RE: Steve Kaluf and the AMA  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> AMA Discussions >> RE: Steve Kaluf and the AMA
Page: <<   < prev  27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 36   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Steve Kaluf and the AMA - 9/5/2007 8:41:58 PM   
KidEpoxy



Posts: 3604
Joined: 10/14/2004
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline
quote:

True. But to say that 8 did allegedly agree with JC's actions would only suggest that they did know at least enough to agree with his choice.


STL-
please cite source thet the 8 "Agreed" with the decision.
Or was it 2 to 8 to reverse JC's action? Nowhere near enough active opposers to reverse the firing.

But that doesnt clearly say the 8 "agreed" with what JC did.
Why did the concept of worrying about setting a precedant even come up in discussion if they all were so committed to endorsing the firing? It sure looks like the typical AMA "Lets Do Nothing" action:
You guys wanna reverse that Firing?
Nah.
You wanna fix MA?
Nah.
Lets read these resumes.
Nah.
You guys wanna do something... anything?
Nah... Wait, we can make an Action Commitee to study things to do... we need $27k for this commitee.


We just had a war funding bill that would not pass without the Dems tacking on a Min Wage Hike & having the Dems vote for it: So do you say the Dems agree with the president in funding the war further (in direct contrast to what they campaign promised)?

Heck no!
We all know full well they voted for it AND did not agree with the Pres funding the war.
And back in Slick Willy days we had a bunch of Dems supporting Adultry, right? Cause they didnt want to impeach BigBill. Clearly showing support & agreement with adultry (Bill was married to someone.. the Heath Care Bus Czar if I recall).

Not chosing to take action against, is not Agreeing,
else we can say JC agreed with all the 'history' of Steve's.... he didnt take action back then, which (by your logic) is supporting & agreeing

< Message edited by KidEpoxy -- 9/5/2007 8:44:29 PM >

_____________________________

Optional MA is part of AMA history, we can go optional AGAIN if we just say so

(in reply to STLPilot)
       Post #: 726

RE: Steve Kaluf and the AMA - 9/5/2007 9:18:19 PM   
JUGFLIER


 

Posts: 955
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Muscle Shoals, AL, USA
Status: offline 		Kid, there you go you had to go ruin a perfectly good argument with rational. I liked it better when you dealt in rhetoric.

(in reply to KidEpoxy)
       Post #: 727

RE: Steve Kaluf and the AMA - 9/5/2007 9:26:05 PM   
STLPilot


 

Posts: 9237
Joined: 3/12/2003
From: Manhattan, NY, USA
Status: offline
quote:

You and others suggest “purely a business decision within the power of JC's discretion”. Now you say otherwise... which is it; a membership legislative decision or business decision.


JC doesn't have to mimic the EC's moves or decisions. I only said he had to ANSWER to them, that's it. No need to over analyze the situation. Kid was under the impression that the EC may or may not have been left in the dark for SK's firing, which is against the bylaws if he heldback information. JC can be fired LCS, his contract is not written on a steel plaque. If he goes against what the EC all agreed for him to do in his contract, it's bye bye.

Remember the person who holds the keys for the person that wants to get drunk analogy ... back up to that principle.

_____________________________

Here At The Wall

(in reply to JUGFLIER)
       Post #: 728

RE: Steve Kaluf and the AMA - 9/5/2007 9:51:06 PM   
littlecrankshaf



Posts: 2151
Joined: 12/9/2001
From: here
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: STLPilot

quote:

You and others suggest “purely a business decision within the power of JC's discretion”. Now you say otherwise... which is it; a membership legislative decision or business decision.



Remember the person who holds the keys for the person that wants to get drunk analogy ... back up to that principle.


So in your comparison the EC holds the keys to the ED that is drunk with power?

You just talk in circles.


_____________________________

Wow! Another epiphany…that is why the suckups suckup. Super sucking protection power. Yea baby.

(in reply to STLPilot)
       Post #: 729

RE: Steve Kaluf and the AMA - 9/5/2007 10:01:54 PM   
STLPilot


 

Posts: 9237
Joined: 3/12/2003
From: Manhattan, NY, USA
Status: offline 		No, that's how you interpert things, as the worst possible scenario.

The AMA is broken. The AMA gives power to an individual (power of attorney/discretionary power) in this case the ED, to hold the keys and not to give them back till things are fixed.

Do you think the AMA wants to pay the ED 100-120k year to do his job, or is it something they have to do? If the EC could handle the job themselves, then they would only need an office manager to hold things together. But they gave him power to do his job, witout having to answer to anyone except the EC. You'll just never understand it. You want it all plus a magazine for your $58.

_____________________________

Here At The Wall

(in reply to littlecrankshaf)
       Post #: 730

RE: Steve Kaluf and the AMA - 9/5/2007 10:13:38 PM   
KidEpoxy



Posts: 3604
Joined: 10/14/2004
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Kid was under the impression that the EC may or may not have been left in the dark for SK's firing, which is against the bylaws if he heldback information.

Cant hold back info if nobody asks for the info in the first place.
Maybe the EC got all their questions answered by JC... what we dont know is how questioning the EC was and what the answers were.

But in the end, with their questions answered, 20% of the folks in the closed meeting felt it reasonable to reverse the firing despite precedent concerns (if we have accepted the 8/10 Uphold Firing vote as NonPartisan Fact.. I actually forget where in the past 30-odd pages we got that).


STL-
Yes or no, did JC agree/endorse what Steve was doing in that "history" by not taking action back then?



_____________________________

Optional MA is part of AMA history, we can go optional AGAIN if we just say so

(in reply to STLPilot)
       Post #: 731

RE: Steve Kaluf and the AMA - 9/5/2007 10:42:05 PM   
littlecrankshaf



Posts: 2151
Joined: 12/9/2001
From: here
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: STLPilot

The AMA gives power to an individual (power of attorney/discretionary power) in this case the ED, to hold the keys and not to give them back till things are fixed.



Now youranology is more like a comparison to an auto mecahnic...I guess. Your point is getting more dull by the moment.

Here is how I see it. JC exerted pressure on Steve to resign because he felt Steve was insubordinate by violating his previous directives not to request mowing equipment. Steve's rendition is that he requested nothing but volunteered to help mow. Either way the EC upheld the ED's position. We are not sure what transpired up to the point in question and we will likely never know.

I think that is the reality...don't you?

No spins please?

No silly analogies either please?



_____________________________

Wow! Another epiphany…that is why the suckups suckup. Super sucking protection power. Yea baby.

(in reply to STLPilot)
       Post #: 732

RE: Steve Kaluf and the AMA - 9/5/2007 10:44:27 PM   
STLPilot


 

Posts: 9237
Joined: 3/12/2003
From: Manhattan, NY, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
Yes or no, did JC agree/endorse what Steve was doing in that "history" by not taking action back then?
Don't know, don't really care. From the first time I read SK's song and dance, which was not hard to read between the lines, my stand was only to defend the ED. And I'm certainly glad I did. Sort of like you stood on your principle for the paintball thread.

And if you understood the concept of membership organizations and the differences between them and say .... Geico, perhaps you would care to defend what they represent as well.

SK's fired, he's not coming back. JC is still the man.

< Message edited by STLPilot -- 9/6/2007 10:16:53 AM >

_____________________________

Here At The Wall

(in reply to KidEpoxy)
       Post #: 733

RE: Steve Kaluf and the AMA - 9/5/2007 11:50:16 PM   
cap10b



Posts: 516
Joined: 6/12/2002
From: Carrollton, TX, USA
Status: offline 		All,

You must take what they have told you, and learn from it, as a man does. There has been a mistake. It will not happen again; We know their quality. The AMA is the finest model flying club in the nation, and our service to this organization will always be invaluable. Now... let us speak no more of this

jds




_____________________________

With Sport Greatness

(in reply to STLPilot)
       Post #: 734

RE: Steve Kaluf and the AMA - 9/6/2007 2:29:54 AM   
50%plane



Posts: 3765
Joined: 3/8/2005
From: x, , USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cap10b

All,

You must take what they have told you, and learn from it, as a man does. There has been a mistake. It will not happen again; We know their quality. The AMA is the finest model flying club in the nation, and our service to this organization will always be invaluable. Now... let us speak no more of this

jds





good post!

_____________________________

Model Airplanes don't kill people. Chuck Norris kills people.
Christopher A. Todd AMA# 637636

(in reply to cap10b)
       Post #: 735

RE: Steve Kaluf and the AMA - 9/6/2007 4:30:30 AM   
combatpigg



Posts: 10103
Joined: 11/22/2003
From: arlington, WA, USA
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: cap10b

All,

You must take what they have told you, and learn from it, as a man does. There has been a mistake. It will not happen again. Now... let us speak no more of this

jds





Isn't this the same speech that the commander of Stalag 19 gave after 2 escapees were captured and shot?


_____________________________

Led Zeppelin is NOT "old fogie" music.

(in reply to cap10b)
       Post #: 736

RE: Steve Kaluf and the AMA - 9/6/2007 6:21:45 PM   
littlecrankshaf



Posts: 2151
Joined: 12/9/2001
From: here
Status: offline 		quotes Gettysburg;

General Robert E. Lee: There is another fight comin' tomorrow, and we need you. We need every man, God knows. You must take what I have told you, and learn from it, as a man does.


General Robert E. Lee: There has been a mistake. It will not happen again; I know your quality. You are one of the finest cavalry officers I have ever known, and your service to this army has been invaluable. Now... let us speak no more of this.

put into context...

General Robert E. Lee: The matter is concluded. Good night, General




_____________________________

Wow! Another epiphany…that is why the suckups suckup. Super sucking protection power. Yea baby.

(in reply to combatpigg)
       Post #: 737

RE: Steve Kaluf and the AMA - 9/6/2007 7:09:58 PM   
STLPilot


 

Posts: 9237
Joined: 3/12/2003
From: Manhattan, NY, USA
Status: offline 		Robert E. Lee: Dangit, we lost.


_____________________________

Here At The Wall

(in reply to littlecrankshaf)
       Post #: 738

RE: Steve Kaluf and the AMA - 9/6/2007 7:22:39 PM   
KidEpoxy



Posts: 3604
Joined: 10/14/2004
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline
quote:

From KE-

STL-
please cite source thet the 8 "Agreed" with the decision.
Or was it 2 to 8 to reverse JC's action? Nowhere near enough active opposers to reverse the firing.

But that doesnt clearly say the 8 "agreed" with what JC did.
Why did the concept of worrying about setting a precedant even come up in discussion if they all were so committed to endorsing the firing?

You seem to have not answered this one
Cite source,
or is that just gossip you got off a subway bathroom wall?

_____________________________

Optional MA is part of AMA history, we can go optional AGAIN if we just say so

(in reply to STLPilot)
       Post #: 739

RE: Steve Kaluf and the AMA - 9/6/2007 7:34:43 PM   
STLPilot


 

Posts: 9237
Joined: 3/12/2003
From: Manhattan, NY, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
or is that just gossip you got off a subway bathroom wall?
Subways don't have bathrooms, silly.

I guess that would be like thinking Texas is the only state to enter the U.S. by annexation, instead of by treaty. Like you thought above, those that would assume this about Texas would be wrong. Would be neat to see if they could separate from the actual states and survive on their own. I guess a merger with Mexico would be beneficial???


_____________________________

Here At The Wall

(in reply to KidEpoxy)
       Post #: 740