TRA BoD on increasing TRA influence on the NAR - 90-12-02 minutes and statement

TRA BoD on increasing TRA influence on the NAR - 90-12-02 minutes and statement

Post by Ismaeel Abdur-Rashee » Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:41:22



(relevant sections of the scanned Tripolitan has been posted to
alt.binaries.model.rockets)

Minutes from the Tripoli Board of Directors Meeting (excerpted)
2 December 1990
Teleconference

BOARD EMBERS [SIC] PRESENT: BRUCE KELLY, DENNIS LAMOTHE, GARY
ROSENFIELD, KEN
VOSECEK, RICH ZARECKI, MARC LAVIGNE, CHUCK ROGERS, AND GARY PRICE

Also participating: CHUCK MUND, ART MARKOWITZ, AND JERRY KOLB

(excerpt)

C. NAR AHPR DECISION

Chuck Rogers opened the discussion on the NAR's decision, on October
28th in St. Louis, to move into AHPR.  Chuck Mund, who served on the
NAR's Barrowman Commission, gave a report on the contents of that
decision.  Chuck reported that the NAR has formed 2 "Tiger Teams" to do
the intitial work on the move to AHPR.  (1) The Education team, headed
by Greg Kennedy, to investigate the education aspects of AHPR.  (2) The
Rules, Regulations and Codes team, headed by G. Harry Stine will write
the NAR's AHPR safety code and revisions to the NFPA 1122 regulations.

Chuck Mund stated the NAR said it was moving into AHPR only for
educational purposes.  However NAR statements have led the Tripoli Board
to believe that they intend to encompass the full realm of
non-professional rocketry.  Statement's such as Pat Miller's "I believe
that the NAR board has indeed charted the course of sport rocketry for
the next generation" strongly support that belief.

The Board concluded that in essence, there is now an alternative
organization to Tripoli for those who engage in Advanced High Power
Rocketry.  IT IS THE INTENT OF THE BOARD TO MAKE TRIPOLI ROCKETRY
ASSOCIATION THE BEST ORGANIZATION TO BELONG TO FOR THOSE PEOPLE
PARTICIPATING IN AHPR.

NFPA 1122 REWRITE

Discussions over various documents including the initial Stine tiger
team outline were made.  Much debate insued over the content and the
NAR's intent of this document.  The Center of attention in that outline
was (Section II) NFPA 1122 Revisions for Model Rocketry.  (Item E)
"Revise exemption paragraph to eliminate "bogus" corporations using
exemptions to get around regulations and to place all non-employer
organizations under NFPA 1122"

Various Board members indicated that if this became a reality Tripoli
and other amateur rocket organizations such as the Rocket Research
Institute (RRI) could be essentially eliminated.  Also the meaning of
the term "bogus corporation" was asked.  Despite the lack of evidence to
the contrary, the Board did not want to conclude that the term referred
to Tripoli.  Overall the Board agreed that many items in this outline
were not in the best interest of the Tripoli Rocketry Association.

Discussion then shifted to what Tripoli could do to influence the
process for a more favorable conclusion.  Gary Rosenfield suggested that
since Chuck Mund and himself were members of Stine's tiger team, this
would be a good place to start.  Gary believes that the NAR is looking
at Tripoli for guidance in this area.  Gary Rosenfield said that he has
also volunteered to write the first draft of the NFPA 1122 rewrite for
the NAR tiger team and asked for input from the other Board members.
The use of our seat on the NFPA Committee on Pyrotechnics was an obvious
tool for influence that was also stated.  Other items discussedd were:

(1) To investigate increasing our representation on the NFPA
Pyrotechnics committee.

(2) Have the Motor Test and Listing committee propose our own version of
the NFPA 1122 rewrite.  Consensus was to see what Gary comes up with and
work from that as a starting point.

TRIPOLI REPRESENTATION IN THE NAR

The next point of discussion of NAR's AHPR decision concerned the
possibility of Tripoli having a representative on the NAR board.  Since
the NAR elections are only a few months away, now would be a good time
to do so.  Also since many members are dual members in the NAR, it was
felt that it was appropriate for Tripoli to have a political voice role
in the NAR.  Concerns over the NAR's possible reactions to this subject
were expressed.  Moose stated that the NAR might actually look at a
Tripoli member running for their board as a positive action on our part.
  Since the NAR is planning to play a very active role in AHPR, Tripoli
can bring a lot of experience in the running of high power rocketry to
the NAR.  Chuck Rogers moved to have a member of Tripoli run for the NAR
board.  Dennis Lamothe seconded the motion.

The motion passed unanimously, 8-0

Another aspect of NAR's AHPR decision was brought up by Rich Zarecki.
When the NAR starts flying AHPR, NAR membership will bring another
opportunity for all to fly high power.  With this and the election in
mind Chuck Rogers moved to encourage Tripoli members, who are not
already, to join the NAR.  Bruce Kelly seconded the motion.

The motion passed unanimously, 8-0

A NAR membership from will be included in the next Tripolitan mailing.

OFFICIAL STATEMENT (excerpted)

The Board realizes that the NAR has stronger ties to the regulatory
authorities and more seats than Tripoli on the NFPA Pyrotechnics
Committee.  This is counterbalanced by the fact that the development of
high power rocketry and the current high power rocketry activity is
encompassed by Tripoli wit it's over 1,000 members.  Many members of
Tripoli are also dual members of the NAR, and the Board feels that these
member's views are not being acknowledged by the NAR.  With the NAR
planning a strong, and perhaps *** role in high power rocketry, the
Board feels it is in the members best interest that they take action to
have their views heard within the NAR.  The Board encourages all members
of Tripoli who are not already members of the NAR to join the NAR and
vote for Tripoli candidates in the next NAR Board of Trustees election.
  The Board has directed the Editor of the Tripolitan to include a NAR
application in this issue to facilitate this.

( posted by iz )

 
 
 

TRA BoD on increasing TRA influence on the NAR - 90-12-02 minutes and statement

Post by Ismaeel Abdur-Rashee » Fri, 27 Feb 2004 20:02:12


Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed posted:

Quote:
> Minutes from the Tripoli Board of Directors Meeting (excerpted)
> 2 December 1990

excerpted, with comments in line

Quote:
> Chuck Rogers opened the discussion on the NAR's decision, on October
> 28th in St. Louis, to move into AHPR.  Chuck Mund, who served on the
> NAR's Barrowman Commission, gave a report on the contents of that
> decision.  Chuck reported that the NAR has formed 2 "Tiger Teams" to
> do the intitial work on the move to AHPR.  (1) The Education team,
> headed by Greg Kennedy, to investigate the education aspects of AHPR.
> (2) The Rules, Regulations and Codes team, headed by G. Harry Stine
> will write the NAR's AHPR safety code and revisions to the NFPA 1122
> regulations.

ok

Quote:
> Chuck Mund stated the NAR said it was moving into AHPR only for
> educational purposes.  However NAR statements have led the Tripoli Board
> to believe that they intend to encompass the full realm of
> non-professional rocketry.  Statement's such as Pat Miller's "I believe
> that the NAR board has indeed charted the course of sport rocketry for
> the next generation" strongly support that belief.

ok

Quote:
> The Board concluded that in essence, there is now an alternative
> organization to Tripoli for those who engage in Advanced High Power
> Rocketry.  IT IS THE INTENT OF THE BOARD TO MAKE TRIPOLI ROCKETRY
> ASSOCIATION THE BEST ORGANIZATION TO BELONG TO FOR THOSE PEOPLE
> PARTICIPATING IN AHPR.

I don't understand why the reaction to NAR's plans must be a competive
one.  Originally TRA was formed because there was no HPR advocate.  Now
that NAR came around, why not have just have two "partners"?

Quote:
> NFPA 1122 REWRITE

> Discussions over various documents including the initial Stine tiger
> team outline were made.  Much debate insued over the content and the
> NAR's intent of this document.  The Center of attention in that outline
> was (Section II) NFPA 1122 Revisions for Model Rocketry.  (Item E)
> "Revise exemption paragraph to eliminate "bogus" corporations using
> exemptions to get around regulations and to place all non-employer
> organizations under NFPA 1122"

> Various Board members indicated that if this became a reality Tripoli
> and other amateur rocket organizations such as the Rocket Research
> Institute (RRI) could be essentially eliminated.  

I don't follow this.  Were Tripoli's HPR and RRI's AER activities
conduced through exploitation of a loophole in 1122?  Otherwise how
would NAR's proposal be a threat?

Quote:
> Also the meaning of
> the term "bogus corporation" was asked.  Despite the lack of evidence to
> the contrary, the Board did not want to conclude that the term referred
> to Tripoli.  

so the TRA BoD did NOT believe that NAR was looking to "eliminate"
Tripoli's activities

Quote:
> Overall the Board agreed that many items in this outline
> were not in the best interest of the Tripoli Rocketry Association.

or did they?

Quote:
> Discussion then shifted to what Tripoli could do to influence the
> process for a more favorable conclusion.  

no point in taking any chances, eh?

Quote:
> Gary Rosenfield suggested that
> since Chuck Mund and himself were members of Stine's tiger team, this
> would be a good place to start.  

so Gary was volunteering himself and Mund (not a TRA BoD member, but a
'guest' offering information on the NAR's internal deliberations) to be
TRA moles within the NAR?

Quote:
> Gary believes that the NAR is looking
> at Tripoli for guidance in this area.  

I thought the TRA BoD believed the NAR was looking to "eliminate" them
by closing loopholes in 1122?  If the NAR has enough regard for TRA to
look to them for guidance, why would they seek to eliminate them?

Quote:
> Gary Rosenfield said that he has
> also volunteered to write the first draft of the NFPA 1122 rewrite for
> the NAR tiger team and asked for input from the other Board members.

nice of Gary to let the TRA BoD know that, after just having volunteered
to be their mole at the NAR.  Did he tell the NAR that he was was
intending to write a draft that represented TRA interests (whatever
those might be?)

Quote:
> The
> use of our seat on the NFPA Committee on Pyrotechnics was an obvious
> tool for influence that was also stated.  Other items discussed were:

> (1) To investigate increasing our representation on the NFPA
> Pyrotechnics committee.

fair enough, although TRA has since downplayed the extent of "influence"
they ultimately have on NFPA decisions

Quote:
> (2) Have the Motor Test and Listing committee propose our own version of
> the NFPA 1122 rewrite.  Consensus was to see what Gary comes up with and
> work from that as a starting point.

is it me, or is there something wrong with this picture?

Quote:
> TRIPOLI REPRESENTATION IN THE NAR

> The next point of discussion of NAR's AHPR decision concerned the
> possibility of Tripoli having a representative on the NAR board.  Since
> the NAR elections are only a few months away, now would be a good time
> to do so.  

huh?  I thought they viewed NAR's foray into AHPR as a threat to their
dominion; i.e., that the NAR was positioning itself as a rival
organization.  So isn't this like the General Motor BoD deciding to have
one of their consultants seek a BoD position at Chrysler?

Quote:
> Also since many members are dual members in the NAR, it was
> felt that it was appropriate for Tripoli to have a political voice role
> in the NAR.  

uh, I don't follow this.  To the extent that TRA members are actually
also NAR members, they (as NAR members) have the same "political voice
role" as any other NAR members.  How is it "appropriate" for TRA *as an
organization" to have a "political voice role" in a rival organization?

Quote:
> Concerns over the NAR's possible reactions to this subject
> were expressed.  

so the idea did set off an alarm in somebody's head

Quote:
> Moose stated that the NAR might actually look at a
> Tripoli member running for their board as a positive action on our part.

Moose is also not a TRA BoD member, but a 'guest'.  Again the perception
is held that NAR see's TRA as a useful organization.  So why does the
TRA BoD believe that NAR's closing loopholes in NFPA 1122 is engineered
to, or will inadvertantly, "eliminate" TRA activity?  (which is the
threat to which the TRA initiative to extend their influence to the NAR
leadership is responding)

Quote:
>  Since the NAR is planning to play a very active role in AHPR, Tripoli
> can bring a lot of experience in the running of high power rocketry to
> the NAR.

whether they like it or not?

on one hand, the TRA BoD believes the NAR see's them as an asset

"Gary believes that the NAR is looking at Tripoli for guidance in this
area."

and

"Moose stated that the NAR might actually look at a Tripoli member
running for their board as a positive action on our part."

at the same time, the TRA BoD believes the NAR is proposing to close
loopholes in NFPA 1122 that will eliminate them (TRA), and the threat is
so real that they (TRA) has to see what they "could do to influence the
process for a more favorable conclusion", by

1. having Gary R. (TRA BoD member) and Chuck Mund work on Stine's "tiger
team", which was formulating NAR's new HPR strategy

2. having Gary R. (TRA BoD member) write the revised NFPA 1122 draft
"for" that tiger team

and

3. having a TRA representative seek positions on the NAR BoD

Quote:
> Chuck Rogers moved to have a member of Tripoli run for the NAR
> board.  Dennis Lamothe seconded the motion.

> The motion passed unanimously, 8-0

> Another aspect of NAR's AHPR decision was brought up by Rich Zarecki.
> When the NAR starts flying AHPR, NAR membership will bring another
> opportunity for all to fly high power.  With this and the election in
> mind Chuck Rogers moved to encourage Tripoli members, who are not
> already, to join the NAR.  Bruce Kelly seconded the motion.

> The motion passed unanimously, 8-0

> A NAR membership from will be included in the next Tripolitan mailing.

4. have yet more TRA members join the NAR to support a "TRA" candidate
for the NAR BoD

but if Moose is correct in his speculation that the NAR "might actually
look at a Tripoli member running for their board as a positive action"
why would this infusion of supporters be necessary?  Why not simply have
  the NAR leadership publicly endorse the TRA candidate?

and if Moose is not correct, then the "concerns over the NAR's possible
reactions" could are not properly dismissed; yet they are not being
addressed, and there is no plan to do so.

Quote:
> OFFICIAL STATEMENT (excerpted)

> The Board realizes that the NAR has stronger ties to the regulatory
> authorities and more seats than Tripoli on the NFPA Pyrotechnics
> Committee.  This is counterbalanced by the fact that the development of
> high power rocketry and the current high power rocketry activity is
> encompassed by Tripoli wit it's over 1,000 members.  

so the NAR's efforts over time to establish that repore with the NFPA
(including the BATFE, SFM and insurance industry representatives) was
coveted by the TRA, whose greater number of HPR practitioners did not
enjoy the same level of repore; and NAR's move to embrace their own HPR
program is considered inadequate to represent the interests of TRA -
despite the fact that all HPR practioners regardless of affiliation
share common concerns.

Quote:
> Many members of
> Tripoli are also dual members of the NAR, and the Board feels that these
> member's views are not being acknowledged by the NAR.

an interesting choice of words.  The "Board" feels, not the "members"
feel.  Yet in any case, no argument to support that "feeling" was put
forth at this meeting; e.g., examples of TRA overtures to the NAR being
rebuffed.

Quote:
> With the NAR
> planning a strong, and perhaps *** role in high power rocketry, the
> Board feels it is in the members best interest that they take action to
> have their views heard within the NAR.  

so the BoD unilaterally determined, ...

read more »

 
 
 

TRA BoD on increasing TRA influence on the NAR - 90-12-02 minutes and statement

Post by Wallace » Fri, 27 Feb 2004 22:23:45


Quote:

> Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed posted:

>SNIPPED history
> Nota Bene:

> Chuck Rogers, still on the TRA BoD
> Bruce Kelly, still HQ Manager, Prefect Liasion and NFPA seat

> - iz

So, what's your point?? What should be done? How about a court appointed
commission? You can be the chair, maybe you can include members from the
list of folks you referenced a few posts back, beings you have such
regard for their opinion...

Fred

 
 
 

TRA BoD on increasing TRA influence on the NAR - 90-12-02 minutes and statement

Post by Ismaeel Abdur-Rashee » Fri, 27 Feb 2004 23:36:22


Quote:

>>SNIPPED history
>>Nota Bene:

>>Chuck Rogers, still on the TRA BoD
>>Bruce Kelly, still HQ Manager, Prefect Liasion and NFPA seat
> So, what's your point??

that I am in fact recieving BoD minutes from helpful members and alumni,
in contrast to your suggestion to the contrary

apart from that, while this illustrates the TRA BoD's pursuit of a
self-serving agenda at the expense of others (in this case, the NAR),
this is just a small piece in a very large mosaic

other pieces of which are quite striking indeed!  :(

- iz

 
 
 

TRA BoD on increasing TRA influence on the NAR - 90-12-02 minutes and statement

Post by Phil Stei » Fri, 27 Feb 2004 23:43:48


I'd like to see Kelly disappear & Rogers was just reelected.  As far
as the rest goes, so what?  Do you think their actions were unethical
or unusual?  That happens all the time.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:02:12 GMT, Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

Quote:

>to summarize:

>1. NAR initiates HPR program development
>2. TRA decides it must take actions to
>    a. maintain it's own *** in the HPR "market"
>    b. exert greater influence on the NAR due to that organizations
>greater repore with regulators
>3. to that end, TRA decides
>    a. Gary Rosenfield (a TRA BoD member) and Mund will be TRA moles
>within the NAR "tiger team", the team charged with developing NAR's HPR
>program
>    b. Gary Rosenfield (a TRA BoD member) will write a draft NFPA 1122
>with a view to preserving TRA interests; e.g. not be "eliminated"
>through the closure of some regulatory loophole
>    c. have a TRA representative seek a NAR BoD position
>    d. encourage TRA members to join NAR for the explicit purpose of
>supporting the TRA candidate for the NAR BoD

>this, despite

>1. clear evidence of a commitment on the NAR's part to embrace HPR by
>developing its own programs for education and regulation
>2. the TRA BoD's belief that
>    a. the NAR had sufficient regard for TRA to look to them (TRA) for
>"guidance" in the NFPA code development
>    b. the NAR "might actually look at a Tripoli member running for
>their board as a positive action"

>it sounds to me like the TRA BoD felt threatened by what it percieved as
>the imminent rivalry of the NAR, coveted the NAR's repore with the NFPA,
>was intent on unilateral actions engineered to achieve influence at the
>NAR so as to influence regulatory policy in favor of TRA interests, and
>interpreted NAR statements with great flexibility to either support
>their assessment of NAR as a threat to TRA member interests, while at
>the same time supporting their assessment that NAR respected TRA, looked
>to it for guidance, and would welcome a TRA candidate to its (NAR) board

>Nota Bene:

>Chuck Rogers, still on the TRA BoD
>Bruce Kelly, still HQ Manager, Prefect Liasion and NFPA seat

>- iz

 
 
 

TRA BoD on increasing TRA influence on the NAR - 90-12-02 minutes and statement

Post by Dave Grayvi » Sat, 28 Feb 2004 00:56:53


Quote:



>>>Various Board members indicated that if this became a reality Tripoli
>>>and other amateur rocket organizations such as the Rocket Research
>>>Institute (RRI) could be essentially eliminated.  

>>I don't follow this.  Were Tripoli's HPR and RRI's AER activities
>>conduced through exploitation of a loophole in 1122?  Otherwise how
>>would NAR's proposal be a threat?

> There was an educational or industrial use exempyion in place where a
> "team" incorporated or not could perform a series of "tests" and be
> exempt from NFPA. Killing that was a body blow to freeform HPR.

>>>Also the meaning of
>>>the term "bogus corporation" was asked.  Despite the lack of evidence to
>>>the contrary, the Board did not want to conclude that the term referred
>>>to Tripoli.  

>>so the TRA BoD did NOT believe that NAR was looking to "eliminate"
>>Tripoli's activities

> That was the precise exemption TRA hung it's one and only hat on.

>>>Overall the Board agreed that many items in this outline
>>>were not in the best interest of the Tripoli Rocketry Association.

>>I thought the TRA BoD believed the NAR was looking to "eliminate" them
>>by closing loopholes in 1122?  If the NAR has enough regard for TRA to
>>look to them for guidance, why would they seek to eliminate them?

>>>Gary Rosenfield said that he has
>>>also volunteered to write the first draft of the NFPA 1122 rewrite for
>>>the NAR tiger team and asked for input from the other Board members.

> Gary Rosenfield = manufacturer
> TRA BOD
> NAR "tiger team"

> Conflict  of interest supreme because this is where the provisions came
> from favorable to AT and disfavorable to other motor vendors.

>>nice of Gary to let the TRA BoD know that, after just having volunteered
>>to be their mole at the NAR.  Did he tell the NAR that he was was
>>intending to write a draft that represented TRA interests (whatever
>>those might be?)

> AeroTech interests.

>>fair enough, although TRA has since downplayed the extent of "influence"
>>they ultimately have on NFPA decisions

> Added AT
> Added ISP
> Added HPRMADA
> Added TRA

> 4 votes to NAR's ONE.

>>>(2) Have the Motor Test and Listing committee propose our own version of
>>>the NFPA 1122 rewrite.  Consensus was to see what Gary comes up with and
>>>work from that as a starting point.

>>is it me, or is there something wrong with this picture?

> It MUST be you. There xould not possibly be a conflict of interest there
> :)

>>>Also since many members are dual members in the NAR,

> This is as a result of my marketing with CRm magazine and USR product
> line and Composite Distribution motor line agressively seeking TRA
> members from my existing NAR centric list.

> A worldwide list with thousands of names in the south, midwest, east,
> west, northwest, central (thousands each).

>>Moose is also not a TRA BoD member, but a 'guest'.  Again the perception
>>is held that NAR see's TRA as a useful organization.  So why does the
>>TRA BoD believe that NAR's closing loopholes in NFPA 1122 is engineered
>>to, or will inadvertantly, "eliminate" TRA activity?

> Paranoia

> TRA's reliance on the exemtion language they themselves later killed!

> Replaced by "listed AHJ" status!

> Killed all independent amateur clubs from that moment forward making HPR
> an exclusively NAR/TRA thing.

>> (which is the
>>threat to which the TRA initiative to extend their influence to the NAR
>>leadership is responding)

>>"Gary believes that the NAR is looking at Tripoli for guidance in this
>>area."

>>and

>>"Moose stated that the NAR might actually look at a Tripoli member
>>running for their board as a positive action on our part."

> Proof the avove paranoia is Item #1.

>>at the same time, the TRA BoD believes the NAR is proposing to close
>>loopholes in NFPA 1122 that will eliminate them (TRA), and the threat is
>>so real that they (TRA) has to see what they "could do to influence the
>>process for a more favorable conclusion", by

>>>OFFICIAL STATEMENT (excerpted)

>>>The Board realizes that the NAR has stronger ties to the regulatory
>>>authorities and more seats than Tripoli on the NFPA Pyrotechnics
>>>Committee.  This is counterbalanced by the fact that the development of
>>>high power rocketry and the current high power rocketry activity is
>>>encompassed by Tripoli wit it's over 1,000 members.  

> Note they totally disregard who really promulgated HPR (MRT then not
> AHPR) to NAR and TRA. Jerry Irvine through CRm magazine and USR product
> releases and COMPANY safety codes and group launches!

All without the required FAA waivers!
 
 
 

TRA BoD on increasing TRA influence on the NAR - 90-12-02 minutes and statement

Post by David Weinshenke » Sat, 28 Feb 2004 01:10:18


Quote:

> without the required FAA waivers!

Prove it, or let it drop and reinstate Jerry.
I mean, people talk about "let bygones be bygones;
don't insist on satisfaction for something that
happened 10 years ago"... IMHO, act 1 along these
lines is for TRA to stop demanding an "apology"
for something that [happened|didn't happen]...

When TRA demonstrates a willingness to "let
it drop and move on", we might see some sanity.

-dave w

 
 
 

TRA BoD on increasing TRA influence on the NAR - 90-12-02 minutes and statement

Post by Jerry Irvin » Sat, 28 Feb 2004 01:14:10




Quote:

> > without the required FAA waivers!

> Prove it, or let it drop and reinstate Jerry.
> I mean, people talk about "let bygones be bygones;
> don't insist on satisfaction for something that
> happened 10 years ago"...

Plus I "served my sentence in full". At what point is the punisnment
issued and COMPLETED sufficient?

Would you put your kid in time-out for life because he did something bad?

Even if you later found out you were mistaken and did not want to
"change your mind" and reduce your authority?

Quote:
> IMHO, act 1 along these
> lines is for TRA to stop demanding an "apology"
> for something that [happened|didn't happen]...

> When TRA demonstrates a willingness to "let
> it drop and move on", we might see some sanity.

> -dave w

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA

Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Produce then publish.  http://www.usrockets.com
My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv
 
 
 

TRA BoD on increasing TRA influence on the NAR - 90-12-02 minutes and statement

Post by Dave Grayvi » Sat, 28 Feb 2004 01:17:31


Quote:




>>>without the required FAA waivers!

>>Prove it, or let it drop and reinstate Jerry.
>>I mean, people talk about "let bygones be bygones;
>>don't insist on satisfaction for something that
>>happened 10 years ago"...

> Plus I "served my sentence in full". At what point is the punisnment
> issued and COMPLETED sufficient?

> Would you put your kid in time-out for life because he did something bad?

> Even if you later found out you were mistaken and did not want to
> "change your mind" and reduce your authority?

All you have to do is apologize for your crimes.
 
 
 

TRA BoD on increasing TRA influence on the NAR - 90-12-02 minutes and statement

Post by David Weinshenke » Sat, 28 Feb 2004 01:26:16


Quote:

> Even if you later found out you were mistaken and did not want to
> "change your mind" and reduce your authority?

One suspects that when they gave Chuck that security clearance you say he got,
they must have commented out the code for "changing one's mind and admitting
old mistakes", put in a routine for "sticking to the cover story no matter
how absurd it has become", and recompiled his brain.

-dave w