Re: The AT auction

Why do some people refuse to take "yes" for an answer?

-dave w

This should be in the FAQ At the tippy top.

Jerry

Oh, but that was the plan he was trying to sell some members of our little group, hence the valid concern.

Jerry's responsibility to address, for many years.......... He did nothing and claims he did, hence the apparent BS BS..

By that assumption, Jerry will be partially to blame, for not addressing his problem sooner.

Perhaps I am blind, but I have yet to see one piece of paper from DOT recognizing Jerry by name or other company identifiable directly to his name.

How can I further debate such reasoning. I relent; it's Jerry's problem to solve. BTW, what has growing up in where static testing of the SRB's happen got to do with the subject? Other than lucky you..

Fred

Ah, but you know better than that Fred. The material did not lose the classification... that is not even what is being argued, is it? It is rather whether or not Jerry (or the entity he represents) can gain shipping rights for the classification referenced, isn't it?

The DG statement above is riddled with holes and you know it.

Just like in the ATF case, the ATF "AHJ" got set back on the PAD definition by the "higher" AHJ; the court of law (which weighs history, truth, and reality WRT the law).

Actually proper shipping classification and liability is the ultimate "AHJ". The DOT is merely the current crop of interpreters, made up of every day people like you and me, which can be helped to understand, especially WRT a known safe-to-ship material composition. The rest is just details of documentation.

~ Duane "too many acronyms in this post" Phillips.

Who is he? McLaughlin?? I keep hoping for a phone call or a letter of some kind. I love humor.

Fred

As long as one of the principles isn't lying, telling half truths, or behaving in a general dishonest manner.

steve

Don't be absurd Duane, apologize to Jerry. Jerry attempted to involve us in a conspiracy to commit unlawful acts and also with held information when he sent the stuff he wanted presented to DOT. I did nothing wrong or unethical. You are starting to sound like a real gutter lawyer. Are you his legal consultant? (;-)

Fred

Bingo!!!!

Possibly, and Jerry must press the issue, as it will not fix it's self.

Yep, Jerry need to get to it; find a way to overturn the present DOT way of doing business or comply. The time is ripe, with the PAD ruling

Fred

What unlawful acts did I "try to get you to commit"? Be specific to things I did try and was focused on YOU.

Withheld what information. Be specific.

You are in denial.

They are TRA members.

Hey Jerry, you should know all about that perception thing..

Fred

You posting taunt after taunt only shows your goal is to taunt.

You in no way are contributing to rocketry freedom. You are a hateful, and small man.

You may contribute at

"Do or do not, there is no try." - Yoda

Actually, persistence, not emotion. Pride and emotionalism tends to get in the way of unbiased and open debate. I actually came to understand that here on r.m.r., I believe because of a post by Len... so at least for me, the forum has done some good.

I may not always succeed, but I try very hard not to use any form of personal attack. Everyone has a right to an opinion. Even persistent trolls such as that by the Dave Grayvis alias ends up showing a consistent opinion.

I am not perfect, however, and I certainly have an opinion. So if any of my posts are perceived as being overly emotional, it is not intended as such, and I apologize.

Some etiquette to live by:

-don't call names

-don't tell people to go away

-don't derive or give personal insults (this one is hard to navigate when you disagree widely with someone).

-if you feel like typing a thrashing on someone, go ahead... just don't send it. Once you get out all your frustrations and can smile again... delete the sucker.

-give everyone the respect of being a human being, not perfect, but assume trying to do what they perceive as right (even if those assumptions are wrong )

~ Duane Phillips.

As Iz was fond of saying, FETCH it's in previous postings.

Fred

We do not have DOT's. We have Fred's.

Liar.

TRA welcomed the ATF and TRA forced vendor and user involvement with ATF.

ILLEGALLY as PROVEN in COURT!!!

Spoke with an ATF agent who stated the regulations will continue as they were. He said that the judge's ruling only stated that they didn't follow procedure and that they would continue to regulate anything with over 62.5 grams of APCP. He stated that the PAD exemption still did not apply and the judge is allowing them to fix the mistake while continuing to enforce even though they didn't follow their own rules. I asked him how did they have a rule if the procedures where not followed and he referred me to Washington. According to him we do not have the PAD exemption. They get to have their cake and eat ours too.

As Iz was fond of saying, FETCH it's in previous postings.

Fred

As Iz was fond of saying, FETCH it's in previous postings.

Fred