Jump to content

Nick Filippone

IPMS/USA Member
  • Content Count

    620
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

Nick Filippone last won the day on April 18

Nick Filippone had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

64 Excellent

3 Followers

About Nick Filippone

  • Rank
    Styrene Junkie

Profile Information

  • FirstName
    Nick
  • LastName
    Filippone
  • IPMS Number
    969
  • Local Chapter
    IPMS NENY
  • City
    Fort Johnson
  • State
    NY
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Fort Johnson N.Y.

Recent Profile Visitors

668 profile views
  1. Mark, The main landing gear is installed inside-out. You might want to turn them around before presenting it to your friend. Regards, Nick
  2. I have a better idea. I have used this approach myself. Contact Academy and be honest. Then ask them if you can buy the sprue you need. The worst that can happen is that they say no. With luck they will charge you a few bucks to sell it to you. Good luck. Nick Filippone
  3. You can renew on line by clicking on the “Join IPMS/ USA” at the top of the website home page. It covers new members and renewals as well. And it is easily done on line. Regards, Nick Filippone
  4. Gil, Well said! Thank you for speaking for all concientious judges. Nick Filippone. Senior National Judge
  5. Mr. Willis: What you wrote, although a little more detailed and therefore longer than what our Survey working group would have prepared, is exactly the way we wanted the description of the 123 judging system to appear on the ballot- factual, unemotional, objective. Designed to inform, but not to persuade. Kudos to you! You must not have slept through those Civics classes that covered voting in an open honest system of government. At least somebody else gets it! Thank you. Regards, Nick
  6. But the original intent of the survey was never to persuade people one way or the other, pro or con, for one system over the other. It was meant to simply be a fact finding effort to determinine the attitude of the members toward judging at the National Convention Contest. There was no reason to assume that, while the working group could be unbiased in it’s presentation of the description of open, GSB judging, we could not be trusted to be equally unbiased in presenting the description of 123. The working group, in fact, had a broad representation across the spectrum of opinion on this matter and as a group we worked well together. We fought, “pounded the table,” and expended a lot of electrons. In the end, we arrived at a description the GSB system that was only fact based as a good ballot should be. And, again, remember, at the beginning, to their credit, the NCC allowed us to write the entire ballot. Without consulting anyone else, Rusty decided, more or less, that we could not bring the same intellectual honesty to the description of 123. Rusty’s poor decision could not have tainted the process anymore effectively than if that had been the motive in the first place. It was a decision as arbitrary and unilateral as any of which we have accused the NCC. But then, Rusty, you have been a member of the NCC. I guess you can take the man out of the NCC, but you can’t take the NCC out of the man. Nick Filippone
  7. Let me now provide the history of the preparation of this ballot It began after last year’s National Contest with the annual forum debate on open judging (GSB) vs. 123. I joined the discussion and innocently made what I believed to be a practical suggestion: attach a simple tear-off ballot to the National Convention Contest registration form, deposit it in a box at the time of registration and add them up. That was rejected by the IPMS leadership, but, to their credit, they asked a working group of those interested in the question to create a ballot that would be included in an issue of the Journal so members could vote. I was one of the group, as was Rusty White. Again, to the credit of the leadership of IPMS, we were to be allowed to prepare the entire ballot. Our goal was to prepare a dispassionate, objective description of each system. It would be brief, fair, balanced and unemotional. At the beginning of the preparation of this ballot, I offered to write the initial description of our current 123 judging system for this ballot. However, Rusty White, who, from the start, had arrogated to himself the position of working group leader, rejected this offer and unilaterally decided to have someone from IPMS administration prepare the portion of the ballot that would describe the 123 system for the voters. I can only assume that Rusty decided that I, who he perceived as having some deep-seated and unalterable pro-123 bias, would somehow scupper the attempt to create a fair ballot. No one else in the group was allowed any input in this decision.There was never any question about the group’s other members being able to be objective about GSB open judging. I, however, was apparently not to be trusted to be fair. The irony is that I worked as hard as anyone in the group to prepare an accurate and fair description of open judging. We argued back and forth to create what you now see as the “position paper” for open judging. I insisted, as did others, that it take the form you now see. We wanted to provide basic facts and let the members decide. The Forum can provide the platform for debate and comment. We did not want that discussion to take place on the ballot. Then, without any warning or preparation from Rusty, the entire ballot suddenly appears as you see it. The working group was not permitted to sign off on it in it’s entirety. We never would have! And that is because the “position paper” for 123 was everything the group wanted to avoid. It is not brief or fair or balanced or unemotional! It is electioneering ON THE BALLOT by the very people who will be counting the votes. If I sound like I am whining, it is because I am. I am trained as a scientist. I want facts obtained honestly and objectively. I also have great respect for fairness in any vote. This ballot, as presently constituted, is not fair and should be seen as an embarrassment to this organization! I worked hard on this project. So did the others. We deserved the opportunity to produce something we could take some satisfaction in, regardless of the outcome of the vote. That opportunity was taken away from us by the very person in the working group who assumed the leadership position for himself and got out- manouvered. Please don’t blame me. Thank you. Regards, Nick Filippone, Senior National Judge.,
  8. It is just a stupid old vaudeville joke. One guy says “ I am going to get rich. I will buy gloves for $1.00 a pair and sell them for .50 a pair.” The other guy asks “How will you make any money?” The first guy responds, enthusiastically “Volume!” Your perfect description of we modelers’ blinkered financial planning reminded me of this silly old routine. Regards, Nick
  9. One member of our club had a solution for this problem. Instead of having to buy kits, we should be able to just rent them. But Noel’s friend’s observation about buying kits then selling them at a loss can be turned into profit with one word - VOLUME! Good luck. Nick
  10. What would be a pity would be to discover that we have all followed the Forum rules, but are threatened with being shut down because one person with the authority to do so, locks the thread for reasons the rest of us do not understand and, apparently, are not to be made privy to! Nick P.S. And what the heck is “flaming” anyway?
  11. Without doing any research on this and, dangerously trusting my memory, I am pretty sure that the Hasegawa Buffalo was issued in two different forms- one being specifically- supposedly- of the version used by the Finns. I have built the shorter nosed version in American pre- war markings. The kit is designed with separate fuselage parts forward of the wing roots. The Finnish version has different and longer forward fuselage parts. I do not know if the cowl differs. I have always been fuzzy about the subtle differences between the various iterations of the Buffalo. I will think your most reliable reference source would be the Squadron Publication on the Buffalo. This was written by a former chapter member of ours Jim Maas and is thorough and authoritative. The Buffalo was his passion and he was exhaustive and demanding in his research. Additionally, as with most Squadron Publications, they are a good source of variations through their drawings. Good luck. I am going to my library now to scope this out some more. Nick Filippone
  12. Rusty, With all due respect, I guess you will have to be more explicit about which part of my post violated those rules. I am being straight now. What part lacks a ‘Nihil Obstat?” Nick
  13. But was it tongue in cheek? What rule did I violate, please? I am curious. I used no bad language. I singled no one individual out for insult. I did not use all capital letters or coloured type. So what rule has been violated? Thank you.Regards, Nick
  14. The British are a much more disciplined people than we are. We are a nation of common louts and nobody is going to tell us what to do, by God! Nick Filippone
×
×
  • Create New...