[TROLLS] According to my sources

We are agreeing a lot today :)

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

The state definitions are verbatim the federal definitions and changing

Jerry

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

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.

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.

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.

Please reread it Len.

Thank you.

not

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.

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

Stating it is not alluding to it.

actually, it is about both

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

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

- iz

Donny sez, Shiny side out!

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

Jerry

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

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

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