ORIGINAL: can773

I beleive the AMA is the aeroclub in the US, why MAAC is not the Aeroclub in Canada I have no idea....but it would be better for us to be the Aeroclub and collect dues from other organizations than to pay dues to the Aeroclub itself. I cannot beleive that managing those tasks is not within the office capacity....

ORIGINAL: britbrat
I hope that you're not being condescending -- it sounds like it -- I particularly didn't like the "armchair ideas" thing.

ORIGINAL: britbrat
With you guys sitting on $350M worth of land -- you're history, unfortunately. I think that you are looking at big issues that no-one can fix for a believable amount of money. I'm certain that MAAC can provide assistance, within its means, for field support -- it just hasn't been an issue yet, so no serious thought has gone into it.

ORIGINAL: kenair
We could really use input why we need the MAAC Aero Club fee at $16000,

ORIGINAL: kenair
if anyone wishes to continue to hurl insults at me, just email me direct at [email protected].
cheers - ken

ORIGINAL: Jim

a good portion of those taxes support people like you who choose to live in places where the tax base can't support the infrastructure.

ORIGINAL: Sharpy01
Give me a break. It's S.Ont that continues to support waste and federal corruption in federal politics and you lay that crap out there?
The feds have blown and stolen billions from US taxpayers in the form of sponsorship, gun registy's, leaky subs, HRDC scandal, and on and on.

ORIGINAL: Sharpy01
......and the last time I checked, folks living down in Toronto still require electricity, food, minerals and raw materials..

ORIGINAL: Sharpy01
go flying Jim

ORIGINAL: Sharpy01
....taxes are paid according to income, not location.

ORIGINAL: Jim_McIntyre

... and disseminated to cover infrastructure disproportionately.

Further, the cost of living in some areas is much higher, requiring higher income, resulting in still (disproportionate) higher taxes (higher tax bracket).

The point is still, in point of illustration to Ken, the world is not fair.

ORIGINAL: Sharpy01
One could quite easily argue the billions to be wasted on Kyoto are directly attributed to high density population areas/ inflated real estate prices, 2 cars needed to make the 1-2 hr commute because you don't actually want to live in the smog.....and on, and on.

ORIGINAL: Sharpy01
Your right, it's not fair, but that isn't an excuse for continuing to do nothing like a herd of mindless sheep.

ORIGINAL: Sharpy01
.......seems more plausable, that your comments are more for derailing a productive debate, than making any points.

ORIGINAL: Sharpy01
One could quite easily argue the billions to be wasted on Kyoto are directly attributed to high density population areas/ inflated real estate prices, 2 cars needed to make the 1-2 hr commute because you don't actually want to live in the smog.....and on, and on.
[/quoteYeah, those are my fault too eh?

You're the one focusing on this one detail of a more involved discussion.....

ORIGINAL: Sharpy01
Yeah, your right, focusing too much on less important issues like the environment.

ORIGINAL: Jim_McIntyre

Sorry, condescension not intended, admittedly, I may be unwittingly transferring some frustration from other participants....

The point is the same, land in the greater Toronto Area is only available at a huge premium. If you suggest MAAC can/should assist in field retention, then I'm all for it ... I just don't see how.

I liken this to the times I have been on the exec for clubs. There always those in the back who criticise and have some "interesting" suggestions about what "the club" should be doing. These same people fail to offer any sweat equity to make these things happen... this is what I refer to as "armchair quarterbacking:. I'm not suggesting you're one of these same people .... but talk is cheap, internet posting even cheaper as you don't have actually get in anyones face..... if you think MAAC should be doing these things, then bring some action to your suggestion .... or at least bring it to MAAC instead of posting it all over the net as criticism.

First
- Aero Club membership is required by any organisation that cares to participate in World competition.

Second
- Aero Club membership is expen

Aero Club and FAI Licence fees
From January 2004 every SAMAA member who participates in any FAI class
of competition is required to hold a valid FAI Licence and be a fully
paid up member of the Aero Club of South Africa, in addition to valid
SAMAA membership. The following classes are likely to have FAI
competitions during the coming year, including world championships (team
members and team managers), and a few of them will be running team
selection processes:

F2B Control line Stunt
F3A R/C Aerobatics
F3B R/C Multi-task Soaring
F3C R/C Helicopters
F3D R/C Pylon Racing
F3J R/C Thermal Duration
F4C R/C Scale
To aid members in acquiring the above, the SAMAA office will take out
the FAI Licence and Aero Club membership with the AeCSA. Please include
these amounts with your subscription before 31st January.
FAI Licence R138-00
Aero Club membership R185-00

ORIGINAL: britbrat



Jim, I don't want to go much further down this road, but there is somethiong here that bothers me greatly. I think that you are suggesting that unless one is on a club exec, or presumably, in a position within MAAC, one has no right to complain or to criticize the actions of those who are actively part of the organization --- hence the "armchair' thing.

This type of argument just doesn't fly. It is the same thing as saying that unless a citizen & taxpayer is an MP, or MPP, or town councillor, he has no right to criticise the government(s) -- clearly an absurd concept.

In the case of MAAC, there are ~9,000 members & there is not the remotest possibility of all of them belonging directly to the organization. Nonetheless, like taxpayers, each & every one of those MAAC members has an undeniable right to examine MAAC's structure, purpose, operations & plans -- and to critique MAAC as they see fit.

Not everyone can belong to the inner workings of the organization just through weight of numbers alone, nor does everyone have the physical or situational opportunity to participate directly, nor does everyone have the necessary skills to do so. They do, however, have the right (& perhaps duty) to offer their views as to how they like, or dislike what is being done in their name & with their money -- just like taxpayers & citizens do with governmental issues.

I'm going flying

ORIGINAL: kenair
Gotta agree with the Sharpe guy on this one

ORIGINAL: kenair
, MAAK has splenty it's fair share of "what maak is" believers that will not stop at anything to resist change and keep things the way they are for their special inerest group.

ORIGINAL: kenair
Classic example is Larkin going outside the board during Reid's Aero Club dealings, despite a board majority vote.

ORIGINAL: Jim_McIntyre

... there will always be individuals who, either through mis-information or mis-intent, will go outside the rules to accomplish what they feel is necessary.

ORIGINAL: Jim_McIntyre

By your own admission, this was done outside the board, so why then would you criticise the board? Is this an example of Ken agreeing with what the board feels is best for MAAC and modellers at large?.... IOW, MAAC working as designed for the good of all?

ORIGINAL: Sharpy01
...kind of goes full circle to the beginning of this thread and the reference to the insurance issue being taken outside ..... for what purpose? Because somebody didn't get their way? Lost a majority vote through established process? .....or simply snubbed their nose to established process and the association by walking out of the AGM and not representing that zone's interests?