Well, that's your opinion of what Iz meant. Thanks for encouraging me to make further comment on the issue.
Iz stated in a public forum that TRA board members had committed crimes. His stated function of "communications facilitator" for an organization encourages me to believe that he is careful and precise in his communications, therefore, I believe his original statement, as may many others who read it, and I'm certain he can back it up.
I had no idea there was so serious a legal issue with TRA BOD members. Thanks for pointing out the seriousness of the situation to me, Iz, I might just have to change my opinion of TRA and the TRA BOD because of your post.
there is a distinction between the commission of a crime, and its discovery and conviction
lets look at the FACTS
1) when acting as an certified testing organization, saying you tested when you didn't
2) attaching someones name to a test that they didn't participate in
3) include motors on a published certfication list in conformance with state law (where NFPA 1127 is adopted)
4) representing the motors as tested to the public who used them at launches, thereby endangering their welfare
5) representing to a siteowner that launches were operated within the safety code when it was not, and
6) representing to siteowners and participants that insurance was effective (by virtue of conformance to the safety code vis a vis use of certified motors) when it in fact was not (with respect to the uncertified motors use)
I think there are a couple of crimes in there somewhere
Which is certainly true. They simply have not been convicted yet.
You are munging terms to put yourself in a position to assume facts not in evidence.
Reposting posts from other forums is about as low a duty cycle form of communication one could imagine. He does not formulate the statements, as an actual communications director might.
You declaring him a communications facilitator merely because he communicates at one point and facilitates discussion about the communications in another effort separate from the first, does not justify concatenating the terms to "communications facilitator". The further even larger leap of falsehood to "for an organization" also assumes falsely he officially speaks for or on behalf of an entire unincorporated association. He does not. Do I speak for TRA merely because I speak about TRA and I have the best interests of TRA at heart by asking criminal and tortuous behavior be stopped?
if your opinion of TRA and specific members of the TRA BoD is changed, it should be by the actions those leaders committed, which facts have been represented in posts (i.e.; informal testimony) from the former TMT chairman, and others
"communications facilitator" are his words, Jerry, not mine. IIRC, its how he described his role in ARSA as an equal Associate when asked if he were an ARSA spokesman. I can try and dig up the thread, if you like.
I am now, that's for sure. Unfounded allegations of someone, or some thing, having committed crimes can open people up to libel charges, especially when made in public and a malicious intent can be established.
It may be getting more serious than even you realize, Jerry.
I have no dog in this fight, but among the charges that have been made (and not refuted) are mismanagement of funds regarding the HPR magazine, and supplying puported certifications of motors that were not.
In the latter case, whether or not it is true, it is greatly strengthened (as far as defense of libel goes) when the TMT Chair at the time (John Cato) has made the public statements that he has made. After all, one would expect that evidence supplied by one in that position would have at least SOME weight, would one not?
There also appear to be further issues, but those two alone have not been responded to.
Not really, no facts were ever presented, just "informal testimony" and heresay as you point out. I had naturally assumed that any REAL proof of illegal activity would have been used in pursuing a legal remedy. Since there was no mention of that having been done in all the many years over which the many allegations persisted, I could only assume the "proof" available would not really convince a judge or jury (was not proof at all), or, that the allegations were not really specific to illegal activity (fraud, embezzlement, restraint of trade, etc). That is, until you posted to Ray that, indeed, actual crimes had been committed by the TRA BOD.
No, it was you, specifically, Iz, and your numerous assertions and allegations, and your statement that the TRA BOD actually "committed crimes", that are directly responsible for my changed opinions and beliefs in this matter.
"I am one who has stepped up as a facilitator of communication."
I subsequentlt stated specific conditions under which my activity was facilitation, i.e., reposting previous published ARSA material:
"when I repost material from an ARSA site, that will John's material unless I am specifically posting such material, I am responsible for my own remarks"
and finally, the first use of the term you are referring to, again reiterating the specific activity which comprised facilitation:
"however, I deny that I am a "spokesperson". My experience is that "spokepersons" do more than simply read (in my case, repost) position statements and information. They interpret questions, assess the implications of various responses, and craft specific responses which may be presumed to be sanctioned; i.e. consistent with actual positions described in original position "statements".
ergo ...
SCENARIO B
I assert that I am merely a "facilitator of communication"
===================================================== original posts in their entirety follow ===================================================== From: Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed ( snipped-for-privacy@acceptable-gains.net) Subject: Re: JC, TRA and the future of rocketry
View this article only Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets Date: 2003-11-23 19:40:34 PST
I was making a joke ... notice the wink?
I am one who has stepped up as a facilitator of communication. That function has agreement were it is necessary.
External opinions regarding that choice, or speculation regarding its merit or lack thereof are irrelevant.
- iz ===== From: Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed ( snipped-for-privacy@acceptable-gains.net) Subject: Re: JC, TRA and the future of rocketry
View this article only Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets Date: 2003-11-24 01:37:48 PST
ARSA does not need any spokesman other than John Wickman
when I repost material from an ARSA site, that will John's material
unless I am specifically posting such material, I am responsible for my own remarks
the degree to which my own remarks coincide with John's positions is for the reader to discern, given the context of his previously published comments (and which are preserved historically on the ARSA site)
that should resolve any ambiguity
- iz
W. E. Fred Wallace wrote:
ok, lets do this one final time ... but this is the last time I'm going to say this
SCENARIO A
if you fantasize that I am a ARSA spokesperson, then you will take my prior statements as consistent with and reflective of ARSA's position:
JW is committed to legalized rocketry (or more accurately, decriminalized rocketry in the wake of the DOJ/BATFE)
JC's position appears from his statements to be that only the legal practice of rocketry is acceptable, specifically so that the moral requirement (that risks to siteowners, participants, spectators, and bystander are mitigated) is met
these positions are not mutually exclusive (i.e.; are consistent)
however, I deny that I am a "spokesperson". My experience is that "spokepersons" do more than simply read (in my case, repost) position statements and information. They interpret questions, assess the implications of various responses, and craft specific responses which may be presumed to be sanctioned; i.e. consistent with actual positions described in original position "statements".
ergo ...
SCENARIO B
I assert that I am merely a "facilitator of communication" (and I added that that function has agreement where it is necessary, which implies that my reposting material verbatim or providing links to original material has not evoked a negative response from JW)
if my assertion that I am not an ARSA spokesperson is valid, then my other previous statement applies:
that "JW makes his own position statements and I fail to see any merit in proposing that he make a particular one for you to manipulate"
so choose your reality
feel free to cut this message, copy it to your clipboard, and paste it to yourself whenever you, John DeMar or Ray insist on repeating the same question.
as a reminder, should any of you gentlemen present the question again, I will simply remind you to "choose your reality", and you can take that as an invitation to paste this in response, again, ad infinitum
- iz
"you can lead a horse to water, but a man's gotta learn to recognize his limitations"
That is because the "TRA bashers" want reform not criminalization of historically stupid people doing record stupiud things.
Maybe you would like to see Bruce Kelly and Chuck Rogers in jail, but I do not fantacize about that myself. Quite the opposite. I would rather see them firing my motors (again) with a smile on their face, without me or TRA bending to illegal means (ATF permitsfor exempt materials) to do it.
I did not say "the TRA BOD", I said "members of TRA leadership"
in a subsequent post I offered a list of possible crimes
1) when acting as an certified testing organization, saying you tested when you didn't
2) attaching someones name to a test that they didn't participate in
3) include motors on a published certfication list in conformance with state law (where NFPA 1127 is adopted)
4) representing the motors as tested to the public who used them at launches, thereby endangering their welfare
5) representing to a siteowner that launches were operated within the safety code when it was not, and
6) representing to siteowners and participants that insurance was effective (by virtue of conformance to the safety code vis a vis use of certified motors) when it in fact was not (with respect to the uncertified motors use)
as evidence that one or more of the above acts were committed as alleged, note the following statements from John Cato:
"Tripoli?s ?revised? format of listing motor approvals (showing no delay data in that approval) improperly and implicitly ?approved? well over
100 rocket motors that had never been tested. This was easily determinable because the expiration dates of these motors placed their date of test squarely during the time that I was Chairman of TMT - and we never tested those motors.
"While the existence of erroneous data of this degree is bad, in my opinion, a worse situation is created when the organization responsible for this ?error? simply ignores taking responsible and timely action to FIX the problem. I first recognized the potential situation developing around this ?new? format of Tripoli motor approvals in 1996 (after the publication of the 1995 TMT Handbook). In September of 1996, I first started making contact with then TMT Chair Bob Sisk about the problems with this - and requested access to the data files to help clear up this problem. I was fundamentally ignored -- and, further, Tripoli president Bruce Kelly explicitly instructed Mr. Sisk to ignore my request (this email communication still resides in my computer - but is not included herein).
...
"Ms. McMurray did advise me that many of the motors I asked questions about were sitting in the hands of the TMT West committee in Las Vegas - in the queue to be tested as soon as practical. Recent data posted on Tripoli?s website
formatting link
indicate tests of these motors from between April (i.e. immediately after our March phone conversation) and July of this year -- so Ms. McMurray?s statements were (ultimately to be) accurate.
That, however, does not address the situation of these 100+ motors remaining (improperly and illegitimately) on Tripoli?s approval lists for almost 4 years - from late 1994 until early 1998. It isn?t as though Tripoli had never utilized a clear and unambiguous reporting format. On the contrary, there was a clear precedent set of proper and clear identification of motors actually tested and approved and that was the lists generated under my hand from 1993 until 1994. To change that format into something considerably more vague - along with explicit ?explanatory wording? (see above) is clear evidence of conscious attempts to mislead and misrepresent. This is completely unacceptable - and casts doubt over the whole of the Tripoli motor testing effort. From my position as a Launch Organizer for almost a decade, I simply cannot accept as honorable and believable an organization that will misrepresent such a massive quantity of rocket motors for such a long period of time - and ignore (for several years) notification by the very individual (myself) who is purported to have actually tested these motors - as to the fact of their improper approval.
"It is my understanding that Tripoli is preparing to show up at this meeting with some kind of ?data? to substantiate their approvals of these 100+ rocket motors. I remind this assembly that the listings herein attached (Appendix A) are motors that WERE NOT tested under my administration of the TMT committee - and yet Tripoli?s (several year) listings of motors and their implicit approvals indicate that they WERE tested during my administration. That is simply an untruth - and any ?data? that may be brought forth as substantiation is bogus, misrepresented and/or falsified. There IS no ?data? to substantiate something that did not happen. NO individual in the current Tripoli ?entourage? before you EVER was direct witness to ANY of the testing during that year (?93-?94). If the Tripoli representatives contend that their data is legitimate and that I remain in error, I can and will provide several depositions from the individuals (of my former committee) who actually tested the motors to confirm completely the untruth of this representation."
[ excerpted from "Problems with MOTOR CERTIFICATIONS of the TRIPOLI ROCKETRY ASSOCIATION from the period August 1994 until late 1997 / early
1998 concerning Improper and Falsified Certification Listings" available at
formatting link
]
no, Gary, you are responsible for your own opinions and beliefs
Yet you failed to give any detail at that time about the actual structure of the organization. You stated what it isn't, without saying anything about what it is.
Pretty obvious eh? Or maybe the process of elimination doesn't work for you?
Tell you what, why don't you just email JW about all your specifics?... which is found on the site... maybe he can be more explicit?
Quantity and copy paste to multiple threads sure does come into play when it comes to general tolerance. But I can take some blame myself too, as I participated in such by way of reply. Still does not make it proper netiquette.
I wouldn't expect many to believe you had such pure motives... I certainly don't. I've said as much.
An email link on the site was not sufficient for you? No, out of the blue you wanted attention NOW... especially to pound Izzy through multiple threads...
Hidden or does not exist in the extent you want to be found, because they don't apply, therefore one can deduce all that is needed.
(And even if one just somehow cannot seem to manage it, there are links to points of contact... that's funny... I don't see Izzy's link there... hmm... maybe that tells you something too?)
Interesting way to go about your actual motive. Is change needed in TRA? Or... Is it perfect the way it is?
I understand, David. But, I have SEEN flame wars get out of control in both USENET and AOL forums (years ago) which led to libel cases. One involved a business who was suffering many similar allegations at the hands of several, but from a single individual in particular. She settled out-of-court as the prosecutor convinced her attourney that her many previous posts had demonstrated "malicious intent" by not differentiating between allegations and statements of fact (that was her own description in discussing the results of the case, not her lawyer's).
I have no idea what is actually considered in a libel case. I was just trying to drop a hint (that wasn't taken) based upon similar on-line experiences.
You won't help matters much with this. Granted, I bet it makes you feel better to vent, especially when the target refuses to see daylight... But it still doesn't help, and may just create barriers with others who could potentially understand what you are trying to tell everyone.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.