Torrey Pines and Sandy Frank
11-15-2002 | 06:07 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Corona, CA,
Torrey Pines and Sandy Frank
Bill Lee,
I have copied the following from the 'For AMA' thread, since it had dropped into a quagmire. I am hoping that you have researched the timeline and had an opportunity to talk to Dr. Frank about this question and would share with us the results. I understand that intentions goes to the thought process and you can not know his intent without asking him. I know that he is not shy and if he wants to post on RCU, as opposed to rec.models.rc.air, I, for one, would welcome him. If you feel that the 'flavor' of this post is incomplete, please add whatever you feel is appropriate.
JR
JR wrote in another post:
*****************
I have a question about Sandy Frank's intention's when he openly encouraged modelers, world wide, to write to the City of San Diego, and to 'sign' the petition, after the City had already sided with the Torrey Pines Gulls. I could see no useful reason for him to do this.
*****************
Bill Lee wrote in another post:
*****************
As to Sandy's actions regarding the Torrey Pines issue: I have not researched the timeline, but my recollection is that he simply passed on what had been e-mailed to all AMA members by AMA HQs. My recollection (it may be wrong and I'll research this) is that he did that essentially coincident with the e-mail, not a long time later. However, as you know, many folks will not see a Usenet posting for many days after it is made, and if the posting has timely information in it, the readers may react far too late. Again, I will look at the time line of this and post it for all to see.
As to his intentions: I cannot say what they are since I have not asked him that question. If I may be presumptuous, I will say that it was simply to get the word out to a larger audience than the e-mail reached, or perhaps into an audience that seems willing to act more than the average Joe Flightpack. However, that is just my presumption, knowing the man as I do.
******************
I have copied the following from the 'For AMA' thread, since it had dropped into a quagmire. I am hoping that you have researched the timeline and had an opportunity to talk to Dr. Frank about this question and would share with us the results. I understand that intentions goes to the thought process and you can not know his intent without asking him. I know that he is not shy and if he wants to post on RCU, as opposed to rec.models.rc.air, I, for one, would welcome him. If you feel that the 'flavor' of this post is incomplete, please add whatever you feel is appropriate.
JR
JR wrote in another post:
*****************
I have a question about Sandy Frank's intention's when he openly encouraged modelers, world wide, to write to the City of San Diego, and to 'sign' the petition, after the City had already sided with the Torrey Pines Gulls. I could see no useful reason for him to do this.
*****************
Bill Lee wrote in another post:
*****************
As to Sandy's actions regarding the Torrey Pines issue: I have not researched the timeline, but my recollection is that he simply passed on what had been e-mailed to all AMA members by AMA HQs. My recollection (it may be wrong and I'll research this) is that he did that essentially coincident with the e-mail, not a long time later. However, as you know, many folks will not see a Usenet posting for many days after it is made, and if the posting has timely information in it, the readers may react far too late. Again, I will look at the time line of this and post it for all to see.
As to his intentions: I cannot say what they are since I have not asked him that question. If I may be presumptuous, I will say that it was simply to get the word out to a larger audience than the e-mail reached, or perhaps into an audience that seems willing to act more than the average Joe Flightpack. However, that is just my presumption, knowing the man as I do.
******************
11-15-2002 | 08:45 PM
#2
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Chandler,
TX
Re: Torrey Pines and Sandy Frank
Originally posted by J_R
Bill Lee,
JR wrote in another post:
*****************
I have a question about Sandy Frank's intention's when he openly encouraged modelers, world wide, to write to the City of San Diego, and to 'sign' the petition, after the City had already sided with the Torrey Pines Gulls. I could see no useful reason for him to do this.
*****************
Bill Lee wrote in another post:
*****************
As to Sandy's actions regarding the Torrey Pines issue: I have not researched the timeline, but my recollection is that he simply passed on what had been e-mailed to all AMA members by AMA HQs. My recollection (it may be wrong and I'll research this) is that he did that essentially coincident with the e-mail, not a long time later. However, as you know, many folks will not see a Usenet posting for many days after it is made, and if the posting has timely information in it, the readers may react far too late. Again, I will look at the time line of this and post it for all to see.
As to his intentions: I cannot say what they are since I have not asked him that question. If I may be presumptuous, I will say that it was simply to get the word out to a larger audience than the e-mail reached, or perhaps into an audience that seems willing to act more than the average Joe Flightpack. However, that is just my presumption, knowing the man as I do.
******************
Bill Lee,
JR wrote in another post:
*****************
I have a question about Sandy Frank's intention's when he openly encouraged modelers, world wide, to write to the City of San Diego, and to 'sign' the petition, after the City had already sided with the Torrey Pines Gulls. I could see no useful reason for him to do this.
*****************
Bill Lee wrote in another post:
*****************
As to Sandy's actions regarding the Torrey Pines issue: I have not researched the timeline, but my recollection is that he simply passed on what had been e-mailed to all AMA members by AMA HQs. My recollection (it may be wrong and I'll research this) is that he did that essentially coincident with the e-mail, not a long time later. However, as you know, many folks will not see a Usenet posting for many days after it is made, and if the posting has timely information in it, the readers may react far too late. Again, I will look at the time line of this and post it for all to see.
As to his intentions: I cannot say what they are since I have not asked him that question. If I may be presumptuous, I will say that it was simply to get the word out to a larger audience than the e-mail reached, or perhaps into an audience that seems willing to act more than the average Joe Flightpack. However, that is just my presumption, knowing the man as I do.
******************
August 16: Petition drive opens on gliderking.com. Discussion of the petition drive appears on rec.models.rc.air (r.m.r.a)
August 25: Update on negotiations appears on gliderking.com
September 16: Sandy Frank posts a copy of the e-mail that AMA sent to members who registered e-mail addresses. As I recall, it was intended that they were to send 50,000 each week until all of the membership had been covered. I am not sure if that continued. IMPORTRANT POINT: It was AMA HQs that did this mass e-mail. If the mass e-mail continued for more than one week, two at most, many folks would have received the e-mail after the issue was settled.
September 20: Sandy Frank posted a copy of the AMA web site note, News Release, dated 21 Sept. It went up on the AMA web site on 20 Sept with that News release date on it.
September 25: Agreement reached with Air California Adventure, Inc. to once again allow access to the site.
September 25 (Same date as above!): Sandy Frank posted a question on r.m.r.a stating that he didn't see many of the frequenters of that newsgroup on the petition list at gliderking.com
That's the timeline and I will let the readers determine if "after the City had already sided with the Torrey Pines Gulls" is accurate or not. I cannot find any date other than September 25 where such an agreement is actually done. Perhaps other things did happen, perhaps some knew of progress, but as far as what I can find in the public record, September 25 is the magic date.
Now, JR, you mention intentions. I would hope that understanding the timeline would obviate any concern. However, as I said I would do, I asked Sandy about it. I will paraphrase his response (o.k., I wrote the words for him and he agreed with them! :-):
> I posted the AMA-supplied information when it was first made
> available to us as well as the general public. It was posted to r.m.r.a
> to widen the distribution, and perhaps to an audience more inclined to
> participate in internet-based activities such as was requested in the
> AMA article(s). The question posted on Sepember 25 was made to
> again try
> and increase participation in the petition drive, and it was simply a
> coincidence that the question was asked on the same day that the
> agreement was reached (unbeknownst to me).
I hope that satisfies your concern, but I DO need to ask one further question:
This activity at Torrey Pines and the relationship between AMA, Air California Adventure, Inc., and the local soaring fliers has been satisfactorily concluded. It is fait accompli.
So, JR, why are YOU surfacing this issue now, and why are YOU so concerned about Sandy Frank's intentions, particularly now that this is all water under the bridge?
Regards,
Bill Lee
11-23-2002 | 06:59 AM
#3
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Corona, CA,
Torrey Pines and Sandy Frank
Bill
Please excuse my tardiness in responding. I did not realize that you had edited your post and assumed that you had abandoned this thread. I received an e-mail asking why I had not responded to you. My fault, not yours.
Let me add a couple of things to the timeline.
*******************
On or about August 12, Christian Anderson, City of San Diego Real Estate Assets Department , issued a statement that the City had NOT closed the Torrey Pines site down. Subsequently, the City called a couple of meetings that were attended by the modelers and Torrey Pines Gliderport /Mr. Jebb. The meetings were not particularly productive, since the City did not supply a neutral third party negotiator. The intent of the City to bring the two sides together seems clear. Letters on the Gliderking site, referring to this meetings would seem to validate the desire by the City. Carl Maroney was aware of these items and you can verify that with him.
******************
On or about Aug 26, Carl Maroney of the AMA made this statement available to the modelers, as evidenced by a letter on Gliderking dated Aug. 26
Statement from Carl Maroney of the AMA:
Insurance coverage for all members and clubs utilizing the Torrey Pines
Glider port site, along with the City of San Diego, has been temporarily
suspended by AMA's liability insurer, Royal Insurance Company. This
suspension of coverage is the result of serious allegations by Glider port
Flight Director, David Jebb over his interpretation of violations of the AMA
National Safety Code at the site. The suspension of coverage will remain in
effect until Royal Insurance Company is fully satisfied that any resumption
of RC Glider flying at the site will be in full compliance with the AMA
National Safety Code and that the code is properly enforced.
***********
Bill, knowing this, why would Dr. Frank have requested that modelers from all over the world, literally, write to the City, knowing full well that the problem was with the insurance and not with the City? This was once again evidenced in the agreement that is posted on Gliderking resolving all of the problems, but with the proviso that it would be dependent on the reinstatement of insurance, either form AMA or someone else. Again, I do not understand what the intent of Dr. Frank was in calling for the letters and petitions. I assume that he was in touch with Carl and had the information that I have related here, is that correct?
As far as my timing, I had intended to ask this some time ago, in another thread titled "AMA helpful to modelers" that was closed by a moderator, literally, as I was typing the post. This is the first opportunity that has come up since. If you question this, I questioned the administrator at the time of the closing and he may have a record of it.
JR
Just as an aside, the insurance issue was reported in the minutes of the Oct EC meeting with the admonishment that it could happen again. Royal suspended coverage without any communication with the AMA. LOL. I do NOT blame Dr. Frank for that.
Please excuse my tardiness in responding. I did not realize that you had edited your post and assumed that you had abandoned this thread. I received an e-mail asking why I had not responded to you. My fault, not yours.
Let me add a couple of things to the timeline.
*******************
On or about August 12, Christian Anderson, City of San Diego Real Estate Assets Department , issued a statement that the City had NOT closed the Torrey Pines site down. Subsequently, the City called a couple of meetings that were attended by the modelers and Torrey Pines Gliderport /Mr. Jebb. The meetings were not particularly productive, since the City did not supply a neutral third party negotiator. The intent of the City to bring the two sides together seems clear. Letters on the Gliderking site, referring to this meetings would seem to validate the desire by the City. Carl Maroney was aware of these items and you can verify that with him.
******************
On or about Aug 26, Carl Maroney of the AMA made this statement available to the modelers, as evidenced by a letter on Gliderking dated Aug. 26
Statement from Carl Maroney of the AMA:
Insurance coverage for all members and clubs utilizing the Torrey Pines
Glider port site, along with the City of San Diego, has been temporarily
suspended by AMA's liability insurer, Royal Insurance Company. This
suspension of coverage is the result of serious allegations by Glider port
Flight Director, David Jebb over his interpretation of violations of the AMA
National Safety Code at the site. The suspension of coverage will remain in
effect until Royal Insurance Company is fully satisfied that any resumption
of RC Glider flying at the site will be in full compliance with the AMA
National Safety Code and that the code is properly enforced.
***********
Bill, knowing this, why would Dr. Frank have requested that modelers from all over the world, literally, write to the City, knowing full well that the problem was with the insurance and not with the City? This was once again evidenced in the agreement that is posted on Gliderking resolving all of the problems, but with the proviso that it would be dependent on the reinstatement of insurance, either form AMA or someone else. Again, I do not understand what the intent of Dr. Frank was in calling for the letters and petitions. I assume that he was in touch with Carl and had the information that I have related here, is that correct?
As far as my timing, I had intended to ask this some time ago, in another thread titled "AMA helpful to modelers" that was closed by a moderator, literally, as I was typing the post. This is the first opportunity that has come up since. If you question this, I questioned the administrator at the time of the closing and he may have a record of it.
JR
Just as an aside, the insurance issue was reported in the minutes of the Oct EC meeting with the admonishment that it could happen again. Royal suspended coverage without any communication with the AMA. LOL. I do NOT blame Dr. Frank for that.
11-23-2002 | 10:31 PM
#4
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Chandler,
TX
Torrey Pines and Sandy Frank
Hello, JR;
I am confused. Your response almost looks like you hadn't read either what Carl Maroney wrote or what I did in my response.... Let me quote.
First Carl Maroney's note from your post:
------------------------
Insurance coverage for all members and clubs utilizing the Torrey Pines
Glider port site, along with the City of San Diego, has been temporarily
suspended by AMA's liability insurer, Royal Insurance Company. This
suspension of coverage is the result of serious allegations by Glider port
Flight Director, David Jebb over his interpretation of violations of the AMA
National Safety Code at the site. The suspension of coverage will remain in
effect until Royal Insurance Company is fully satisfied that any resumption
of RC Glider flying at the site will be in full compliance with the AMA
National Safety Code and that the code is properly enforced.
------------------------
Perhaps I am missing something here, but what do YOU see in Maroney's note that indicates any further action on ANYBODY's part is inappropriate?
Now, let me quote from my response:
------------------------
September 16: Sandy Frank posts a copy of the e-mail that AMA sent to members who registered e-mail addresses. As I recall, it was intended that they were to send 50,000 each week until all of the membership had been covered. I am not sure if that continued. IMPORTANT POINT: It was AMA HQs that did this mass e-mail.
------------------------
As I SAID, Sandy's actions were NOT original actions! As I SAID, AMA HQs initiated the letter writing campaign via a mass e-mail to the memberships.
Even IF Sandy was in contact with Maroney, there is NOTHING in the information you posted that would lead you to the idea that the letter writing campaign was 1) not proper, nor 2) anything that can be attributed to Sandy Frank. Apparently AMA HQs felt the action was appropriate, and in all likelihood Carl Maroney participated in that decision. So what does this have to do with Sandy Frank?
JR, given other posts you have made here and elsewhere, it is apparent that you are trying to build a case to support whomever gets the unlucky opportunity to run against Sandy in the D-8 election next year. I suggest you cast about elsewhere since this issue isn't. My timeline and explanation are facts, and no amount of twisting will change them. As I said before, why beat this issue to death when it is definitely water under the bridge?
Regards,
Bill Lee
I am confused. Your response almost looks like you hadn't read either what Carl Maroney wrote or what I did in my response.... Let me quote.
First Carl Maroney's note from your post:
------------------------
Insurance coverage for all members and clubs utilizing the Torrey Pines
Glider port site, along with the City of San Diego, has been temporarily
suspended by AMA's liability insurer, Royal Insurance Company. This
suspension of coverage is the result of serious allegations by Glider port
Flight Director, David Jebb over his interpretation of violations of the AMA
National Safety Code at the site. The suspension of coverage will remain in
effect until Royal Insurance Company is fully satisfied that any resumption
of RC Glider flying at the site will be in full compliance with the AMA
National Safety Code and that the code is properly enforced.
------------------------
Perhaps I am missing something here, but what do YOU see in Maroney's note that indicates any further action on ANYBODY's part is inappropriate?
Now, let me quote from my response:
------------------------
September 16: Sandy Frank posts a copy of the e-mail that AMA sent to members who registered e-mail addresses. As I recall, it was intended that they were to send 50,000 each week until all of the membership had been covered. I am not sure if that continued. IMPORTANT POINT: It was AMA HQs that did this mass e-mail.
------------------------
As I SAID, Sandy's actions were NOT original actions! As I SAID, AMA HQs initiated the letter writing campaign via a mass e-mail to the memberships.
Even IF Sandy was in contact with Maroney, there is NOTHING in the information you posted that would lead you to the idea that the letter writing campaign was 1) not proper, nor 2) anything that can be attributed to Sandy Frank. Apparently AMA HQs felt the action was appropriate, and in all likelihood Carl Maroney participated in that decision. So what does this have to do with Sandy Frank?
JR, given other posts you have made here and elsewhere, it is apparent that you are trying to build a case to support whomever gets the unlucky opportunity to run against Sandy in the D-8 election next year. I suggest you cast about elsewhere since this issue isn't. My timeline and explanation are facts, and no amount of twisting will change them. As I said before, why beat this issue to death when it is definitely water under the bridge?
Regards,
Bill Lee
11-23-2002 | 11:53 PM
#5
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Corona, CA,
Torrey Pines and Sandy Frank
Bill
Can I then assume that YOU do not know IF Sandy Frank had all the information and that YOU THINK that his only purpose was to enhance the HQ effort?
JR
Can I then assume that YOU do not know IF Sandy Frank had all the information and that YOU THINK that his only purpose was to enhance the HQ effort?
JR
11-24-2002 | 12:35 AM
#6
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Chandler,
TX
Torrey Pines and Sandy Frank
Originally posted by J_R
Bill
Can I then assume that YOU do not know IF Sandy Frank had all the information and that YOU THINK that his only purpose was to enhance the HQ effort?
JR
Bill
Can I then assume that YOU do not know IF Sandy Frank had all the information and that YOU THINK that his only purpose was to enhance the HQ effort?
JR
You can assume anything you want (and you probably will! :-( )
Since I do not know what "information" you think he SHOULD have had, I can not say if he had it or not. And besides, it really doesn't make any difference!
And you need NOT assume anything about his purpose: as I SAID in my first response, JR:
" > ...It was posted to r.m.r.a
> to widen the distribution, and perhaps to an audience more inclined to
> participate in internet-based activities such as was requested in the
> AMA article(s)...."
(That was Sandy's response when I asked him!)
No ASSUMPTIONS needed, JR
Now, I'll ask this same question of YOU for the THIRD time, JR: why continue beating this issue to death when it is definitely water under the bridge?
Regards,
Bill Lee
11-24-2002 | 12:54 AM
#7
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Corona, CA,
Torrey Pines and Sandy Frank
Bill
There is no point in trying to discuss this further, since you show no interest in finding out the facts surrounding Dr. Frank's effort. If he was knowledgeable or unknowledgeable will just have to be left to speculation. That's fine. Let's just leave it for now.
JR
There is no point in trying to discuss this further, since you show no interest in finding out the facts surrounding Dr. Frank's effort. If he was knowledgeable or unknowledgeable will just have to be left to speculation. That's fine. Let's just leave it for now.
JR
11-24-2002 | 01:33 AM
#9
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Chandler,
TX
Torrey Pines and Sandy Frank
Originally posted by J_R
Bill
There is no point in trying to discuss this further, since you show no interest in finding out the facts surrounding Dr. Frank's effort. If he was knowledgeable or unknowledgeable will just have to be left to speculation. That's fine. Let's just leave it for now.
JR
Bill
There is no point in trying to discuss this further, since you show no interest in finding out the facts surrounding Dr. Frank's effort. If he was knowledgeable or unknowledgeable will just have to be left to speculation. That's fine. Let's just leave it for now.
JR
Not to mention your not answering a specific question that was asked three different times.
Bill Lee
