QED

GREAT stuff Gary, and very perceptive ... but I don't see what it has to do with quantum electrodynamics ...

Thanks, but don't get me started. I bought a used book once called QED thinking it had something to do with logical proofs. It was a fortuitous quantum choice on my part as it was, in fact, a good lay description of quantum electrodynamics.

Did it ever occur to you that the only reason this particular effort was so successful is because it was conceived and executed outside the organizations? If TRA or NAR had tried to do it, there would have been the usual backlash from people unwilling to set aside their personal grudges and agendas. This is not the fault of the organizations themselves, but is the fault of the individuals.

Even your own post seeks to blame the organizations.

Y E S

But only after it failed from the mismanagement of the associations themselves.

Are you bipolar? How can your first sentence be so right but your last so wrong?

Only if is paying even minimal attention.

Here let me CITE an excerpt from the BOT meet>>

Motor Acceptance for Certification - Jerry Irvine asked the Board to direct Standards and Testing to accept motor submissions from ACS-Reaction labs if those motors were delivered by "any legal means", Documents "issued by any recognized competent authority by UN" were submitted prior to testing, and appropriate fees were paid in advance,

The Board took no action on this request and noted that such motors would not necessarily meet current S&T standards. In particular, S&T requires documents issued solely by DOT in order to insure that motors accepted for certification could be legally shipped via common carrier means. Selected motors which could be classed DOT 1.1 can legally be shipped, under certain conditions, but would not meet either S&T or NFPA criteria for testing.

I cite THIS as proof of NAR BOT fraud and commercial discrimination (it has a different legal term :) ) based on the following very well published document, the only one at issue for ACS-Reaction Labs:

With HARD PROOF like this it is impossible to believe you and impossible to believe NAR.

I M P O S S I B L E.

Just Jerry with hard proof

Precisely my point, Ray.

But, SRN/Fly Rockets WAS successful across a broad spectrum of rocketeers, of individuals, of members of all the various organizations. There IS common ground here.

I'm not "blaming" them for anything, rather, I'm pointing out that successful, cooperative projects which can benefit everyone, including each separate organization, ARE possible within the broad sport rocket community. The organizations need to figure out how to do similar cooperative projects WITHOUT generating the "backlash" you speak of. The stated goal of these organizations is to promote rocketry, after all.

Pointedly, "Fly Rockets" could become more than just a website domain name. Imagine the idea being supported by a little cooperation and resources from each of the many existing organizations; a non-partisan rocketry promotion effort. I speak of existing organizations simply to keep from having to re-invent the wheel. But, hey, if Frank wanted to form a new organization to sustain the SRN/Fly Rockets philosophy, I'm there as well.

A few individuals got together on a moment's notice and pulled off an amazing feat with the help of several hundred non-partisan contributors. Would the effort have succeeded if Frank's original letter had only made it to the directors of the NAR/TRA and had never been released to RMR or other public forums? I think not, for the same reason you do. That HAS to change; we, rocketry AS A WHOLE, cannot afford to miss promotional opportunities because of organizational biases. SRN and Fly Rockets is proof that it can change, IMHO.

I don't see how the organizations can do that. It is the individuals who have the problem, not the organizations. There are some folks who simply will not have anything to do with one organization or another, and will even actively attempt to block any efforts put forth by those organizations.

Even this campaign ran into problems with a few people who didn't want to contribute because the credit cards were being processed by someone from TRA.

Until you can find a way to change human nature, there will always be those who are more interested in ax-grinding than in cooperating for the benefit of the hobby.

Correct!!

Ray. You're fired.

At least if you'refired I do not have to have you committed to an insane asylum.

No assumptions needed. Past behavior of thatnature is publicly visible.

Or in your case a myopic bias in favor of them despite obvious bad behavior.

Obvious to almost everyone :)

Jerry

Yes.

But NOT ONE ofthe links on flyrockets.com is rmr.

Thank god!

Wouldn't it be handy if the link was broken on ROL as well?

Hate to interrupt, but could we just chill and enjoy the success that will be tomorrow?

Joel. phx

Don't forget to checkout the moon. M O O N spells car

Thanks for proving my point, Jerry. ;)

When you post these things without the referenced text I admit I do miss the point. Mainly because I do not live for your words or posts Ray. I plan to calm down for a week or so just in case the ROL link to rmr is not "fortunately broken".

I must point out that I DID NOT assume the TRA/NAR would not have released the information; I simply meant to point out that the success of the project was primarily due to the leadership and efforts of individuals and NOT a concerted effort by the national organizations to whom Frank's original letter was addressed.

Perhaps I am not making my points clear enough, because I agree with you. I'm just saying that the "bias" you attribute to "individuals" is also present in the national organizations because each organization and it's leadership is simply a collection of individuals with common beliefs, or biases, as delineated in that organization's policies and by-laws. The fact that different organizations with different policies exist is de-facto evidence of individual bias towards one thing or another.

SRN/Fly Rockets showed me that BEYOND most specific biases lies a whole spectrum of common interests and goals that EVERYONE could, and should, support for the good of rocketry as a whole. The national orgs could pool resources and talent to that end, if they wished to do so. Or, a totally new organization could be formed to promote and expand upon the Fly Rockets concept and philosophy.

I for one am glad my first impression of rocketry was not rmr or anything like it. I had an experience best described as "Father knows best" like.

But then I also transitioned early to sharing the goodness with others. It was not till I was exposed to back room politics that I became jaded. Even early vendor relations was shockingly positive and collegial, something that has never surrounded Rosenfield for example, our own personal monopolist.

Jerry

Me too.

Again, me too and fortunately, I'm old enough to know better than to let politics or the negative actions of some, pollute my enjoyment of the hobby or my personal outlook about it.

Randy

Four times a day... just like my ex-wife used to do:

The cable guy, the milkman, the postman and my paraplegic next-door neighbor (or is that "next-RAMP neighbor?)...

Gary wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 17:24:35 GMT, Gary is alleged to have written:

The subtitle "The strange theory of light and matter" didn't tip you off?

Dick Feynman had a great way of explaining the difficult in simple terms that anyone could understand. If you enjoyed QED, try "Six Easy Pieces" (and the "sequel") -- you won't be disappointed, and you'll probably learn a lot, too.

- Rick "I need to put those CDs back in my truck" Dickinson

The AP delivery truck driver :--)

To be honest, no, it didn't tip me off, but it piqued my curiosity enough for me to buy it. I was in my philosophical phase and didn't even know QED was a physics discipline.

"Six easy pieces"? Are we talking quarks here? Who wrote it?