Oh shut up, Izzy. Mark is an elected official and as such is acting on -our- behalf (NAR members). As an elected official -we- (NAR members) have entrusted our interests to him and his staff and the rest of the elected officials. Quit being such an anal idiot. What? Do you want an accounting of how many pencils Mary has used and for what reasons? Quarterly?
If you don't like how NAR leaders are operating, then make sure you don't vote for the incumbents in the next election. Heck, why don't you spear head a recall election?!
You are obviously one of those who wishes there were more to it that there is. PLEASE qualify public postings with 'RESTRICTED access motors'. Many people read this as ALL rocket motors are affected by the change in in-state purchases. As you say, semantics are important!
The BATFE has stated that they do not care who actually has the money in the transaction. It is the independent possession, transportation, and storage that they are concerned about. I have helped several people purchase restricted motors WITH THEIR OWN MONEY without doing anything else but stand there and watch. And make sure they use the motor at the launch, or return it for storage.
That statement in itself is spreading FUD. What new regulations? When exactly will they happen? Why should it stop us now from enjoying the hobby? "The boogie man is around the corner... I think, maybe... so I'd better hide inside my house." Don't let them win!
You may not realize it, but you are helping to spread misinformation. Please correct yourself and not pass along the FUD. Errr.. I mean stop adding to the confusion. ;)
If past experience repeats itself on RMR, you and others will turn this thread into a completely useless pointless unhelpful self-ego fulfilling mess. How about putting some energy into solutions and helpful information instead?
All true, but certainly not well known or reinforced by the majority of the all-knowing self-appointed spokespersons for the hobby.
I believe it is EXTREMELY important for the health of this hobby for people to do the best to stop the FUD and start helping people who don't have a LEUP. It will take some time to undo the belief that rocketry is banned or severely limited right now.
There you go again. I give up... you just like hearing yourself talk on here. Speculation about "if HPR is killed" does nothing to help people understand what they can do now. Many many people thing HPR is dead. Even more think model rocketry is banned! Thanks to the spread of misinformation.
I know cities dwellers with LEUPs. I'm a suburb dweller and can't get storage approved (and I have a LEUP), but I have a city dweller friend with a LEUP and storage. Other people may not have the same situation in their areas, of course. But, if there is a will there is a way. Especially if there are helpful fellow rocketeer that aren't spending their time hand-wringing and posturing about doom and gloom.
[The rest of your uncharacteristic whining & defensiveness deleted.]
Don't interpret any of this as not thinking we need relief. Of course we do! But it appears that people are giving up long before they have to. And the FUD is scaring people off more people than the BATFE is right now. And that is a fact.
Joel Corwith wrote: [a lot of self-loathing deleted]
I'm sorry you're in that situation. What is the reason you can't get a LEUP? You don't have any friends with a LEUP? Or maybe, if you're anything in person like you are online, maybe you just don't have friends. ;)
Mine are my own formulation of APCP I've been working on for about a year. My friend's were ANCP and BP. If you're truly interested, I can talk about it outside of the model rocket forum. But, I suspect from past experience here, you're just trying to be a wise-@ss and have no idea what you're talking about.
Just to clear the air, unwarranted searches by BATFE agents of your entire home are not permitted just because you have a LEUP. The scope of the BATFE search activity is strictly limited to the magazine, the magazine contents, and the transaction records.
From the "Orange" book on page 31
55.121(b)
ATF officers may enter the premises on any licensee or permittee for the purpose of examining or inspecting any record or document required by or obtained under this part (see 55.24). Section 843(f) of the Act requires licensee and permittee to make available all required records available for inspection and examination or inspection at all reasonable times. Section 834(f) of the Act also required licensees and permittees to submit all reports and information relating to all required records and their contents, as the regulations in this part prescribe.
From the "Orange" book on page 55
May ATF conduct warrantless inspections of licensees' and permitees' records of explosive materials, stocks of materials, and magazines?
Any ATF officer may, without a warrant, enter during business hours the premises, including places of storage, of any licensee or permittee for the purpose of inspecting or examining any records or documents required to be kept by law and regulations and any explosives materials kept or stored at the premises. For inspection purposes, "business hours" includes hours which business is actually conducted, not just those hours stated on license applications. Any licensee or permittee who refuses to permit the inspection or examination is subject to having his or her permit revoked, as well as to denial of an to renew the license or permit. [18 U.S.C.
843(d),(f);27 CFR 55.24, 55.74]
So the ATF can ask to see your records and inspect your magazine without a warrant at any reasonable time of day. Pounding on your door at 2 AM and shooting your dog because it's barking would generally be considered outside the spirit of the regulation. If you're doing something you shouldn't be doing in your home, make sure you have the documents and your magazine located in a place where those activities aren't visible.
Because I have both a LEUP and a LEMP, I'm on the frequent visitor program with the ATF. I've had more inspections over the past years, than most people will likely have during their entire involvement in HPR. I have never had the ATF personnel be anything less than absolutely professional and be willing to accommodate my schedule for the inspection. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I have yet to hear of a single instance where a LEUP permittee has been hassled in the middle of the night for an inspection.
Let's worry about the real issues, and skip over the fear mongering visions of the black Nomex gang crashing into you home in the middle of the night.
Can you explain the differences in obtaining and retaining each type? I have a vague idea what it takes to obtain an LEUP, and some of the associated costs, but I would be guessing the LEMP is more? Does it require a separate facility? That sort of thing.
on behalf of ARSA I personally posted the numerous calls for action on nine different forums (including ROL, TRA, RMR), three news boards, four Yahoo groups and direct mail to two clubs in the NE of which I am a member; i.e. all resources at my disposal. I do not have access to email lists for NAR/TRA members, nor would it necessarily be appropriate to use them if I had. However, we did create a announce-only listserv that included all TRA and NAR club presidents which we used sparingly.
these announcements of 'calls to action' and status reports go back as early as early February of this year, and are all there for the record until now (except ROL, which purges its board content periodically). I admit that I started RMR posts a little later than other venues, but if you like I will give you a URL list to verify this for yourself
we also made several announcements via Brent's ROL NewsWire, which was kept static on ROL's front page for several days.
I had posted John W.'s calls for action in the TRA listserv, where many members were quite vocal in their determination to follow John W's directions as and when stated.
In most cases, TRA ultimately acquiesed to the various campaigns once they satisfied themselves that Senator Enzi was in agreement with it, which of course he always was to the extent that the propriety of his office allowed; otherwise he would simply respond with the ambivalent "that is your right".
so it could be said then that all TRA campaigns for letters originated with ARSA, but were communicated to their membership via email (and letters on two occasions) as these were resources available to them.
let's ASSSUME for a moment that I buy into your concept of "deferral with complete abandon" to the TRA/NAR leadership in the day-to-day management of John Kyte's activities, even to the extent that ALL decisions regardless of how detrimental there impact may be are deferred _without_reservation_, and that no membership oversight is warranted.
let's just look at my original question:
what I asked Mark for were the *results* of John Kyte's participation. What he responded with were generalized objectives without methods or specific results.
I have had 20 years of management, including project management, under my belt. Usually with staff, often with contractors. I always state specific goals that are measurable; we call them "deliverables" in the professional services community.
In John Kytes case, examples of measureable results would be collected information, assessment of Senator's positions on an individual basis, specific actions taken to effect change in those positions, the impact (success or failure) of those actions in observable terms [i.e.; Senator's position statements], and postmortem of overall process to identify where errors in judgement or execution were made.
All of the above in presentable form (charts, graphs, narratives, etc.)
what are the "performance measures" used to determine if John Kyte was effective at any level, and how is his actual performance expressed in those terms.
in effect, specifically WHAT did he DO, and DEMONSTRATE how EFFECTIVE was it?
Those who purchased restricted access before 5/24/2003 could NOT take them home legally either. This is a fact. It's in the BATFE orange book. You are still thinking that more has changed than it has.
Of course I know.
formatting link
on topic with helping to improve the hobby right now. The NPRM process will take some time, so will the lawsuit. In the meantime, it's important to let people know they can still buy and fly.
The last time I checked, the composition of the Senate, with equal representation from all states, regardless of geographical size or population, was designed to avoid concentrations of political influence to particular states. It would, in my opinion, be the US House of Representatives that would offer a potentially disproportinate degree of influence to states with larger populations.
And again, I'm not aware of anything that required Richard Durbin or Peter Fitzgerald to do anything other than represent the citizens of Illinois. I certainly did not elect either of them to represent the interests of other states.
I repsectfuly disagree.
I would be cautious of making statements about what was told to NAR and TRA when not in the primary communications loop.
To fail to acknowledge that compromise language is better than 62.5 grams is to condemn the hobby to a Phyric victory, a victory I equate with defeat.
This will be my final posting regarding this subject in response to your postings here. This thread has now officially failed Bunny's "Two Pass Rule". Additionally, your post demonstrates poor understanding of the operation of the US Senate and the NAR, and a failure to read my previous posts.
and
The NAR's organization is such that decisions about the affairs of the Association are delegated to its Board of Trustees. This form of organization is one adopted by about 60% of the non profits recognized by the IRS, based on the statistics I checked roughly 3 years ago.
This means, the membership electes the Board, and the Board has full authority to act as it believes is in the best interest of the organization without direct consultation of members. Members delegate their decision making to the Board, per the administrative process outlined in the By Laws.
Relative to matters in the US Senate and House, and John Kyte's performance as a paid consultant to the NAR, as I have explained previously, the NAR Board has delegated authority to deal with those matters to the NAR President. My actions in this matter are limited by the NAR By Laws, policy and directive of the NAR Board of Trustees. To date, the Board has approved of my handling of the legislative effort, and has been highly supportive of my work there.
As an aside, perhaps you can enlighten us as to:
(a) whether the ARSA has IRS recognition of its status as a non profit;
(b) if not a non profit, under what corporate structure and organization is operates;
(c) in what state it's incorporated, and
(d) outline in detail what administrative process is in place within the ARSA organzation to handle decision making?
As I attempted to outline in my previous post on this subject,
'It's John who's provided that staff and member education, that progress reporting to members, and that legislative strategy counsel to NAR and TRA."
That work has indeed covered discovering the objections raised, i.e. that staff accepted at face value the ATF's contention that the material was explosive and that rockets could be turned into weapons for terrorist use.
I also pointed out:
"Within the couple of weeks, the NAR and TRA will release the results of a multi-week technical analysis of the DOJ views letter. House and Senate staff made it clear to us that the Views letter was received very seriously by Congress. They said only solid, third party research would work to counter the issues raised by that letter in the minds of staff and members."
When John delivered this message to us, we did the necessary research to provide that third party view. Whether it will ultimately be effective will be determined during the fall session of the Congress.
Finally, John's work has provided NAR members with multiple timely posts on the status of discussions and legislative progress (see NAR website for a full chain of events, by following the messages from the President). That history of active participation in the process and the entire communication thread, not just the most recent items, are there for anyone to read.
Readers of this newsgroup should know that the organizaiton of the delivery of these materials and the preparation of the team that delivered them directly to Senate offices was orchestrated by John Kyte. He met with the NAR and TRA volunteers who did the actual delivery, educated them about the protocol to follow when attempting to assure the delivery went to the appropriate Senate staff person, and made sure they had not only the materials, but they had the NAR/TRA summary one page write up that told the staffers what precisely the legislation would and would not do, and who, within Sen. Enzi's staff they should contact with questions and comments.
I'm certain that had circumstances prevented NAR and TRA members from doing that work, and John Kyte hadn't spent time working with them, someone in the ARSA would have undertaken the effort required to organize and brief a team of substitute ARSA members to accomplish the delivery of these materials.
It is obvious to me after attempting to communicate to you in a reasonable manner about the NAR's position and management of legislative affairs that you disagree with the approach that we have taken. I can think of nothing further I can do to demonstrate the merit of that approach, and you offer nothing in substance to suggest how NAR and ARSA, with whom you obviously have closer affinity, can work out whatever differences might be on the table.
In the meantime, I have the full support of the NAR Board for my work in this field, based on our discussion at the NARAM 45 Board meeting, and from comments made here, in other electronic communication and from direct discussion with members at NARAM, I appear to enjoy the support and backing of a vast majority of NAR members who seem to think I'm working in their best interests.
If you have comments of true substance, i.e. something more than the platitudes of "never, never give up", please feel free to email me directly.
No and therefore it can lobby on a more unlimited basis than NAR can.
Perhaps if you ever even TALKED or EMAILED John Wickman you could get answers to those questions. It's not like you have even asked.
Is that published for us to see?
I doubt it. But those same volunteers would have. IIRC it was actually an RMR thread that motivated it initially.
Since most of this post has been about form and not content I would say the process of not addressing the specific issues has continued.
Begin with the NAR President having communication with John Wickman, followed by the NAR President doing essentially what they discuss in that communication?
There has never been any doubt in all the time I have known you and been administratively victimized by you, with the BoT's blessing, that they rubber stamped all of your decisions, because frankly they are in synch with BoT philosophy. Just look how negatively reactive and attacking posts by Gasaholic and Johnson are toward me for example. Consistently.
Sheeple are handy indeed.
When I do the response I get is something along the lines of "Thank you for your input." While ignoring any question I ask or any issue I raise. And like it or not I am a member.
It is a marketing technique used when a competitor launches a product that is both better than yours and costs less, i.e. your product is no longer competitive. Unable to respond with hard facts, scare-mongering is used via 'gossip channels' to cast a shadow of doubt over the competitors offerings and make people think twice before using it.
In general it is used by companies with a large market share, and the overall message is 'Hey, it could be risky going down that road, stick with us and you are with the crowd. Our next soon-to-be-released version will be better than that anyway'.
In the computer world, FUD was first practiced on a large scale by IBM in the 1970's. Many people cite Amdahl as coining the phrase when he left IBM to start his own company thus making himself a FUD target.
When IBM moved into the desktop market with the launch of the IBM PC, it took FUD tactics along with it. IBM themselves only reckoned on selling around 100 to 200 thousand units of the PC, which were to be sold as an alternative to the APPLE II in 'all IBM' companies. It should be remembered that in many respects the IBM PC was an overpriced and retrograde step for the desktop market which had already reached the level of 16 bit multi-user, multi-tasking machines with a good deal of flexibility and inter-operability of hardware. The IBM PC had non of these characteristics and cost more, but by marketing on the strength of the IBM label (stick with us, we are big), the PC exceeded all expectations and killed off the existing market.
Of course the PC story is perhaps more a tale of big name marketing rather than deliberate FUD mongering, but the PC also brought Microsoft to the forefront as the supplier of the basic-in-ROM cum disk operating system. Microsoft soon picked up the art of FUD from IBM, and throughout the 80's used FUD as a primary marketing tool, much as IBM had in the previous decade. They ended up out FUD-ding IBM themselves during the OS2 vs Win3.1 years.
A good example of MS FUD, and its potential, was demonstrated when Digital Research launched their DR DOS against MS-DOS5. DR-DOS offered more features and cost less, and was widely acclaimed by all. Then the new MS windows 3.1 release flashed up a trivial error message when run under DR DOS, and all of a sudden everybody was saying DR DOS is great but you can have problems running Windows on it. At the same time Microsoft announced the 'imminent' release of MS DOS6 which would be far more feature packed than DR DOS. In reality they had nothing, they had only just started looking at a 'DOS 6' in response to the DR launch, and it is also questionable whether the MS product was better. This classic FUD pack occurred together with a dealer package designed to make it financially advantageous to offer MS DOS with windows, and the result is history. Many believe this was the making of the MS monopoly. " (from:
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.