Re: Conflicting view of definitions

Bruce's suggestion that we talk about the issues with a small group is a good idea.

I was one of the members of the former small group. I withdrew, not because of the issues, but because I felt very uncomfortable doing it on the SL Format.

Nothing can beat a group of interested parties discussing issues face to face. I guess that isn't likely to happen. I AM comfortable with the simple email format. It began to appear to me that it was not held in the spirit of each listening to the other's points of view.

I suspect that if the FFF Glossary Committee presented the last discussed list of definitions to the CBOG at the next meeting that it might result in a decision to go ahead with further dialog anyway rather than blanket approval.

A couple of simple revisions discussed and approved by the Committee could change that.

Best,

Gordy

The terms are not going to be published without a CBOG approval so the decision will have had to have been made prior to any public debate.
It would be interesting nevertheless, and eloquence alone is not going to fool experienced instructors engaged with the issue.
Mark

From: Gordy
Sent: 03 May 2011 18:22
To: Mark Surtees
Cc: Paul Arden; Mark Surtees; Bruce Richards; Guy Manning; charles easterling; gordy hill; <thegammelfamily@xxxxxxxxx>; <dksimo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <timr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <flycast90@xxxxxxx>; <stefan.siikavaara@xxxxxxxxx>; <simbirsw@xxxxxxx>; <grunde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Conflicting view of definitions

Mark,

I love debates ! Reminds me of my college days on the University debating team !!!

Problem with making decisions based upon debates, is that the final product is more often than not the result of eloquence !

G

On May 3, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Mark Surtees wrote:

Again? What for ?
The key players here already know what the objections are, and plainly don't agree that there is any merit in them. In the public arena people don't know what it is you/we are objecting to. I think that the terms need to be published first ,there's no point in publishing objections to a set of terms no one has seen.
I think, however, that if these terms are endorsed by the CBOG, I would be very happy to debate their merits with any member of the FFF definitions committee in public. I would offer to do it at this years Conclave but that would be a pricey option for me. Perhaps the euroconclave next year is an option 20mins each, questions from the floor, 5mins to sum up and a for or against vote....anyone, even Frank, ......That would be fun.

:-)

From: Paul Arden
Sent: 03 May 2011 12:45
To: Mark Surtees
Cc: Gordy; Bruce Richards; Guy Manning; charles easterling; gordy hill; <thegammelfamily@xxxxxxxxx>; <dksimo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <timr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <flycast90@xxxxxxx>; <stefan.siikavaara@xxxxxxxxx>; <simbirsw@xxxxxxx>; <grunde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Conflicting view of definitions

I'll put together a comprehensive explanation as to why I/we don't think your definitions work over the next week. I also would like to see a completion of this matter so we can move forward.

After all we are all in the same boat.

Cheers Paul

Sent from my iPhone

On 3 May 2011, at 19:14, "Mark Surtees" <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Gordy

Well, “Winter Arm” might have had a say in it but I suspect it had more to do with chucking Clousers on a stiff 8 weight with a 20 knot wind coming onto my casting shoulder. I’m used to using 4 weights in the gentle pollen heavy puffs of pastoral English zephyrs, a size 14 is a big fly for me…..it was definitely demanding…..it most definitely wasn’t pretty…. J

Mark

[The entire original message is not included.]

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________