Peter:
> I don't think TAC can have it both ways.
You may be right, but it seems to me that's the idea: to try to have it
both ways. Or at least to just pick the low-hanging fruit and leave the
higher stuff for someone else.
> To be taken as a serious group
I'm not convinced that's a common goal, or even consistent with the
overall mission of tac.
> TAC is now caught in the middle: some want more organization to gets
> more benefits and others want things to stay as simple and loose and
> circumvent the requirements that more formalized groups are required of to
> gain more benefits.
Very well said.
> If TAC desires to remain as a casual loose-knit group, then it must
> accept the loose treatment it gets in return from governing agencies.
I think you're right, but I also think this supports Albert's original
point. If the only face tac presents is one of internal disagreement
and sometimes vituparative argumentation, it's very difficult for
_anyone_ to have a direct handle on what such an organization might
want, or how to accomodate those wants and needs.
Plus, most folks don't cotton to picayune wrangles.
> Without any formal structure (officialdom), TAC shouldn't expect
> the same benefits as non-profits get for instance, such as the FPOA.
Considering it's not legal for tac to get those same benefits
(such as tax write-offs for donations) it would be foolhardiness to
disagree.
> The world runs on contracts and agreements. After all, TAC seemed
> to be originally satisfied will what little state benefits it had
> to begin with.
Again, well said.
What I hear you saying is that a loose organization of
observers should not expect to be deeply involved in policy-making
or other tiresome organizational issues.
I could not agree more.
The problem I see here is not with the structure of tac, or
with its goals. It's with the deluded idea that such a group should
be floundering about in public policy and administrative issues.
It's also slightly startling that hard-core non-club
observers would be inclined in that direction.
Now, I'd be the last person to say "no more discussion of
such issues on tac." Not my problem, not my care -- fire away.
I also think there's a great deal of value to the information
you've <Peter> been supplying for everyone. Thanks.
I suppose what I am saying is, if folks remember what tac is,
they might do a better job of expressing their thoughts about what
steps or activities might be useful.
Fremont Peak? What should an observer's organization do?
Here's an idea: go there and observe! Or anywhere else that it's
legal. If you don't like it one place, go to another.
But iff you want to get deeply involved in policy, get
involved in the policy groups.
For Fremont Peak, that's FPOA. For Montebello, that's ... tac!
Whoa, James, what are you doing?
d
Hi, Albert! Too long no see ... I actually thought of a good reason
for a three-tube scope.
Amazing, huh?