first let me admit my sincere admiration for the speed with which you fetch. The absence of line breaks, however, make for run-on sentences that distort the original meaning. You may want to bear that in mind for future fetches.
I apologize for the delay in my response, but intelligent treatment of the subject requires both though and wordcraft.
resp> I find it sort of hard to believe you don't do private e-mail or other
I don't know. The public feedback I've gotten here from some is "who made me {insert your favorite nemesis here}'s spokesman. Then when I say I am not a spokesman, but let the persons own words speak for themselves, you accuse me of being an individual who is 'in the "know"', and who is entrusted to represent positions faithfully yet in my own words. I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't ;o)
well, if your speculation is true, and I am privy to John's agenda and methodology, than my comment should be taken as reflective of that (should it not)? You just stated that you are incredulous that my "postings do not reflect what JW said to [me]", yet you challenge the relationship I described: that JW seeks legality and consensus, and JC insists that their results be achieved; i.e.; valid insurance, informed consent and mitigated risk (of criminal and civil liability).
I am privileged to be among many committed individuals who find JW's objectives to be consistent with their own. Many, I daresay, are far more significant than I, but I try to do my part.
this, of course, is speculative, opinion and false.
Say what? I simply made public a statement made by JC, and rigorously engaged in the ensuing discussion based on my knowledge as well as my belief.
my commitment to resolving the legality of rocketry is one I share with many rocketeers irrespective of their relationship [or lack thereof] to ARSA. The history that JC so faithfully and authoritatively preserves is pertient to the issue of legality.
legalize rocketry (or more accurately, defeat the DOJ/BATFE efforts to criminalize rocketry), and then practice legal rocketry with integrity
P.S.:
as an proponent of EX/AM I do not subscribe to the requirement of motor certification as required by TRA/NAR/NFPA. While formal testing may have merit in commercial motors for the sole purpose of establishing confidence in product safety, performance and quality, I think a situation analogous to Underwriters Laboratories would be adequate; i.e.; if the consumer chooses to purchase a non-UL listed commodity, that his is responsibility, but market access is not contingent upon such testing.
I can envision a theoretical scenario where insurance of launches where "listed" or "unlisted" (or EX, or AM) motors are in use is secured, and the siteowner be informed of the effective coverage for damage and liability. Another is where the launch principals and siteowner defer to the personal liability insurance of the participants. There are other scenarios as well. What is important is that the parties are aware of the risks, and make informed choices about managing those risks. (this is the gist of what JC was saying)
that is distinct from having a site owner deluded that coverage is effective when insurance stipulates that motors be certified (through formal testing) when they are not.
- iz