Re: Re: A6 to become new AMA event ?

From: Fred or Judy Rash <frash_at_chartertn.net>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 18:48:20 -0500

I also thought that there was a consensus except for the AMA proposal.

Fred Rash


From: Mark F1diddler
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 11:32 AM
To: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Indoor_Construction] Re: A6 to become new AMA event ?


  


--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, "Bill Gowen" <wdgowen_at_...> wrote:

<< The problem is that my current model is designed per the rules that I thought WERE the consensus.>>

There's a consensus? I thought the point of the 2006 A6 Committee was to try to find a "working consensus" of A6 advocates, and to afterward try to parlay such consensus into a more widespread exposure and acceptance. The first part (volunteer stakeholder's consensus) did happen, the second part did not, maybe due to apathy of rest of the indoor community, maybe due to failure to personally approach contest CDs, and put the rules in their hands, or maybe due to ongoing territorialism. If there really was a perceived, working consensus, what would embolden someone to impose a brand new 50% tail area limit?

<< Don has already submitted a change to eliminate foam from the materials allowed.>>

Oh, ya mean per the consensus of the 2006 A6 Committee? Hokay...
Mark B






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2659 - Release Date: 01/31/10 06:39:00
Received on Sun Jan 31 2010 - 15:48:21 CET