You mean it HAD one agenda. ARSA and others asked congress for a new law. Look what they got. S724 is as dead as yesterdays fish. NAR and TRA had nothing to do with that, as much as you would like to believe.
Jeff Barnes TRA #2267
Great.
Now we can focus on NAR's illegal demand for explosives permits for exempt materials and improper interpretations of DOT regulations resulting in vendors who ARE LEGAL being excluded from the certified motor list illegally.
Jerry
What if? Okay, let's play "what if" for a minute.
What if a poster from, say, a small, independent organization had an ax to grind with the national organizations over regulatory policy and legislative issues which although they affect his organization and the national organization members in a different manner, they do affect both?
What if the board members from one of the national organizations who sat on, or provided input to, regulatory/code committees and initiated legislative action, had questionable, inflammatory pasts with their organization?
What if the poster realized that the national organizations still had substantial member support (irrational support, in his view) and that support contributed to the existence of the national organizations and their continued involvement in regulatory/code/legal issues in a manner contrary to the poster's desires?
What if that poster was solely concerned with changing the regulatory/code/legislative process in rocketry to his favor, but wished to alienate as few potential supporters amongst the rocket community as possible while doing it?
What if that poster saw a small media related success by random members of the rocket community and noticed there was, indeed, a fleeting window of opportunity in which to rally the group around another "cooperative" effort, only this time to promote his own agenda?
What if the poster could craft a plan which would further his own agenda and weaken and faction the national organizations, which he resented, at the same time, and possibly providing recruits to his own organization while doing so?
What if this poster was well known in the r.m.r community and had established himself as an opinionated, but pro-rocketry individual?
What if this poster had only been in rocketry for a single year, but had spent his initial time in his organization learning more about government regulations than an HPR/LEUP/NFPA aware rocketeer would learn in his entire career, instead of just learning about rockets?
What if this poster implemented his plan under the guise of "re-inventing" a national organization and using the questionable past of it's board members to justify his falsely stated "intentions"?
What if the poster dismissed allegations of harm to the hobby through his methods because he was intending to do just that, and not to eliminate corruption or fraud from the organization?
What if the poster had simply expressed his real intentions and not tried to hoodwink the entire rocketry community?
Now, these are all hypothetical "what ifs", of course.
I just wanted to play your game with you.
I find it rather ironic and hypocritical that someone who is a member of an organization that has been broken for over 12 years and refuses to change should criticise a brand new group that is still getting its act together.
Ray, clean your own house first. Then, if after another 12 years ARSA doesn't live up to its promises, go right ahead and pick them to pieces.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Not only that, but without the "oppressive" NFPA codes we are just playing with fireworks, which is widely prohibited. You should think of NFPA 1125 and 1127 as enabling codes.
Alan
And I find it ironic and hypocritical that someone who picks a fight with TRA over allegations of secrecy, "entrenched" leadership, mismanagement, and lack of member input would support another organization that refuses to answer straightforward questions, has a loose cannon dictator for life at the helm, and actually brags about the lack of member input.
If that's good enough for you, then don't expect any one to act on your complaints for at least a decade...
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
This theorizing and speculation with hypothetical "what ifs" is kinda fun and a good distraction from real world events.
Since you haven't played your turn in our "what if" game, Jerry, I'll take one more turn while you are thinking about it.
What if our new-to-rocketry poster had to learn so much about government regulations during his first year in rocketry because he was going to assume a particular role in his independent organization, say, for sake of argument, "regulatory/legislative facilitator".
What if that newbie rocketeer with less than a year's experience was also seen to participate in the very highest legislative endeavors of his organization, say, dealing with Congress, or involved in a Federal Law initiative (not something someone new to the sport is usually asked to participate in)?
What if our poster then experienced what he perceived to be unwarranted and damaging interference with his endeavor from the national organizations and acquired a deep-seated animosity towards them?
What if the scenario I described in my first post played out to fruition and our poster succeeded in having some BOD members removed?
What if our poster ran in an election to fill those empty seats, for who better to elect to the BOD than the visionary responsible for re-inventing the new organization?
What if the "regulatory/legislative facilitator" of the small independent organization was placed in a position to sway or control the regulatory and legislative efforts of all of rocketry from inside an organization he despised and believed to be detrimental to his cause?
Well, that's my last turn before you move. The above hypothetical scenario does require one seemingly contradictory element; the person intent upon a plan like that would actually have to be a member of the national organization he hated in order to run for a position of leadership within that organization. He would have to be very careful in framing his attack against the organization, lest his membership be revoked for cause thereby making it impossible for him to get elected.
Yeah, pretty far-fetched, I guess. But its just theorizing and speculation on fictitious, "what ifs". Just for fun and distraction.
Are you going to play "what if" with me, or not?
Prior to NFPA 1122, 1125, 1127 there was a SINGLE PARAGRAPH EXEMPTION for 30 years that worked perfectly till some table full of morons changed it.
Jerry
Leadership that is about/under a year old is impossible to be considered entrenched.
An organization that publishes EVERYTHING is not using secrecy.
An organization with exclusively member input and NO BOD clearly has "better" member input.
Straight forward questions answered with straight forward answers, but ignored by moronic trolls is not "avoiding the subject".
A person withan unspecified term cannot be a dictatorfor life.
A person who has not even had a plurality of members suggest an election even though that option is always on the table cannot be a dictator for life.
A person who is not a dictator or singularly steers the direction of the "group" cannot be a dictator.
A person proud and encouragingof member input cannot be considered to "brag about the lack of member input". The concepts are diametrically opposite.
Acknowledge receipt of this information into your brain.
Post my receipt.
Not happening in real life.
It is not directed at him. It is directed at protecting a corrupt system.
That would thereforePROVE hisproposalhadmeritwhether the removal was by vote, expulsion or resignartion.
Too many ifs to happen in such a totally entrenched bureaucracy of corruption.
Oh and unlike Izzy **I** AM talking about TRAI.
I cannot be removed from a list I am already banned from.
But not to propose things to existing or new board members. I have NEVER been on the TRA board (I was drafted once, I was almost appointed once).
A lot of proposals I made became policy. A lot of proposals I have made have been vilified or declined. What is instructive is the dividing line is almost black and white and starts at a time definite. That should tell you something about the quality of the proposals and the quality of the listening. One stayed the same and one changed.
:)
Bob Kaplow wrote to Ray Dunakin:
If that's good enough for you, then don't expect any one to act on your complaints for at least a decade...
Thanks, Jerry.
I know the above two posts look like trolling and I appreciate you responding as I'm certain you have little interest in my opinions or comments right now.
I am a little slower on the uptake than most, it seems, and I simply wanted your particular take (LONG time TRA adversary with well-known complaints) on a certain point.
Yes, appoint a more effective "facilitator of communications". One who is willing and able to answer questions in a straight-forward way using plain talk instead of weasel-words. One who doesn't think "facilitate" means "obfuscate".
you know nothing of my character, motives, or objectives
this is all entertaining speculation
and all false
- iz
Gary wrote:
I never remarked on entrenched leadership, I remarked on entrenched leadership of a specific nature
if a leadership is effective, its entrenchment is desireable
entrench, v. tr.
- iz
RayDunak> And I find it ironic and hypocritical that someone who picks a fight with TRA
this is quite dramatic
with all due respect, Gary, you have a very good imagination
- iz
Gary wrote:
Glad you think its entertaining.
Your character. Well, all I could know of that is what you demonstrate of it here on r.m.r. I guess its up to Bunny if he accepts your public apology or not, but it's the "little" things, like what you did to him, which demonstrate character. Having been on the "receiving end" of some of your insinuations and allegations, and having read many, many more, well, the "little" things are adding up into a pretty coherent picture.
Your motives and objectives. All I could know of them is what you say they are whenever you post them. You have posted a few of them, at least, in your "action" threads. Whether they are actual motives and objectives or not, as you point out, I would have no way of knowing. All I, or anyone, can do is compare stated intent to demonstrated action and see if the two jibe. If they don't seem to, then all a person can do is analyze the situation and see if everything fits together into some other consistent whole. Since you haven't finished the work in your "action" threads yet, I don't think a determination like that can be made at this point. So, you're correct; neither I, nor anyone else, has any idea what your true motives or objectives are.
You could, if you were so inclined, tell us.
I am concerned with what an organization does. If I am happy with what it does, regardless of its structure, I applaud it. Its organization structure is of no concern to me, as long as my purpose in being a member is satisfied.
Look at the difference between a privately held company, and a publicly traded one. The first company is able to pursue its mission consistently, through the vision of its founder; while the public company can have its mission compromised by a vigorous lobbyist.
If minimal contraints on my rocketry activities is an ARSA platform that inspires me to join, I do not want future members to invent new policies that require certifications. If they did, I would leave.
Personally, I have more confidence with John Wickman's leadership. That is something that propective members have to judge for themselves.
Theoretically, at some point in the future, ARSA may need to adopt a different structure. If that were necessary I would expect that an immutable constitution would have to exist, to insure that the ARSA mission could not be co-opted. And at that point, I would expect every member, including myself, to reevaluate their membership choice and act accordingly.
It's like listening to a radio station. If you like it, you keep listening. If you don't, you don't.
(I am going to be accused of 'bashing' here, but I am only making a contrast based on facts)
Now let's look at TRA. A member can achieve a Level 2, never fly a rocket again for 10 years, and as long as his membership does not lapse he is still a Level 2. But if it lapses for a year, his Level 2 Cerification is forfeit.
The Cert is ostensibly a recognition of knowledge and experience. Well, how does membership status bear on knowledge amd experience? Are member's certs continuously renewed by required activities? No. Do certs expire and need to be reestablished periodically? No. So what purpose does this policy serve, other than to influence membership choice? Your choice of membership involves risk of loss.
I assert that ARSA membership involves no risk, nor does risk does not increase with time.
ARSA has a very powerful mission statement. As I had said earlier, if this objective, and the way ARSA pursues it is consistent with your own, then be a member. If it changes, or you not longer agree with how it pursues it, then do not remain a member.
There is no risk
- iz
Oh? How can the leadership be changed? Can it?
EVERYTHING? WHAT? The organization has no infrastructure. It exists in the ether. What it does publish is subject to revision (e.g. the Memorial Day warnings and the subsequent "getting legal" advice). I would like detailed information from ARSA on the progress and plans for their legislative initiative. I would like to know the strategy (including timing) so I can decide for myself if I will contact my representatives to support that initiative. Don't redirect me about other organizations communications, we're talking ARSA here.
Input maybe, use of that input remains to be seen. Me yelling a tree in the middle of a forest is providing plenty of input. So far the trees have not responded.
Like changing almost every thread into an rant about how nobody likes to play with poor little Jerry and how those big boys down the street are being mean to you? Or avoiding questions by redirecting them into attacks on other organizations?
Straight forward responses like: " this is what distinguishes ARSA it is based on a premise that rocketry is good, you are all responsible enough to explore it through use of any legal materials, and that we as members have a stake in determining the legal status of materials we'd like to use."
There is no substance there. It is a grand idea with absolutely nothing to back it up. It also sounds distressingly like statements the "militia" folks would make.
Why not? The term is open-ended, right?
How do we know WHAT the members suggest? How can I bring up an item for member consideration?
I must have missed that "communication to member" note. Or was I supposed to seek it out?
It's in there. But I'm trying to expunge it.
You owe me $1000 for consulting. Would you like a formal receipt?
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.