One thing this whole thread has shown is that there are CLEAR and DEEP
divisions in the doctrines' of both High Power/Amature and toy/low
power rockets. I believe this is why we are failing/falling ... we are
united. Well there are other fascinating and challenging hobbies to
time and money one ...
And the beat goes on ...
Phil Stein wrote:
You're right, we're not 100% united, and making disparaging remarks
about the flying preferences others have (i.e., "toy rockets") is NOT
helpful in that regards.
NAR and TRA both have their place in the world, and thankfull the
respective boards understand the need for the organizations to work
together and communicate. For that matter, they appear to be doing a
good job of working with CAR, as well.
Making divisive and disparaging remarks is anything BUT helpful.
On 8 Aug 2005 13:53:09 -0700, " email@example.com"
The loss is almost all senior members. It is probably just a
calculated consequence of the dues increase. These members are likely
just dead wood, who decide to no longer bear the expense, and perhaps
some underpaid teachers, or students who just graduated into the
higher NAR tax bracket. So all is well... I wish the NAR was even
more donation funded instead of a "tax and spend" org.
Actually I find it encouraging that Mark is willing to admit his
limitations and defer to experts.
Nose under the tent. AS long as it does not affect insurance rates or
public perception, making it more difficult to get launch sites, I'm
OK with that.
BFD, surely we are well past that already. How about a real goal of
10,000 Junior NAR members by 2007?
Really! If you buy a Hummer it should have the armor, including a
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.