criticising you and me ... and themselves, for not investigating/actioning these wonderful ideas they post all over the internet.[sm=idea.gif]