ghodges

NOTICE: IT SEEMS THAT AN ENTIRE DISCUSSION HAS JUST BEEN ERASED BY THE MODERATORS CONCERNING THIS TOPIC, INCLUDING JAY'S LETTER AND MY INITIAL RESPONSE (WHICH I COPIED HERE FROM MY OWN ARCHIVES). What the H.E. double hockey sticks? If the admins want to MOVE a discussion to the members only area; fine! But to ERASE it because the Eboard is being legitimately questioned and criticized in a civil manner? How about some integrity from someone in charge? Or is IPMS completely given over to censorship? Gil #10803

Jay (and all): I applaud Jay for his inciteful and informative letter. It seems to confirm the moniker I've seen hung on the current Eboard: Ready! Shoot! Aim! They tend to react in a knee jerk way to internet chatter instead of taking the time needed to fully investigate a problem and take measured action from logical conclusions. What seems worse, as Jay outlines above, though the Eboard statement suspending him says it got his side of the story, that was not true. I have NO problem if the Eboard did give Jay his say and then chose to go with the testimony of others. I have a HUGE problem if they interviewed and listened ONLY to people who supported the outcome they were looking for (a changing of the guard on the NCC), ala the Warren Commission. Where I part from Jay and his letter is that it is incomplete in addressing Chris McLain's entire judging complaint. I can fully believe Jay's explanation of doing his job and not hovering and that there was no bias by him or anyone else in Cat608. HOWEVER, Jays letter does NOT address the more egregious issue of how the cat608 judging sheet results were changed after the judging was done; an undeniable fact that is supported by photographic evidence. Jay probably had nothing to do with that. However, his letter casts aspersions on Chris McLain and taints him as a disgruntled judge seeing bias where it didn't exist. Jay may not have exhibited bias, BUT SOMEONE DID AT A LATER TIME BY CHANGING THAT SHEET. Mr. McLain AND all of US deserve a full explanation of how that happened, even if Chris was not happy with Jay about being told to more careful around the model tables while judging. The bottom line here as it seems to be presented is yet another instance of the Eboard being either incompetent, misleading, or outright lying about its investigation being as thorough as they claimed. In light of all of their other recent actions, it's getting VERY difficult to continue to give them the benefit of any doubt. Gil

I applaud Jay for his inciteful and informative letter. It seems to confirm the moniker I've seen hung on the current Eboard: Ready! Shoot! Aim! They tend to react in a knee jerk way to internet chatter instead of taking the time needed to fully investigate a problem and take measured action from logical conclusions. What seems worse, as Jay outlines above, though the Eboard statement suspending him says it got his side of the story, that was not true. I have NO problem if the Eboard did give Jay his say and then chose to go with the testimony of others. I have a HUGE problem if they interviewed and listened ONLY to people who supported the outcome they were looking for (a changing of the guard on the NCC), ala the Warren Commission. Where I part from Jay and his letter is that it is incomplete in addressing Chris McLain's entire judging complaint. I can fully believe Jay's explanation of doing his job and not hovering and that there was no bias by him or anyone else in Cat608. HOWEVER, Jays letter does NOT address the more egregious issue of how the cat608 judging sheet results were changed after the judging was done; an undeniable fact that is supported by photographic evidence. Jay probably had nothing to do with that. However, his letter casts aspersions on Chris McLain and taints him as a disgruntled judge seeing bias where it didn't exist. Jay may not have exhibited bias, BUT SOMEONE DID AT A LATER TIME BY CHANGING THAT SHEET. Mr. McLain AND all of US deserve a full explanation of how that happened, even if Chris was not happy with Jay about being told to more careful around the model tables while judging. The bottom line here as it seems to be presented is yet another instance of the Eboard being either incompetent, misleading, or outright lying about its investigation being as thorough as they claimed. In light of all of their other recent actions, it's getting VERY difficult to continue to give them the benefit of any doubt. Gil

Looking forward to your pics when finished! Gil

It appears like you're applying the decals on a surface that's already been flat coated. If this is so, what method(s) are you using to avoid decal silvering? Gil

The P-61 is shaping up nicely! Where do you get you Kapton tape from? Gil

Very nice! Be sure to post these pics down in the model topic areas below for everyone to see. Gil

Your "short tour" equals almost a year's production of mine! Very impressed with the figure painting! Gil

Great looking progress and the corrugated detailing looks to be quite well done in the kit. What scheme do you plan to do it in? Gil

Which is why the only PRACTICAL solution (if you want to keep the FB open to the public) is to restrict it to modeling related posts only. That way NO admin has to try to keep up with ANY non-modeling post. If others want to rant about IPMS "politics" elsewhere, let them. In fact, there are Eboard members and other IPMS members with their own podcasts where that can easily be done. I disagree that ANY non-member should have a say as to how WE run IPMS. If they want to have a say, then JOIN and become a PART OF THE PROCESS. I disagree that the vocalism of the non-members hasn't made a difference. In fact, it's their obviously inexperienced and ignorant statements about IPMS judging (especially concerning handling the models) that has caused the Eboard to react in its knee-jerk methods. Take the non-members out of the POLITICAL equation, but allow them to continue to post model builds and related posts on the FB page. Save the politics for HERE, and for members only! Gil

Those pe vents in the wings make a real, worthwhile difference! Nice progress! Gil

I'm overawed by by the number and variety that both of you undertake all at once! I consider trying to build 2 models at the same time overwhelming.... Thanks for the very entertaining and fascinating updates! Gil

Ron (and all) Understand that IF David "resigns", the remaining Eboard can appoint ANY member in good standing to replace him, and they WILL appoint someone who's already been behind and with them as part of their cadre, taking away any roadblocks remaining to them. THAT is why I'm asking him to fight on. If David truly feels he can do no more for IPMSUSA, or it's truly useless, then I also understand his feelings. And, if there's more reasons that he listed above, then I hope he explains further. My assessment is that the President often forgets he has the "bully pulpit" of the Journal. The VAST majority of the membership has NO idea what's going on, what this Eboard is doing, and where it's gone off of the rails. Dave, like most people may have wanted to avoid putting such politics in front of the membership, but at this point it directly affects in what form IPMSUSA will go on as from here; with an Eboard who cooperates with their appointed committees and chartered clubs, or one which hands down edicts to be obeyed by everybody. You're right in that in the end, he might be wasting more time when he could be relaxing and modeling. But since he stepped up for reelection, I'm hoping he will reconsider to continue to stand in their way and at least make them publicly act against him so all or at least more of the general membership wakes up to what's going on. Gil

If I might suggest then...... simply make the IPMS FB NON-POLITICAL, PERIOD! Any non model building post is automatically deleted by any admin immediately with instructions that ALL IPMSUSA political debate be sent HERE. HERE, all of the politics should be moved by admins to the THIRD, MEMBERS ONLY AREA (not deleted, but moved). This will insure that ONLY members are in on these discussions. While non-members may yell about it being some sort of "non-transparency" tactic, they can yell elsewhere or JOIN and come here to participate. The model only policy is also very much in line with many other FB modeling page policies. GIL

Although this is leaking news a bit, I received this email this evening: To all Effective Oct 31st I will be resigning as president of IPMS/USA (sorry Phil). While this is a difficult decision I have thought on this for a while and feel it would be best for myself and IPMS/USA. While I have enjoyed most of these past two years, there have been some situations beyond my control and others where I should have displayed more control . Perhaps my leadership skills are not what is needed for this organization. My days of tilting at windmills are over and I want to get back to the joy of building models. I cannot thank you enough for the support you’ve given me over these past two years. Exciting things will be happening at IPMS/USA and I know you are all up for the challenge. I will certainly be around in IPMS/USA, just not in a leadership position. I will get a message out to the membership this week on the website and FB page. I wish you all the best. Thank you Dave David Lockhart IPMS/USA President 678-620-8417 ipmspresident@ipmsusa.org I'm writing this to ask Dave to reconsider his resignation. This is NOT because I believe he's been a good President. In fact, I agree with his own assessment of how he's handled the office. That said, I also think he's just about the ONLY person who could, with some grit and determination, stand up to those on the Eboard who are making a shambles of IPMS and endangering the ability to hold the Nats in Madison next year. MR. PRESIDENT! YOU have more power than you may have realized. While the Eboard can certainly seemingly out vote you on issues you may disagree with, to my knowledge YOU do NOT have to implement or execute those decisions, especially if you feel they are bad or wrong. Would this create chaos on the Eboard? Perhaps.... but then which is worse? Chaos among your Eboard or rampant chaos throughout IPMSUSA? In other words, you do NOT have to issue an "edict" you think is wrong or bad for IPMSUSA just because "they said so". To my knowledge, there is no real mechanism for removing you as duly elected President, with the possible exception that mentions if the President is "unwilling to perform the duties as President the Eboard may appoint an interim President for the remainder of that term". WHY SHOULD YOU STEP DOWN IF YOU CAN MAKE THEM FIRE YOU AND SHOW THEM TO BE THE CHARLATANS THEY ARE? Perform your duties, including the duty to stand up against bad decisions for IPMSUSA! YOU HAVE THE POWER OF YOUR COLUMN IN THE JOURNAL! You have supporters who WILL publish your public statements about issues where YOU think the others are wrong and your reasons for opposing their ideas and actions. That will at least show the membership that you are making a stand to try to do what's best for IPMSUSA instead of bowing to the wishes of podcasters and internet bullies. They may have the internet, but YOU have as much a voice there as they do, and others like myself who WILL support your fight there should you choose to make one! I ASK YOU TO SHOW SOME SPINE, SOME GRIT, AND SOME DETERMINATION AND TO STAY IN OFFICE! Make a stand. The tone of your letter shows your frustrations, but I believe you've underestimated all that you COULD do. If you step up and admit your mistakes, people can be understanding and then stand behind you! And if you are somehow removed then against your will, at least you can hold your head high having gone down fighting instead of bowing out with your tail between your legs. YOU STEPPED UP TO SERVE! Please continue to serve IPMSUSA, only put your head down, dig your feet in and stand against the things you perceive as wrong instead of stepping aside to let the rest have their way. Gil Hodges #10803

Good points made above about changing the Nats contest...... and although I am a "GSB supporter", I do not advocate changing the Nats from its very successful 1-2-3 system. THE TYPE OF CONTEST AT THE THE NATS IS NOT THE PROBLEM IN IPMS! Even if the "times have changed" and more people think they should be recognized, GSB will NOT solve that problem. It COULD be implemented and work, BUT there will still be the same complaints, if not MORE of them. In fact, if someone got nothing under GSB they'd probably complain even more bitterly because they can't even point to a "better" model that beat them; not understanding how they failed to meet the standards being imposed. Even if GSB worked, would THAT attract a lot of new members who had not joined before? Very doubtful.... and even if some people did join, others would drift away because they preferred 1-2-3 and don't like the change to GSB. If the Eboard thinks they can actually increase IPMS membership significantly by changing the Nats contests (or maybe even by edict ALL IPMS contests in the future); they're at best naive and at worst willfully ignorant of their own membership. IPMS MEMBERSHIP CAN ONLY BE INCREASED BY INCREASING THE PERCEIVED VALUE OF WHAT PEOPLE GET FOR THEIR MONEY. This has ALWAYS been the case. MOST people view their IPMS dues as little more than a magazine subscription for the Journal. It's much more difficult to say what IPMS gives them for their money besides the Journal. We who are members KNOW the benefits we perceive and enjoy by being a member, such as group participation and new friendships formed, but these are more esoteric and less concrete things that are hard to convey and convince non-members of. Also, MOST model builders build only in 1 or2 areas or genres and very few build ALL types of models. IPMS on the other hand HAS to try to cater to ALL types, and thus the articles in the Journal that are not about whatever they themselves build seem uninteresting; which in turn makes the Journal and IPMS less appealing to spend their money on. I believe there may be ways to make the Journal a bit more desirable and thus make joining IPMS a bit more desirable, but that involves change and some financial risk to start with. The last thing that's needed to make people want to be a part of IPMS is much harder. We need to somehow overcome our ELITIST REPUTATION among non-members everywhere. Those of us who are members KNOW how false that rep is. We KNOW how many of us are average and below average builders and are NOT any part of any special group who is better just because we're IPMS members. Changing the Nats contest MIGHT help soften our cut-throat nit picky reputation over time, but again, that's just a hope and not a proven fact. There's an intimidation level that needs to be overcome, especially at the LOCAL level that keeps people from even checking out the local IPMS group. Once we figure out how to do that, more people will join local clubs. Once they join the local club and see how IPMS members are NOT really different from themselves, they're more likely to be open to joining IPMSUSA. But until we change our rep, don't expect others to flock to IPMS just because of changes made to our contests, and THAT is the mistake I believe this current Eboard is making to begin with. Gil

The only thing I can see that Dave might have missed is the effect on the judging corp as a whole. We know how the NCC has reacted to all of this because most have resigned. But how many regular judges may decide that: - with the Eboard supporting the portrayal of the judges as bumbling buffoons who paw the model entrees at will with no regard on social media - with the new "no handling" rules which are sure to at least be confusing, if not impossible to work under - without the reliable guidance of an experienced set of Head Judges Simply decide to NOT volunteer their valuable time? I'm sure that MANY will indeed give in to the idea that "Madison needs them" and it'd be unfair to the Madison crew and show to not do their regular duty. But will it be enough to get the job done in a reasonable time frame, if at all? And there's NO way to gauge this until convention time. It's easy to forget that this is an ALL VOLUNTEER SOCIETY THAT RELIES ON THE GOOD WILL OF ITS VOLUNTEERS. Take away that sense and feeling of mutual good will and you at least lessen, if not take away the feeling of the need to volunteer. Gil

Good looking build enhanced by putting they gray drone on the red base. Did you have to reinforce those long resin wings against sag, or have they held up over time? Gil

That would be nice Bob.... but have you been paying attention for the last year? If you need to, go down to the THIRD DF AREA "members only section" (you'll have to sign in to see it and participate there) and scroll down for the last 12 months to look at the various topics related to the Eboard's actions... 1) They initially tried to ram through amendments illegally last fall, including an ethics clause that would have enabled them to summarily suspend members for bad mouthing IPMS on social media. Thankfully the backlash made them observe the IPMS Constitution and put the amendments to a proper, legal vote, as well as drop the ethics clause (for now). 2) The reaction and consequences of President Dave Lockhart labeling all non-IPMS members who attend our contests and club meetings as "freeloaders". That says a lot about how they look at anyone outside of their own group. 3) The discussions, warnings, and concerns on each of the amendments (that were just legally passed) that now hand the Eboard more power than ever before, including DIRECT supervision of the NCC, which no Eboard in the last 50yrs had ever required, or even sought. 4) Their reaction to the social media to-do over handling the models (which an Eboard member had a hand in starting on social media) and their handing down edicts on the controversy to the NCC BEFORE they had the amendment that gave them the right to do so, and their decision to not even ask the NCC for their input on the subject, even though at that point the NCC was still the governing body for the Nats. 5) Their outright dishonest "joint statement" about the Mecha judging incident, which was not only incomplete in its initial investigation, but also was NOT fully agreed upon by both parties. 6) Their willingness to ignore and disregard the decades of judging and administrative experience the NCC had for the NATS, rendering them impotent so that most have quit since they would have no ability to govern the Nats; only to be "employees" of the Eboard. AND, understand that the current NCC would NOT have cooperated with the Eboard for most of the upcoming changes you will see for the Nats contest over the next 2-3 years, and thus they HAD to be replaced. And ALL of this started last fall, JUST when they were putting out their bid for re-election and too late in the year for any opponents to be able to have the time to get the signatures needed to run against them. They COULD have done ANY of the above in the first year and a half of their administration.... but didn't take any such actions until they knew they'd be running unopposed and have two more years to implement their changes. Perhaps you're right..... those of us who have been down in that 3rd DF area paying attention are simply over reacting and all of the above is merely coincidence. Then again.... it does give one pause..... Gil

Very sharp looking Spit! I especially like the camo, capturing the Brit practice of using mats to make a hard edge demarcation between the colors. I also think that the clipped wings and bubble canopy makes for one of the snappiest looking versions of the classic Spitfire! Thanks for posting! Gil

Ditto on the great communications! I can only add my DIRE PLEA to once again please, Please, PLEASE Beta check these hotel computer registration systems to check for any potential landmines like occurred in San Marcos (where the hotel computer system would let you add a day to your reservation to the convention set dates, and then REJECT it when you tried to book it when reservations opened). If you're going to say that your room blocks are for "this date- this date", please check to let us know whether or not we have the flexibility to add or subtract to those dates and STILL have the computer system work when you open things up. I realize that with multiple hotels this might add a bit to your plate, but I'm sure you can sympathize with the extreme frustration of being all set to make a reservation using the hotel page with NO indication that anything with your dates is wrong, only to have the system reject it and then by the time you can talk to anyone all of the rooms are sold out. THAT is what I'm hoping you in Madison will be able to avoid. Thanks! Gil

My thoughts also Ron.... however, I tried using more resin just to see if it might soften the set resin (it didn't) and to see if the cloudiness of the sanded window dulled the final appearance (it didn't). I also think the second coating of cured resin seems somewhat brighter than the Future or Klear overcoats I've used. Gil

I bought this "Total Boat" brand of clear resin with the UV flashlight on Amazon for about $25 to try making clear windows, as opposed to cutting and fitting clear plastic. I used a common hole punch to make the holes in the scrap plastic seen above. I then experimented with filling the holes with the resin, which doesn't harden until hit with the UV light. I found the following: 1) I covered some holes with one piece of clear Scotch tape and then simply poured the resin into the holes. I found the resin poured easily and the 2-3 air bubbles (if any) could be moved out of the way with a toothpick. I then shined the light on the poured side for 30secs or so, which set it. I then flipped it over and shined the light on it through the clear tape to further harden it. I removed the tape and tapped it with a blade to find it had set sufficiently hard. 2) I did the same thing next on some more holes, except I covered the holes with a piece of colored plastic tape (unclear). I poured the resin, hit it with the light, and it set just the same. I removed the colored tape from the other side and found the window had set sufficiently without needing to be hardened on the tape side. This is probably because the resin pour is relatively thin. Thicker resin pours would probably require longer light exposure and lighting the taped side. 3) In BOTH cases I found that the resin would pick up ANY slight wrinkle in the tape over the hole, so care needs to be sure the tape is clean and stretched taught over the holes. The tape can be slightly pressed out using a used eraser to create a slightly domed effect if desired. 4) I found you COULD sand the hardened resin (which was slightly bulged or domed) to get any wrinkles out, though it didn't want to polish back out, leaving it flat, but cloudy. However, using a toothpick to spread a VERY light coat of the resin over the flat resin and then hardening that overcoat brought the clearness right back. 5) I also used a toothpick to spread and fill the resin inside a few of the holes like you would if you were trying to fill it using Micro Crystal Klear. I found the resin is thick enough to allow this to be done, but it also tended to allow some excess to spill over the edges on BOTH sides of the hole unless it was done very carefully. This would work easier with smaller diameter holes than on these. Overall, THIS WILL BE MY GO-TO IN THE FUTURE FOR FILLING AND MAKING WINDOWS! Also, it makes for GREAT landing light lenses if you overfill the light housing slightly to make a domed light. It should also be perfect for making clear instrument glass on IPs. I believe it may also be tinted to make or fill position lights, though I've yet to try that. I highly recommend giving this stuff a try if you haven't yet done so! Gil

Sorry for the loss of such a friend. May the Lord buoy his family and friends like yourself through the grief with all of the loving memories of him. Gil

James: Good question..... Eileen had ALREADY retired at Omaha, being given recognition/flowers/thanks/etc.. She worked San Marcos because evidently some or all of those who were suppose to take over weren't there (don't know why not... maybe perfectly valid/unforeseeable reasons). However it happened, it casts doubt on the reliability of her successors after decades of NO doubt as to the record keeping. As for San Marcos.... I've yet to see ANY bad word spoken against them, their efforts, or their show, here or on social media. In fact, I've only seen praises like yours as being one of the best in recent years. It is ashamed that there's been judging controversies that arose from the contest, but I've only seen the NCC, the judges, and the Eboard all referenced in those discussions, with NO aspersions cast on the San Marcos crew who deserves only kudos. Gil