de-regulating rocketry questions - TAKE TWO

"Hopefully, as a result of all the legal wrangling, we will get some type of increased exemption for the consumer. . . . unless we are lucky enough for APCP to be treated as BP is"

-Fred Wallace 1-24-05

I guess you'll continue to be hopeless and unlucky then, if that's what you want.

Hey Fred, Allow me! Here's a snippet of Dave's dribble from the same thread. It's like JerrySpeak, it's interchangeable within many different topics.

Dave said: "Not slamming anyone, sir, and admittedly writing in hindsight: there does seem to be some present concern over that the the methods that were attempted to "make model rocketry accepted etc. etc." involved advocating that the "Model Rocket (& HPR) safety codes" be given force of law by way of the NFPA process, thereby, at least in potential, giving rise to a situation where anything _else_ is forbidden - there's a lot of risky code language in 1127 - the sort of thing that would scare a programmer writing computer code instead of legislative code: for example, in various parts of 1127, there are sections that forbid, and others that disclaim jurisdiction over, rocketry of types other than that within the intended scope of the code."

-dave w

accepted,

Gee Dave, I'm dissapointed. It took you a week to answer, and this is all you could come up with? I always wondered what would happen if you took a lazy college boy on dope and threw him in a room with a computer keyboard, a thesaurus, the Dictionary of JerrySpeak and a collection of Dr. Suess books.

Maybe if we added a playboy you'd come up with something better? New at least...

steve

So how about a response to the content... does it _not_ concern you that a set of codes that are intended to specify "how to fly model and high power rockets safely" could (as worded) be construed to forbid any other sorts of rockets? Or are you okay with that?

-dave w

I call it a truism.

Please explain specifically and in detail why you dismiss my comment as "dribble"... or are you just engaging in cheap-shot trollery?

-dave w

What's your point??

This hobby has evolved over a relative short time. We play with stuff that was/has been regulated for years before the HPR hobby existed; what did you expect; a regulatory free pass as the hobby became more visible? Hopefully, as a result of all the legal wrangling, we will get some type of increased exemption for the consumer. For the manufacture and dealers, fat chance of any exemption unless we are lucky enough for APCP to be treated as BP is for sporting purposes: limits on amount of sale to and individual possession. Anyone who can't see the handwrighting on the wall, can't tell the difference when it is raining or someone is pi$$ing down there back.

Above is what I said; just so you have a reference point..

Fred

It was BATF exempt.

It was NFPA exempt.

It was not even addressed by CPSC yet even for minors.

How is now better, ye lover of rules?

Yes.

Like it did when it was FAR more visible in 1972.

The difference today is "securitarian state", not "product misuse".

"Hopefully, as a result of all the legal wrangling, we will get some type of increased exemption for the consumer. . . . unless we are lucky enough for APCP to be treated as BP is"

-Fred Wallace 1-24-05

"Hopefully, as a result of all the legal wrangling, we will get some type of increased exemption for the consumer. . . . unless we are lucky enough for APCP to be treated as BP is"

-Fred Wallace 1-24-05

I see the handwriting and I know who wrote it.

"Hopefully, as a result of all the legal wrangling, we will get some type of increased exemption for the consumer. . . . unless we are lucky enough for APCP to be treated as BP is"

-Fred Wallace 1-24-05

His superior intellect can only focus the power on personal attack.

Jerry Irvine wrote: Deleted "big fine" BS.

Whats the point, you are fixated on your own delusions..

On second thought:

Fred said >

Not true, ATF did not know about HPR untill well after it started. However, even PADs are regulated explosives; just regulated as PADS. How long has APCP been on the explosive list??

See above..

See above..

Once again, don't put words in my mouth. I never said or sugested such. Oh, I forgot; taking liberties with the truth is normal for you.

How gullible..

BS, visible to who?

Your run in with DOT helped a lot, didn't it?? Fred

It was always exempt exactly as amateur rocketry is. HPR and MR is just a subset of amateur rocketry.

How soon they forget.

How soon they forget.

It was orthangonal to the situation. No linlkage in outcome.

Jerry

What code specifically regulates "propellant actuated devices"?... certainly not the "Commerce In Explosives" code (27 CFR part 555), which by exemption stated therein, "shall not apply with respect to [...] propellant actuated devices"...

-dave w

He cannot read "that" english.

Another point. Have you noticed when you or really anyone raises a point or a question, it is NEVER addressed head-on.

One wonders what they have to fear.

Maybe they are the mole after all!!

Jerry

Is that all you got?

Stupidity disguised as ignorance is impossible to address head-on.

Not you or your drones, for shure..

Don't talk out your A$$, unless you are trying to prove your stupidity...

Fred

Your cheerleading noted.

When are you going to address ANYTHING head-on??

You are the king of side-step.

Jerry