In the Press again

Since you call rocket motors "model airplane parts", why don't you call it "animal cruelty"?

I waited a few days to reply as Jerry wanted to take this to email. I thought he wanted to proceed in a positive direction. But since he never emailed me after his last post, I guess he just wanted to stop. I have no reason to stop.

Jerry Irv> >

This "runaround" is your doing. You are the one that accused me of asking for your ATF permit when I said that I did not. You can prove your part by showing every one the email or letter from me asking for your ATF permit. But you have not done this (or could not), causing the runaround. This runaround that you are causing has nothing to do with certifying USR motors. That runaround happened a few years ago. Jerry, you know why there are no certified USR motors, why not tell every one here what the problem is?

And this is your last chance to "prove" I asked your ATF permits. All you have to do is find the letter or email where I asked for your DOT and ATF permits. If you can not or do not then it will be known that I am right and never asked for youir ATF permits.

Also, when I asked you to prove that I demanded AFT permits, all you did was to ask me to send you a copy of my standards. If I had sent them to you all you had to do was to say that I changed them before sending them out. You made the accusation; you get the proof and don't expect me to win your case.

What do you have to trade, Jerry? I don't think I am stopping you from doing any trading. Besides, I call it harassment not entertainment. You are harassing me by saying thing about me that are untrue. Looking back using Google there are a number of unflattering things you have said about me while I have not been on this forum. Is it easy talking about me when I am not around Jerry? Several times on RMR you accused me of calling the DOT on you. You even told how the DOT rep apologized to you. As part of that post on

6/9/03 you said "KANE (NAR S&T chair and supreme asshole)". Well Jerry, as I have said before, I never called the DOT on you. But I was required to call the Postal Inspector by the PostMaster of my town (and the reason is a story). That Postal Inspector did not apologize to you. Mr. Jenkins wrote you a letter telling you that you were in violation of postal mailing regulations Publication 52, Section 332.3C(2). Do you want to proceed in a positive way? You have publicly called me names when I was doing nothing to hinder you. I think that you should publicly retract them.

I waited a few days for any email from you. I thought you might want to apologies to me in private. But since you did not write, I have no reason to keep this away from the public.

Yours,

Jack Kane NAR S&T

Jack,

Just do what Tripoli does when Jerry starts with them. Real simple. Post the manufacturers requirements every time he starts whining about the conspiracy against him. He seems to drop it after you post it 2-3 times (per round.)

How is it illegal? I've asked you this many times & you have never provided a valid answer. THe fact that the feds may or may not require a certain permit has nothing to do with the rights of the associations to require them to ensure safety & to validate the manufacturer as legit. The fact that you don't agree with the requirements does not make them illegal.

WTF. Let's go a step further. If it is illegal, it shouldn't be too hard for Jerry to get a restraining order from a judge, right? Hey, it's the American way - sue somebody - and here's Jerry's chance to step up to the plate. Try not to take a high fast one in the ear.

Doug

Jerry likes it in the ear? Bubah told me he likes in the r... never mind.

Why do the organizations need to "validate a manufacturer"? This sounds like it's a vestige of the old "magic boundary of the model rocket religion" - i.e., the strict distinction between "individual" users and "commercial" manufacturers (who alone are fit to deal with the Sacred Mystery of Propellant) - this puts the associations in the position of having to care whether a motor-creating entity is "really a commercial-enough Company" to be viewed as a "legitimate manufacturer".

It's a silly distinction these days IMHO (although it may have had its political usefulness as a response to the historical ARS demonization of "amateur" rocketry...)

-dave w

He's a friend of yours too? That fella sure gets around...

-dave w

is a "legal" requirement.

Adding a requirement not proscribed by law is "illegal".

By definition. QED.

Jerry

In 1958.

But with EX literally POPULAR, it is very old school now.

I would put up 90% of the amateur motors against a 1970 RDC motor (Enerjet) anytime.

Jerry

No it's not. Quote the law that states that.

You've said this before & I disagree. Does anyone else here agree with this (besides Dave)?

Because they ensure the consumer gets consistent, safely manufactured product. They don't want a garage bomber taking out a whole neighborhood.

You may be right but considering their objectives, what else can they do? They are also trying to limit legal exposure to themselves & their members. Wih that being the case, they would naturally be more conservative in their requiremnts that if they weren't. Also, ATF has been saying LEUPs & LEMPs are required and a motor is not a PAD until assembled. And throught NPRM, that can change too..

With the FEDS & NFPA's involvement, it's not that simple - unfortunately.

Phil Stein replied:

Plus, look at it this way. If NAR/TRA didn't require it, look at how many motors USR mighta shipped illegally then. Jeez. Jerry coulda been fined millions of dollars. He should thank NAR/TRA for indirectly limiting it to only $40K.

Doug

What a moron you are jerry.

If I ask visitors to my house, to remove their shoes, before entering, would that be an "illegal" requirement because it is not spelled out in the law?

An exemption states permits are NOT required for XYZ, ie 27 CFR

555.141-a-8.

An affirmative statement. That is different indeed.

Bull. You just don't want the truth coming out and would rather make ridiculous accusations like this than discuss facts.