[Trolls} Received the holy grail and are silent

Fine, consider yourself an insult, or insulted. Nobody cares much what you and everyone you know considers. I don't mind being called a sheeple in the appropriate context.

It is not an insinuation. It is a direct statement regarding TRA management style. See previous posts for supporting development.

TRA leadership IS intolerant. Why are you calling your TRA peers mindless sheep? I don't deny what I have said, I deny much of what you misinterpret. I have no need to insult your intelligence, which is clear enough from your posts.

By "activists" I was referring to leaders and problems solvers, in contrast to whiners and followers. Nobody should care about my higher regard for activists, and it is odd that you do.

That is a direct lie.

Geez, just pick names out of a phone book. Or, try your local chapter of IPMS. These guys are expert modelers who are aghast that we actually build and fly rare collectors plastic model kits and launch them with model rocket motors. I know of at least one MR motor manufacturer who started producing his own lime of motors because the prior available motors were not reliable enough.

Alan

He is in charge of TRA memberships? That is interesting. Did you try to re-up with TRA and got turned down this year? How do you know memberships are being rejected currently?

Do you have any information about them being intolerant within the last 3 years? If so, I'd like to hear it.

There is some truth to this. SOmeone Bob knows was removed years ago and he applied for membership recently and was rejected by HQ. The situation was brought to Ken Good's attention. (Ken is the President of TRA) Ken needs to contact the person and discuss the situation that caused his suspension but, last time I checked with Ken (about 2 weeks ago) , the person had not gotten back to him. The ball is in that person's court. If he doesn't contact Ken, he's not getting back in.

I've asked him to do so. As you and Kevin have said, that puts the ball in his court.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)!

I hope he does. I hate to see anyone kept out unless there is a really good reason. I understand there was a reason but if everything can be worked out, that's great.

I can confirm that the individual is working on doing just that. He was out of town and had some personal business to take care of, then missed contacting Ken before Ken left for LDRS.

I put him on a path which MIGHT have gotten him in touch with Pat Gordzelik before Pat left, but I'm not sure.

Regardless, the individual understands the BoD being away at LDRS and is more than willing to wait until the BoD members get back.

I must say I had a couple of very nice chats with this individual on the phone, and look forward to the opportunity to meet him at a launch someday.

-Kevin

That's true. They tolerate Bruce Kelly just fine.

Correct.

Was that power "approved"?? And if so, why the hell?

I'll chip in for his expenses.

jerry, Why don't you go to Utah, yourself? It's pretty obvious that you have nothing better to do. Then you could bill Izzy for your labor. The "truth" is just a freeway away.

you are allowed to leave the state of Ca., aren't you?

you can enter the state of Nv., can't you?

They have those GPS bracelets that phone home. Jerry should stay put.

No, just what I read on RMR. I made a subjective observation. I don't really have enough contact with TMT to justify that observation. I do know that there was some turnover on the BoD n recent years. What have they done within the last three years to make them more tolerant?

Alan

pot ... kettle ... black

- iz

"intentionally obstructing" is more accurate, IMO

- iz

the BoD's consideration of my expulsion

which to the credit of one BoD member was promptly put down

- iz

You and I have a different take on this. The CONSIDERATION of your expulsion is a duty of the board, if there were reports/complaints from members that you were causing harm to the organization... but...

To the credit of the entire board (not just one BoD member) it was put down. What do I mean by that (especially since I wasn't there)? Although your inference is that one BoD member would not countenance your expulsion, one member by themselves could not have prevented it -- erego, I must give credit to a majority (in some sense) of the board for not allowing it (though, again, it may have been DRIVEN by one member).

And please don't take this the wrong way -- I don't believe you should have been expelled, but I believe it entirely proper that the consideration should have taken place.

In essence, it actually affirms my belief that the BoD has improved, because a) they responded to a perceived problem, and b) upon further analysis, took what I believe to be the appropriate action (in other words, no action). Going by past history, one of those two probably wouldn't have taken place -- either they would have ignored a possible problem and kept going, or they would have expelled a member without taking careful consideration of both the need for the expulsion, and its consequences. I don't see how that can be viewed as anything other than 'better' than the past...

David Erbas-White

Are you kidding me?

Its one of the best examples of corporate TOLERANCE I can imagine.

Well, since you're so insistent that it's not derogatory, I guess you won't mind if I call you "sheeple" from now on.