JC, TRA and the future of rocketry

EX has no definition, accepted or otherwise. And certainly NO legal basis.

It should be eliminated from all discourse.

I wager 1,000,000 quatloos it won't last. ; )

Randy

That reminds me... I've been meaning to ask you Jerry. What DID you do with the Lindberg baby? : )

Randy

Ever since I hid the baby I was conspiring to invent the internet, take over the government of the United States by salvos of model rockets, and of course I did the most annoying thing ever conceived by man, woman, child or beast, I opposed Charles E Rogers on a matter of policy and ethics.

Just Thanksgiving Jerry

So do you go around ticketing speeders? Do you visit every business in your area and check the validity of their business licenses?

How do you figure? It wasn't his property, he wasn't holding launches there, nor providing the insurance. He didn't even have direct knowledge of the insurance that was in effect. In what way did it _directly_ involve him? All I've been able to determine from his various rants is that he at once "vouched for" one of the clubs using the site, whatever that means.

Bob K wrote:

As Squiggy would have said: "Oh yeah,.... I knew that, I knew that." : )

Randy

P.S. We lofted too much turkey this day.

According to Iz's recent postings, Cato did not _know_ for certain that the EX launch was in violation of anything. He should have considered it to be his responsibility not to stir up trouble for people on such flimsy grounds.

You only know this because nobody does.

You were told then promptly ignored it. Several times. The more often you ask the less inclined people are to answer till everybody is ignoring you at which point you use that as a basis to falsely claim there is no such example.

It gets old Ray.

Jerry

My understanding is that they've been forced to keep it under wraps because a certain party has in the past made attempts to screw with it.

Iz wrote (in re: independent testing):

Jerry, Frank and others have already complained that the cost is too high now. If they can't afford to get LEMP's and DOT certifications, how will they afford the additional expense of third-party testing?

Speaking as a consumer, I don't see this as a benefit. :)

Not necessarily. According to Jerry, DOT won't accept independent testing that shows a material to be classed other than the way DOT would classify it.

How so? Any member can run for office, and any member can vote anyway they like.

Assumes facts not in evidence. I object.

But neither do they recognize TRA as a valid entity to overrule THEM!!!!!

Jerry

Bullshit.

Oh, so now he's a manufacturer again?

Ray,

the way I figure it, I only have so much breath in my life

better not to waste it

- iz

RayDunak> drivel

It's being used here as shorthand to refer to all "amateur" rocketry activities.

the siteowner was unaware of the 'unofficial' EX activity, that was immoral as he did not subscribe to the risks

the fraudulent motor certification voids insurance wherever they are used at commercial launches, at to permit anyone to think otherwise is immoral

two separate issue which have one thing in common

irresponsible conduct perpetrated or sanctioned by TRA

can you understand now (or does short term memory loss prevent you from holding two separate thoughts in the same conversation)

- iz

RayDunak> Bob K wrote:

JC said the siteowner was unaware that EX was being done, or its attendant risks.

The observation you're making refers to JC's concern about EX in general, which he related to the Prefect conducting the launch in an attempt to have him stand down the launch. He refused, and JC understandably escalated the issue.

Gee, if he felt strongly enough to ask the Prefect to stand down, what would you expect JC to do when the Prefect said to go fish? "Uhh, well, ok." ?

"Fiduciary"

look it up

- iz

RayDunak> According to Iz's recent postings, Cato did not _know_ for certain that the EX