Wow, I take a day off and things get off track. As Bob astutely pointed out, I was being sarcastic for most of my previous few posts. I didn't double-check the numbers but I think when I figured the percentage "for" the weight increase I used the numbers 55 for, 48 against, and 4 no comment. If I didn't get the numbers exactly right sue me. However, 55/107 = .514, or 51.4% for the measure. The exactness of the number however is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make that the NSRCA needs to put something in writing that will require major changes to the rules, such as a 500 gram increase to the weight limit, require at least a 2/3 majority for the measure. It's impossible to close Pandora's Box, so you better make damn sure everyone wants to open it. By the way, when I threw out a +/- 8% margin of error on the survey I had just pulled that number out of my nether regions. Finally had time today to check that number, and assuming there are 500 pattern pilots (probably more than that though), and you had a sample size of 107, your margin of error is +/- 8.41%. Sometimes I'm so good it's scary. Now that I have confirmed that the "for" was not above 50% by more than the margin of error, this just further proves that the NSRCA board did a piss-poor job this rules cycle and needs to learn a valuable lesson from this lapse in leadership. Change just for change's sake is a bad move for anyone. Someone posted a very good e-mail to the NSRCA mailing list the other day that sums up every point I've been trying to make. Here's the final paragraph from that message:

Changing the rules has never, and will never increase participation.