Re: [Aus-soaring] Fw: Nigel's omission

[Richard Frawley]

suggest you ask what is now kept automatically.

storage is cheap.

what happened before that was put in place..well it would be history if it had 
been kept :-)








> On 24 Jul 2016, at 9:43 PM, Christopher McDonnell <wommamuku...@bigpond.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> ..lets not go near recording and archival requirements please.
>  
> From: Noel Roediger <mailto:roedi...@internode.on.net>
> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 9:11 PM
> To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.' 
> <mailto:aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Fw: Nigel's omission
>  
> Hello Emellis.
>  
> I agree totally with your comments.
>  
> I reckon I could post ten questions to GFA exec. related  to the formation 
> and history  of our organisation and get no correct answers.
>  
> I’m about to throw a series of questions to Mandy, Terry and Tim in regard to 
> the importance of recording fact.
>  
> You’ll be included.
>  
> Regards
>  
> Noel.
>  
> From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au 
> <mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au>] On Behalf Of emillis 
> prelgauskas
> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 10:22 AM
> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Fw: Nigel's omission
>  
> This is indicative of the dilemma about corporate knowledge, as each 
> generation succeeding the one before
> only knows what they know, and records that for posterity.
> Like the re-imagining of the history of the sport’s formation and early 
> growth by the late Maurice Little when the current magazine replaced
> the several previous iterations; and was published there but which was so 
> wildly wrong that re-writes and retractions were called for.
>  
> The problem becomes that the record such as an award becomes the permanent 
> record and is then repeated into the future.
> That is why correcting the historical record early in manifest ways is 
> important.
>  
> Emilis
>  
>  
> On 23 Jul 2016, at 9:06 pm, Harry <hw.medlic...@optusnet.com.au 
> <mailto:hw.medlic...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:
>> I truly believe that overlooking Nigel’s contribution was an unintentional 
>> oversight. The first I heard of the award was today and I immediately phoned 
>> Nigel with my concern as to him not being given credit for what he had done. 
>> I then also emailed an appropriate GFA official suggesting that it might be 
>> possible to give the award on a joint basis. Was told it might be difficult 
>> now but that the idea would be put to an subsequent  GFA board meeting. For 
>> the record I investigated the use of Flarms overseas and then approached 
>> Nigel in the hope he could manufacture them. As much as anyone I respect the 
>> work Nigel, whom I count upon as a friend, contributes to the gliding 
>> movement,
>>  
>> Bob,  Your concern and support of Nigel is justified and I truly hope the 
>> omission can be rectified. It is about ten years since Flarms were 
>> introduced into Australia and peoples memories are not always perfect 
>> particularly when they were not personally involved,
> 
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au <mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring 
> <http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring>
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au <mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring 
> <http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring>
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Fw: Nigel's omission

[Noel Roediger]

Hello Emellis.

 

I agree totally with your comments.

 

I reckon I could post ten questions to GFA exec. related  to the formation
and history  of our organisation and get no correct answers.

 

I'm about to throw a series of questions to Mandy, Terry and Tim in regard
to the importance of recording fact.

 

You'll be included.

 

Regards

 

Noel.

 

From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf
Of emillis prelgauskas
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 10:22 AM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Fw: Nigel's omission

 

This is indicative of the dilemma about corporate knowledge, as each
generation succeeding the one before

only knows what they know, and records that for posterity.

Like the re-imagining of the history of the sport's formation and early
growth by the late Maurice Little when the current magazine replaced

the several previous iterations; and was published there but which was so
wildly wrong that re-writes and retractions were called for.

 

The problem becomes that the record such as an award becomes the permanent
record and is then repeated into the future.

That is why correcting the historical record early in manifest ways is
important.

 

Emilis

 

 

On 23 Jul 2016, at 9:06 pm, Harry <hw.medlic...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

I truly believe that overlooking Nigel's contribution was an unintentional
oversight. The first I heard of the award was today and I immediately phoned
Nigel with my concern as to him not being given credit for what he had done.
I then also emailed an appropriate GFA official suggesting that it might be
possible to give the award on a joint basis. Was told it might be difficult
now but that the idea would be put to an subsequent  GFA board meeting. For
the record I investigated the use of Flarms overseas and then approached
Nigel in the hope he could manufacture them. As much as anyone I respect the
work Nigel, whom I count upon as a friend, contributes to the gliding
movement,

 

Bob,  Your concern and support of Nigel is justified and I truly hope the
omission can be rectified. It is about ten years since Flarms were
introduced into Australia and peoples memories are not always perfect
particularly when they were not personally involved,

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Fw: Nigel's omission

[Noel Roediger]

Reg. 

 

Chris’ response is spot on.

 

I can’t, off hand, recall any civilian award being made without the recipient  
being forewarned and  agreeing to accept it.

 

That is normal and accepted etiquette

 

The fact Harry learned of his award indirectly indicates the GFA trophy awards 
committee are not aware of this.

 

It is the obligation of the awards committee to verify any nomination and 
advise the proposed recipient. 

 

Noel.

 

From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf Of 
Christopher McDonnell
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 4:39 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Fw: Nigel's omission

 

Partly true Reg but I would have expected some due diligence to be applied.

Here is some fairly standard wording of conditions applied to awards processes. 
(bolding is mine)

 

“To preserve their prestige, an Honorary Award will only be made to persons of 
appropriate standing and there is no expectation or requirement on (insert) to 
make an award in any category in any year. (Insert) follows a rigorous 
selection process, using specified criteria and the application of due 
diligence and risk assessment processes designed.”

 

Unless something is meant to be a surprise it is not unusual to approach a 
nominee in confidence beforehand which in the case at hand would have been 
beneficial.

 

Chris

 

 

 

From: Reg Moore <mailto:rfmo...@senet.com.au>  

Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 2:41 PM

To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
<mailto:aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>  

Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Fw: Nigel's omission

 

The probable reason that Nigel wasn't considered for an award was that he was 
not nominated. The GFA Executive and Board can only issue awards to persons 
nominated they are not mind readers.  Don't blame the "GFA" it's up to us as 
members to ensure that people we think are worthy are put forward by either 
direct nomination to the Awards Officer or to our State's Board member. If a 
member did not get nominated it's our fault as members.

 

Reg Moore not Rob

 

  _  

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Fw: Nigel's omission

[Richard Frawley]

i disagree that its an outrage. to my point this was a commercial venture. 
nigel assumed some risk as well and applied his skill. an idea without 
provision how ever is stillborn.

i very much doubt nigel would be in anyway offended by his benefactor being 
acknowledged independently. 

remember that someone (not the GFA executive) has to put a nomination fwd. 
these are awards for the members put forward by the members. for the years i 
was on the exec in many cases only one name was put forward or even none at all 
in some category.

as such you or others can nominate nigel in his own capacity next year in a 
separate and more relevant frame to that which Harry was recognised for.

cheers




> On 24 Jul 2016, at 6:39 PM, Bob Ward <wendo...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> Richard,
>  
> As my post most assuredly acknowledges. But, not quite the point of the other 
> aspect of my post. This outrage must be addressed somehow!
>  
> Bob Ward
>  
> From: Richard Frawley
> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 6:18 PM
> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Fw: Nigel's omission
>  
> from what i have told Flarms were developed as a commercial venture. Sure 
> Nigel applied the technical know how, but that is the business he is in and 
> still is.
>  
> finding anyone to back a venture is tough. Harry put a sizeable lot of cash 
> at risk into this.
>  
> Having backed a few ventures, including my own, putting what the majority of 
> you would consider a small fortune into a small fickle market (gliding) takes 
> balls and commitment. I think Harry should be awarded on that alone. 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
>> On 24 Jul 2016, at 6:01 PM, Ian Mc Phee <mrsoar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Very well put Bob from another bloke 50 years continuously in GFA.  If it 
>> were skiing lift passes we would be free for us Bob.
>> 
>> Ian McPhee 
>> 0428847642 
>> Box 657 Byron Bay NSW 2481
>> 
>>> On 23 Jul 2016 7:46 pm, "Bob Ward" <wendo...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> I seldom post on this site but feel strongly that Nigel Andrews has 
>>> essentially been insulted by Harry’s award. As Harry pointed out, the 
>>> associated comments in the announcement were correct. Harry did finance the 
>>> development of Aus Flarm when he had confidence that Nigel was on to 
>>> something very significant for the movement. Harry certainly deserves his 
>>> award for backing something so significant. However I am somewhat ashamed 
>>> that the GFA, an association of which I have been a member for 50 years, 
>>> chose to award Harry for his contribution , while ignoring Nigel’s even 
>>> more significant contribution.
>>> Would not a joint award of that prestigious award have been more 
>>> appropriate?
>>>  
>>> Bob Ward
>>>  
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Fw: Nigel's omission

[Richard Frawley]

from what i have told Flarms were developed as a commercial venture. Sure Nigel 
applied the technical know how, but that is the business he is in and still is.

finding anyone to back a venture is tough. Harry put a sizeable lot of cash at 
risk into this. 

Having backed a few ventures, including my own, putting what the majority of 
you would consider a small fortune into a small fickle market (gliding) takes 
balls and commitment. I think Harry should be awarded on that alone.  








> On 24 Jul 2016, at 6:01 PM, Ian Mc Phee  wrote:
> 
> Very well put Bob from another bloke 50 years continuously in GFA.  If it 
> were skiing lift passes we would be free for us Bob.
> 
> Ian McPhee 
> 0428847642 
> Box 657 Byron Bay NSW 2481
> 
>> On 23 Jul 2016 7:46 pm, "Bob Ward"  wrote:
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> I seldom post on this site but feel strongly that Nigel Andrews has 
>> essentially been insulted by Harry’s award. As Harry pointed out, the 
>> associated comments in the announcement were correct. Harry did finance the 
>> development of Aus Flarm when he had confidence that Nigel was on to 
>> something very significant for the movement. Harry certainly deserves his 
>> award for backing something so significant. However I am somewhat ashamed 
>> that the GFA, an association of which I have been a member for 50 years, 
>> chose to award Harry for his contribution , while ignoring Nigel’s even more 
>> significant contribution.
>> Would not a joint award of that prestigious award have been more appropriate?
>>  
>> Bob Ward
>>  
>> 
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Fw: Nigel's omission

[Ian Mc Phee]

Very well put Bob from another bloke 50 years continuously in GFA.  If it
were skiing lift passes we would be free for us Bob.

Ian McPhee
0428847642
Box 657 Byron Bay NSW 2481
On 23 Jul 2016 7:46 pm, "Bob Ward"  wrote:

>
>
>
> I seldom post on this site but feel strongly that Nigel Andrews has
> essentially been insulted by Harry’s award. As Harry pointed out, the
> associated comments in the announcement were correct. Harry did finance the
> development of Aus Flarm when he had confidence that Nigel was on to
> something very significant for the movement. Harry certainly deserves his
> award for backing something so significant. However I am somewhat ashamed
> that the GFA, an association of which I have been a member for 50 years,
> chose to award Harry for his contribution , while ignoring Nigel’s even
> more significant contribution.
> Would not a joint award of that prestigious award have been more
> appropriate?
>
> Bob Ward
>
>
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
>
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Fw: Nigel's omission

[Christopher McDonnell]

Partly true Reg but I would have expected some due diligence to be applied.
Here is some fairly standard wording of conditions applied to awards processes. 
(bolding is mine)

“To preserve their prestige, an Honorary Award will only be made to persons of 
appropriate standing and there is no expectation or requirement on (insert) to 
make an award in any category in any year. (Insert) follows a rigorous 
selection process, using specified criteria and the application of due 
diligence and risk assessment processes designed.”

Unless something is meant to be a surprise it is not unusual to approach a 
nominee in confidence beforehand which in the case at hand would have been 
beneficial.

Chris



From: Reg Moore 
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 2:41 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Fw: Nigel's omission

The probable reason that Nigel wasn't considered for an award was that he was 
not nominated. The GFA Executive and Board can only issue awards to persons 
nominated they are not mind readers.  Don't blame the "GFA" it's up to us as 
members to ensure that people we think are worthy are put forward by either 
direct nomination to the Awards Officer or to our State's Board member. If a 
member did not get nominated it's our fault as members.

Reg Moore not Rob






___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Fw: Nigel's omission

[Richard Frawley]

very true. tim was asking for months. 

> On 24 Jul 2016, at 2:41 PM, Reg Moore  wrote:
> 
> The probable reason that Nigel wasn't considered for an award was that he was 
> not nominated. The GFA Executive and Board can only issue awards to persons 
> nominated they are not mind readers.  Don't blame the "GFA" it's up to us as 
> members to ensure that people we think are worthy are put forward by either 
> direct nomination to the Awards Officer or to our State's Board member. If a 
> member did not get nominated it's our fault as members.
> 
> Reg Moore not Rob
> 
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Fw: Nigel's omission

[Christopher McDonnell]

Hear hear EP.

From: emillis prelgauskas 
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 10:52 AM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Fw: Nigel's omission

This is indicative of the dilemma about corporate knowledge, as each generation 
succeeding the one before 
only knows what they know, and records that for posterity.
Like the re-imagining of the history of the sport’s formation and early growth 
by the late Maurice Little when the current magazine replaced
the several previous iterations; and was published there but which was so 
wildly wrong that re-writes and retractions were called for.

The problem becomes that the record such as an award becomes the permanent 
record and is then repeated into the future.
That is why correcting the historical record early in manifest ways is 
important.

Emilis


On 23 Jul 2016, at 9:06 pm, Harry <hw.medlic...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
  I truly believe that overlooking Nigel’s contribution was an unintentional 
oversight. The first I heard of the award was today and I immediately phoned 
Nigel with my concern as to him not being given credit for what he had done. I 
then also emailed an appropriate GFA official suggesting that it might be 
possible to give the award on a joint basis. Was told it might be difficult now 
but that the idea would be put to an subsequent  GFA board meeting. For the 
record I investigated the use of Flarms overseas and then approached Nigel in 
the hope he could manufacture them. As much as anyone I respect the work Nigel, 
whom I count upon as a friend, contributes to the gliding movement,

  Bob,  Your concern and support of Nigel is justified and I truly hope the 
omission can be rectified. It is about ten years since Flarms were introduced 
into Australia and peoples memories are not always perfect particularly when 
they were not personally involved,



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Fw: Nigel's omission

[emillis prelgauskas]

This is indicative of the dilemma about corporate knowledge, as each generation 
succeeding the one before
only knows what they know, and records that for posterity.
Like the re-imagining of the history of the sport’s formation and early growth 
by the late Maurice Little when the current magazine replaced
the several previous iterations; and was published there but which was so 
wildly wrong that re-writes and retractions were called for.

The problem becomes that the record such as an award becomes the permanent 
record and is then repeated into the future.
That is why correcting the historical record early in manifest ways is 
important.

Emilis

 
On 23 Jul 2016, at 9:06 pm, Harry  wrote:
> I truly believe that overlooking Nigel’s contribution was an unintentional 
> oversight. The first I heard of the award was today and I immediately phoned 
> Nigel with my concern as to him not being given credit for what he had done. 
> I then also emailed an appropriate GFA official suggesting that it might be 
> possible to give the award on a joint basis. Was told it might be difficult 
> now but that the idea would be put to an subsequent  GFA board meeting. For 
> the record I investigated the use of Flarms overseas and then approached 
> Nigel in the hope he could manufacture them. As much as anyone I respect the 
> work Nigel, whom I count upon as a friend, contributes to the gliding 
> movement,
>  
> Bob,  Your concern and support of Nigel is justified and I truly hope the 
> omission can be rectified. It is about ten years since Flarms were introduced 
> into Australia and peoples memories are not always perfect particularly when 
> they were not personally involved,
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Fw: Nigel's omission

[Noel Roediger]

Well said Bob.

 

Noel.

From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf Of 
Bob Ward
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2016 7:17 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: [Aus-soaring] Fw: Nigel's omission

 

 

 

 

I seldom post on this site but feel strongly that Nigel Andrews has essentially 
been insulted by Harry’s award. As Harry pointed out, the associated comments 
in the announcement were correct. Harry did finance the development of Aus 
Flarm when he had confidence that Nigel was on to something very significant 
for the movement. Harry certainly deserves his award for backing something so 
significant. However I am somewhat ashamed that the GFA, an association of 
which I have been a member for 50 years, chose to award Harry for his 
contribution , while ignoring Nigel’s even more significant contribution. 

Would not a joint award of that prestigious award have been more appropriate?

 

Bob Ward

 

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Fw: Nigel's omission

[Harry]

Hi Bob,

I truly believe that overlooking Nigel’s contribution was an unintentional 
oversight. The first I heard of the award was today and I immediately phoned 
Nigel with my concern as to him not being given credit for what he had done. I 
then also emailed an appropriate GFA official suggesting that it might be 
possible to give the award on a joint basis. Was told it might be difficult now 
but that the idea would be put to an subsequent  GFA board meeting. For the 
record I investigated the use of Flarms overseas and then approached Nigel in 
the hope he could manufacture them. As much as anyone I respect the work Nigel, 
whom I count upon as a friend, contributes to the gliding movement,

Bob,  Your concern and support of Nigel is justified and I truly hope the 
omission can be rectified. It is about ten years since Flarms were introduced 
into Australia and peoples memories are not always perfect particularly when 
they were not personally involved, 

All the best,

Harry,







To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
Subject: [Aus-soaring] Fw: Nigel's omission




I seldom post on this site but feel strongly that Nigel Andrews has essentially 
been insulted by Harry’s award. As Harry pointed out, the associated comments 
in the announcement were correct. Harry did finance the development of Aus 
Flarm when he had confidence that Nigel was on to something very significant 
for the movement. Harry certainly deserves his award for backing something so 
significant. However I am somewhat ashamed that the GFA, an association of 
which I have been a member for 50 years, chose to award Harry for his 
contribution , while ignoring Nigel’s even more significant contribution. 
Would not a joint award of that prestigious award have been more appropriate?

Bob Ward




___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Fw: Nigel's omission

[Peter Champness]

GFA could award Nigel next year.  Maybe no one nominated him!

On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Bob Ward  wrote:

>
>
>
> I seldom post on this site but feel strongly that Nigel Andrews has
> essentially been insulted by Harry’s award. As Harry pointed out, the
> associated comments in the announcement were correct. Harry did finance the
> development of Aus Flarm when he had confidence that Nigel was on to
> something very significant for the movement. Harry certainly deserves his
> award for backing something so significant. However I am somewhat ashamed
> that the GFA, an association of which I have been a member for 50 years,
> chose to award Harry for his contribution , while ignoring Nigel’s even
> more significant contribution.
> Would not a joint award of that prestigious award have been more
> appropriate?
>
> Bob Ward
>
>
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
>
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Fw: Nigel's omission

[Christopher McDonnell]

From: Bob Ward 
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2016 7:46 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
Subject: [Aus-soaring] Fw: Nigel's omission




I seldom post on this site but feel strongly that Nigel Andrews has essentially 
been insulted by Harry’s award. As Harry pointed out, the associated comments 
in the announcement were correct. Harry did finance the development of Aus 
Flarm when he had confidence that Nigel was on to something very significant 
for the movement. Harry certainly deserves his award for backing something so 
significant. However I am somewhat ashamed that the GFA, an association of 
which I have been a member for 50 years, chose to award Harry for his 
contribution , while ignoring Nigel’s even more significant contribution. 
Would not a joint award of that prestigious award have been more appropriate?

Bob Ward




___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

[Aus-soaring] Fw: Nigel's omission

[Bob Ward]

I seldom post on this site but feel strongly that Nigel Andrews has essentially 
been insulted by Harry’s award. As Harry pointed out, the associated comments 
in the announcement were correct. Harry did finance the development of Aus 
Flarm when he had confidence that Nigel was on to something very significant 
for the movement. Harry certainly deserves his award for backing something so 
significant. However I am somewhat ashamed that the GFA, an association of 
which I have been a member for 50 years, chose to award Harry for his 
contribution , while ignoring Nigel’s even more significant contribution. 
Would not a joint award of that prestigious award have been more appropriate?

Bob Ward
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring