Re: The AT auction

how do you propose to change a corrupt system from within, when even election returns are "adjusted" to insure a specific outcome?

it is an interesting problem, I think

a reasonable concern for those with disparate perspectives, I do not criticise their choices. I encourage them to use whatever methods they find are effective to achieve what objectives they feel are important

that is unfortunate

"an enemy of mine is the friend of my enemy", and my "enemies" in a matter of speaking are those who work towards the extinction of rocketry in any or all of its forms

but it is funny

where were these people over the past decade, long before I came on the scene? Many of the issues date to 1990, and the persons responsible still on the BoD, or otherwise in positions of influence

no, Fred. They cannot use my brashness as an excuse for their complacency or ineffectiveness

cases in point

Chuck Rogers is still on the BoD, serving without interruption since

1986, despite his perpetration of or role in any number of improper or illegal events throughout the history of the organization; many of which are of sufficient magnitude to threaten TRA's very existence

Bruce Kelly was on the BoD until just recently, and remains the Prefect Liasion and custodian of HQ and its corporate records; despite substantial 'irregularities' shall I say of a fiscal nature to which he was a beneficial party

and more currently, TRA remains the agent of sale for a magazine which has consistently failed to meet its commitments, despite member outcry and BoD a number of successively imposed probationary periods

the time for alternatives has been long since overdue

I have thought about it

it is sad that some apologists continue to deny any malfeasance, despite irrefutable evidence of its existence

it is sad that many members (including BoD members) are complacent, apathetic or incredulous when issues of legality, member funds, and organization continuity are concerned

it is sad that the complaints and concerns of members have been dismissed, to the point where they voted with their feet

it is sad that the particularly vocal members found themselves expelled, or their memberships quite unexpectedly lapsed, in some cases even Prefects found disassociated from their Prefectures without notice or due process

but it is especially sad when a leadership can so delude a membership as to engineer the death of a exemption that would benefit every member without exception

I am not the least bit concerned with popularity, Fred, or the praise or even agreement of those who watch as their hobby is destroyed before their very eyes, by "leaders" using the members own money to to do it with!

but I am encouraged

by the real lovers of rocketry that would not and will not stand idly by when such blatant corruption continues, but rather choose to speak out; even at the risk of being derided, shunned or worse

by the amount of factual information available, both through government agencies and historical documents as well as through the first hand experiences of members past and present

by the unswerving commitment a few continue to have to free the organization from the grips of its hijackers

and by the unexpected encouragement from well wishers, whose every pat on the back heal the wounds inflicted by a hundred apologists

we have a vision of an enviornment in which rocketry is respected for its benefit to our society, in education, in research, in commercial enterprise and in national defense

that vision sustains us, and rocketry will not be "going quietly into that dark night"

not on our watch

- iz

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed
Loading thread data ...

should read

no, Fred. They cannot use my brusqueness as an excuse for their complacency or ineffectiveness

(rmr is a great vocabulary builder!)

- iz

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

If Fred has any input, far worse:

[whether] "Mr. Irvine has complied with the instructions provided him, with no response from your office unless he has taken liberties with the truth, there are problems he has failed to disclose, resulting in a delay in the response from you or your office, and or both."

- W.E. "Fred" Wallace, MDRA 6-26-01 letter to DOT

and more . . .

Maybe not hundreds.

But yes on Fred Wallace's watch, Bruce Kelly's watch, Chuck Rogers' watch.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

a case in point

from John H. Cato's 2004-04-01 22:30:03 PST post in thread in thread "Re: on the history of S.724" at

formatting link

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

since there are really only a dozen or so TRA apologists vocal on rmr, and I have received encouragment from several individuals, I would say that I have a considerable credit balance

bring on the apologists!

;)

- iz

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

A FINE example you portray here Alan. Assume conditions not represented. Change story (falsification/lie). Make conclusion as if fact.

It is your statement that lacks integrity.

It is this kind of represented attitude that further divides potential joiners. It is the same inherent attitude, unfortunately, polarized and typified by Ray Dunakin's comments.

It is the general attitude of, "We don't care, take a hike..." Sadly, many are doing just that, as I did, vote with my feet. I know of at least 4 others locally, _personally_. The actual national statistics also mirror the fact.

Until the groups open discussion as to how to get members to JOIN instead of LEAVE, attrition and bickering to final demise will be the only sure path.

~ Duane Phillips.

Reply to
Duane Phillips

The specific contention(s) I have that get wrapped into the signatory statement are these:

NAR Model Rocket Safety Code Item #2: Motors. I will use only certified, commercially-made model rocket motors, and will not tamper with these motors or use them for any purposes except those recommended by the manufacturer.

NAR High Power Rocket Safety Code Item #4: Motors. I will use only commercially-made, NAR-certified rocket motors in the manner recommended by the manufacturer. I will not alter the rocket motor, its parts, or its ingredients in any way.

In all honesty, I would join if the signatory statement were to be changed to say something to the effect of "at NAR sanctioned events" vice "all... activities"

However, it does not address motor types that do not need "motor" certification in the current "NAR" interpretation/paradigm, such as hybrids, ANCP, and other non-LEUP/LEMP interpreted certifications.

But I would still join, and play by those rules whilst at those events.

~ Duane Phillips.

Reply to
Duane Phillips

Shock, If this is soooo telling, then tell me why they cannot seem to change the print version of the story?

They keep it for a reason. Say one thing... publish another... which will actually stand when push comes to shove? And why should I damage my integrity signing something I already know is patently false, and preached as such? Why can they not make the change?

I sincerely believe that this is one issue that _will_ change... but when? When they make that simple change, I will join the NAR.

~ Duane Phillips.

Reply to
Duane Phillips

Good question, I don't know. IIRC "sport rocketry" was defined to be those rocketry activites covered by NFPA 1122 and 1127.

John

Reply to
John Lyngdal

Well said, and Ditto... change and I will join.

Integrity is important.

(I'm just too old to remember why).

Reply to
Mark

Willing to put that into the 'Oath'?

I think you'd get a lot more members... some of us take that 'Oath' thing kinda seriously.

Reply to
Mark

Of course we want people to join. However, what you're proposing is giving non-members the same benefit as members. Not only would that NOT increase memberships, it would open the orgs to liability for the actions of non-members. (And if you really believe that the certifying organization would not be sued in the event of an incident involving a certified non-member, you need to wake up and smell the coffee.)

Reply to
RayDunakin

Duane, I hate to say this, but are you being intentionally dense?? These statements clearly apply ONLY to model rocketry and high power rocketry. If you're flying uncertified motors, that's NOT model rocketry or high power rocketry, and it's outside the scope of NAR/TRA!

Reply to
RayDunakin

You are becoming very irratating, and less and less intelligent with each post... perhaps you're just tired and should go to bed and get some sleep?

Reply to
Mark

Your former responses to this same thread-line:

... along with other assumed and mis-interpretted distortions.

Negative. No magazine. No insurance. Those *are* the only tangible benefits by paid membership dues.

On the contrary, exactly the opposite. With permanent stature, BARs would increase twenty fold... like the ARRL.

Not to mention the relief to the hobby as an *industry* as a whole, instead of just the club.

The club would actually be receiving funds for which it did not have to maintain ongoing service, making the venture even more financially sound.

(And if you really believe that the certifying organization would

No more potential for it than we have in the current paradigm, WRT certified individuals. This point is completely moot. If the certificate recipient properly paid his "one-time" fees that took potential liabilities into account (just like current insurance does) then your point is even less than moot.

Even a 10 year expiration for renewal of competency/testing would serve the purpose of demonstrated competency *better* than the current paradigm.

Why hold back such potential gains in the hobby?

~ Duane Phillips.

Reply to
Duane Phillips

Those are your definitions, and not the definitions used in all states, at this time. Indeed, there are still ongoing arguments *within* the hobby as to what exact terms mean. I mean, "Americana" as a unanimous whole cannot even properly discern what an explosive is.

Additionally, what if I fly so-called "model rocketry" at someone elses event, or even in my back yard? What they say in person will always be superceded by what is in print... and signed no less.

What do you have against changing it to say something to the effect of "at NAR sanctioned events", and _drop_ using the word "all" completely, thereby negating any need of proper cross-hobby definition? NAR treats it in this manner... it is time to make the paperwork reflect the same, otherwise the intention is disingenuous and misleading.

The signatory should be as simple as the verbally promulgated interpretation:

When at a NAR event, adhere to NAR rules. When not at a NAR event, follow the law. Anything else may bring you trouble.

~ Duane Phillips.

Reply to
Duane Phillips

The document did not change to remove the word "all". The change therefore is inadequate.

As I stated in another reply to another of your posts:

Those are your definitions, and not the definitions used in all states, at this time. Indeed, there are still ongoing arguments *within* the hobby as to what exact terms mean. I mean, "Americana" as a unanimous whole cannot even properly discern what an explosive is.

Additionally, what if I fly so-called "model rocketry" at someone elses event, or even in my back yard? What they say in person will always be superceded by what is in print... and signed no less.

What do you have against changing it to say something to the effect of "at NAR sanctioned events", and _drop_ using the word "all" completely, thereby negating any need of proper cross-hobby definition? NAR treats it in this manner... it is time to make the paperwork reflect the same, otherwise the intention is disingenuous and misleading.

The signatory should be as simple as the verbally promulgated interpretation:

When at a NAR event, adhere to NAR rules. When not at a NAR event, follow the law. Anything else may bring you trouble.

~ Duane Phillips.

Reply to
Duane Phillips

There is nothing more to say, you have once again made my point; the whiner within you, detracts from any potential good you could help effect.

Fred

Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed wrote:

Reply to
W. E.Fred Wallace

This is status quo for Ray. Get used to it. He's a professional... black belt even. He auto attacks by default anyone he sees as being sympathetic to anything Jerry or Ismaeel says or that speaks of changes good or bad. Yet I have caught him being nice and providing insight to the exact same issues when questions come from specific others.

The change Ray speaks of did not eliminate the problem word "all". And Ray just learned about it today, yet comes off bashing you for not being with the program and "whining", when it is the "changed" verbage that is still in question....

He campaigns that rocketry and the existing situations are "good enough" and "workable". Any attempts to talk about change for good or bad will be met brutally. Ray is ANTI-change, in a big way.

On the other hand, Ray also has some awesome rocketry photos taken in flight that really rock! I have one... quality stuff... I highly recommend them.

~ Duane "I'm the one who needs to go to bed..." Phillips.

Reply to
Duane Phillips

I have no such responsibility to you as you breached the subject, by posting your incomplete and resulting out of context excerpt from the letter. I suggest you contact your lawyer; he will explain.

To little to late..

"After you and I first talked, the information you provided was passed to Mr. Irvine during a phone conversation, between him and myself. Mr. Irvine, when asked several weeks later, regarding the status of reassignment of the EX numbers in question, said his phone calls to you and your office were not returned. Additionally, he said, he received no feedback on the documents he faxed to you, at your office. After receiving this information and remembering the simplicity of your instructions for starting the process, I called you a second time, thinking that maybe I had the wrong fax number or an unforeseen problem existed or had developed. During our second conversation, you related that since we first talked, you had received no communications from Mr. Irvine, in any format. After you and I talked, I responded to Mr. Irvine, describing my experience in contacting you, the basic content of our conversation, and, once again, my understanding of your instructions. Mr. Irvine responded via email, saying he had faxed the documents again.

It is now my understanding; Mr. Irvine is still claiming no response from you or your office. I find it difficult to believe Mr. Irvine has complied with the instructions provided him, with no response from your office; unless, he is taking liberties with the truth, there are problems he has failed to disclose, and or both. As a result of my cynical opinion and frustration, I responded to Mr. Irvine through a third party; "If he wished, I would hand deliver the document copies to your office or fax them to you myself". To my surprise, Mr. Irvine responded, " he has no problem with me doing either". So, as I am a man of my word, the attached documents, include the information Mr. Irvine claims to have faxed to you at your office."

Keep talking your shit and refering to the one choped paragraph in other posts and the remainder, including emails will find ther way to ABMR. You opened the door; how much will you continue hold it open.

Fred

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.