Is the first Chartered PPP club violating the rules?
#251
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is the first Chartered PPP club violating the rules?
ORIGINAL: Muroc1
Recreational Arguing perhaps?
Frank
Recreational Arguing perhaps?
Frank
However, bottom line...it was illuminated that a trophy picture of the so-called first PP club has within it a model that is not typically allowed. Many blind with allegiance rush to the defense of the Divinity to rationalize the whys...
Funny how when we were kids we could look at pictures and subjectively discriminate which one doesn't fit in the group but as we get older we tend to rationalize plausible excuses to defend our beliefs or desires.
Now those same blind loyalist attack the messenger to deflect the truth.
The Kid E. has had a lot of fun with the few die hard followers...they are so easy.[sm=lol.gif]
The truth; the picture in question poorly depicts what a typical PP club should display as PPP models...the truth... for MA to allow the picture shows great ignorance or carelessness...to argue that is silly. We could just all admit that and go on...I think that is the Kids point...but oh well, carry on and now attack me as well. Have fun!
#252
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is the first Chartered PPP club violating the rules?
We could just all admit that and go on...I think that is the Kids point.
This has become argument for the sake of argument. If he was so concerned he would seek the answers but he will not do it
Lets keep something in mind here:
This is not KidEpoxy's theories vs 804/Robo theories.
Look at the facts-
a) Insider/MA put forth a photo as a PPP club. In that pic is a non-PPP plane
b) P51b posted a thread here informing us of Insider showing that club as PPP
c) Advocates for the club's defense hypothesize excuses could exist,
......which means Insider is wrong to put that pic forth as PPP
d) Then Kid Epoxy asks for them to support their claim that Insider is wrong
Here is my stand, my theory: Until I see some proof that Insider is wrong, they are right
All I have been doing for like 6 pages is trying to get folks to support their claims that Insider erred in calling that group pic PPP.
I acknowledge that proof could exist, its possible that Insider/MA erred,
and easily be presented by the ones disputing Insider/MA presentation of that photo as PPP.
I wonder what they would do if I gave up
and endorsed their stand that Insider is to be assumed wrong until proven right.
Insider called them PPP, and folks here are trying to extend modify and limit what PPP club means
... fine, just support that claim of additions changes and exclusions actually existing at that club.
#253
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lexington,
KY
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is the first Chartered PPP club violating the rules?
ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf
The truth; the picture in question poorly depicts what a typical PP club should display as PPP models...the truth... for MA to allow the picture shows great ignorance or carelessness...to argue that is silly.
The truth; the picture in question poorly depicts what a typical PP club should display as PPP models...the truth... for MA to allow the picture shows great ignorance or carelessness...to argue that is silly.
We could just all admit that and go on.
But the argument goes on, in yet another mindless 6 paragraph message that the picture really isn't of a PPP club.
Sure it it a PPP club. It's the Vegas Aces PPP club, chartered by the AMA as such. And there is an individual in the picture with a Stryker that will exceed 60 mph.
Ooops.
Beyond the "Ooops, why were the editors carless enough not to catch that", there really isn't much of a story here, I don't think. And although you've got to love the irony of such given the problems with the program, at this point about the only thing that runs through my mind is "yeah, SO WHAT?"
One individual thinks otherwise, and apparently has no understanding of what it means to continue kicking a dead horse. INO he's just looking for attention.
#254
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: G-town,
VA
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is the first Chartered PPP club violating the rules?
Well I overheard the guy holding the Stryker in that photo whisper to his buddy right before that picture was taken "Lets see what that have to say about this on RCU."
Frank
Frank
#255
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lexington,
KY
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is the first Chartered PPP club violating the rules?
ORIGINAL: Muroc1
Well I overheard the guy holding the Stryker in that photo whisper to his buddy right before that picture was taken "Lets see what that have to say about this on RCU."
Frank
Well I overheard the guy holding the Stryker in that photo whisper to his buddy right before that picture was taken "Lets see what that have to say about this on RCU."
Frank
[8D]
#256
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is the first Chartered PPP club violating the rules?
Bob
I kinda recall we were at this same point back then,
waiting for the hard data to resolve it.
So the thread was fading away unresolved... like the way the SKaluf thread is left waiting & fading...
until someone recently referred to this as if it were resolved conclusively.... and again after another bunch of recent pages we are still where we were in July: No postings to factually excuse the Insider/MA cookiejar photo
Light the fireworks, its July all over again
yup, we should all just have a good chuckle over the slight error
maybe an "I told you so" or two, and it would be a done deal
I thought we had. Way back in July.
waiting for the hard data to resolve it.
So the thread was fading away unresolved... like the way the SKaluf thread is left waiting & fading...
until someone recently referred to this as if it were resolved conclusively.... and again after another bunch of recent pages we are still where we were in July: No postings to factually excuse the Insider/MA cookiejar photo
Light the fireworks, its July all over again
Beyond the "Ooops, why were the editors carless enough not to catch that", there really isn't much of a story here
maybe an "I told you so" or two, and it would be a done deal
#257
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: St Augustine, FL,
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is the first Chartered PPP club violating the rules?
ORIGINAL: Bob Mitchell
I agree, and would probably use the word "carelessness". IMO most of those "arguing" with KE on this would propbably agree, but I'll let them speak for themselves.
ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf
The truth; the picture in question poorly depicts what a typical PP club should display as PPP models...the truth... for MA to allow the picture shows great ignorance or carelessness...to argue that is silly.
The truth; the picture in question poorly depicts what a typical PP club should display as PPP models...the truth... for MA to allow the picture shows great ignorance or carelessness...to argue that is silly.
"I know monks masturbate at night,
That pet cats screw,
That some girls bite,
And yet
What can I do
To set things right?"
-Complete Poems, 1922
Abel
#258
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lexington,
KY
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is the first Chartered PPP club violating the rules?
ORIGINAL: abel_pranger
"I know monks masturbate at night,
That pet cats screw,
That some girls bite,
And yet
What can I do
To set things right?"
-Complete Poems, 1922
Abel
"I know monks masturbate at night,
That pet cats screw,
That some girls bite,
And yet
What can I do
To set things right?"
-Complete Poems, 1922
Abel
#259
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan,
IN
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is the first Chartered PPP club violating the rules?
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
Well, you left off the part about us all having a chuckle... but otherwise, Yup.
"recreational" implies enjoyment... no, it is like pulling teeth
Lets keep something in mind here:
This is not KidEpoxy's theories vs 804/Robo theories.
Look at the facts-
a) Insider/MA put forth a photo as a PPP club. In that pic is a non-PPP plane
b) P51b posted a thread here informing us of Insider showing that club as PPP
c) Advocates for the club's defense hypothesize excuses could exist,
......which means Insider is wrong to put that pic forth as PPP
d) Then Kid Epoxy asks for them to support their claim that Insider is wrong
Here is my stand, my theory: Until I see some proof that Insider is wrong, they are right
All I have been doing for like 6 pages is trying to get folks to support their claims that Insider erred in calling that group pic PPP.
I acknowledge that proof could exist, its possible that Insider/MA erred,
and easily be presented by the ones disputing Insider/MA presentation of that photo as PPP.
I wonder what they would do if I gave up
and endorsed their stand that Insider is to be assumed wrong until proven right.
Insider called them PPP, and folks here are trying to extend modify and limit what PPP club means
... fine, just support that claim of additions changes and exclusions actually existing at that club.
We could just all admit that and go on...I think that is the Kids point.
This has become argument for the sake of argument. If he was so concerned he would seek the answers but he will not do it
Lets keep something in mind here:
This is not KidEpoxy's theories vs 804/Robo theories.
Look at the facts-
a) Insider/MA put forth a photo as a PPP club. In that pic is a non-PPP plane
b) P51b posted a thread here informing us of Insider showing that club as PPP
c) Advocates for the club's defense hypothesize excuses could exist,
......which means Insider is wrong to put that pic forth as PPP
d) Then Kid Epoxy asks for them to support their claim that Insider is wrong
Here is my stand, my theory: Until I see some proof that Insider is wrong, they are right
All I have been doing for like 6 pages is trying to get folks to support their claims that Insider erred in calling that group pic PPP.
I acknowledge that proof could exist, its possible that Insider/MA erred,
and easily be presented by the ones disputing Insider/MA presentation of that photo as PPP.
I wonder what they would do if I gave up
and endorsed their stand that Insider is to be assumed wrong until proven right.
Insider called them PPP, and folks here are trying to extend modify and limit what PPP club means
... fine, just support that claim of additions changes and exclusions actually existing at that club.
You have mentioned a couple of times 804's theories.
I have advanced no theories about why this travesty happened, except,
early in this thread, I said someone goofed, BFD.
Then I said KE should contact VA to get the facts.
Then, months later, I said KE should contact VA to get the facts.
Then I said KE will never know the facts til' he contacts VA. Repeatedly.
Then I said the picture shows no PPP illegal flying.
Then I said the picture only shows someone holding an airplane, probably a C model Stryker.
I have implied there could be other plausible explanations, but, I have advanced no theories other than someone goofed, BFD.
Stop talking about 804's theories, except for the one about someone screwed up, BFD.[:@]
#260
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is the first Chartered PPP club violating the rules?
early in this thread, I said someone goofed, BFD. (Yup, post 33)
Except PPP is quiet propulsion only, 2 lbs., 60 mph etc.
So someone goofed, BFD.
So you say a PPP charter has PPP limits.... limits that were "goofed" and broken?
Then I said KE should contact VA to get the facts. (eventually in post 157)
Then, months later, I said KE should contact VA to get the facts.
Then I said KE will never know the facts til' he contacts VA. Repeatedly.
You skipped your transformation from
33: Someone Goofed
198: NO, no. You've got it all backwards. That plane could have been 40%er or a jet. We see no pics of the Stryker being flown, by an identified PPP member, with his card on the board, on a day when the PPP agreement was in effect.
So they somehow unGoofed now?
Now there are no local PPP limits,
those limits that dont exist have an exclusion for Opens,
and the entire picture is not actually of the PPP club?
What happened to your 33 PPP limits & goof?
and just what was going on between 33"goof" and 157 KE should call ?
Why, that would be me asking for guys to get the facts :
8: Has anyone looked up the club on the net, see what the club itself has to say about being all PPPy
24: Why is it so hard to find out whet the rules are, that we are suposed to all be obeying this whole time?<....>I am PPP and I want to know what the requirements are, and standards held to, to be called PPP Chartered.
62: Since I dont get MA and dont have the contact details about the club, has anyone actually determined whether the Vegas club has PPP only rules posted?
91: When is somebody gonna break down & just call the Vegas PPP club shown in MA and settle this?
I dont even get MA, so dont look at me.
95: Wellllll...
Its gonna be monday soon,
and we can wait for STL or 804 to get the proof that we are wrong: Get the local club rules allowing NonPPP at the club.
Thats all it takes for them to win this threads debate.
We can keep bickering, or they can just cite the rule they propose exists and it lock the win for them.
I cant believe it is that difficult to find out what the rules are at a club,
for those that get MA and the club info there in
118: Of course it can be resolved in this forum.
Someone just has to post the local rules of that Vegas club in this forum to resolve it
<..>Why dont you guys that get MA just get those local rules and post them to put this thread to bed
130: Yup, it is about whether the rules are being followed.
What are those rules by the way...
...anyone?
Has anybody credible actually gotten the rules from Vegas, to say it IS ppp only, or it ISNT ppp only
and then, eventually 804 joins the Just Contact Them bandwagon:
157: "If anyone cares to actually communicate with the club in question, they can be found in the club finder at AMA. E-mail address and mailing address, even phone number, all available. I dare, even double-dog dare one of you guys to contact them and get the real answers to all your fantasies(only about the club, of course)."
I have been trying to get the guys that get MA to just get the rules for pages, and his new solution is that we should contact the club.
Now that 804 has joined me in asking for that to happen,
will it?
Welcome to the team 804,
glad to have you join me in this. Side by side we can take this thing head on
together
since you joined me in asking for this
kinda like partners
. . .
I just dont get it.
When I mention the PPP charter in itself imparts no national PPP limits,
804 has to oppose me and say it has the PPP limits. (33)
When I say the local rules of a PPP club are PPP limits
804 has to oppose me and say the local rules allow nonPPP planes (198)
(and refuses to support that claim of the limit rules having exclusions, only "flying", and not existing)
So, looking at 33 & 198, the charter has national limits that the local rules violate?
What are you saying with those two posts?
KE: The PPP Chartered club is no diferent than the Heli, Electric, RadioControl, or Multi Interest "-chartered" clubs
So someone goofed, BFD.
Then I said KE should contact VA to get the facts. (eventually in post 157)
Then, months later, I said KE should contact VA to get the facts.
Then I said KE will never know the facts til' he contacts VA. Repeatedly.
You skipped your transformation from
33: Someone Goofed
198: NO, no. You've got it all backwards. That plane could have been 40%er or a jet. We see no pics of the Stryker being flown, by an identified PPP member, with his card on the board, on a day when the PPP agreement was in effect.
So they somehow unGoofed now?
Now there are no local PPP limits,
those limits that dont exist have an exclusion for Opens,
and the entire picture is not actually of the PPP club?
What happened to your 33 PPP limits & goof?
and just what was going on between 33"goof" and 157 KE should call ?
Why, that would be me asking for guys to get the facts :
8: Has anyone looked up the club on the net, see what the club itself has to say about being all PPPy
24: Why is it so hard to find out whet the rules are, that we are suposed to all be obeying this whole time?<....>I am PPP and I want to know what the requirements are, and standards held to, to be called PPP Chartered.
62: Since I dont get MA and dont have the contact details about the club, has anyone actually determined whether the Vegas club has PPP only rules posted?
91: When is somebody gonna break down & just call the Vegas PPP club shown in MA and settle this?
I dont even get MA, so dont look at me.
95: Wellllll...
Its gonna be monday soon,
and we can wait for STL or 804 to get the proof that we are wrong: Get the local club rules allowing NonPPP at the club.
Thats all it takes for them to win this threads debate.
We can keep bickering, or they can just cite the rule they propose exists and it lock the win for them.
I cant believe it is that difficult to find out what the rules are at a club,
for those that get MA and the club info there in
118: Of course it can be resolved in this forum.
Someone just has to post the local rules of that Vegas club in this forum to resolve it
<..>Why dont you guys that get MA just get those local rules and post them to put this thread to bed
130: Yup, it is about whether the rules are being followed.
What are those rules by the way...
...anyone?
Has anybody credible actually gotten the rules from Vegas, to say it IS ppp only, or it ISNT ppp only
and then, eventually 804 joins the Just Contact Them bandwagon:
157: "If anyone cares to actually communicate with the club in question, they can be found in the club finder at AMA. E-mail address and mailing address, even phone number, all available. I dare, even double-dog dare one of you guys to contact them and get the real answers to all your fantasies(only about the club, of course)."
I have been trying to get the guys that get MA to just get the rules for pages, and his new solution is that we should contact the club.
Now that 804 has joined me in asking for that to happen,
will it?
Welcome to the team 804,
glad to have you join me in this. Side by side we can take this thing head on
together
since you joined me in asking for this
kinda like partners
. . .
I just dont get it.
When I mention the PPP charter in itself imparts no national PPP limits,
804 has to oppose me and say it has the PPP limits. (33)
When I say the local rules of a PPP club are PPP limits
804 has to oppose me and say the local rules allow nonPPP planes (198)
(and refuses to support that claim of the limit rules having exclusions, only "flying", and not existing)
So, looking at 33 & 198, the charter has national limits that the local rules violate?
What are you saying with those two posts?
#261
RE: Is the first Chartered PPP club violating the rules?
Nearly 260 posts about the picture in MA.
Every week I tune in to this thread to read the bickering going on... Please don't stop the drivel. This is entertaining stuff.... all from a PPP pic in MA.
Every week I tune in to this thread to read the bickering going on... Please don't stop the drivel. This is entertaining stuff.... all from a PPP pic in MA.
#262
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is the first Chartered PPP club violating the rules?
IFR-
havent you been paying attention to the excuse theories?
We are to believe that pic is not of the PPP club it is presented as by AMAInsider/MA
all from a PPP pic in MA
We are to believe that pic is not of the PPP club it is presented as by AMAInsider/MA
#263
RE: Is the first Chartered PPP club violating the rules?
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
havent you been paying attention to the excuse theories?
We are to believe that pic is not of the PPP club it is presented as by AMAInsider/MA
havent you been paying attention to the excuse theories?
We are to believe that pic is not of the PPP club it is presented as by AMAInsider/MA
Yes I have...in small doses. It's a facinating debate to watch.
#264
RE: Is the first Chartered PPP club violating the rules?
KE, I understand you don't have any MA media. I can send you a few @ N/C if you'd like... seriously, name the year and issue(s) you want.
#265
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is the first Chartered PPP club violating the rules?
IFR Mike
Thanx for the offer,
but I was Open for a couple years before I spent 08 kicking the tires of PPP to get the inside scoop on it.
Besides, we have found the article in question was published by AMA Insider (July08) as well as MA.
Thanx for the offer,
but I was Open for a couple years before I spent 08 kicking the tires of PPP to get the inside scoop on it.
Besides, we have found the article in question was published by AMA Insider (July08) as well as MA.
#266
RE: Is the first Chartered PPP club violating the rules?
ORIGINAL: Muroc1
Ken,
It seems to me if you have such a heartache about the photo, contact the individuals involved. I'd start with Darrell, Vegas Aces President, and see what he has to say about the photo. Perhaps the photo was taken long before the field became a PPP field. Then I would contact MA and see what they have to say about it. I think that would be the best approach. Don't you?
None of those folks post here so you can ask all the questions you want, but without going directly to the source, it seems like you are wasting you time. -Just trying to help you out.
Frank
Ken,
It seems to me if you have such a heartache about the photo, contact the individuals involved. I'd start with Darrell, Vegas Aces President, and see what he has to say about the photo. Perhaps the photo was taken long before the field became a PPP field. Then I would contact MA and see what they have to say about it. I think that would be the best approach. Don't you?
None of those folks post here so you can ask all the questions you want, but without going directly to the source, it seems like you are wasting you time. -Just trying to help you out.
Frank
Would you post the link that Bob mitchell was asked to post. Seems he is into Recreational Arguing more than anything/anyone.
Thanks
#267
Banned
My Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Newberry, FL
Posts: 5,925
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is the first Chartered PPP club violating the rules?
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
[62: Since I dont get MA and dont have the contact details about the club, has anyone actually determined whether the Vegas club has PPP only rules posted?
[62: Since I dont get MA and dont have the contact details about the club, has anyone actually determined whether the Vegas club has PPP only rules posted?
http://www.modelaircraft.org/clubsearch.aspx
There you will find the club contact is
GREG CLEMENSEN
Email [email protected]
PO BOX 81948
LAS VEGAS NV 89119
Phone: 702-870-6242
Anyone hung up on this issue for the past 7 months should have figured this out by now.
#268
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lexington,
KY
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is the first Chartered PPP club violating the rules?
ORIGINAL: warningshot
Frank
Would you post the link that Bob mitchell was asked to post. Seems he is into Recreational Arguing more than anything/anyone.
Thanks
Frank
Would you post the link that Bob mitchell was asked to post. Seems he is into Recreational Arguing more than anything/anyone.
Thanks
I don't have a "link".
All I did was do a quick search on RCG for "Vegas Aces", and the message I was looking for popped up. It was obvious which one it was in the list that the search produced. I then cut and pasted the quote here in response to a message regarding how the club was established. That's all. Took all of 2-3 minutes from the time I first saw a message here, reference a post on RCG. The message I posted included the information that it was from RCG and even the guy's screen name, if I'm not mistaken. Everything that anyone would need if they were interested in following up.
Now, I could do the search again, and copy the link this time instead of the text, or......heaven forbid.......you could do the same search and find it yourself. It would have taken you less time to do that than it would have to fume over it and then ask Frank to do it for you.
EDIT: I have no idea what all these attachements are or where they came from. They don't show when i preview the message.
#269
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is the first Chartered PPP club violating the rules?
Red
Thanx, would you mind going back 7 months
and posting it next to the ancient quote of me asking for it... since you bothered to cite that old old post
or if it is more convenient for you, you could go back those months and post it next to the other guys talking about the link in the club locater.
Yes Red,
we all know that the guys trying to shoot holes in the presented photo could have been using that point of contact for months. Actually, we hear that a few guys here have info from that club from some other forum... info they posted a snip of here at RCU.
Lets see what is coming out of Vegas Aces:
"The president of Vegas Aces posted that all of his planes met the PPP criteria so we can put that little bit of drama to bed"
wow... see, that clearly explains the Stryker... glad we got him to clear that up
or, maybe we could get the guys that already have the Vegas info and are posting snips of it
to post more of what they have gotten
Bob
Let me have you RCG Username & Password so I can follow your instructions to get the info... seems Search at that other forum is restricted to registered users. I am a RCU user, I dont do the RCG thing and apparently CANT do the RCG thing you suggest.
But I can read posted here quotes from there, like the partials we got from Bob & Frank
Thanx, would you mind going back 7 months
and posting it next to the ancient quote of me asking for it... since you bothered to cite that old old post
or if it is more convenient for you, you could go back those months and post it next to the other guys talking about the link in the club locater.
Yes Red,
we all know that the guys trying to shoot holes in the presented photo could have been using that point of contact for months. Actually, we hear that a few guys here have info from that club from some other forum... info they posted a snip of here at RCU.
Lets see what is coming out of Vegas Aces:
"The president of Vegas Aces posted that all of his planes met the PPP criteria so we can put that little bit of drama to bed"
wow... see, that clearly explains the Stryker... glad we got him to clear that up
or, maybe we could get the guys that already have the Vegas info and are posting snips of it
to post more of what they have gotten
Bob
All I did was do a quick search on RCG for "Vegas Aces", and the message I was looking for popped up. It was obvious which one it was in the list that the search produced. I then cut and pasted the quote here in response to a message regarding how the club was established. That's all. Took all of 2-3 minutes from the time I first saw a message here, reference a post on RCG. The message I posted included the information that it was from RCG and even the guy's screen name, if I'm not mistaken. Everything that anyone would need if they were interested in following up..
But I can read posted here quotes from there, like the partials we got from Bob & Frank
#270
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: G-town,
VA
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is the first Chartered PPP club violating the rules?
ORIGINAL: Red Scholefield
Club contacts are readily available on the AMA web site. Just enter Vegas Aces in the club search.
http://www.modelaircraft.org/clubsearch.aspx
There you will find the club contact is
GREG CLEMENSEN
Email [email protected]
PO BOX 81948
LAS VEGAS NV 89119
Phone: 702-870-6242
Anyone hung up on this issue for the past 7 months should have figured this out by now.
Club contacts are readily available on the AMA web site. Just enter Vegas Aces in the club search.
http://www.modelaircraft.org/clubsearch.aspx
There you will find the club contact is
GREG CLEMENSEN
Email [email protected]
PO BOX 81948
LAS VEGAS NV 89119
Phone: 702-870-6242
Anyone hung up on this issue for the past 7 months should have figured this out by now.
Frank
#271
Senior Member
My Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Pine Bluff, AR,
Posts: 1,504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is the first Chartered PPP club violating the rules?
ORIGINAL: Muroc1
Thanks for taking the time to post that info Red. Perhaps those with issues can contact the Vegas Aces first hand and solve them now.
Frank
Thanks for taking the time to post that info Red. Perhaps those with issues can contact the Vegas Aces first hand and solve them now.
Frank
#272
Senior Member
My Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Pine Bluff, AR,
Posts: 1,504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is the first Chartered PPP club violating the rules?
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
Let me have you RCG Username & Password so I can follow your instructions to get the info... seems Search at that other forum is restricted to registered users. I am a RCU user, I dont do the RCG thing and apparently CANT do the RCG thing you suggest.
But I can read posted here quotes from there, like the partials we got from Bob & Frank
Let me have you RCG Username & Password so I can follow your instructions to get the info... seems Search at that other forum is restricted to registered users. I am a RCU user, I dont do the RCG thing and apparently CANT do the RCG thing you suggest.
But I can read posted here quotes from there, like the partials we got from Bob & Frank
Banned?
Threatened with a free magazine?
Not interested in a source for the information you long for?
Allegiance to banned/suspended members?
Maybe you could get first hand info and testimony on whether the infamous Stryker C is being flown by a PPP member.
#273
RE: Is the first Chartered PPP club violating the rules?
ORIGINAL: Robotech
I used the same logic a few pages back to prove that my cat drove my daughters new car. It's easier to follow the twists and turns if you smoke your lunch.
I used the same logic a few pages back to prove that my cat drove my daughters new car. It's easier to follow the twists and turns if you smoke your lunch.
BuwaHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAH!!
I'm certain a 25+ page thread will reveal the cat did in fact operate that particular vehicle. I wonder what the RMV will say about it.
#274
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lexington,
KY
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is the first Chartered PPP club violating the rules?
ORIGINAL: Robotech
I used the same logic a few pages back to prove that my cat drove my daughters new car.
I used the same logic a few pages back to prove that my cat drove my daughters new car.
#275
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is the first Chartered PPP club violating the rules?
Now you guys are just being silly.
Nobody "proved" the cat drove the car. That was where he supplied the specific text of the rule he made up about cats, and referred to a picture of something that was not that specific text.
"Everyone knows it is illegal for you to let your cat drive a car"
He didnt say we all know that is a No Cats car or CCC Only (calico commuter club -no dark cats)
nope, this time he supplies the text with the word "drive" to restrict the No Cats to just Driving
The time he purports to be right is the time he actually suplied the restriction on the activity:
He didnt say the rule was No Cats,
he said the rule was No Cats can "Drive".
Ask anyone that lives near a cat, and they will tell you No Cats means they are not to walk all over your car hood & windshield with muddy paws, it is not a Cats Are Cool To Mud Up My Car But Not Drive It rule. NO CATS means no cats, not even just mudding up my hood. <oh, if we could just get Congress to adopt the No Cats rule into law>
Where have we seen this type of argument...
He is claiming the photo is ok because of the PPP Only rule is written using the restriction of PPP Only Flying.
I think I see the problem with this thread,
I am asking him to supply facts to support his hypothesis that there is some specific text in the local PPP Only rules that make it only apply to "flying". I guess first I need to get him to actual make that statement as a declaration of fact (with or without supporting data)
Previously, I was taking this approach
and he just wont support his hypothesis of things being that way.
But now I am taking a different tack:
804
Are you ready to declare as fact any of your suppositions:
That it was not a PPP member
That there is no PPP Only Rule
That the PPP Only Rule is only applicable to "FLYING"
That the photo was taken other than Insider presenting as a PPP club
I'm not asking you to have someone official back up what you hypothesize, no proof required,
I am asking YOU to say what you allude to, as a declaration of fact on your word.
You say maybe that pic is not as Insider puts it forth as, but taken prior to clubbing.
Will YOU state that in declaration, no outside verification required.
Yes or no.
Is that actually what happened, The photo was taken prior to clubbing as PPP.
yes or no
no more maybe it is, say it is, or it isnt
or say you dont know, which really shoots down your point that it was not PPP when taken
Nobody "proved" the cat drove the car. That was where he supplied the specific text of the rule he made up about cats, and referred to a picture of something that was not that specific text.
"Everyone knows it is illegal for you to let your cat drive a car"
He didnt say we all know that is a No Cats car or CCC Only (calico commuter club -no dark cats)
nope, this time he supplies the text with the word "drive" to restrict the No Cats to just Driving
The time he purports to be right is the time he actually suplied the restriction on the activity:
He didnt say the rule was No Cats,
he said the rule was No Cats can "Drive".
Ask anyone that lives near a cat, and they will tell you No Cats means they are not to walk all over your car hood & windshield with muddy paws, it is not a Cats Are Cool To Mud Up My Car But Not Drive It rule. NO CATS means no cats, not even just mudding up my hood. <oh, if we could just get Congress to adopt the No Cats rule into law>
Where have we seen this type of argument...
He is claiming the photo is ok because of the PPP Only rule is written using the restriction of PPP Only Flying.
I think I see the problem with this thread,
I am asking him to supply facts to support his hypothesis that there is some specific text in the local PPP Only rules that make it only apply to "flying". I guess first I need to get him to actual make that statement as a declaration of fact (with or without supporting data)
Previously, I was taking this approach
please refer to post 197,
in particular could you address this part:
Perhaps you are trying to say the PPP Only local rules are worded that it only pertains to flying?
OK, lets see that.
Show me that the local PPP only rule is worded that it only pertains to FLYING the models
in particular could you address this part:
Perhaps you are trying to say the PPP Only local rules are worded that it only pertains to flying?
OK, lets see that.
Show me that the local PPP only rule is worded that it only pertains to FLYING the models
But now I am taking a different tack:
804
Are you ready to declare as fact any of your suppositions:
That it was not a PPP member
That there is no PPP Only Rule
That the PPP Only Rule is only applicable to "FLYING"
That the photo was taken other than Insider presenting as a PPP club
I'm not asking you to have someone official back up what you hypothesize, no proof required,
I am asking YOU to say what you allude to, as a declaration of fact on your word.
You say maybe that pic is not as Insider puts it forth as, but taken prior to clubbing.
Will YOU state that in declaration, no outside verification required.
Yes or no.
Is that actually what happened, The photo was taken prior to clubbing as PPP.
yes or no
no more maybe it is, say it is, or it isnt
or say you dont know, which really shoots down your point that it was not PPP when taken