Ok, so U.S. Rockets [NEVER] existed? I am confused!

Well Ted,

After being diagnosed with diabetes a few years back, I really can't indulge in anything any more ... sad to say. Anything with moderate carbohydates or sugars is out of my life :( I wish I could sit down and drink a few beers during a ball game, or have a couple slices of carrot cake, but that is no more ... I wish I had more to offer you :)

I guess my insulin pills would be what I am hooked on at the moment, I just hope it doesn't get any worse that that :)

Reply to
lunarlos
Loading thread data ...

Ouch. Pills will beat injections any day. So I've heard.

Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75

Reply to
tdstr

Hey Boy! Get a load of this......

formatting link
and this....
formatting link
Randy
formatting link

Reply to
<randyolb

Randy!

HAHAHAHAHA ... very funny! I was just commenting last night to a dinner guest, that over 2 billion chickens are consumed every year in the U.S.. Also made the observation that chickens are THE tastiest animal in my opinion because their flesh absorbs the taste of what ever you cook them in.

You can smoke, fry, bake, broil, boil, jerkify, bread, casarole, and stew them! Also, chickens just don't have any real appealing traits other than their taste, so killing, plucking, gutting, and prepairing them has absolutely NO guilt related feelings involved.

Chickens are a food source, a very tasty food source and nothing more ... I guess now we are totally off topic ... well at least its not going into a flame war :)

Reply to
lunarlos

Ted,

Yes they do! I don't care what those commercial say about being stuck in your finger tips ... it HURTS! I used to get so tire of sore finger tips, I would switch to the belly. Then when my doctor informed me about the pill form, I chose a pill twice a day :)

Reply to
lunarlos

Good news - yes

Bad news - you have to buy it from Jerry - cash in advance. ;-)

Reply to
Phil Stein

Don't forget the ones fired into jet engines to test their hardiness...

tah

Reply to
hiltyt

Whose hardiness? The chicken's or the jet engine's?

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

(Shhh! I stole it from Blake Driskill)

Randy

formatting link

Reply to
<randyolb

I think you're confusing Neil Armstrong with Buzz Aldrin. Buzz Aldrin battled alcoholism, but got sober if I remember correctly. And Buzz wasn't an alcoholic while an astronaut.

That statement is very debatable. The overall process is similar for any drug (even caffeine) in that your brain attenuates to adjusted neurotransmitter levels (usually dopamine), but the primary neurotransmitters effected, areas of the brain affected, etc... vary from drug to drug.

Dave

Reply to
dave.harper

Ya know.. I hate it when I do that...

The chickens, of course...

tah

Reply to
hiltyt

Do you have a reference/source for that??? I know Aldrin had problems with alcohol, but I'm unaware of Neil being an alcoholic...

David Erbas-White

Reply to
David Erbas-White

I actually have a chicken rocket and it works very well. It's a Pita to Clean though.

Reply to
Reece Talley

What's one astronaut vs another, when he's basically saying that all rocketeers (professional or otherwise) are addicts?

Seems to me that as soon as he extracts one foot from his mouth, he replaces it with the other.

Reply to
David

your knowledge is incomplete

observe:

=== From: David Erbas-White Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets Subject: Re: [TRA motor certs] USR Date: M> RayDunak>

what and how)? were these "proxies" authenticated?

representatives authority to an alternate party if the authority granted was non-specific?

The bylaws of the corporation do not allow for proxies for Directors, only for members voting for Directors. You can 'posit' all the authority you want, but there is no framework to allow it.

The bylaws are clear: a quorum of Directors must be PRESENT in order for a meeting to be called to order, and from there, a majority of those present may then conduct the business of the Corporation.

I repeat: using proxies by Directors is not in the bylaws. Any actions taken under such auspices are not legal.

David Erbas-White

===

RayDunak> representatives decide to relinquish their votes to someone else? >> >

And again, Ray, this is obviously not getting through to you.

It doesn't matter if every Director gave Chuck their proxies and he voted exactly the way they wanted. Proxies are not valid for Directors unless specifically enumerated in the bylaws. They are not enumerated in the TRA bylaws, in fact, there is explicit wording requiring the PRESENCE of Directors for a quorum.

Therefore, even if Chuck voted the way the Directors 'would have' voted (only we'll never know, because part of the process of being a Director involves listening to arguments), it was an ILLEGAL vote, thus it has no standing in law. Why do I say law? Because the bylaws are a legal agreement that the Corporation has made with the government, in order to be granted 'corporate' status. That is why bylaws must be submitted to the Secretary of State for approval.

Why is the value of argument important? Because that is part of the policy/decision making process. I once chaired a board that had (IIRC) thirteen members. We were taking a vote over an extremely volatile issue for the group. At the beginning of the discussion I asked for a 'sense of the room' as to how they were leaning, and it was 2 for, 11 against. After the argument/discussion was completed, it was 13 for, none against (I felt like in "12 Angry Men" ).

I'm hoping this will eventually sink in, but I'm beginning to have my doubts.

David Erbas-White

===

RayDunak> >

Then obviously you've never been involved in contracts, by-laws, or corporations.

I appreciate your pointing out that TRA had previously taken illegal actions, as well...

Just because they had a 'precedent' of using proxies does not make it legal. If they want to use proxies, they have a path to do so--it's called changing the by-laws (and re-filing them with the Secretary of State). Otherwise, any actions taken under those circumstances were not legal actions.

If Ed Tindell resigned, though, he certainly had the right to do so, and it didn't need to be at a meeting--but the meeting itself was never 'legal'.

David Erbas-White

===

W. E. Fred Wallace wrote:

Fred,

Replied on list...

First, IANAL.

Second, I do not have a page and paragraph to cite for you, as IANAL. However, I have been involved in the past over a period now spanning decades in 3 separate 501(c)3 non-profit organizations, sat in all the legal meetings during the formation of one of them, was Chairman of one, and was involved as a Director in the change and resubmission of by-laws. These organizations ranged in size from (on the low end) 800 members to (on the high end) upwards of 10,000 members. I am also currently involved with the establishment of another 501(c)3 non-profit, which I'll be happy to announce here as soon as its complete (it is space related, not hobby related).

Further, as a businessman, I've been involved in many 'contract' cases, and (not to be immodest) have never been found to be wrong when I've raised a 'legal' question in relation to both business contracts and the non-profit corporation interactions--some of the lawyers involved were somewhat shocked to find out that I WASN'T a lawyer.

Finally, I have informally discussed this situation with a friend, who is a lawyer, and specializes in just this kind of stuff (I have no need to pay him to provide me with the specific cites related to this, I'm not THAT interested ). Those are my qualifications and sources.

If you would like to approach it from the common sense point of view, simply read the by-laws, and they are plain on their face. First, the by-laws make SPECIFIC PROVISION for members to vote for the directors and officers by proxy. Second, the by-laws make SPECIFIC REFERENCE to the presence of a certain number of directors to call a meeting. Third, (and this is indirectly inferred from the first), if the by-laws had MEANT to allow the use of proxies by directors, they would have been enumerated, just as they were for members, and reference for them would have been made in relation to the presence of directors for a quorum.

There are further problems, in that in order to use a proxy for a vote, the motion itself must be published (at least to the directors and in the minutes) with sufficient notice (I do not know if this was done, I'm simply raising it as a question), and the proxy can only be for predetermined, specific actions, such as a) solely for purposes of quorum, or b) for quorum and to vote specifically on a specific motion. I am unaware of a 'blanket proxy', as this would allow for one individual to run a corporation by themselves, but with the 'corporate' mantle, which is precisely the opposite of the reason for a corporations existence.

BTW, as I write this, I'm vaguely remembering one of the times we had to change the by-laws of one of the organizations (it was about 15 years ago, so my memory is a little hazy about the specifics), but I believe it was something 'similar' in that we had 'assumed' that certain things that were assigned to the 'members' also applied to the directors, and it did not, thus the by-laws had to be amended to reflect what our 'belief' was.

I hope this sufficiently answers your questions...

David Erbas-White

===

IIRC Ed did not resign as president. He was voted out off office by an illegal coup staged by Rogers. Later, he did resign in disgust from what was left as Tripoli. And the organization has been in CYA mode ever since.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"

===

From: "Chuck Stewart" Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets Subject: Re: [TRA motor certs] USR Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 06:37:10 -0500

Er... you seem to have confused proxy voting, a corporate standard, with absentee balloting... another corporate standard.

If the parameters given are correct then yes, they relinquished their votes.

And if the TRA bylaws mandated presence by Directors, and did not mention proxies for Directors, then it was unconstitutional.

And if it had occured in Indiana with a non-profit corporation with the same constitutional setup it would have been quite illegal.

First become familar with the difference between proxies nd absentee ballots.

No.

The simple facts stated here in the group in regards to various TRA activities, as verified by the TRA and supporters themselves, make it very clear that the TRA lacks the constitutional setup, regulatory background, and bureaucratic experience base to be making the decisions it makes for the people the claims to be making them for.

And the hobby suffers for this lack.

It is a cowboy-style group. Which is not a bad thing except that it has taken on regulatory powers and government cognizance... without the neccessary background to do the job properly.

TRA is on an earnest well meant "world-saving!" power-trip... but the bill for this vacation from reality has come due.

And thousands in the hobby are paying the price.

-- Chuck Stewart

===

original thread at

formatting link
and
formatting link

- iz

Reply to
izannounce

I thought you went bye-bye? Iz Jerry still your hero?

How's the mosaic coming along? Iz it time to reveal it yet? ;-)

Reply to
J.A. Michel

Great, the self-appointed Savior of Rocketry crawls out from under his rock to spew some more nonsense.

Reply to
raydunakin

So what's your point? As it turned out, (on advise of a corp. attorney), "Proxy voting" is an excepted way of accomplishing BOD voting, unless specifically forbidden by the corp. charter, (in most states). Did you find something to the contrary in Alaska coperate law, during your futile attempt to dig up frozen dirt?? Page and par., PLEASE....

Fred

Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace

Excepted = unusual Accepted = usual

Please say what you mean.

Reply to
Gus

Thank you Steve.. Now you can crawl back under your rock, (PLEASE)..

Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace

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.