ORIGINAL: Jim_McIntyre
First, you are making many assumptions that are most likely untrue. It is not a simple question of the 43% in perfect agreement, leading the 53% geographically dispersed lining up on the opposite side of the fence. This is an oversimplification of the matter. What I was alluding to, is simply a fact that, when a larger number are focused in an area that imposes fewer geographical boundaries, they tend to meet more often, and establish common grounds for effecting their approachs. I'm not making moral or philosophical judgements, simply stating a fact, please refrain from placing a spin on this simple fact.
That does make your position clearer because it wasn't that clear initially. Actually, no assumptions should be made based on simple numbers or percentages.........or geography. Your theory is an assumption because you don't have data on geographical regions like mine where we are spread 1000's of kms. In fact, you would be surprized at how many times and how motivated members here are if they have common interest. Within our region, we likely hold more influence with the general public than a densly populated area simply because we are more visible and more easily accessible to the average non-modeller. ie: our club carries around 30-40 members yearly from a population base of around 15000. Compared to a club of a 100+ within an urban area of 500,000. Who would actually be more visible of the two? Exporsure to higher percentages is easier here because when an event goes on, the whole area is aware of it, because the only papers in town cover it, the only radio stations in town cover it etc. Our main yearly event, a float fly, takes place right in the middle of the city?
The same holds true for regional events. The city of Gimli, north of winnipeg, sponsored the 1st annual regional fun fly last year, with tremendous support, both in money and location. As a result, we have a complete new club that has started in that town and the event looks to get bigger and bigger.
IMO, the assumption that highly populated areas within Canada have a better chance to promote the hobby. I disagree and certainly, those areas should not hold any more .....or less...influence than any region. Those areas with less dense population base should, at the very least, definately should not be marginalized.
ORIGINAL: Jim_McIntyre
"status quo" is a poor definition. I think you need to enlighten us as to your cause. Sticking my neck out, I believe (from our previous conversations) you're referrring to MAAC's support (especially financially) of competition. I would like to remind you that MAAC was established "promote competition". In this light, "status quo" to me, means doing what the organization was established to do. I continue to fail to comprehend your issue with this.....
"Yeah, Sharpe, the anti-comp guy mantra". Why do you need to go there again Jim?
Yep, I don't like the FAI travel fund and tried to put the brakes on some of the World Scale 2002 spending when on the board, but that does not make me "anti" anything. My "cause" since day one was to try and focus on the overall membership and stick to general issues and allow the specialty folks look after themselves. "Promoting" competition is fine, but not for only a small minority and not on the backs of the rest who have no interest in the competition. Money could be better spent elsewhere........as our current budget situation shows. Make all your members happy and make the organization appeal to more new members, which will produce more who may wish to investigate competition. Competitors like yourself are highly motivated and don't require special attention to promote your interest.
......I know, I know, the history lessons on the beginnins of MAAC.........but as 4-60 writes, the organization has changed and denying it is only detrimental in the long run. Thanks to the few that started the association, they have their rightful place in the hall of fame, time to move on.