I've been active on this forum for about 5 years and lurking before that.
I have noticed that comments similar to mine have been directed to several individuals for the entire time....peabody among them....and to mark for his supercilious all knowing phd big stud books of comments....not directed to you Brett.
I'm not influenced by any of those jokers.....after flying Pattern for about 33 years.....I know a jackass when I see em'.
People of good will can coexist, regardless of their experience level or areas of interest. A very, very few people have gone out of their way to try to set us at each other's throats, Peabody is the prototype. Of course, opinions may vary as to who these people are, but the *only* time I get upset with people is when they are trying to jerk somebody (me or someone else) around, so my list is pretty easy to determine (and remarkably short, given the 40+ years of flying stunt all across the country).
It is absolutely inevitable that some people will not agree, and it is absolutely inevitable that people will have differing interests. The range of skills around go from rank beginner to people on a very short list of "Best Ever* - not everything will be of interest to everyone, and not everything will even be understood by everyone. That is not a defect.
Arguments are not necessarily bad, without arguments, we would never learn anything - but there is arguing fairly, and arguing to cause trouble. Some people can't tell the difference, that is not a reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I also find the various terminology used by the anti-PAMPA types to be pretty offensive, "Joe Bellcrank" (only bad in certain contexts), and "bottom feeders" (bad all the time), "Elites" (also offensive). This sort of language was more-or-less invented by the people trying to divide PAMPA membership to drive to a desired, self-serving result.
One of the mistakes I think PAMPA has made (including me, when I was in the leadership) is overreacting to minor problems and allowing them to become Federal cases (in two cases, *literally* Federal cases). A lot of times, I think simply dismissing obviously self-serving or ego-based complaints would have served us a lot better than trying to both patiently and rationally address each one as if it were important. While at the same time, trying to keep down the controversy - which inadvertently also provided abundant cover for the people who were obviously out to cause trouble.
In my opinion, it was classic appeasement, with the usual effect -it merely emboldened the complainants and caused them to become more aggressive. It rewarded histrionics, which naturally escalated them, because it appeared to be working. This led to near-disaster on several occasions. If there was a real problem, then fine, we fix those all the time. Otherwise, just blow it off - they will still be out there again next July. You can't reward or encourage whining; there will be enough of that anyway.
Of course, this is with 20/20 hindsight, so it is useful only in trying to avoid the problem in the future. It may no longer be an issue, but worth learning a lesson from.
I think it is well worth joining PAMPA, I find it useful for me, but it will not offend me greatly if someone chooses otherwise. But for sure don't let people like Rich Peabody influence that decision, he has *absolutely nothing to do with it* anyway.
Brett
Topic: Is PAMPA gone? Any reason to sign up for 2022? (Read 3009 times)