flyinawa, you've been a level headed west poster, but I think this post shows how a word or phrase can become fact within a group.

The word "neutral" became a big point with you guys. Evidence of USAPA's intentions. Well, I'm sure Symanski indeed picked his words carefully in front of you guys, but he's a lawyer. Judge Silver used something like "fast and loose." But what is neutral? It means not taking a side and that's exactly where we are. Status quo. I remember a west friend of mine arguing that the MOU wasn't neutral, that USAPA would forward a DOH east/west list. I told him that I didn't see where he got that from READING THE MOU. Obviously he didn't get it from there, he got his ideas from preconceived notions or the conventional wisdom floating around the west. BTW, as of the other day, he still thinks that's what will happen.

I've seen this over and over with the west. An idea will surface and it will start making it's way around some boards, then I will get a phone call from my friend, parroting the same thing. I've suggested to him that you guys sometimes suffer from the AWAPPA boards lack of contrary opinion, but he disagrees. When I agree with him I'm being rational, when I disagree I've become a USAPA loyalist.

I read the MOU before I listened to the commentary. I came to the conclusion that we were giving up on our fight, and going to let it go to a new process, a do over. No Nic, no DOH. I couldn't figure out why the west guys were going to vote for it. Then I heard the reasons. You guys voted for the MOU to use it for purposes other than what it was intended for.