If you wish to be seriously recognized, then I need a name, first and last, AMA number, and I may request a zip code. These discussions are for AMA Business and that is where I will direct my labors.

Wondering Hoss ... why and when is any question asked to a potential AMA candidate consinder un-serious? Afterall you are by far the most outspoken voice on this forum who claims the AMA has serious issues. What would be the difference between a serious and un-serious question?

So why are you requiring zip code, AMA number and first and last name to answer simple questions for potential and current constituents in a public forum? I could understand if this was your forum or perhaps even an "official" AMA forum, but it's just an open forum open to all interested parties who wants to take part in aeromodelling discussions and it's politics. Why all of a sudden are you changing the way public forums work by using your own set of rules to answer simple questions?

Are you actually saying that you would not answer a question made by a potential AMA member? Because there are over 300,000 users on RCU, how many of those could belong to the AMA and how many are using this site are also into boats, cars and other dynamics. You've got MORE potential AMA members than AMA members on this board.

What's the deal ... you are constantly talking about how other EC members don't come in here for discussions and you are going to be the outspoken voice of the AMA and RC community, however now playing hypocrite before you even get started by saying you'll only answer to members who follow your 3 rules, which are way above and beyond RCU policy.

You say the AMA serves the general public ... well prove it, I'm calling you out to answer any and ALL questions. Be the outspoken voice you've promised to be. Seriously, is this really the way you want to get started?

Objectives
As Executive Vice President of the Academy, my objectives are :

Assist in the development of new programs, and modification of old programs, commensurate with the differences and interest levels of current and future aeromodelers, to better fit the needs of the many different individuals with the objective of enticing them to join and remain as members of AMA.

While the English language may be foreign to you, STL, it is not to most that post here. I never mentioned anything about a ".... serious and "un-serious" question." "....seriously recognized..." is my choice for answering questions.

The forum was set up by RCKen and RCU for a specific purpose of answering questions pertinent to the AMA Election soon to be in progress. I was given the opportunity to participate for which I am thankful to both Ken and RCU.
OTOH I have determined that I don't have the excess time to answer questions in that specific forum from each and every individual that is not a current AMA member.
Non AMA individuals are, IMO, better served to state their questions here in the Open Forum where they can receive answers from all members. The RCU rules of the sub-forum do not allow open discussion and that is an excellent restriction for the purpose the sub-forum is designed for.

//SNIP//

[b]Again READ the WORDS: "As Executive Vice President ....."[/b]

Understood. I would just hope, for the most part, that any elected member of the AMA would live by the well known idiom "practice what you preach". Sort of like how Al Gore (no longer a politician) flies around the globe on his private jet while touting his green plan, while taking millions for his personal net worth.

Either way ... you've pretty much answered all the questions you've felt were out of your own rules. And by the way I did not see the other 2 gentleman post all 3 of their requirements for the other questions you answered.

Good luck!
"

Hoss has been answering questions from pretty much all comers here in the AMA forum for a long time.
If he is restricting his answers in the Election Subforum to only those folks that are actually going to vote,
that aint so unreasonable.

If some RC car guy has a question on the finances of MA
they are more than welcome to have an open discussion of it here, rather than a 1 on 1 with Hoss in the Candidate forum

Thats my 2cents in this forums open discussion of Hoss' Q&A restrictions

Well I did ask him here and guess who answered for him ... you. I was hoping to have some dialogue with Hoss directly.

But that's ok ... he pretty much answered them all .....

Horrace, your comments here seem to be going downhill by the hour.

How in the world can you be taken seriously at your word that you will seek out an entice new members after you become EVP, and then tell someone that you essentially don't give a damn about them now?

Given your comments about recent restructuring of some AMA positions, financial in particular, and your comment that the EVP is now essentially a "flunky" for the EC, a question about the specific responsibilities and obligations of the position is reasonable to ask. Whatever motives may or may not exist behind the question, the question itself is reasonable and could have been answered appropriately in the span of just a few seconds given your extensive knowledge and experience with the AMA management.

You may not have liked the question, but it was a reasonable question asked in a reasonable manner. You're actions and words are so contradictory as to make it difficult to predict what you will do if you should actually manage to be elected.

Just to clarify.

Is the qualification for being taken seriously membership in the AMA or a voting membership in the AMA?

Well, at least his campaign manager is in place. I wonder if he gets paid.

Good question, that what I was asking Hoss before he spun his way out of the question. My question was simply .... which questions would he consider serious vs not serious. Who is he to determine a person's question as serious or not .... I mean either way all he would have to do is answer it.

But the real question of the day it .... why would someone have to give their full name, zip code and AMA number just to determine if the question would be considered serious or not .... he NEVER mentioned that he would ONLY answer questions from AMA members .... but in reality I guess he only considers AMA to be serious people and those not currently participating or perhaps on the verge of joining the AMA would not be considered serious people? How else could it be?

Lets take a look at what happened in posts 1 & 2 of this thread.

STL asked Hoss a question without giving his personal info,
and Hoss answered STL's question.

so... uh... what exactly is it that STL wants Hoss to do,
if Hoss is already answering anonymous questions of RCU posters?
There are plenty of places Hoss answers anonymous questions, and you guys are upset that there is one little corner of the internet where he might not... but he just might, as evidenced by him answering some questions there.

Perhaps Hoss will relax his rules
if Mark S has more relaxed rules on RCU folks posting him questions in his RCU AMA Candidate Subforum.
Dunno, we'll have to wait & see what Hoss does, or what Mark does.

I just looked out my window ... low and behold a rainbow. The colors were red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet. Tell me kid .... when was the last time you saw a rainbow and another question, what colors are yours down there? I just want to make sure our eyes at least see the same colors, because I know they don't see the same words.

Just for the record, STL are you a member of the AMA? Just wondering, Dave

Good Luck on getting a straight answer out of him..



Ron

If you aren't qualified to post per Hoss's rules in the one on one forum, don't act like an angry child about it, just post down below.
Let's take issue instead with the other candidate who chooses to lurk in the shadows like a nervous rat.

Don't lose sight of the fact that RCU placed no such limits on who could ask, or who Horrace would deign to answer. And ANYONE is qualified to post. It's an open forum. Those are Horrace's (quite, IMO) arbitrary "rules". Rules which seem rather silly for one who is campaigning on a platform of enticing new members to the fold.

It's RCU's forum, RCU's rules. IMO the first time he tried to tell someone who is and who is not "qualified", they should have closeed him down. They have set this up as a favor to him and to the AMA, and he's still on one of his juvenile power trips.

It's just more BS.

While it may have been intended as a favor to him and to the AMA, it turns out so far that he has in effect been set up for Heckle and Jeckle to bait and badger him.

Readers of this forum know where Hoss is coming from, so it shouldn't be a surprise that there are few queries other than the transparent agendas of H&J. If the other guy were here, as a relative unknown quantity in this forum I expect that he would get legit queries as to where he stands on issues - a clear advantage for him. So why isn't he here? More to the point, why Hoss, are you here? You'll garner as much support here from those not already behind you as you would answering questions at a rally of gun control lobbyists.

Yes BM, it is BS - but of course you know what you're throwing

Abel

Bob, Hoss gave his reason for why he wants the posters to identify themselves as members to discuss AMA related matters. Maybe he knows something you don't.....I'll bet that his forum remains free of the non productive message traffic that you see here.
You see, RCU is just a THING that does not have a life of it's own nor does it require any sleep. OTOH, Hoss is a man who most likely has more to do than be at every Tom, Dick and Harry's beck and call just to suit you. It is quite a stretch to link this request / demand of Hoss's with not wanting to expand the membership. I know that you will try to draw up some kind of "parallel universe" example of how this is not so, can't wait to hear more about that
Anyone who tries to claim that Hoss is not accessible otherwise......is the one who is full of it.
I'm sure he would also like to see the questions and issues limited to just things that are:
feasible
necessary
for the good of the whole
This is not his power trip. I think it is you who is on that power trip to try to force Hoss into playing the game your way. Both you and STL are free to establish your own RC related website and then you two could show us all how an AMA election forum should be properly run.
If RCU had any problems with how Hoss chooses to utilize his time in their forum, I'm sure that would have been addressed by now.....between them

Abel, as usual, you are the voice of reason.

Horrace chose to step into the kitchen when he got himself on the ballot and agreed to answer questions.

Pointing out his contradictions, inconsistencies and failure to answer questions in a forum that was set up for just that purpose is neither baiting nor badgering. He wants to be elected to a senior leadership post in AMA; if the kitchen is to hot he shouldn't have gotten in to begin with.

He claims to have "reserved" judgement on PPP, when his recent words show that he clearly has not. "Joe Parkee Flyer", "let the kiddies take there toys and go elsewhere to play", etc. Such contradictions beg for explanation. Effective leaders don't do such.

He claims to be a good listener and team player, yet characterizes those that don't share his opinion as "dissidents" who don't know the "true issues". That is the antithesis of what a good leader is about.

He refuses to share any details of exactly what his plans are for AMA, with the lame excuse that his "enemy" may use them against him. He made the same excuse in 2003 and would share no details then, either. A good leader would be proud to share the details of their plans and visions.

He wants to totally restructure AMA, creating additional foundations. Do you really know what he has in mind here? If you don't, you should before supporting him. He's not sharing that informtion. One wonders why?

The last time he held an elected AMA position he resigned Given his well documented track record i(more than a little bit of it by his own admission) n having problems working with (almost) anyone in an AMA leadership capacity over the past years it's entirely legitimate to ask him what will be differrent this time. His choice to bail on an answer speaks volumes of his leadership abilities, or lack thereof.

I am a daily reader of this forum. Have been since I joined. My opinion of what Horrace is "about" IS based on what I've read here. It's also based on what I've read in the MA archives in their members only section. I've spent more than a little time reading the AMA News sections and the DVP columns between the time Horrace was elected and when he bailed out. I'd recommend that you and any others reading this do the same. It's educational.

The real shame about this is that with his background, knowledge and his passion for the hobby Horrace had the potential to be a real asset to the AMA.

Bob, where is your ideal man? Has he thrown his hat into the ring yet?

As far as I am concerned, I have 2 choices, either vote for Hoss or vote for some faceless name.
This is what I know about Hoss.....
He has already given more of himself to the good of this sport than 99.9% ever have, ever will.
He wants to see the AMA operate at a profit
He has always urged us to be more involved and informed
He is a REALIST.....what you are searching for is an IDEALIST

The section that RCU has set up for Horrace will remain free of non-productive messages because RCU requires it to be so, not because of Horrace's "rules". The exchange you and I had are examples of that. Actually maybe not the best example because it was both on point and cordial.

I'm curious to know what it is you think he knows that I don't and why it's relevent.

Actually I don't believe I linked it that way. I didn't claim he didn't want to expand membership........actually I believe he does. What I said was that is was ludicrous for someone who wants to exapnd membership to refuse to answer a question for the reasons he puts forward. It's not the same thing.

Horrace IS accessible, when it suits his purpose. If he doesn't particularly like you or your question he just bails.

Well, I think it's certainly feasible for him to tell us specifically what he wants to accomplish as EVP should he be elected.

I think it's necessary and good for the whole for him to explain how this term will be different from his last when he runs into the inevitable disagreements with most of the balance of the EC.

I think it's necessary, feasible and good that he explain his wildly contradictory statements about the PPP

I think it's ABSOLUTLY necessary than the explain in detail his restructuring plan for the AMA. Do you know what he's planning on trying to do with that?

I think it's feasible and necessary he explain why he thinks he can be an effective EVP when he considers others on the EC who don't share is opinion to be "dissidents" who don't know what the "true" issues are.

I know you think I'm just playing a game here, but I'm honestly not. These are real and legitimate concerns that I have concerning Horrace's abilty to be an effective EVP. I dare say you would not vote for your local mayor, councilman or any other individual seeking office who refused to explain what their plans were once they were in office.

At least I sure hope you wouldn't.

wow...fun thread... I remember when I was 12


have fun

If you're referring to Mark Smith, I've voiced no support for him. I know less about him than I do Horrace. I've emailed him asking him to join RCU and I will be dissappointed if he does not open himself up to questions as has Horrace. I would rather not have my vote come down to a choice between someone whom I don't think can be efffective and someone whom I know almost nothing about.

You may not believe me but I agree that Horrace has given much of himself to the sport. If you look at his history and experience that is obvious. I also believe that he wants us to be involved and informed.

As far as the profitability is concerned I suspect you mean MA, not AMA since I've not seen anything about him wanting to do away with AMA NFP status. Or do you know something that I and others don't? I know he wants to restructure AMA but he's indicated that he won't talk about such details until he actually takes office.

No.

CP, what I'm searching for is someone who can be EFFECTIVE as EVP. No matter how much of himself he gives to the hobby, no matter how passionate he is about RC flying and the future of the sport, for Horrace to get anyones vote he has to show that he can be effective as EVP. The reality of life is that one doesn't necessarily follow the other. And I believe this is one of those cases. I think it's been demonstrated to be one of those cases.

Well, now isn't that an adult contribution?

Does your mommy know that you've been playing with her computer?

"He refuses to share any details of exactly what his plans are for AMA, with the lame excuse that his "enemy" may use them against him. He made the same excuse in 2003 and would share no details then, either. A good leader would be proud to share the details of their plans and visions."

so, If understand your statement:
Hoss (just like the other candidate) is not a good leader
because Hoss (just like the other candidate) hasnt given us the gorey details of his plan of actions to take?

or is it
MarkS (just like the other candidate) is not a good leader
because MarkS (just like the other candidate) hasnt given us the gorey details of his plan of actions to take?



I think Hoss answered the PPP question put to him better than the EC guys that voted against having PPP.
Remember the EC vote on PPP? Did we get honest info that the EC members that voted against PPP were going to vote against PPP? Or was it a shock for some folks to find out their reps voted against PPP in the EC Vote. We know where Hoss stands better than where they stand: Hoss has never voted against starting PPP, can all of you guys say the same of your DVPs & presidents?

Hoss answering questions?
If you have PPP questions, why didnt you ask them of the EC members that actually took the vote on PPP.... because I'm almost certain that Hoss is not planning to travel back in time to take part in the EC vote on PPP.

Bob, what we are really talking about here is why he won't discuss matters with guys like STL. If STL doesn't want to show proof that he has come to the party and anteed up, why should Hoss give him the floor? I say that Hoss knows better than to give that guy a chance to turn that forum into a food fight.
His refusal to debate with any man who is unable to identify himeself as an AMA member will have no impact on expanding membership. Trust me here.
His lone goal of having a profitable AMA is quite a bit to chew on all by itself, wouldn't you agree? If that issue alone was the only thing that he was concerned with, that would be enough for me. There are only so many hours in a day.
I like his stance on PPP and appreciate the fact that he admits that his opinion about stuff like that is subject to change. I have no problem with his "wait and see" approach to that program. I don't care how overwhelmingly it was put into effect, the jury is still out as to how successful it will be.

I've read your warnings to him about the dangers of making wholesale changes to the magazine and I thought that was very constructive input.

Your question about how well he works with others? The question is undefinable, subjective, nebulous. Since he used the word "dissident" in a sentence, you have tried to make him out to look like Attila the Hun. Who knows, maybe he was bumping heads with those who deserve that label...I don't know, do you?
If so, do you think that he should blab about the whole affair to every Tom, Dick and Harry who demands to know all about it?

Unless I was to make it my full time job to get to know all the candidates on any ballot very well, I might as well just throw a bunch of darts at that ballot with a blindfold on. They are all for the most part faceless names to me.

Hoss is one guy running for office I know something about. If he wins, I don't expect he will be able to convince land developers to stop snatching up flying sites, that is not feasible. I don't expect anyone to create a huge influx of membership, that is not feasible. I don't expect anyone to increase membership involvement with the organization, that is not feasible. I don't expect anyone to force those who do not want to know anything about the AMA, to make those people face forward and comply, that is not feasible.
BTW, Where is this other guy who we should be voting for?