TOPIC: ESAP Proposal

ESAP Proposal 4 years 2 weeks ago #464

  • Larry Jolly
  • Offline
  • Posts: 27
  • Thank you received: 0
Preston,
You have completely drawn the wrong conclusion..If you recall I was for an ESAP until I looked in to the bylaws and the complications of adding another SAP...I did seek legal advice because I was confused by some of the wording. It was at that point that I decided it best to abandon this proposal...It has been my experience that one should never confuse weakness and resolve they are very different forces LJ
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 2 weeks ago #465

  • Ryan Woebkenberg
  • Offline
  • Posts: 129
  • Thank you received: 0
I'm not a lawyer, but that won't stop me from talking nonsense on the interweb. :)

My read is article 16 (the SAP) doesn't explicitly state that the method outlined is the only way to get a LSF membership number. It explains a process. Article 6 states that the only method to get a LSF number is to participate in article 16. Article 6 could be modified to state that the method of getting a LSF number is by participating in article 16 or article 17.

Ryan
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 2 weeks ago #466

  • Preston Heller
  • Offline
  • Posts: 90
  • Thank you received: 0

LarryJolly wrote: Preston,
You have completely drawn the wrong conclusion..If you recall I was for an ESAP until I looked in to the bylaws and the complications of adding another SAP...I did seek legal advice because I was confused by some of the wording. It was at that point that I decided it best to abandon this proposal...It has been my experience that one should never confuse weakness and resolve they are very different forces LJ


These "complications" are not that complicated or insurmountable, they just require some creative thinking to find solutions. I know you have been a long time advocate of e-soaring, so I think it is unfortunate that you so easily changed your mind rather than devoting more energy to come up with solutions. However, you could change your mind again. ;)

Preston
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 2 weeks ago #467

  • Preston Heller
  • Offline
  • Posts: 90
  • Thank you received: 0

ryanw wrote: I'm not a lawyer, but that won't stop me from talking nonsense on the interweb. :)

Ryan


Ryan, you're not a lawyer? Well, color me shocked.

Preston
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 2 weeks ago #468

  • Larry Jolly
  • Offline
  • Posts: 27
  • Thank you received: 0
Ryan,
When you read article 6 do you get any sense of the intentions of the founders ????
How much of the LSF are you willing to dismantle to make it OK to use Powered Aircraft in an organization clearly designed for non powered aircraft. That is really the question we are faced with. Obviously members like Tim and I have a lower tolerance for what we see as an assault on the LSF.. LJ
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 2 weeks ago #469

  • Preston Heller
  • Offline
  • Posts: 90
  • Thank you received: 0

LarryJolly wrote: Ryan,
When you read article 6 do you get any sense of the intentions of the founders ????
How much of the LSF are you willing to dismantle to make it OK to use Powered Aircraft in an organization clearly designed for non powered aircraft. That is really the question we are faced with. Obviously members like Tim and I have a lower tolerance for what we see as an assault on the LSF.. LJ


Once again, Larry, you have no more of an idea of the intentions of the founders than does Ryan, despite your comments implying that you have the inside scoop. All we can do is interpret the by-laws they left us.

There is no dismantling of the LSF going on or intended and using scare tactics by using words like "dismantling" and "assault on the LSF" are is deplorable and the lowest form of discourse. The attempts here are to expand the scope of the organization and revitalize it, not condemn it to the scrap heap of history, as it appears you and Tim would prefer.

A revision of Section VI that would would be acceptable to a majority of the LSF membership would not be difficult to hammer out. And that would allow us to legally overcome the objections about/and obstacles to membership to be overcome. That is not a dismantling, as you would incorrectly lead others to believe, but a strengthening.

Preston
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 2 weeks ago #470

  • Larry Jolly
  • Offline
  • Posts: 27
  • Thank you received: 0
Preston I can't quite put my finger on what it is about you but I get the idea you like to attack people instead of respond to the difficult questions..Since I missed the point and am completely lost please tell me what I am missing in the question I asked Ryan... Your moves are predictable and classic progressive B.S. ...Try your best to diminish Tim, Gordy,and I for trying to keep the LSF bylaws intact... While you and Ed tell us what we have to do to survive.. I would like to point out that our stance as level 5's is also totally predictable and reflects the reasoning why you have to move a mountain to change the SAP.. LJ
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 2 weeks ago #471

  • Preston Heller
  • Offline
  • Posts: 90
  • Thank you received: 0

LarryJolly wrote: Preston I can't quite put my finger on what it is about you but I get the idea you like to attack people instead of respond to the difficult questions..Since I missed the point and am completely lost please tell me what I am missing in the question I asked Ryan... Your moves are predictable and classic progressive B.S. ...Try your best to diminish Tim, Gordy,and I for trying to keep the LSF bylaws intact... While you and Ed tell us what we have to do to survive.. I would like to point out that our stance as level 5's is also totally predictable and reflects the reasoning why you have to move a mountain to change the SAP.. LJ


Larry, Larry, Larry. How was what I said in any way "attacking" someone? "Progressive, B.S."...what is that....the opposite of reactionary B.S.? You do make me laugh sometimes, but I'm not sure this in intentional.

And once again you cloud the issue by making a statement like "you have to move a mountain to change the SAP". I'll repeat myself for you. No one is talking about changing one word of the original SAP, so please stop misinforming people. I have already addressed this, as have many others. I have made specific suggestions for what I, and many others, think will help move this organization forward in the 21st century. I understand that you think everything is fine and want to maintain the status quo. I disagree. As a member of the LSF I have every right to express my opinion here, as do you. I am not trying to "diminish" you, or any one else, I simply have a different point of view, which you have so graciously called B.S. Thanks, fellow soaring enthusiast.

Preston
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 2 weeks ago #472

  • Ryan Woebkenberg
  • Offline
  • Posts: 129
  • Thank you received: 0

helletp wrote: Well, color me shocked.


Done and done my friend!

:)

LarryJolly wrote: Ryan,
When you read article 6 do you get any sense of the intentions of the founders ?


I definitely do. From reading the bylaws I get the sense that they felt that changes to the SAP or voting on changing the method to change the bylaws and SAP are not to be taken lightly and hence the super majority. I also agree that changes to the SAP should not be taken lightly and personally am not in favor of changing the SAP in any fashion. The founders either felt that other areas of the LSF should either be somewhat easier to change or they made an accidental omission in section 12. Since they could have included Article 6 section 6 in Article 12 but didn't that makes me think that they were open to it being changed via a simple vote of the membership. I feel the founders of the LSF meant to make the LSF flexable in its scope. Hence article 13.

But that is just my read of it.

Ryan
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 2 weeks ago #473

  • Larry Jolly
  • Offline
  • Posts: 27
  • Thank you received: 0
Nice sparring Preston,
I also believe the LSF is on the wrong path at the detriment to itself and the sport..
But once again you dodged the question..
When I asked Ryan what he thought article 6 meant when it said The ONLY way to gain membership, what do you think it was saying..You told me I was wrong in my conclusion so tell me where I am wrong..
It clearly says there is but one way to join the LSF through the SAP...I just can't see how it could mean anything other than what it says...It sure doesn't say until 51% of the membership decides to fly powered models for another SAP they have decided to call the ESAP.. So please don't Dodge tell me where I am wrong and tell me what you think they were trying to say??? LJ
The topic has been locked.
Time to create page: 0.290 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum