ORIGINAL: 804
<snip>
Abel,
Earlier in this thread, you made the point that if a club using public property allowed open members, but not PPP, and not stating requirements for minimum liability, it could be at risk for a discrimination suit.
This is a fair item for discussion, and something AMA should consider. Not arguing that at all.
But in this case, Major Tomski clearly states that required minimum, $1,000,000, is in the lease.
jrjohn's position is that his(or others') discount membership, along with his primary insurance, should be honored. And if not, he'd be willing to file suit. Over $29 ??? There's principle, and then there's common sense.
Do you really think this is productive, and in the best interests of our hobby?
I think such a position is frivolous and petty.
Call me judgmental and irrational(you have before, but maybe I deserved it
), but man, I just can't see the logic.
804-
You ask me why somebody would take an action you consider irrational and expect a rational answer. No can do. Like, I could ask you "what is rational about grown men messing around with model airplanes?"
Since I can't give you the sort of answer you seek, I'll turn it around and fire it back at you:
Is turning a fellow modeler (and AMA member) away from your field because he got a discount deal from AMA that you didn't anything but petty and frivolous? What business of the club is it how he meets the personal insurance requirement of the land owner, and do you really find it rational to feel strongly enough about forcing his compliance with your will to jeopardize losing your flying site?
I won't call you anything but consistently one of the more level-headed people that post here. Don't fret missing the logic - the issue involves emotion, and logic being limited to a rational thought process doesn't cover it. Maybe it shouldn't - remember that The Law, our system of social order, is not logical but rather based in causal reasoning.
Abel