de-regulating rocketry questions - TAKE TWO

POINT!!

POINT!!

I bet you $100 the persons replying to this thread do not understand or engage what you just said.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Loading thread data ...

Clearly not you.

QED.

Did you miss those posts? Over and over?

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Attach it to the ATF funding bill.

Tom

Reply to
Tom Binford

Did you miss this below? You know, when you started taking liberties with the truth, by blaming me for you problems openly on RMR.

"If I was in "big fines" shoes, I would of never brought the subject up on RMR, much less responded to comments. If he would of kept his mouth shut, no one would of searched for the truth and found the DOT document that defined his "taking liberties with the truth". Can I get an amen??"

Fred

Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace

Now THAT is brilliant!

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

I bet you don't have a hundred dollars.

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

You mean by citing your own words from a document from one division of DOT fining me after you claimed you would "help me", with an entirely different division of the DOT, which also never materialized in any way whatsoever?

Hmmm?

[whether] "Mr. Irvine has complied with the instructions provided him, with no response from your office unless he has taken liberties with the truth, there are problems he has failed to disclose, resulting in a delay in the response from you or your office, and or both."

- W.E. "Fred" Wallace, MDRA 6-26-01 letter to DOT

I didn't. Someone was goated by you to look for "recent items about me", so they started searching the internet in earnest. Then once it was published

(which rather than denying, I addressed the defects in the pleading, ONE person was willing to discuss with me and the remainder of the cacophony, ecpecially including YOU, just wanted to pile-on and STILL does - like a MOB),

YOU in a strongly fixated way started replying to almost every post with the words "big fine" or 40 gran. It was YOU that proliferated it. You.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Judging by the timing, I think that what happened was that some folks were saying (with regard to the then-recent ruling in the NAR/ATF case) that you were right about the PAD issue... and others just couldn't stand that, so they started this sustained howl about how nobody should believe anything you say about the government because DOT had hassled you.

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

Have you paid your DOT fine yet?

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

Have you stopped drinking the bong-water yet?

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

jerry, It's not Fred's fault that you are beyond help.

Maybe if you didn't pathologically lie all the time, you wouldn't be in the situation you find yourself in now.

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

You should never of taken liberties with the truth, when providing information to someone trying to help you, using their green stamps.

I do not dispute those words.. So what??

Yes, after you continued to accuse me of being the cause of your DOT problems. Like I said, "You should not of breached the subject on RMR; accusing me of being the cause of you problems". For that you continue to get the publicity. Maybe you should sit down and shut the f&^k up.

There is no defects; you did the crime -- do the time and let it go or fight it in court; RMR gets you nothing but bandwidth grief.

Is that what it is called? I can still hear the sucking sound from here..(8-)

Then you and your drones, "sit down and shut up and it will all go away"..

Fred

Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace

Get back under your bridge; you have no idea what your talking about. Hurry along now..

Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace

I think this is already in "big fine's" FAQ..(:-)

Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace

What a dipshit.

jerry claimed all along, that he was "good" to ship motors legally.

jerry repeatedly claimed he had a good relationship with both the DOT and the BATFE, right up to the moment his DOT fine, was made public.

Then, for about a month, jerry would not even address the issue, ignoring all references to the subject. Now he claims the DOT repeatedly lied. Bear in mind, the violations occurred in 2001. jerry, in 2004 (prior to disclosure) was claiming he had all the "paperwork" and was legal to ship, with the approval of the DOT.

That sounds like a lie to me.

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

You've just confirmed what I supsected - that was another meaningless post.

Reply to
Phil Stein

I bet he has it but wouldn't pay if he lost.

Reply to
Phil Stein

Poor Jerry.

Jerry - I'd like to help you too.

Reply to
Phil Stein

The "Legal Paperwork" was issued to someone else. Jerry whited out the original recipient's name & put his name in. It wasn't even close to a good counterfit.

Reply to
Phil Stein

Wow, more undefined gibberish from Jerry, what a surprise. Let's get out the Weasel Words dictionary and see if we can translate it... ah, here we go. Jerry's statement translates as follows:

"No matter how much competition exists in the sport rocketry motor industry, I'll always claim that AT has a monopoly 'cause it makes AT sound bad."

Reply to
RayDunakin

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.