RE: 2006 MAAC NATS

RE: 2006 MAAC NATS
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> M.A.A.C. >> RE: 2006 MAAC NATS

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: 2006 MAAC NATS - 12/2/2005 12:39:52 PM

kenair

Posts: 492
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: winnipeg, MB, CANADA
Status: offline

Yes, I agree, reflections of Scale 2002. Many have asked the hard questions, took the personal attackes, got banned off the can (we're still there), now the chickens are coming home to roost.

What will be the magic words or who has the pull to yank the chain.
.
,
.
,
,

quote:

>JASON I STRONGLY SUGGEST YOU SHUT THIS DOWN NOW.

Methinks somebody feels that things are getting uncomfortably close to home ...

.

.

quote:

JASON I STRONGLY SUGGEST YOU SHUT THIS DOWN NOW. YOU HAVE ALLOWED ACCUSATIONS OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY TO BE PLACED ON A PUBLIC FORUM

.

quote:

_____________________________

[link]http://www.upaero.com/[/link]

(in reply to Sharpy01)

Post #: 26

RE: 2006 MAAC NATS - 12/2/2005 2:25:49 PM

cessna206a

Posts: 20
Joined: 10/28/2005
From: ., ON, CANADA
Status: offline

That thread is very insightful, there is one maac "expert" who seems to think he knows it all about how maac and wc events should be run because he has done it, does not recognize that he is part of the problem rather than the solution.

(in reply to extra300xs)

Post #: 27

RE: 2006 MAAC NATS - 12/3/2005 3:45:05 AM

jhelps

Posts: 163
Joined: 1/9/2003
From: Headingley, MB, CANADA
Status: offline

It's quiet out there ... TOO quiet

JH

(in reply to cessna206a)

Post #: 28

RE: 2006 MAAC NATS - 12/3/2005 1:51:37 PM

britbrat

Posts: 3299
Joined: 6/15/2004
From: Deep River, ON, CANADA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jhelps

It's quiet out there ... TOO quiet

JH

Ya think sumthin is up?

(in reply to jhelps)

Post #: 29

RE: 2006 MAAC NATS - 12/3/2005 2:14:37 PM

j79

Posts: 37
Joined: 10/29/2005
From: To, ON, CANADA
Status: offline

they must have run out of tissue on the can but it's now up to 20 pages and no sign of plugging.
http://www.rccanada.ca/bb/viewtopic.php?t=18603&start=285

they are all wondering who in the Chatham club is in kahoots with the CAC bunch and the two grand of maac $$.

(in reply to britbrat)

Post #: 30

RE: 2006 MAAC NATS - 12/3/2005 2:36:32 PM

jhelps

Posts: 163
Joined: 1/9/2003
From: Headingley, MB, CANADA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: j79

they must have run out of tissue on the can but it's now up to 20 pages and no sign of plugging.
http://www.rccanada.ca/bb/viewtopic.php?t=18603&start=285

they are all wondering who in the Chatham club is in kahoots with the CAC bunch and the two grand of maac $$.

I think most folks actually believe that the Chatam Club is simply trying to put on a good event. If a ZD (present or recently replaced) came to me and said "here is the $2000 left over from last year to seed this years event" I would simply get on with organizing the event. If "Zone Management" has pulled a fast one that is not the clubs concern and I believe they operated in good faith.

I hope that the discussions keep the two issues separate. While I am not currently into competition I like the idea of an annual national event, same place, same time - solely funded by the event itself. If Chatam is the club to do it, they deserve our support. Indeed if it turns out that monies need to be returned I'd throw 20.00 their way to help replace it. 100 other folks and they're back on track.

Jeff

< Message edited by jhelps -- 12/3/2005 4:46:27 PM >

(in reply to j79)

Post #: 31

RE: 2006 MAAC NATS - 12/3/2005 4:24:10 PM

Sharpy01

Posts: 600
Joined: 9/9/2003
From: Kenora, ON, CANADA
Status: offline

I don't think it has much to do with the Club itself. Again, it's pretty simple math.

2+2=4

or in this case

12+1 or 13-1 ........ potato, potahto.

As pointed out in the other thread. All the controversy of the last number of years, (don't forget to add the attempt to move HQ to Tillsonburg and pushing the last President out) surrounds a very concentrated bunch. It seem some folks within that very zone are now beginning to figure out the equasion. Maybe they'll fix it.

(in reply to jhelps)

Post #: 32

RE: 2006 MAAC NATS - 12/3/2005 4:40:01 PM

jhelps

Posts: 163
Joined: 1/9/2003
From: Headingley, MB, CANADA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sharpy01

It seem some folks within that very zone are now beginning to figure out the equasion. Maybe they'll fix it.

MAAC Bylaws

Removal from Office
(a) Any officer elected or appointed by the Board may be removed at any time by
the affirmative vote of the majority of members of the board.
(b) An interest category chairman may be removed at any time by a majority vote of
the members of his interest category.
(c) The office of Zone Director shall be automatically vacated if:
(i) a long illness (over 3 months) precludes him or her from engaging in
Association activities.
(ii) he or she fails to uphold the duties of zone director.
(iii) his or her removal from office shall be as a result of a special meeting
attended by 10% of the membership of the applicable zone in which a
resolution is passed by a two-thirds majority of the members present, or in
the case of a mail ballot, two-thirds of the ballots returned from at least 25%
of the membership, favor the removal from office of the zone director
concerned.

(in reply to Sharpy01)

Post #: 33

RE: 2006 MAAC NATS - 12/4/2005 1:51:44 AM

pipercubflyer

Posts: 4
Joined: 9/6/2002
From: Gainsborough, Sk., SK, CANADA
Status: offline

I also think the Sw zone is now in a new operating mode and will correct the situation and fast.

Have been following all this with great interest and must congratulate Propworn on his last post on the other RCC forum. Good work Dennis.

The total silence by the offenders in the past couple of days speakes volumns.

Will keep following with interest as well.

Garnet

(in reply to jhelps)

Post #: 34

RE: 2006 MAAC NATS - 12/4/2005 4:38:44 PM

kenair

Posts: 492
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: winnipeg, MB, CANADA
Status: offline

I think the board has finally figured out that the majority don't really gives a rats azzzzzzz about the Nats, FaI, or flying in the salt mines or else there would have a been a ground swell to have a Nats at any costs, only a few repeat yappers left on the can, now up to 22 pages, http://www.rccanada.ca/bb/viewtopic.php?t=18603
.

did you read this bs on the can - someone on the Chatham club had to be directly involved in the process

quote:

Rick Kroeze wrote:
Quote:
What is the difference with the above and money laundering?

Are you suggesting the Chatham club has knowingly laundered money?

I am most certainly not suggesting anything of the sort, nor implying any wrong doing by the Chatham club who has always had my respect.
They are a great bunch of guys.
I did not write the statement of where the funds went and why, but come on folks this kind of behavior must leave you scratching your heads as to what is going on.
The posted facts do not ad up. Somebody must be accountable. It is all so wrong.

_____________________________

[link]http://www.upaero.com/[/link]

(in reply to pipercubflyer)

Post #: 35

RE: 2006 MAAC NATS - 12/5/2005 3:30:47 AM

jhelps

Posts: 163
Joined: 1/9/2003
From: Headingley, MB, CANADA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sharpy01

I don't think it has much to do with the Club itself. Again, it's pretty simple math.

2+2=4

or in this case

12+1 or 13-1 ........ potato, potahto.

As pointed out in the other thread. All the controversy of the last number of years, (don't forget to add the attempt to move HQ to Tillsonburg and pushing the last President out) surrounds a very concentrated bunch. It seem some folks within that very zone are now beginning to figure out the equasion. Maybe they'll fix it.

Will Chuck have to change his name from usedtobechair to usedtobeZD?

Seems very ironic considering the reason he chose it in the first place>

JH

< Message edited by jhelps -- 12/5/2005 5:09:04 AM >

(in reply to Sharpy01)

Post #: 36

RE: 2006 MAAC NATS - 12/5/2005 12:44:59 PM

Ed Smith

Posts: 2820
Joined: 12/29/2001
From: Brantford, ON, CANADA
Status: offline

quote:

Will Chuck have to change his name from usedtobechair to usedtobeZD?

Do not be so sure.

People will still vote for the Liberal/Adscam party in the next election.

Ed S

(in reply to jhelps)

Post #: 37

RE: 2006 MAAC NATS - 12/5/2005 1:42:54 PM

kenair

Posts: 492
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: winnipeg, MB, CANADA
Status: offline

We should not be so hard on Smith and Palmer - they are only following the example set by Dave Larkin when he undermined maac president Rick Reid of the aero club of canada issue, - if you don't like how the majority of the board voted - do you own agenda and get things your own way.

Except this time it is not working for S & P.

_____________________________

[link]http://www.upaero.com/[/link]

(in reply to Ed Smith)

Post #: 38

RE: 2006 MAAC NATS - 12/5/2005 2:32:43 PM

gingertoad

Posts: 64
Joined: 6/21/2005
From: Prescott, ON, CANADA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kenair

We should not be so hard on Smith and Palmer - they are only following the example set by Dave Larkin when he undermined maac president Rick Reid of the aero club of canada issue, - if you don't like how the majority of the board voted - do you own agenda and get things your own way.

Except this time it is not working for S & P.

There is a huge difference between the Larkin/Reid situation and the current dispute.

Dave Larkin was a Board member following and protecting the Constitution and Bylaws of MAAC. He had majority support on the Board. President Reid acted arbitrarily in oppositon to them and to the Bylaws, and refused to reverse his position. Reid was given the opportunity to retract and act correctly. He did not do so. This is documented fact. The Board and Executive did not support Rick Reid bscause his actions were wrong, and in contravention of the bylaws of the association.

In the current situation, the rules and rgulations of MAAC are under attack, and the Board of Diirectors are strongly opposing the attack. The current Board and Executive are extremely united, and stand behind the current president, Carl Layden, because he has been meticulous in following procedure. Every action taken by Carl Layden has been 100% legitimate.

Richard Barlow
Vice -President MAAC

(in reply to kenair)

Post #: 39

RE: 2006 MAAC NATS - 12/5/2005 4:31:13 PM