Hello Bob! First off.... absolutely. I agree and thank-you. We can both play at the same pond.... you bring your class 1 I'll bring Bismarck! I know I will still sink.... But I'll have fun shooting at you all the same.
>Good to hear from you and thanks for expressing your opinion. As you said, we had our conflict and I believe we've both put it behind us, judging from our cordial correspondence about your >excellent school project on R/C naval combat. There are just a few points or misunderstandings I'd like to clarify.
Thanks for the Feedback Bob on the project and Agreed, please proceed.
>If you read my last message you'll see I have reservations about a unified 2 format club and am taking a 'wait and see' attitude. I passed on the invitation for NATCF members to attend the Feb. >NABS meeting (as requested by Stephen - the only remaining member of the NABS executive), but have stayed out of the NABS forum debate about 1 vs 2 formats. My only contributions to the >thread were to help complete the captain/ship/format list of r/c naval combat hobbyists in the region.
Absolutely Bob, a two format club just has a bad taste in my mouth. I wouldn't want NABS to be that way and as my dues were not returned as asked, I am still a member until my dues are requested again. As are most of us. As far as Steven goes, as far as I can tell, he is battling Treaty now for the most part and should move on to that format. I didn't even think there was an executive anymore as nothing was ever sent my way no contact at all, and as far as I knew the pieces of NABS were there but for the most part dead. Steven took over treasurer because someone else dropped the ball, and that was the end of it I thought.
>Though technically a NABS member until the 2009 dues are in (and maybe after that) my main interest is in Treaty combat, not IRCWCC. I have no interest in being involved in another NABS >fracus and getting tarred with the same brush. The last one was regretable and damaging to both of us (and to others). The fact is that other well established NABS members do want a dual >format club and NABS members will have to resolve that issue.
Here is the thing Bob.... I completely agree again, but must bring this point up.... the only members pushing for this are the members in Halifax. If it is the dual members... the ones who want to play both, they are not looking at the big picture and are knocking 75% of the participants out of the loop.
>I feel it was unfair to say I'm not interested in the people you listed. That was a negative assumption about me and who and what I'm interested in. (I'm not pointing fingers - I've done it too.) At >present I'm most interested in the welfare of my father and family after the death of my beloved mother from cancer last week - you know what that kind of loss is like.
Oh My Gosh Bob! I had no idea. And for that I feel your loss and my thoughts and prayers are with you. Please be well. As far as the assumption, I was going on what information was given to me.... yes.... we are both guilty for that I apologize, I know were it comes from now. I know you are getting the support you need right now, but if you need to drop me a private line please do!
>I don't recognize many of the names you listed (new members?) but I've been a friend of several of the others for years and didn't know the rest well. I'm grateful to Curt for getting me back into >the hobby in 1995 after a 10 year hiatus. I put a lot of work into getting Brechin's 2nd hand HMS Suffolk on the water (gratis!), and enjoyed Russell's battling and CD'ing when he was active in >the hobby. I've considered them friends. Even you, except for our blow-up!
Well yes....that was classic. Out of proportion, yes, but shows the passion we both have for this sport/hobby and the two different ways we come at it. It is really too bad we can't compromise and come to some kind of common ground... the hobby would be better for it! As for the others, they are potential members... looking at ship kits (Gagetown rocks) and if they saw how embarassing all this on-line crap is .... they would walk away.
>Another misunderstanding seems to be that I was the originator of the NATCF. After the NABS split I thought there'd be two IRCWCC clubs. As Moderator Jason can confirm, hewas the person >who proposed a local Treaty club. I think Scott and Rob were familiar with the concept though I'd never heard of it. Those of us not fully satisfied with IRCWCC style combat (especially the high >speeds and collisions) checked out the rules and thought Treaty was a good idea, and it has been. The NATCF is not my club but is the joint, 'executive-less', product of our group of hobbyists.
Alright again.... point taken.... I love the 'executive-less" portion there Bob. That is the way these clubs should be. No need of that. I will say though that when it comes to intel on NATCF your name, none of theirs come to the forefront. Organization-wise, internet-wise....etc.... championing this, most would see it is your baby.... just throwing that out there as I probably am not the only one thinking you have point on this.
>The 'bad blood' issue is not mine. Chris raised it on the NABS forum this week and maintains it does exist. If several people still feel that way it's disappointing and rather sad. Even so, my thought >is that if seven people are 'smiling to my face' despite whatever 'bad feelings' they might have about me, are participating in the hobby, having fun and behaving courteously at lakeside, one >cannot ask for more. Not everyone likes everyone else. To paraphrase you, we should act as adults and 'play cooperatively'.
I'm glad you agree that there are "several" people gritting their teeth... and as you said, as long as people act accordingly who cares... we don't have to have dinner together afterwards, right? Yes the bad blood issue concerns me, as I am sure there were some here at CANNATS 10 that may not have been 100% sincere.... oh well... I had a blast I hope others did! Unfortunately due to last years online "events" there are some harbouring a grudge.... *shrugs shoulders*
>Equipment access is no longer an issue for NATCF members. At least four of us have or will have fill stations for club use this year. The NATCF is not after NABS' equipment; we don't need it. >What NABS does with it's equipment is an internal NABS matter and has nothing to do with the Treaty club. Unfortunately, unfounded negative suggestions like that can keep the 'bad blood' >boiling in NABS and I sincerely hope that wasn't someone's intent. Anyway, I'm confident that rumor didn't originate from you.
Well.... your confidence is well founded here Bob... as I have said, I have been out of the loop have not got the finer points on some things... these were things that were an issue back three months ago before I started school... When I was talking to Curt and Chris E. today, the discussion seemed to fall to the infrastucture and figured it was the hang-up.
>I appreciate your invitation for members of other clubs/styles to attend your events this year and know NATCF members will do the same, as we did in October. It was good to see so many >people enjoying the hobby, whatever club they belonged to. Craig, I respect your opinion and hope everything works out for the best in NABS. I hope we can exchange BBs this summer.
I think we will Bob.... I think we will....We just might not have a choice in the matter, Bismarck is ready! (er almost.... one cannon to tweak) And I also Appreciate your opinion Bob.
As far as the rest goes.... I think you'll agree then to what Curt, Chris E. and I came up with for NABS. It simply should not be an issue.... right? Let it go and move on. If anything dissolve the excutive and move on. So if anything I would do that and keep NABS as is. Then we can get back to business as usual!
Thanks for the great post and for clearing some things up Bob it feels good to be back in the loop, I needed the time away.... I'M BACK!
Admiral Sparrow.