Re: Analysis of the new F1D rules

From: <ykleetx_at_gmail.com>
Date: 16 Apr 2014 10:40:34 -0700

Josh wrote:

 "it would be ridiculous to take this route for reducing flight times because partial motors were technically even mentioned in this part of the proposal."
 

 Just because you say it's "ridiculous" doesn't make it so. We can discuss that there was a further option. Just because there was a further option doesn't make (a) "ridiculous". The more you yell, the less we listen.
 

 "As such, one would tend to draw the conclusion that the proposal was passed using completely different reasoning than what was in the actual proposal. That is highly disingenuous at best."
 

 The minutes of the discussion is what was discussed at the meeting, and it in no way reflect what every voting member was already thinking. You cannot use solely the minutes to determine the complete discussion. The complete discussion may have taken place months before as the delegates read the proposal, discussed with their constituents, etc.
 

 The more you call me disingenuous, the more I learn about your true character.

---In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, <joshuawfinn_at_...> wrote :

 Snippet from Kang:
 "There are two parts here for discussion:
 A. The proposal intends to significantly reduce the flight times
 B. ... because of the decreasing availability of proper flying sites"
  
 Well and good for discussion, but (a), it would be ridiculous to take this route for reducing flight times because partial motors were technically even mentioned in this part of the proposal, and (b), it does not appear, based on what has been posted as minutes of the actual meeting, that this aspect was even used as a primary talking point. As such, one would tend to draw the conclusion that the proposal was passed using completely different reasoning than what was in the actual proposal. That is highly disingenuous at best.
  
 -Joshua Finn




Received on Wed Apr 16 2014 - 10:40:34 CEST