Bull. Even IF Bruce Kelly wrongfully rejected someone's membership, he did it on his own and exceeded his authority. Bob's post provided darn few facts, but one thing he did state was that this alleged incident was done without the knowledge of the BOD.
conclusions.
Correct. So far, all we have is an incomplete, one-sided second-hand report posted by a highly biased individual.
R
Big deal. Anyone can make up a story and include the name of a club.
How do you come to that conclusion? There were no dates provided.
Prove it. We don't even have a name, and there's no evidence that the person who allegedly told this story to Bob K. was telling the truth.
A second-hand, unsupported accusation against someone, no more, no less.
Who witnessed it? Bob? All he did was relate something he was told, without providing any relevant facts. That's just hearsay, and not very good hearsay at that. But then, you always have had trouble confusing hearsay with evidence.
L
Do you base all your prejudices on situations you know nothing about?
o
The validity of the story hasn't been proven. How can anyone investigate the validity of the allegations without even the most basic facts?
s
You know why.
Wrong.
false.
I've never seen any apology to TRA from you on rmr, nor any promise to stop lying about TRA. More importantly, you failed to do so at your TRA hearing.
Some (probably all) of them deserved it.
This quote from Cato fits you to a tee, Jerry.
I'd like to know why the alleged victim hasn't done anything to clear up the situation himself, such as bringing his complaint to the BOD. I'd also like to know what reason was given for rejecting his membership, if indeed that actually happened.
>
So what is up with that? What is the real deal here. Don't hold back...
You interested in launching this saturday?
To what end??? Are you serious. For one thing, if the individual was
*YOU*, I could understand their decision... I mean really.
Really. Please explain how you think that works...
I agree. The whole deal seems rather questionable to me.
Tripoli already obviously knows who the individual is. So questioning whatever policy or decision that was made is independent of identifying the individual on rmr, right?
Has the name of the individula(s) who made the decision been posted? That should come first I do believe.
Jerry
That is truly funny Ray. They are the KING of "deaf ears"!.
Besides if they cared, which they don't, they would, having heard the incident occured, investigate and correct internally the problem.
They heard.
They didn't correct it.
You know that.
I know that.
Your statement is as usual, irrational.
Wouldn't we all, especially including the "victim".
They STILL have not informed U.S. Rockets that its motors are decertified or why, nor tendered my membership refund check they promised in writing in 1992. Don't hold your breath.
Jerry
Prove it. Seriously.
Jerry
Tripoli has ALL of the facts.
Is it resolved on the secret email list yet?
Is that what you claim has happened in this case?
If so, you are calling the reporter a liar, the victim a liar, and disregarding the fact this is pattern and practice for TRA.
Yes, I do believe that is what you are saying.
Jerry
They haven't told you? Then how is it, that you seem to be aware of it?
Show us the evidence, "promised in writing", that you claim you have, that is, IF you're not lying.
jerry, I thought "holding your breath" makes the glue buzz stronger?
Poor "civil fraud" jerry.
No, but four actors playing major roles in Hogan's Heroes were.
That should be in the Jerry FAQs.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required