very odd recollection

Hmmm... one _is_ tempted to get the impression that they both (for intersecting reasons of their own) may have been acting just a little weird about the whole business!

-dave w

The original post did not show up on my servers.

John

Yes.

The whole scenario is a lie. The only physical contact we made was shaking hands for about 3 seconds. Maybe that is when her flashback occured and the time dialation of that flashback confused her.

That does NOT explain why she refused my three other polite contacts later in the LDRS launch to reconsider and JUST TAKE THE HYBRIDS and I would be glad to package them in to an INCREDIBLY SMALL AND UNFRAGILE UNIT.

No. No. No. No.

I was then clear on it.

She assured me she would contact me less than a week later as she would not even give me HER contact information (maybe out of fear of rape, eh) despite the fact she was admitting she was the new TMT chair.

I made the mistake along the way to ask her what her qualifications were. Besides not having a cogent answer she was offended and surprised by the question. Since she had already said "no" 3 times I felt there could be no possible penalty for asking.

I also requested to submit several solids I had with me and was selling at LDRS with TRA permission!! And "Eveveryone" at TRA refused. Kelly, McMurray, everyone. Yet motors WERE taken from Aerotech that day.

I do not need a hint. I can see the obvious.

Jerry

Exactly. Is mildly defamatory something like mildly pregnant? She is accusing me of assault. And the statute of limitations expired, (with no formal claim whatsoever, not even to a TRA kangaroo court) but the accusation lives on forever.

Read this post and all will be revealed. If you read the entire thread, you'll see a lot of characters from RMR's past. :-)

From: P'rfesser ( snipped-for-privacy@murraystate.edu) Subject: Re: [POL] TRA Debating Skills (was Re: [LAW] Re: LDRS 17 Report) View: Complete Thread (72 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets Date: 1998/09/07

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

Nice digging. That thread has it all. Here is a link:

Mine either.

Randy

more convenient that reconstruction ...

Tiny URL is your friend

- iz

I took it she was in an emotional state much like she had felt in the past. However this time, when a man was trying to force her to do something she felt umcomfortable doing, she was strong enough to say "no".

steve

However this

umcomfortable doing, she

"Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar." Freud

past. However this

umcomfortable doing, she

What rule says Sue was obligated to take your wares with her?

-- Joe Michel NAR 82797 L1

Thatis thewaytolookatittoJUSTIFY what sheactually did.

I restate the question thuisly:

Since she DID take other motors from other vendors and made SOME arrrangement for the transport of them (perhaps in Bruces trailer), why NOT also take 2 or more USR motors?

YOU ANSWER FIRST.

Jerry

If other motors were transported in bruce's trailer, why did you not ask Bruce to take them for you?

I'm assuming based on circumstantial evidence that there was an unwritten, undisclosable, but non-negotiable "policy directive" from Bruce to Sue: "TRA is _not_ goung to test Jerry's motors for certification - but don't tell him I told you _that_; just blow him off with some excuse like 'his propellant isn't properly classified for shipping hazards' or something."

I suspect that Sue perceived that, if she didn't go along with Bruce's "exclusion games", the resulting conflict with Bruce would ruin her ability to function as TMT chair, so she felt she'd better "pick her battles" regardless of whether she really approved of the policy herself.

Then when Jerry offered hybrid motors (to which the "classified for shipping hazard" thing was clearly inapplicable) she knew she couldn't cert them anyway, so she made some random excuse like "won't fit in the car." (I can just imagine how Bruce might have reacted to Jerry & Sue asking him to put them in his trailer...)

DISCLAIMER:

This is conjecture based on everything I've seen so far; I do not have the benefit of any direct statements from Sue (or Bruce or anyone) regarding their actual motives. However, it seems to be an explanation that fits the structure of the situation and explains observeed behaviors better than anything else I can think of.

-dave w

I was THERE and in subsequent discussions with the parties, and that whole scenario is "the most plausible" explanation I have heard.

Jerry

I'm sorry, Is your name jerry? I was asking jerry not you..... Or maybe your are jerry?

Get a life. rmr is open. If I tell you to shut the f*ck up, will you?

Jerry, Please explain in detail what you mean be this statement.