> O.K. John,
> Was not pointed towards you, but O.K.
We'll keep it civil, Chris -- promise.
> The point is that there is some obvious error's in your data...How
> much.....I do not know, but some.
On the 'untested motor' issue?
There are no 'errors' in *this* data, Chris - none. I was *chairman* of
that committee. That 'list' I posted was a CLEAR enumeration of what
was NOT approved by Tripoli when I 'left office'. As to what has
transpired in the succeeding three years, it's anyone's guess (but just
as I stated, there is a *simple* way of finding out). But Blazanin did
NOTHING for two years. NOTHING. That now leaves only one year for Sisk
to burn as many motors as WE did in '93-'94 (and this doesn't count the
hybrids). Call me a fanatic, but I'm afraid Mr. Sisk didn't come
anywhere NEAR burning 150 motors -- and that is what it would take for
the current TMT 'list' to *legitimately* mesh with reality.
> How about the flare issue.....any comment...does the BATF regulate
I have absolutely no idea, Chris.
> I do know this, there are two ways to read the current regs, and my
> hunch is there is now a lunatic with your same distorted read that
> you will rabidly backup and defend....Thank you for
> your contribution...
And I'm to be blamed for some 'lunatics' interpretation? Chris, I've
seen larger quantities of AP propellants burn -- and, particularly, I've
seen how rapidly the situation can grow to frightening intensity. It is
because of this that I know how 'frightening' the rationalizations are
that are being offered forth out here (not necessarily - nor even in any
way - from you). It's just like Cochran and his view on gasoline in a
It isn't "safety" or "lack of hazard" that keeps American suburbia from
turning into a conflagration -- it's blind luck and several hundred
> Model planes kill at least one person per year and I am sure there are
> plenty federal laws that the FAA can cram down their throats.....or
> not?!?!? Oh, thats right, we are killing at least that many in our
> 'dangerous' hobby where irresponsibility runs rampant.
No -- again, it's "blind luck" and "several hundred Guardian Angels".
> Well, you scared me...I just know there is some government agent
> with a chip on his shoulder like yours, and probably just as
> fanatical. You are scary lately John.
I will not be so 'detached' from reality as to think that some 'fed'
agent (or ALL fed agents) are so completely lacking in intelligence that
they must 'scim' ideas from some little newsgroup. The scary thing,
Chris, in MY mind is this undaunted and unfathomable ability within this
hobby to (almost literally) *rationalize* daylight into dark.
If you want to be 'fearful' of anything, Chris -- be fearful of THAT.
Be VERY afraid.
Chris -- I must confess that I have a hard time understanding how it is
that there is 'evil' intent in anyone who may see things differently (or
more clearly -- or may have a perspective on things that DID come from
some first hand experience) ---- and it is THIS person who is looked at
with disdain for not desiring such questionable and 'unright' acts to
continue -- rather than the ones whose acts give rise to the claims of
impropriety. Where is THEIR responsibility to the hobby? Where is
YOURS? -- to (apparently) tolerate THEIR acts, but all of a sudden
reverse yourself and show INtolerance of someone who may 'call their
hand'. Am I to be considered "more responsible" just because I am able
to 'look the other way' and 'keep my mouth shut'?? Do you applaud the
anonymous individual who ignores the cries of a woman being attacked on
the street corner or the individual who tries to lend her aid?
If you 'fear' for this hobby -- if you are concerned for its future and
see a danger of governmental regulation *** the life out of it --
then 'fear' those who (FIRST) commit the acts to jeopardize its future.
To do otherwise is simply sitting by contently while a 'house of cards'
goes up. Fear the fallout enough to not *tolerate* anything but the BEST
they can give.
Because, if it has degenerated to the point that you are 'afraid' of
somebody 'spilling the beans' -- then it has degenerated BEYOND the
point of saving. Or beyond of point of DESERVING salvation.
> P.S. sorry for the 'Hugh' error..:-)
Well, to be completely honest, I *knew* something wasn't quite right
there but couldn't put my finger on it, even until after my reponse went
... and THEN I saw it.
'Huge' mistake. Huh?
"Once you give up your ignorance, you can't ever get it back."