ARSA info request for Izzy

I hear you George. And even "not having been there" I understand just the same. True, even in it's non-entity "association" infancy, someone could be thrown out. It hasn't happened yet, but that isn't saying it cannot. There are many examples in history of silencing the opposition based on matters of opinion only. So I heard you.

I agree, "you can choose to leave" doesn't usually take long before, "leave" happens, thereby removing choice.

At least you've finally come out and explained why you were stirring the pot with Izzy.

At least for me personally, if you would have said this upfront, instead of the all the wasted blasts changing topics on multiple posts, I would have heard you sooner.

I still don't think that negates the potential good of the topic lines Izzy started... it helped me a bit over some things I had not sat down and taken the time to decide.

~ Duane Phillips.

"troublemaker"

The site lists the only two or three stipulations they require. End of story.

So instead pound Izzy for something *more* that doesn't exist (which you already knew) to make your point, and post a lot of meaningless banter in the process.

It is bare-bones simple at the moment. It is insulting of intelligence for you to claim otherwise. But you had other motives.

~ Duane Phillips.

He answered them repeatedly and you didn't like the accurate answers so you pummel the question repeatedly expecting a different answer which of course you never receive.

The fixation and lack of modification of your behavior is strictly your responsibility.

George, that is how I came to know ARSA and how it is (or is not) structured. The web site says all that it is. Which you now know to be true! (so why are you arguing the fact).

There was no dancing George, only your beligerence in redirecting a topic... no *multiple* topics. Which got you the proper off-topic response. It only finally came right when you started this new thread, but by then you had Izzy in a tIzzy. Ignore does not equate to secrecy. It may be a component, but it is not the definition. Ignore in this case (and you know this) was based on thread abuse, but you purposely distorted it to secrecy, and led others to believe that.

It was a vendetta.

Which I ascertained from the website.

Maybe so, George. But you could have just said that, instead of demanding attention from a singular person which which you had another motive.

~ Duane Phillips.

dated 12/3/2003 1:10 AM

in replay to your message ID:

~ Duane Phillips.

Of course. Membership has its benefits, and you can't take them with you when you are no longer a member. But what difference would that make if you aren't interested in being a member??

my point is that the ostensible "freedom to leave" you are referring to is not the same animal across the two organizations

ARSAs position is that user and motor certification are not requirements for participation and use, so electing to leave the organization incurs no penalty where in TRA/NAR it does

IF ARSA was REQUIRED to provide certification to meet some regulatory requirement (e.g.; NFPA 1127) to allow HPR activity

at launches WHERE states adopted it

AND the SFM enforced it (as opposed to admittedly using it only as a guideline)

THEN certification would

a) not require membership in ARSA, and b) would be for life

i.e.; there would be no condition imposed that membership be secured and maintained indefinitely

- iz

RayDunak> RayDunak>

I ask why not?

Why are they not "grandfathered" until you rejoin, after say 5 years or less?

Why punish people for the Bruce Kelly madness (or the motor cert madness, or the NFPA committee madness) and thus open up TRA for causes of action (lawsuits) for the resulting forcing of being exposed to fraud.

...

We can observe that the TRA/NAR uses NFPA codes to codify, guide, or justify their policies (depending upon your point of view).

But I wanted to clear up some misunderstanding regarding the NFPA codes, their directives regarding user and motor certificication (and storage), and their legal standing.

I will use the Code for High Power Rocketry, 2002 Ed. as an example, but the facts apply equally to all rocketry codes

-----

a) NFPA 1127 is a "Code" that is "suitable for adoption into law". It is NOT law.

[from 3.2 NFPA Official Definitions, 3.2.3* "Code"]

"The NFPA has no power, nor does it undertake, to police or enforce compliance with the contents of this document."

[from "IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT"]

-----

b) the self-stated purpose of the code is NOT verification or enforcement of compliance, but rather it is to:

"ensure the availability" of HPR motors anc components that "meet national standards of safety and reliability"

"establish guidelines for reasonably safe operation", and to "protect the user and the public"

"minimize deaths and injuries"

[from 1.2 Purpose, subpoints 1 thru 3]

-----

c) while the International Fire Code (IFC) contained the NFPA codes by reference, an adopting state may choose to exclude any subordinate code (including the codes specific to rocketry, i.e.; 1122, 1125 and 1127)

furthermore, in adoptive states the IFC serves as guidelines to the State Fire Marshall (SFM) who, along with county and city fire prevention authorities, have the discretion to not enforce, or grant variances to, the any part of the IFC

as of 11/05/03, only the following states (in whole or part as shown) have adopted the IFC:

Adopted state wide in 15 states

Alaska Arkansas Georgia Idaho Indiana Michigan Minnesota New York North Carolina Oklahoma (mechanical provisions only) South Carolina Utah Virginia Washington Wyoming

Adopted by some local governments in 16 states

Colorado Alabama Arizona (state DoH has adopted for Hospitals) Illinois Iowa Kansas Maine Mississippi Missouri (state buildings only) Nebraska (state owned or funded buildings) Nevada New Hampshire North Dakota Ohio Tennessee Texas

Adopted, not yet effective in 1 state

Pennsylvania

[from ]

there MAY be additional states who, while not adopting the IFC, may have included any NFPA code into its state or local fire codes by reference, or by inclusion of them in whole of part, with or withour modification

states which have NOT adopted the IFC are

California Connecticut D.C. Delaware Dept. of Defense Florida Hawaii Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Montana Nat'l. Park Service New Jersey New Mexico Oregon Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Dakota Vermont West Virginia Wisconsin

- iz

David We> There's nothing in 1127 etc. that "enables" HPR operations -

I just checked, and I can't find anything on that site which describes the organizational structure of ARSA, nor anything which says that there is no structure. I can find nothing which says who is charge, how that came to be, or whether and how that might ever change. I can find nothing to indicate that it is an organizational "non-entity" either. In short, there is NO information one way or another that I can find on that site. Now, it may be that I've somehow missed it, so if it's there, please direct me to it with a link.

Since when has "thread abuse" ever been an issue on rmr??

In short, it is the perfect unincorporated association.

An excellent attitude. Why not apply it to rocketry organizations? Of course, there's a bit of a difference. One organization doesn't give you any other choices, but at least two others do. Unlike Coke or ARSA, you have the option to work within the organization to effect change. THEN, if that fails, you still have the option to choose a different organization.

If that happens, will you spend all your days conducting a smear campaign against them? Will you dig up some crackpot who had a falling out with ARSA or its leader 9 or 10 years ago so you can repost his ancient accusations?

You are a lying, illogical, mindless drone.

Jerry

Current in what sense? That he retyped them? There is nothing NEW in them, just the same old garbage from years ago.

The issues are "unresolved" only in the minds of those obsessive types who will be satisfied with nothing less than heads on a pike. The fact that some of those BOD members have continued to be re-elected by the membership or remain in useful service in volunteer positions, does not indicate a lack of resolution of the issues -- assuming those "issue" ever needed resolving in the first place.

Translation: "I can't convince the members to overthrow TRA, so maybe by digging up Cato's ancient drivel and using it to fuel a smear campaign on rmr (while avoiding actual TRA forums), I can discredit them in the eyes of potential new members."

Funny, you didn't like it very much when those tactics were applied to ARSA.

George, that is how I came to know ARSA and how it is (or is not) structured. The web site says all that it is.

Ignore in this case (and you know this) was based on thread abuse, but you purposely distorted it to secrecy, and led others to believe that.

the large majority of the threads are generic to rocketry at large

Ray, members of TRA leadership have commited crimes

I know that that doesn't mean anything to you

- iz

Ray, members of TRA leadership have commited crimes

I know that that doesn't mean anything to you

- iz