Same Old BS Finally Equals Kill File

Just looking at the postings from the past day, has finally caused me to kill file two posters that seem to be joined at the hip. The constant upchuck of decades old bi%$hing/complaining about, TRA and/or NAR did this, I was screwed by TRA, and other clouded historically stretched musings, along with the "yes sir-yes sir three bags full", from the attached drone, has just become to much.

For those of you that still want to listen to the BS, have a nut or two, literally. I find no value added to listen to or respond further. I'm sure at least both of the individuals will respond with some additional BS, but I will not see it unless someone else responds to them.

See ya; JI and DW.

Fred

All others: Remove and replace the obvious to respond or contact by email. frederocket.at.netscape.net

Reply to
WallaceF
Loading thread data ...

Do you really promise this time or are you "setting the truth aside"?

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Did you killfile yourself, Phil Stein, Dave Grayvis, and RayDunakin too, or do you WANT to read that crap?

Reporting facts and how they relate to the rules and regs while potentially helpful to rocketry, is certainly hurtful to TRA sycophants.

But you HAVE for months/years!

THAT should tell you SOMETHING about yourself.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

I see posts like this on usenet all the time, and I'd LOVE to see a psychological analysis of them.

- The writer claims to have no further interest in comments and opinions of one or more people.

- BUT he feels it necessary to ANNOUNCE his disinterest to those people and the world at large.

- Which implies he CARES that they know he's not interested in their opinions....

Huh?

Reply to
Scott Schuckert

Whats you point?? (:-)

Reply to
WallaceF

stretched

sycophants.

Ha! You say the ATF told you that you don't need permits for manufacturing rocket motors -- if true, that would be extremely helpful to rocketry. Yet you consistently refuse to provide any proof, not even the agent's name. So you're either obstructing the hobby, or flat out lying.

e
Reply to
raydunakin

I think you may be misinterpreting that (at least as far as rmr is concerned). I did the same thing a few months ago (and have seen other comments on it in the past). The rationale was to inform OTHERS so that they could choose to take similar actions, and so that the 'offending parties' would 'know' that any responses would not be seen (I've seen flamewars erupt sometimes when people make these statements).

I turned off my killfile briefly because recently I've asked several technical questions, and I wanted ALL possible input on my questions. However, what I found was that I got more exasperated than even before at all of the nonsense and mudslinging, so I've turned it back on. I think that when it was off continuously before I kind of built up an 'exasperation immunity', but having weaned myself off all of the nonsense, when I saw it again 'fresh', it really made me even more disgusted.

I find the technical comments (and even the general 'camraderie', from folks such as Randy, et al) to be great for the hobby, but frankly, my time is valuable (to me, if no one else), and if I don't have to slog through the nonsense, that's more time left for actually building rockets (or doing, uh, work).

I hate to say it, but I find (on usenet) the response of folks to others responses to be, more often than not, a Rohrschach test on their own personality or feelings, than to be 'reality'. I've never used a killfile until this group, but one of the reasons I did so was because OTHERS had occasionally recommended it, and indicated how much the signal-to-noise ratio increased. I did the same, hoping that others might learn from my experience.

BTW, if memory serves, in my original posting about this, I don't think I singled anyone out (except for Jerry) about killfiling. Jerry is a special case -- I had kept him out of the killfile because he DOES occasionally post tech information, but it eventually got to the point where the cost was not worth the product. I finally decided that the signal was far outweighed by the noise, so (again) I posted so that others who might be on the fence with the same decision might use it as a 'data point' in their own evaluation of the problem.

David Erbas-White

Reply to
David Erbas-White

R O F L

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Yes.

I agree, but the folks that would want/need to know (lawsuit folks or other vendors) couldn't be bothered, hence why I never post details. It should be used in the PROPER venue.

Or the above description is accurate.

Never assume someone is lying when it is more likely they just disagree with you, or are dumb.

YMMV.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Both apply to JI..(:-)

Reply to
WallaceF

So I'm just an "attached drone" now... :) At least I don't have to put up with any more sniping about the "bridge".

The ironic thing is that my server completely missed Fred's original message... I saw it only by way of the replies!

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

To bad you are not willing to change your behavior instead of just apologizing. If you had apologized for breaking TRAs rules, you might be selling motors to members. Oh well I guess neither is going to happen,

Reply to
Phil Stein

I did apologize and a copy was posted to rmr.

It didn't disuade TRA one bit.

Despite Pat G. being on the board allegedly asking them to honor their word.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

That's not a valid excuse for not posting it. If it's true, we'll make sure it gets brought before the judge since it would be a vital piece of evidence in the lawsuit. Furthermore, it would provide verifiable proof of your claims, something that ought to be important to you.

disagree

Failure to post proof of something that ought to be easily verifiable is not the result of a disagreement. On the contrary, it leads to more disagreement because no one can believe your claims.

Reply to
raydunakin

Nope. That's part of what he needed to do to have his membership reinstated. To get his motors certified, he would have to meet the cert requirements, same as all the legal manufacturers have done.

.
Reply to
raydunakin

The first amendment works both ways, sir.

I have certainly posted the supporting regulations I used and you attack my data, so how could you possibly be a good judge if it would work or not if you attack what has actually worked.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

verifiable

You haven't proved it worked. It doesn't matter whether or not I agree with your interpretation of the regs, which for the most part I do. What matters is whether the ATF does. The ATF's stated policy, on the record, is that rocket motors are not PADs and are not exempt. So why would they tell everyone else, including a federal judge, that rocket motors are not exempt, and then turn around and tell you that they ARE exempt? Clearly, there is a major discrepancy between what you claim to have been told, and what actual ATF policy and practice is. Since you continually and pointedly refuse to provide any proof, not even something as simple as the name of the agent you claim to have dealt with, one is left with no other choice but to disbelieve your claim.

Reply to
raydunakin

There is another (remote?) possibility. Perhaps the ATF agent in question has made a "deal" with Jerry - he won't "aflict" JI with ATF regulation as long as JI doesn't identify him publicly. Such an arrangement would be good for Jerry but it wouldn't do much for rocketry in general, unless there are more sympathetic ATF agents out there who know the ATF is trying to screw us and won't help them do it. Of course such silence couldn't possibly answer the question so frequently asked on this forum - it won't help any of us determine whether JI is lying or telling the truth. So I guess we'll only learn the truth if/when JI gets busted by ATF. Until then what's the point of continuing to argue? It accomplishes nothing. Larry Lobdell Jr. Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself - Proverbs 26:4 It takes two to Tango, and to argue.

Reply to
llobdelljr

Not to your satisfaction or TRA's (literally nothing is), but certainly to the satisfaction of ATF.

And as you yourself say ad naseum, they are the only ones that matter.

:)

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Because a lawsuit was filed and that is what LAWYERS do.

Because an application was granted and on inspection of an AGENT (more ethics than LAWYERS by a mile or three) have the rules read TO THEM and then are asked to DO THEIR DUTY.

It works.

That was proof. You simply do not recognize it. I am fine with that, since you are a certified moron. It IS an instruction manual for exempt manufacturers.

NONE of which are allowed in Tripoli because Tripoli has "hard-coded" what even YOU admit is not consistent with the legal and valid EXEMPTION, and which has since been affirmed by a judge. Yet Tripoli is BOTH still in denial, AND suing ATF still.

Skitzo!

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

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.