Rhinebeck Musuem Ecstasy

hoodoo · 30 December 2007, 08:36 PM

The thread "Rhinebeck Museum trouble" is so negative I thought I would throw something positive in a thread name. Anyone who wants to post good things about Rhinebeck, past and present, feel free...or the moderators perhaps would consider killing the negative thread title, a title that is
very poisonous and negative.
Although I have never been there in person, Rhinebeck is like a Mecca to me, I am going to have to travel there one of these days before I kick the bucket. I have seen photos and read testimonials of folks who have visited Rhinebeck but only until recently have I been able to perhaps feel the joy that many Old Rhinebeckers have known. I have been incredibly fortunate to discover the folks at Kingsbury Texas where my thirst for hanging around and working with antique aircraft and vehicles has been at least partially slaked, and it feels great to be able to physically and in a small way financially contribute to the worthy endeavor of preserving history in many ways.
Right now, I am sure Rhinebeck is Kingsbury on steroids...which is why I would love to visit it, although I would not give up for a minute the experiences that I have had and the things I have learned working under the direction or in just watching Roger Freeman and the volunteers work at Kingsbury. We share some of the same type aircraft, some of the same vehicles but perhaps a different personality, perhaps just due to being at a different stage of development. I would anticipate a visit to Rhinebeck would only increase the ecstasy that I feel at Kingsbury....sunsets at Kingsbury would be hard to beat...Texas sunsets are magical.
Perhaps there is indeed constant agony at Rhinebeck (as the thread title "Rhinebeck Museum trouble" suggests)...if there is, ecstasy and agony are two heads of the same coin. People love a place for different reasons and sometimes those reasons conflict....but people of "good will" can sort it out eventually, most of the time.
But sometimes, an argument can get so entrenched that it takes an identify of its own, when that happens, sometimes it's best for a third party to say...enough! It's one thing to be constructive...another to bicker to the point of misery...and seeing this constant thread title on the Aerodrome Forum is misery, well, maybe just disgusting.
A question to the moderators. Why don't you kill this thread title? Posts about Rhinebeck, even negative posts can still be made under the Rhinebeck name, just get the negativity out of the thread title. I suggest this thread title is not only consistently negative to Rhinebeck in perhaps an unintended way, but it is also negative to the Aerodrome Forum. Or perhaps you can leave this current thread title to offset the negative. I am sure many folks would just as likely want to post positive things about Rhinebeck under a positive thread title than just a neutral post.

Al Sumrall

AAC Cadet Leader · 30 December 2007, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoodoo

A question to the moderators. Why don't you kill this thread title?

Three reasons come to mind. It has a long history here, many followers and no other complaints about the title.

Quote:

I am sure many folks would just as likely want to post positive things about Rhinebeck under a positive thread title than just a neutral post.

Al Sumrall

Other such positive Old Rhinebeck threads have been previously established here, Al. Just click on the words above that say "Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome" to see other thread listings. Or, you are welcome to start another as you've done. Welcome to the Aerodrome Forum. Kingsury is a great place, too.

~ AAC (Moderator)

crankcase · 31 December 2007, 05:03 AM

dear hoodoo,
i am sure your posting is motivated by all the right intentions, even if it comes across as a bit curious.
rest assured that rhinebeck spurs positive connotations for most of us, even if the case that its management is dismal has been documented comprehensively in this forum.
there is room for both threads, i am sure: after all, burma (myanmar) is a beautiful country, something which is not negated by the dictatorship it suffers.
have a happy and enlightened new year,
CC (marc)

airknocker · 31 December 2007, 05:22 AM

In the spirit of returning ORA to it's former self, visit the tribute website to Cole&Rita Palen Cole Palen.com The memories are all here.

ONEALM · 31 December 2007, 05:41 AM

Hoodoo -

While I understand and appreciate your intent, please....

Since there is still plenty of Trouble at ORA - we should leave the word Trouble in the title.

When the current BOD leaves and things get back to normal we can start a new thread about the Latest, Greatest, Bestest, most Magnificent, Wonderful Recent Happenings at ORA.

Until then, lets be honest - there's still Big Trouble at ORA.

Quote:

but people of "good will" can sort it out eventually, most of the time.

Sadly lacking in the management team...

Quote:

when that happens, sometimes it's best for a third party to say...enough!

The Third Party has thus far been silent. But that will change. As I mentioned, when it does, you'll see those posters who have contributed mightily to the "negative" thread turn the story 180 and accentuate the positive. There has been so little positive at ORA within the management of the Museum and Airshows that it is disingenuous of us NOT to point it out.

Keep doing your bit at Kingsbury - they are good people and are doing us all a service, but what you perceive as negative for ORA is intended to produce a positive. It's not unlike disciplining your kids or "forcing" them to do chores or homework. It's uncomfortable while you are doing it, but in the end, they will benefit from it.

So please, no more talk about removing the word Trouble. Unless we change it to Disaster or Apocolypse.... or something equally appropriate.

Happy New Year-
Mike

tazbat · 23 January 2008, 06:36 PM

I concur with you Onealm. The trouble thread is to bring to light the atrocities that have been occurring at ORA for the past few years, even before the 2003 debacle.

It has been a nasty thread, but all I can say to that is... Reader beware! Disturbing content!

Due to a lack of transparency with the membership as respects to caring for the collection and Cole's legacy, there have been many ideas cast about in a quest for understanding. Not being able to understand the many negative events and actions that are still being committed to date, has led to frustration for ORA fans and members.

I haven't read any posts in the Trouble thread that are more disturbing than the actual, negative activities witnessed at ORA.

ORA was a great and wonderous attraction, until 2003, despite the insurgency that lurked beneath the surface prior to then. Last year it was only a shadow in comparison to the hey day of Cole Palen.

Think of ORA like a human suffering from cancer. An operation of removing the destroyed and malignant tissue is necessary for survival. That is all that is necessary at ORA. The malignancy must be removed for good health to return. A cancer patient can exist poorly for many years if surgery isn't performed and proper meds administered. At the point of critical mass, nothing can stop death. Likewise, it appears that way with ORA. And, that is what the many posts in the Trouble thread are all about.

Is the Trouble thread a negative thread? For sure. So is the daily news on radio, tv and in the paper. People don't get mad and refuse to listen to or read
the news because of it. But, people do react to it and sometimes that reaction generates positive results. Let's hope that the Trouble thread does the same. A reaction of positive results would put ORA back on track to the glory it deserves.

Salute!
Sandy

hoodoo · 23 January 2008, 07:40 PM

Some of this is a restatement but I am still having trouble seeing the point.
I don't suggest stopping the discussions about Rhinebeck, it is the reeking negativity I dislike. Sure politicians use negativity, the TV media and the press thrive on it....but this forum is a "forum", a public meeting place for open discussion, surely it is above what politicians, TV personalities, and the press do to get attention to their selfish interests.
What I don't understand is the need for labeling in the title. The body of the message is what is important. The title should not be the statement....the body of the message should be the statement. The title of the post is a walking poster...which is why I think those who are against current management are enjoying it immensely. Yet, this is a two edged sword. When they become management they will be on the negative end. This is what true fairness is all about.
Another point, let's say this message title was "Hoodoo is an Idiot", "Hoodoo is trouble". While that may be a truth, it is hardly fair to use this as a title again and again, no matter what the text says, be it negative or positive about Hoodoo. The mere repeating of the title is inflammatory and is going to reflect how people think about Hoodoo if they read it over and over again. You repeat or read something over and over again, be it positive or negative and it imprints....it is the nature of propaganda.
Now if the title read, "Opinion on Hoodoo", that is neutral but it is stating that the context is about Hoodoo....this doesn't imprint unfairly. You have to read the context of the message without all the propaganda and it also forces the writers to be clear or face controverting opinions.
Do we want more people to get into WWI aviation history or do we want to keep it an exclusive club? People with class don't wallow in negativity.
I admit I am neutral on Rhinebeck...if they have five planes or twenty I could care less, well, I care but it isn't the end of the world for me. I don't have the time to go up there....maybe one day. I am not concerned about hurt feelings because someone got slighted emotionally or they can't be the "boss". My eyeballs roll when folks get all caught up in emotions over the memory of this or that. Organizations evolve. There are ups and downs. Me, I am more about the truth of the past, present, and future.
What I see is some people who are perhaps afraid Rhinebeck will succeed in its present form. I am reminded of Washington Irving, who in the early 1800's was a critic of President Madison and the war with Great Britain. Yet when he heard that Washington had been burned by the Brits, and then heard someone gloating over the fact that President Madison must be embarrassed, Irving was aghast that the critic could not see the big picture....that he was laughing at the President's discomfiture at the expense of the nation. Irving right then changed his tune and supported the government in the war.
It's one thing to be constructively critical, it is another to gloat or use propaganda to support one's point. Some of the posts I have read on this point seem to make a lot of conclusions, but are limited on actual facts, and it hard to state facts sufficiently in detail, its work. But it is real easy to make harsh simplistic conclusions...something a person should guard against. It is pretty clear to me that folks that are negative about Rhinebeck's management (regardless if management is "good" or "bad")appear to be more interesting in twisting the knife than fairly discussing issues. If they were, maybe the title of the posts wouldn't be so important. I'm not saying they hate Rhinebeck itself, maybe just management, but hate is something that in the long run destroys you more than your enemy. When the battle becomes enjoyable, it becomes a game.

23 January 2008, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoodoo

...this forum is a "forum", a public meeting place for open discussion, ...

And indeed that is what the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome thread is, including all of its individually named child threads.

Quote:

What I don't understand is the need for labeling in the title.

There are so many of them, each had to have its own title to distinguish it from the others. Most of them are very positive in their content, mostly due to remembering the good old days. I would say that the word "Ecstasy" in this thread's title is a bit misleading. But, that is not my point here, and I don't object to the word. Look at the list of thread titles below. Perhaps "Trouble at Rhinebeck Museum" would have been a better choice, but I doubt the author of this thread had any clue as to how expansive it woud become. If so, he may have given it a different name.

Sticky Thread
Richard King

Normal Threads
Rhinebeck Musuem Ecstasy
Rhinebeck Museum trouble ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
Cole Palen's Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
SL DIII 26 August 2007 07:32 PM
The ORA Selloff Begins!!!!!
ORA Red Fokker Triplane ( 1 2 3)
1977 Airshow Footage on YouTube
Old Rhinebeck
Cole Palen.com
Rhinebeck airshow reviews ( 1 2 3)
World War 1 Aeroplanes, Inc., and Rhinebeck Aerodrome Museum ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
New Hanger Contruction...
Old Rhinebeck

Quote:

What I don't understand is the need for labeling in the title. The body of the message is what is important. The title should not be the statement....the body of the message should be the statement.

Any author would disagree with this. The title of a book, just like the title of "Rhinebeck Museum Trouble", must reflect the nature of content. Occasionally, a book may be titled in such a way as to reflect content without giving away the subject. But, that is not a specific requirement but a choice of the author. Most titles make a statement or else people's interests wouldn't be piqued enough to investigate.

Quote:

Do we want more people to get into WWI aviation history or do we want to keep it an exclusive club?

Sure we want more people to get into it. But, the "Rhinebeck Museum Trouble" thread was never developed to encourage people to become interested in visiting ORA. It is especially for those who are already interested, and in discussing the nature of the trouble, to try to discover the roots of them, and to think tank the solutions. Only, the majority of solutions once discovered were never posted. That would be like a gambler showing his hand to the others sitting around the table. You must admit, the posting of the missing Gnome engine had a very positive result, otherwise it would have ended up somewhere in another part of the world.

Quote:

My eyeballs roll when folks get all caught up in emotions over the memory of this or that. Organizations evolve.

There is nothing wrong in being caught up emotionally in the recreating of aviation history. And yes, organizations do evolve. That is only natural. The people who rail on the "Trouble" thread, want to see the evolution of ORA to be a constuctive one, not destructive. In one year's time, two WW1 fighter replicas, powered by original period engines were destroyed. The facts show that both incidents were avoidable. I won't go into details here. I and many others have watched the collection severely deteriorate in the past years since 2003. It is mostly documented in the "Trouble" thread.

Quote:

Irving right then changed his tune and supported the government in the war.

I had a parallel change of tune in regards to ORA. When I saw long time friends, who worked there, be let go over a short period of a few months, I became curious. When I heard the conditions of their terminations I was appalled. The judgements against these individuals were not accurate to what I personally knew about them. I am sure you can think of someone who was unjustly let go from a job and their reputation besmirched. Had I not known any of these people, it would not have meant anything to me. And maybe one of these could have done something out of character which might warrant severe action, but not all of them. So, I changed from not being involved to being so.

Don't think that the "Trouble" thread is all there is to being involved. There is much more. Talk alone is cheap.

Quote:

But it is real easy to make harsh simplistic conclusions...something a person should guard against. It is pretty clear to me that folks that are negative about Rhinebeck's management (regardless if management is "good" or "bad")appear to be more interesting in twisting the knife than fairly discussing issues. If they were, maybe the title of the posts wouldn't be so important. I'm not saying they hate Rhinebeck itself, maybe just management, but hate is something that in the long run destroys you more than your enemy. When the battle becomes enjoyable, it becomes a game.

Yes, I have a burning hatred for what is going on there. But, mine is not toward the individuals, but of their actions. Do I want to see the current trustees replaced. You betcha! I want to see individuals who will honor the Museum's mission statement and respect the membership at the control stick and pedals. And if the current trustees don't agree with that then people should work to change it. I agree that there has been some dribble on that thread, but that is a natural cause and effect situation. It comes from freedom of speech, mixed with anger, disappointment, and a sense of not having an apparent solution and ability to correct the wrong(s).

I hope I haven't offended you. But, I vote for the title to stay as it is, "Rhinebeck Museum Trouble."
.

AAC Cadet Leader · 23 January 2008, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoodoo

What I don't understand is the need for labeling in the title. The body of the message is what is important. The title should not be the statement....the body of the message should be the statement. The title of the post is a walking poster...... While that may be a truth, it is hardly fair to use this as a title again and again, no matter what the text says, be it negative or positive... If they were, maybe the title of the posts wouldn't be so important....

do you have some suggestions for better titles for that thread, hoodoo? what would you rename it if you could? perhaps the thread starter will like your ideas. if so he could contact me (moderator for it) and i might be able to edit the title. but just for a matter of discussion, i'm curious to what title(s) you'd suggest.

ONEALM · 24 January 2008, 07:44 AM

While I would love to say I understand HooDoo's position, I'm afraid I'm missing his point.

There are so many individual points in his last response that I would rebut, but it's simply not worth the effort at this juncture. It's rather like arguing religion - I believe A, you believe B and since it's a belief there's no logical argument to sway either side. That's neither bad nor good, it's just, as Hoodoo like to point out, a fact.

Be that as it may, I can't help but remark that this is the central reason I see for your failure to grasp the intent of the thread, it's "negative" title and our collective passion about this issue:

Quote:

I admit I am neutral on Rhinebeck...if they have five planes or twenty I could care less, well, I care but it isn't the end of the world for me.

This is not an issue to be neutral on. If you have been reading this thread you see more than personal diatribes about the management. You would see what those of us who are posting in ORA's defense and directly against the current BoT have seen, albeit on a limited scale.

I admit, if Rhinebeck fails, the world will still rotate, the sun will come up and we'll probably all be alive tomorrow. But the idea that it is unimportant if Rhinebeck lives or dies if patently wrong in the vast majority of people posting to this thread.

Institutions such as ORA are unique in the world. They are not a knitting club or quilting society which allows us to pleasantly pass the time. It's living history. It's the life work of many of those who animated and sustained it. It's our chance in the modern era to get just a little flavor of the past and attempt to understand it's significance to our present.

Does the vaudville act bring anything but entertainment with it? Probably not. But the aircraft do. The dedication of the volunteers do. The modicum of appreciation for our aviation heritage and for those who sustain it which every individual who has ever come through the gates at Rhinebeck is exposed to - conscious of it or not - THAT is the point.

The thread is meant to point out directly that the current Board is undermining, by deliberate act or sheer incompetancy, the purpose to which Rhinebeck was born. The are slowly robbing you and I of the opportunity to experience the unique environment ORA provides. They are disconnecting us from our familiar past and that, my friend, is the reason for the adamant use of the word TROUBLE and the sometimes vitriolic posts that attend it.

Quote:

Some of the posts I have read on this point seem to make a lot of conclusions, but are limited on actual facts, and it hard to state facts sufficiently in detail, its work

The lawyers hate when you lay all your cards out in public. Suffice it to say what you read here is the very tip of the iceberg.

You may continue to post in oppostion to the title of the contents of this thread. In a democracy, and even this moderated thread is democratic, that luxury is allowed.

But you must also be aware that you are in the painfully small minority. The larger voice sees what the minority does not, knows what the minority does not and, in many cases, including my own, has a real and personal connection to the institution that is Rhinebeck. When all is said and done and the scope of the issues are posted in black and white, when the smoke of the struggle has cleared and we can publicly point out the depth and breadth of the mistakes and deliberate undermining of ORA by the current BoT (assuming the legal agreements allow it), you'll take a breath and say the word TROUBLE was probably too generous a word to use.

I would suggest if you really do not care a whit if ORA succeeds or fails, if the idea of it holds no value, if you would attend the air shows only for personal satisfaction and fail to see the broader meaning of the place, you should stop posting to this thread. After all, if ORA itself is unimportant to you, how can this discussion of it's future possibly be ?