MR motor sources

that would be MDRA (Maryland Delaware Rocketry Association ) at

The Maryland Delaware Rocketry Association, Inc. is a self insured, independent Rocket Organization. We launch rockets powered by commercial and experimental motors. To fly with us you must join the MDRA and to fly HPR, you must be certified in TRA or NAR. We also represent the Maryland TRA Prefecture #68 and the Delaware TRA Prefecture #106. The MDRA has four of the largest fields on the East Coast with waivers between 14,000 feet to 16,000 feet AGL. We fly all year long.

contact snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net for information

- iz

Joel Corwith wrote:

What insurance do you use for your EX activities?

Am curious as to whome provides insurance policies to EX individuals like J.Irvine, assuming he has a policy in place?

Kooch

Is he claiming that he has insurance?

-dave w

Correct, and the worldwide web post was an agenda, not worldwide fact.

Heck, you can post how officals enforce things wrong about almost everything in any state. I can't stand the idea of triing to ruin the hobby of HPR for a sanctimonious agenda.

I think they are confused and upset, and decided to use

IT WAS FUD IZ,

because, you can product shit like this about driving while leaving your license at home. It's about WRONG enforcement and scaring people due to wrong enforcement is FUD.

Plain and simple.

BE part of the solution or continue to be part of the problem.

Who's trying to do that?

-dave w

Pardonme, but isn't that PRECISELY what TRA does by its well proven misdeeds???

Jerry

TRA 012

How low can you go?

o, didn't you hear? all the evidence is in on the motor certification fraud. So unless you'd like to get into the mismanagement of funds, I'd just as soon move on to somthing more positive

like constructive conversations leading the the "plan" Gary Bolles suggested

- iz

RayDunak> Relentlessly attacking TRA certainly isn't helping the hobby, especially when

Was that buried somewhere in the hundreds of posts on the John Cato thread?

if you look at Bob Kaplow's posts to that thread alone, you will have enough

- iz

David wrote:

Iz wizzed:

I wish to publicly distance myself from Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed (aka, Iz) and/or any "points" or "positions" he espouses or supports.

I do not, in general, agree with his views on sport rocketry organizations, support his "reinvent the TRA" campaign, nor appreciate him using my name in any context to justify his points or positions on these issues without providing an in-context quote of actual material I have posted to this forum.

The "plan" Iz refers to was simply my definition of the contents of a generic, goal-oriented process meant to effect change. It was offered to counter another post purporting to provide a "specific" and "realistic" plan of action which, IMHO, could not succeed. It was meant as a comment on generic processes only, not as a statement of support for any position or view. Unfortunately and regrettably, I used specific, rather than generic, examples in describing the "plan" which may have led readers to assume I was sympatheic to Iz's concerns. Unless I post specifically otherwise, I am not.

I should have framed my examples under a generic and fictitious endeavor with no relation to any existing organizations whatsoever, say, Totally Reinventing ARSA (TRA). ARSA, Anal Rocketeers Supporting Agendas, will be the fictitious, antagonist organization trying to impose their views upon others that I shall use in future scenarios. Any ideas or constructive criticisms I might provide concerning organizational change in the rocketry community will be posted using Totally Reinventing ARSA as the fictitious example so that no confusion will exist as to my intent or meaning and my objective neutrality towards all rocketeers and all existing rocketry organizations is maintained and demonstrated.

How about it, Iz? I was thinking of starting several threads whereby I could pose certain theoretical concerns about ARSA's positions and actions and call for public comment on them. A Devil's Advocate type of thing. All in the interest of discussion and making things better for all concerned, you understand. Using my fictitious ARSA would put the discussions onto completely neutral ground and eliminate any axe grinding or bias from the discussions.

I wish to publicly distance myself from Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed (aka, Iz) and/or any "points" or "positions" he espouses or supports.

I do not, in general, agree with his views on sport rocketry organizations, support his "reinvent the TRA" campaign, nor appreciate him using my name in any context to justify his points or positions on these issues without providing an in-context quote of actual material I have posted to this forum.

The "plan" Iz refers to was simply my definition of the contents of a generic, goal-oriented process meant to effect change. It was offered to counter another post purporting to provide a "specific" and "realistic" plan of action which, IMHO, could not succeed. It was meant as a comment on generic processes only, not as a statement of support for any position or view. Unfortunately and regrettably, I used specific, rather than generic, examples in describing the "plan" which may have led readers to assume I was sympatheic to Iz's concerns. Unless I post specifically otherwise, I am not.

I should have framed my examples under a generic and fictitious endeavor with no relation to any existing organizations whatsoever, say, Totally Reinventing ARSA (TRA). ARSA, Anal Rocketeers Supporting Agendas, will be the fictitious, antagonist organization trying to impose their views upon others that I shall use in future scenarios. Any ideas or constructive criticisms I might provide concerning organizational change in the rocketry community will be posted using Totally Reinventing ARSA as the fictitious example so that no confusion will exist as to my intent or meaning and my objective neutrality towards all rocketeers and all existing rocketry organizations is maintained and demonstrated.

How about it, Iz? I was thinking of starting several threads whereby I could pose certain theoretical concerns about ARSA's positions and actions and call for public comment on them. A Devil's Advocate type of thing. All in the interest of discussion and making things better for all concerned, you understand. Using my fictitious ARSA would put the discussions onto completely neutral ground and eliminate any axe grinding or bias from the discussions.

this is a public forum and you are, of course, free to create whatever threads you please as well as post whatever you please to them

it will not change the reality

nor will mine change the corruption an recalcitrance of individuals who are part of, exalt, or are complacent towards entrenched corruption

I would like to remark apart from the specific threads "action: clean house" and "action: put the cards on the table", any negative remarks are solely in response to the invasive off-topic naysaying of TRA apologists.

the two threads named are genuinely constructed so that rmr posters who share agreement abou the past and present corruption in TRA have a place to dialog about how it might be expunged and prevented in the future

you will notice that the remainder of the threads (if you took the time to read past all the TRA apologist off-topic naysaying), are a sincere treatment of the threads respective topics by individuals who desire to make a positive contribution.

but I appeciate you making your position clear. I will not make reference to your name again.

to the apologists be your threads and to the visionary be ours

- iz

Gary wrote:

Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed wrote:

I would never, of course, try to generate discussion or input by methods commonly referred to as "trolling" on USENET. You seemed to have missed the intended sarcasm in my simple attempt to point out the bias inherent in your approach.

If you realize this, then why are you doing it? You generate much of the "recalcitrance" you speak of by statements such as the one above; you imply that those who disagree with your project are corrupt or support corruption. Do you think that placing people on the defensive is the way to generate concensus and arrive at mutually beneficial resolutions? You don't seen to understand that not all people share your views or opinions. A "communications facilitator" should understand this and be able to communicate, ie, exchange ideas, with all parties involved.

See. If they are not with Iz, they are against him. You don't want discussion, you only want the input of people who agree with you. Part of any real discussion or argument is respect for other's points-of-view and the realization that those opposing views are founded upon some values or beliefs, right or wrong, in the minds of those holding the views. It is those values and beliefs you must uncover and discuss, not simply dismiss contrary opinion as nay-saying or being apologist. And if you can't identify and deal with those whom you consider to be adamant "apologists" and "nay sayers" without entering into a flame war, you have a lot to learn about facilitating communications.

Finally. It IS about TRA, and you DO only want like minded people involved in those particular discussions, at least. How have you distinguished those two threads as being fundamentally different from all the other ones?

I read through all the posts, which included those by people who do not share your opinions. I see that those who are not of the same opinion as you are simply treated as nay-sayers and apologists without argument, debate, or attempt at understanding.

Thank you.

You can't help yourself, can you? I am not a TRA member and I have no reason whatsoever to support, condone, or decry "apologist" attitudes. Your ability to distinguish "your" threads from "our" threads is indicative of the problem I am trying to address. There are no sides here at all that I identify with; I have never, to the best of my knowledge, stated that I support or condemn any specific TRA position or action. (Primarily because I have no direct personal knowledge of the actions in question and I am only exposed to one side of the story here on r.m.r.) I oppose your methods, not necessarily your intentions. Can you understand the difference?

I HAVE expressed specific opposition to ARSA/Wickman legislative actions (SB724) in the past since Federal law transcends any organizational affiliations and impacts all citizens. In general, I do not see myself as being on any "side" opposed to the Amateur Rocketry Society of America, nor it's views or positions on amateur rocketry, except for the specific issue of total Federal exemption in the reality of the current political climate.

I have one, single, simple motivation in being involved in this discussion at all, Iz; to try and persuade members of the sport rocket community to avoid factions and in-fighting and concentrate on unified, cooperative actions of benefit to the community as a whole.

You know, its fun and entertaining to embark upon a cause you believe in without considering the much bigger picture. I honestly believe sport rocketry provides an important contribution to a kid's education and perception of science and technology and it is an important hobby to preserve. I also believe that HPR rocketry is posed upon a very narrow political and economic precipice right now that has little, but obviously something, to do with the actions and inactions of the national rocketry organizations. Good intentions are simply not enough justification to pursue major change without considerable attention being paid to the possible ramifications of such actions while we are under the microscope of regulators and lawmakers. It will not take much to push HPR rocketry off it's precipice and into oblivion. Imagine what the public and the regulators are witnessing right now; rampant allegations of fraud in the motor certification authorities, accusations of blatant rule violations, attacks on one of the two established self-regulating entities for being dishonest and untrustworthy, insurance irregularities, magazine fraud, compromised safety, etc, etc. But, that's okay, I guess, since you must have determined that the potential benefits outweigh the potential drawbacks and that no other cause or call to action would have resulted in more benefit to rocketry as a whole. And, besides, we're not like all those other businesses who get taken over by regulators when similar accusations fly around.

Whoops...where did the baby go? Let's see, I was giving the dirty baby a bath, then I threw out the bath water, and now the baby is gone. What the heck happened to it?

sorry, Gary

I do not accept your premise that corruption can be overlooked or tolerated in a misguided attempt to save rocketry. If you want to get rocketry off that precipice, we must be honorable. Our organizations and their leaders must be honorable. Just as we demand that our elected officials be honorable.

I do not mean this in any derogatory way, for I cen see from your tone and eloquence that you are a sincere and intelligient individual. But I cannot imagine what conceptual framework you see through that has you classify direct attacks on the very existence of a thread that aims simply to engage creative discourse as anything worthy of respect.

Perhaps you might read more carefully my interactions with Ray.

Although the majority of engagements are polarized, on a number of occassions his remarks were intended to contribute to the conversation. You will see a marked change in my tone in those message, not because he agrees with me (because I stated no position), but because he embraced the spirit of inquiry.

the subject of this inquiry if not why myself (nd others) cannot "get along" with TRA leadership or their supporters. To me the evidence of their willful misdeeds, and worse the betrayal of their trusts, is well established. To engage that conversation is pointless, so we can all agree to disagree in that count.

it just seems conspicuous to me that when a line of inquiry is opened, there is a sharp contrast between what is productive and what is not. I am not referring to positions on the topic.

I have a position on motor certs, but do not attach others in theirs. Nor do I attack the various opinions on the various insurance vehicles we might use. My position is secondary to forwarding the conversation, and having various perspectives and conclusions put forth. That benefits everyone as we use the engagement to reconsider, or reaffirm our own positions. You will see me recomsidering my position on the shipping regulations currently entwined with motor certs in that thread.

IMO I believe some people are very afraid. They probably have good reason to be.

But their childish antics are (hopefully) subsiding, as there intent to disrupt is apparent and becoming moreso with each incident. Who runs arond on every thread to repost the same message, all equally off-topic. That is not mature discourse, that is a tantrum.

I see more comments from a growing diversity of posters that show evidence of their reflection, and taking the intent of the conversation to heart.

Their contribution is valuable and most welcome.

- iz

Gary wrote: