[TROLLS] According to my sources

That "theory" is offset by the "rules of evidence".

It becomes a tactical game, NOT a truth or innocence discussion. That is the MAIN reason why the jails have so many people in them later proven fully innocent by subsequent eviudence.

Or to quote Bob Kaplow, "It's the government, it doesn't have to make sense.".

Too bad so sad when it is your freedom that is lost.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Loading thread data ...

We are agreeing a lot today :)

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Yeah, and it means Portable Application Description in software which is also not explosives. But so what. I don't know of the ATF ever looking to local or state laws to override their definition nor Jerry discussing state level (other than CA) when it came to "PAD exemption".

We're talking federal.

Joel. phx

Reply to
Testlab

The state definitions are verbatim the federal definitions and changing

50 state laws is impractical. Even for the neo-Nazi ATF.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

So let's recap.

  1. Jerry professes to us all we should buy, sell, and fly big honkin motors in the face of the Feds and when they ask just tell them they are PADs and leave us alone.

  1. We all tell Jerry it sounds cool buy we're chicken to try, it could cause some legal discomfort.

  2. Jerry says it's a NAR conspiracy, calls the NAR pres a boob, and anyone who follows common logic, a maroon.

  1. Jerry comes on the newsgroup with a troll about "I've hoid some peoples got busted for rockets". The FEDS got after them, and they're after you too. In fact, one o' dem is on this very newsgroup right now, but posting as an alias!

  2. When we question Jerry for more (any?) facts, especially if these alleged criminalized persons were following his advice, he waffles all over the place, doesn't answer directly, even goes so far as to say, "just drop it."

So what was the purpose of the post in the first place?

Iz?

Dave?

Can you guys translate or break down this thing for the rest of us?

steve

Reply to
default

I never called him a boob. :) Nor the wackos or morons a maroon.

Not.

Yep.

It already served its purpose. Obviously you were not in the target market.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Jerry Irvine wrote in news:01rocket- snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com:

Excuse me? The lawsuit is about the arbitrary classifaction of APCP as a controlled explosive. It's not about PADs.

len.

Reply to
Leonard Fehskens

Alex Mericas wrote in news:bvp2bl$gge$ snipped-for-privacy@news.btv.ibm.com:

The word you want is "illusion". Jerry does not allude to power and control. He asserts it.

len.

Reply to
Leonard Fehskens

Please reread it Len.

Thank you.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

not

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Jerry Irvine wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com:

From WordNet (r) 2.0 (August 2003) :

deflagrate v 1: cause to burn rapidly and with great intensity; "care must be exercised when this substance is to be deflagrated" 2: burn with great heat and intense light; "the powder deflagrated"

A wood log does not deflagrate.

len.

Reply to
Leonard Fehskens

As with any law only the definitions set forth in the law itself matter.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Stating it is not alluding to it.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

actually, it is about both

see "Response to Motion for Summary Judgement", dated Sep 30, 02 at

formatting link
page 9 of the PDF, under heading

C. No Judicial Deference Under "Chevron" Should Be Accorded to ATF's Interpretation of Propellant Actuated Devices

- iz

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

Donny sez, Shiny side out!

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

Now that I have been proven right and you proven wrong Len are YOU going to apologize to ME?

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

I CONFESS!!! I CONFESS!!! I'm a BATF agent in drag! And you guys thought that I was just another pretty face around here for the last 7 years. I've actually been engaged in a deep undercover assihnment to infiltrate this NG. You ever wonder what happened to John Cato, Mike Dumas, The Silent One and a few others? Two words "witness protection".

Mark Simps> According to my sources at least one of the trolls is either an

Reply to
Mark Simpson

Nope.

But I have received CONFIRMATION what I said is TRUE. Just not who.

And that was SINCE I posted my statement.

Consider this.

Virtually everything I have posted on regulations and trends either was true, and people merely caught up to the reality of it, or in the case of predictions, THEY CAME TRUE.

Not many exceptions to that over the years.

So consider this too:

I don't care if you believe me. This is rmr after all. Trolling is a given.

Oh, and this is NOT a Tripoli/NAR issue, so don't bother with that crap.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Nobody is, or could possibly be, more public than I.

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.