Cato was right

I didn't know that either but it seems a logical use of the organization's money. I don't see a problem with the above. It's all part of growing the hobby. Isn't that what NAR should be doing?

Great, they got it back but what if they hadn't? TARC is still a good use of funds, IMHO.

Randy

formatting link

Reply to
Randy
Loading thread data ...

The way I read Bob's message is that they would be certified forever until enough evidence suggests they are no longer safe. Bob can correct if not so.

That evidence collection loop would be similar to our system of innocent until proven guilty. The focus should be on keeping them certified, not the other way around.

Certified forever until proven statistically bad is not such a bad idea. Historically, the safety code and a little common sense has kept this hobby amazingly safe compared to almost any other.

~ Duane Phillips.

"the disturb>>>>> I've read a lot of complaints about the existing motor certification >>> policy.

Reply to
Duane Phillips

There is no simple answer to that question.

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

This understanding would be 100% incorrect and a complete fabrication.

Since its inception, TARC has been funded by AIA members companies' generous sponsorships, not by NAR funds.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mark B. Bundick mbundick - at - earthlink - dot - net NAR President www - dot - nar - dot - org

"A dark night in a city that knows how to keep its secrets, but high above the quiet streets on the twelfth floor of the Acme Building, one man is still trying to find the answers to life's persistent questions. Guy Noir, Private Eye."

Reply to
mbundick

snip

Thanks Mark for clearing that up.

Randy

formatting link

Reply to
Randy

Under NAR, all model rocketeers are equal ... under NARBOD, some model rocketeers are MORE equal than others ...

Look, you people are getting what you deserver fron NAR. You have a BOD that is VERY heavily influenced and ran by manufactures going back almost 47 years. The current NAR prez has been in office what some

10,12+ years now? Mark Bundick even publically admitted back in 1997/98 that he had NEVER launched a HPR and after visiting a TRA launch, was impressed with the safety and his misgivings had been removed.

Now that combined with NAR's anti-HPR attitude, LPR manufacture influenced, of the 1990s, I decided to stop supporting NAR.

And if > > Rick wrote:

Reply to
lunarlos

OH MY GOD, LIKE THAT EVIL CAPITALIST BARON, VERN ESTES???

So on the one hand, NAR is run by "weenies", and on the other hand, it is being controlled by an evil cabal of powerful rocketry manufacturers?????

LOL!

p.s. the rest of your message had me in stitches, too!

Reply to
Malcolm Reynolds

there may be factual errors in my comments but as far as the AMA quotes, I was told that by AMA HQ. SO its not a complete fabrication... as far as the $75 K seed money for TARC, I just reviewed the NAR financials spreadsheets , and I evidently misread the data... SO I am wrong on that point.... The NAR financials spreadsheets do seem to indicate some TARC continuing expenses though which I suppose is to be expected and accepted....

None of the above negate the facts that the NAR could use some its membership monies to do what I have suggested they do.

terry dean

Reply to
shockwaveriderz

Wait, I know!!! The NAR could use some of its membership monies to do what I want them to do!!!

or...

Alternatively, the NAR could use some of its membership monies to do what the BOT votes they should do...

David Erbas-White

Reply to
David Erbas-White

You do us "real" rednecks an injustice, sir.

Reply to
Tweak

Hello Malcolm,

I wasn't trying to be funny, but serious; Its ok to laugh though :P

Look, NAR really doesn't have much to offer except road blocks. Now in recent years, it has come in-line with the consumer/hobbyist. I want to fly low power; I am going to do it on my own. I just find a local park/field and fly A - D. Why do I need NAR to do that? What can NAR offer me that I can't provide for myself for free? Oh, NAR has a magazine ... ok, I typically just walk over to the magazine rack, read through the mag in 20 min, and walk away ... no need paying for it, and if there is something that I need to copy, I just head down to the library and photocopy it for free.

Do I need NAR insurance? Nope, as I carry personal liability insurance, and my TRA insurance helps too. So lets see, NAR insurance is MEANINGLESS to me. NAR magazine is FREE at the local bookstore/library. NAR BOD is useless to me, as I don't fly competition nor do I follow/care about their political in-fighting. This is why, I haven't renewed my NAR membership for a couple decades now ...

When I saw this posting, I ignored it for weeks as I do NAR. But then I decided to chime in here and give my opinion about NAR and its BOD.

When I buy a rocket motor, do I check with NAR, NAR BOD, or NAR Charter first? Hell, Fing NO! NAR plays little to NO role in my model rocket activity. They only org that I check with and fly at organized meets is TRA. I fly NAR decertified motors all the time ... NAR can't and WON'T stop me. And I have imported motors from Europe/Asia and I will fly those too!

NAR hasn't changed its paradigm since the late 1908s ... and still counting ...

Malcolm Reynolds wrote:

Reply to
lunarlos

Reply to
lunarlos

Sorry. I actually like a lot of rednecks. Poor choice of derogatives.

Reply to
Malcolm Reynolds

And yes, John Cato was correct in his portent regarding NAR and its BOD.

Reply to
lunarlos

monies to do what I

Sigh - I know just how you feel.

I keep writing letters to Jessica Simpson, suggesting that she have my babies, but the only thing I get are rude letters from her lawyers, and restraining orders.

Reply to
Malcolm Reynolds

'tis ok...we're used to it.

;-)

Technically, I would be a "good ol' boy" anyway, not a redneck.

Reply to
Tweak

Dang, that's a long time ago. I still blame Taft, though.

Reply to
Tweak

Who the hell are you? You obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about.

NAR BOT controlled by manufacturers? Absurd. NAR policy requires public disclosure of such involvement. Even when Vern was on the board a while back, he was no longer involved in the company that still uses his name. Gary Rosenfield was on the NAR board while in business, but that was a LONG time ago. Matt Steele was as well. Then there was that little issue that Trip had to disclose when he was still in the Navy. Other than that, it's been a LONG time since the NAR board had a manufacturer on it.

How many manufacturers has TRA had on its board in the past decade or two? Half of them?

That's pure BS. Bunny attended HPR launches long before he became NAR Prez. Hell (I can say that since it's 6/6/6 today), he RAN the first NAR HPR launch ever, the sport launch at NARAM-33 in 1991. I can't recall when he got his HPR certification, but he IS HPR certified. And has been for a long time.

I'm not sure of Jay Apt's HPR certification status (you might say he's level

6 or something like that), but the only other NAR board member in the last decade I can recall that definitely was NOT HPR certified was Vern.

Now, since you're so wrong here, I suggest you visit this site and order something:

formatting link

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

monies to do what I

A restraining order is just another way of saying I love you.

:)

Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75

Reply to
tdstr

"Weenies" eh? A fair portion of the NAR BOT have PhDs, and other impressive credentials and achievements. Although Bunny likes to pass as a good old southern boy, he is in fact a respectable northern banker type (a VP?). These are the same "weenies" that had the courage to go up against the BATFE.

Alan

Reply to
Alan Jones

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.