First of all, I don't want to hear from a recording industry pirate about how "business is done as usual".

I analyzed Hoss's comment word for word and do not see any incongruities. The "charge" isn't that serious anyway, it's being taken out of context. It is being hyped. It is what it is.
Mark and 2 heavy hitters in the model business formulated a new class of model aviation based on their currently available inventory, not on any exhaustive research about bodily injury, kinetic energy, future liability etc. It was all about how to better peddle their goods. Is this concept too hard to follow?
This IS how business is done as usual.
Listen to the Toolman, he knows which way is up.

CP you conveniently ignored the "feather their nest" comment........a not so subtle reference that they had some personal gain to be made from this. The comment was made without any, ANY substance.

If the shoe had been on the other foot I suspect you'd be calling for some explanation from Mark.

This is one of the most irresponsible comments I've seen Horrace make on this board, and he's made some doozies.

Thanks for restating what I've already said in the other thread.


Toolman, my arse.[:@]

Bob, you seem to be a good judge of human nature and if the shoe was on the other foot, I might be "on it" like a dog on a pork chop.
I didn't ignore the nest feathering comment, though. Seems plausable. It is unrealistic to imagine that all parties do not stand to profit from a successful arrangement. What people like Hoss and myself [and others] object to is that if the program totally flops, only the AMA stands to lose from it, the big plane companies risk nothing and can only gain from this deal. The simple question is, do you think that this is fair?

Next, you'll be asking for a complimentary reach around...hahahaha[sm=spinnyeyes.gif]

Maybe not. What do you normally charge?

Wife says I'm gonna hafta sub-it out.....

I'd love to see Don Anderson's reaction to this! No risk?

C'mon, CP, we aren't all union guys here.

Gentlemen,
This is not in reply to any particular post. I posed the "conflict of interest" question to Mark Smith in the candidates forum. He has since replied. I urge all of you to read his response. Let me state here that I did not intend to imply, nor do I believe, that Mark Smith was engaged in anything improper. I believe that Mark Smith has the best interests of the AMA at heart and I take a man at his word unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. I still have a number of problems with the PPP but that is a bull in another chute.

804, how much of Don Anderson's own money is going towards setting up PPP? Is he matching funds with the AMA for promotion and admin costs? His business is selling airplanes with or without the help of the AMA. In this case he gets the AMA's help for free. Looks like a very sweet deal to me, he has absolutely no exposure to harm if the PPP flops, he will still continue to sell model planes, fly his GulfStreams and own his islands.

Rufcut, his reply almost matches word for word the one that I already figured he was going to use.

CP-
Dont forget the selective discounting.
They developed a sweet discount for the stuff they sell,
while it just happens to excude the 2/60 small plane glow engines OTHER COMPANIES sell.

The planes that have actually been flying in parks for 40-50years are not ParkFlyers
because they dont sell them.

Do they sell Rubber FF?
Cause that got excluded too

Are you forgetting the costs to develop new models, which they are constantly doing, which may or may not sell? Sure he'll still continue to sell planes w/without AMA, but there is still risk involved. Guys like that don't get in the position to fly Gulfstreams without taking huge financial risks.

Ask STL for more info on developing new models...[8D]

Yeah, right.....Change the covering color an call it your design. [:'(] Kinda like the cd/dvd deal

Ron, I was being facetious. Look it up.

CP, I'm disappointed.

Do you really believe that his "feather their nest" comment related to professional success rather than personal gain? It's rather clear that the reference was to some sort of under the table shenanigans that would benefit the committee members personally. It was an irresponsible thing to have said.

well bob, i aint the pig, but i read it the same way he did, i think. we will know for sure when he responds. in my view, any advancement, personal, professional,or under the table, is in the nest feathering category.

I agree with Mongo
lots of ways to feather a nest besides envelopes of small denomination nonsequetial bills,

If that is true, then you don't particularly understand the idiom. It specifically refers to using one's position for personal gain.

Do a google search on "feathering your nest, meaning of".

The first listing....top of the google list........ will tell you, and I quote: "If someone feathers their own nest, they use their position or job for personal gain."

I've never heard the expression used in any other context. Here's the link, put to prove that I didn't have to go hunting to find that particular connotation, try the search yourself.

http://www.usingenglish.com/referenc...+own+nest.html

you mean, you never heard the statement, "that promotion bob got will sure put another feather or 2 in his nest"?????
i have heard it used that way a LOT.

I don't think that it is a meaningful question in this context. It assumes that Horizon's decision to mass market small electrics was made in partnership with AMA.

Horizon and Hobbico don't make their marketing decisions on the basis of what is good for AMA. They make them on the basis of what's good for Horizon and Hobbico. Where is the market going? How do they position themselves to increase sales and improve market share. Those decisions are NOT part of the AMA Marketing Committee. They are before the fact, and are independent. They do, however, then become input to the AMA committee.

Once those decisions are made, THEN the AMA Marketing Committee can best decide how AMA can benefit from where the market is going and what Horizon/Hobbico are doing. Those Air Hogs that have been talked about are going to be produced and marketed regardless of AMA and PPP, not because of. That's why your "is this fair" question isn't meaningful. It assumes a joint and related risk that isn't there.

The Horizon and Hobbico exec are taking the risk that that is where they should focus their efforts. The AMA Marketing Committee is taking the risk that they can ride those coatails and find some new members. Independent risks.

I'm struggling a bit as to how best to describe the way I see it witout running on and on. Hope I've made it clear.

Different context. Different meaning. Horrace didn't say "and if the committee is successful it will put a feather in their nest". He said "feathering their nest". Totally different phrase, context and usage. Context is everything.

You saw what I posted in terms of idiomatic usage. I think if you do any digging at all into the usage and background of the phrase you'll see that it's typically used in the context as described.

There is probably little to be gained by further arguing usage, connotation and context. We disagree. So be it.

(But I'm right, though. )

And isn't it nice that I didn't go into a rant that you're just incapable of understanding something so simple, that you're education must be sorely lacking for your comprehension to be so poor, that your inability to agree with me is directly related to a low level of intelligenge on your part, etc, etc etc. To do so would be childish and ineffective, and I think it's a poor indication of one's character to resort to such.

Bob

The AMA didnt have reps from Elecrtric Sellers, 1/2A Glow Sellers, & Rubber Sellers
discuss what kinds of small planes AMA will allow the PPPs to use.
AMA let the electric sellers form the AMA PPP restrictions to just what they sell, not what the 1/2A Glow guys sell. That is a sweet deal, unless you are the guys selling 1/2A Glow: then it is a nail in your coffin.

They got a sweet deal with an excusion against their competition,
not an envelope full of bills.

Which would be ok for most folks,
but the AMA is suposed to be embracing ALL types of model aviation
rather than discounting electrics that everyone says is the unstoppable way of the future. Way to subsidize the giant at the expense of a weakening aspect of model aviation (1lb 45mph glow).


"If someone feathers their own nest, they use their position or job for personal gain."
If a company feathers their own nest, they use their position on public commitee for company gain.
Public Commitee? I dunno, is AMA a non-profit educational organization or a not?

And in the quest for a sweet deal,
they defined Parkflyer to exclude the planes that have beein flying in parks for decades,
to be replaced with the only their new planes in the park.
Muncie has already admitted they didnt get technical or logical on the limits, they just wanted what the FeatherNesters wanted to sell.... to the detriment of what they (not HobbyPeople or Tower) dont sell. Ooops, looks like they are gonna make their competition (HobbyPeople or Tower) eat a bunch of TT07 & AP061 AP09 because the decades of 1/2A in the park has been killed by the FeatherNest Committee.



But hey
as long as the few companies on the public academys commitee get richer
who cares if more sellers stop making 1/2A.
It not like the AMA is interested in all aspects, its ok for AMA to help kill off a few types of model aviation to make our corporate friends richer.
that could be seen as Feathering their Nest at the company level

Bob, if given the task to design an intrinsically safe program, would you set the limits at 2 pounds and 60 mph? I do not know what your experience is with small models, but mine is pretty good.
I say that 2 pounds and 60 mph is ridiculous, it is potentially lethal, if not just totally inappropriate for a safe park atmosphere.
There is no way to dispute the fact that our "key players" were already sitting on huge inventories of those pastel colored 60 mph and 2 pound ARFs, before PPP was ever concocted. The electric RC ads were everywhere already, the models were in every LHS waiting to be consumed long before PPP ever broke ground.
If you are not with me so far with the histrionics of this PPP deal, there is no point in me continuing. You either accept what I've sketched here, or you don't.
The wormy part of the deal is that the PPP was designed to help unload existing inventory and all of the promotion to do so is provided by us free of charge.
A truly well intentioned and thought out PPP could have been set at 1 pound and 40 mph, which is more than enough leeway to allow 3D, pattern, sport, etc. in a safe and park friendly package.

A lot has been said about nothing though, as long as PPP continues to flounder.

I believe that I understand the point you are trying to make. You believe that the weight/speed limits were set for the benefit of the manufacturers, and not with park flying safety in mind. Is that correct?

If so, it boils down to whether the EC agrees or disagrees with your assesment of the danger. If they disagree then it becomes a difference of opinion. If they agree, and went ahead with the limits anyway then you have a point. I think that would be an interesting question to pose to the chair of the marketing committee.....ie, how were the weight and speed limits arrived at, and was existing inventory factored in over and above park safety. Why don't you pose the question to Mark?

I suspect that the marketing expenditures made by the distributors far exceed any expenditures by the AMA.

Do you have any idea of what percentage of inventory which received or will receive the PPP logo falls above the 1lb/40mph limit you suggest? It's not a rhetorical question. I don't know and it would take a lot more hours than I'm willing to invest just to make a very rough estimate.

The program was introduced 8 months ago. I think it's way to early to conclude that it's floundering or won't succeed. Another interesting question would be to ask how the EC and the Marketing Committee would define success for the program. I would hope that with a major initiative like this that AMA has a specific goal in mind both in numbers and time frame. Otherwise how does one know whether to continue or to punt?

Both of those questions may best be asked of Dave rather than Mark, but both should be able to answer.

Is that so we can compare the answer we already got from AMA to the answer Mark would give?
Kinda like Mark disagreeing with the Joyce-mail stating they intended for PPP to have their own clubs and not be at standard fields.... which Mark now says isnt so.

We had a thread on the PPP limits rationality,
and iirc we got an official answer that Muncie didnt put much consideration into the physics but focused on what the industry was selling as PFs. I'll try to dredge up that thread from 6-9 months ago.

This questionwas already put to Mark, by STL, and then the important part was clarified for me:
I asked if theer was any condition that could sway his unconditional support of PPP and have him consider pulling the plug, and Mark said basicly No.

"To be clear,
STL asked if you would UNCONDITIONALLY support PPP.
Is there any condition, that could eventually occur, that would have you decide it it time to end the PPP?"
Great, we now have out goals & definition of success:
No conditions can be considered failing, it is a success at all times by definition.
The goal is to exist, regardless of all conditions.



Bob, if this is an exercise in comparing what we were told by AMA with what we will be told by Mark,
then I am all for it.