[as a 'common courtesy', I am emailing a 'record copy' of the enclosed
to the addressee]
> If you're about to blind side someone in a public post, I think a
> private "heads up" via E-mail is both appropriate, and common
That's an interesting revelation. Zarecki made the same observation to
me out in the 'alcove' in the ba***t of the Ramada Inn in Wichita back
at LDRS 13 about five minutes after Mr. Blazanin was announced as my
replacement at TMT. (you remember when I got up and left the 'forum'
shortly after that 'name' became public knowledge (and the air pressure
dropped about 2 psi))
Rich: "Did they let you know that was coming?"
John: "No. But I'm not surprised."
Rich: "That's not >right<! They should have at least let you know."
(which was pretty 'decent' of Rich -- considering just three or four
hours previous, I was getting reports (from a FINE Christian friend)
that Rich was walking up and down the range 'talking dirt' about the
(then current) TMT chair (i.e. 'me')).
...then, 10 minutes after that (back at the 'meeting' now), Pius
commented to me about how I must have known about this -- to which I
declined prior knowledge. He replied: "You would have never known it to
look at you -- you didn't even bat an eyelash."
Now, why do you think I wasn't surprised by you and your 'buddie's'
[no need to answer -- we both know that is rhetorical -- but it IS
encouraging that things like 'common courtesy' are concepts in your
'repertoire'... now. I'll let you know when I start *believing* them of
You know, Chuck, 'testy' situations and circumstances are REALLY good -
in truth -- because folks can no longer *hide* behind platitudes,
double-speak, and lies -- you SEE and LEARN who is who. The 'wheat' and
'chaff' get separated pretty good. There is NOTHING but "positive" in
> The problem here John is at one time you were forwarding every
> anti-Tripoli post you were making to Bruce Kelly's E-mail account.
> Most were sent back to you unread.
Actually, it wasn't that many -- and on issues that I felt Bruce should
be aware -- which, as you note above, was just "common courtesy". I
stopped doing it when it dawned on me that Kelly didn't *deserve* such
'courtesies'. (slapping forehead) Silly me.
> I heard that really drove you nuts.
From who? Sonny? The RMR crowd out here already knows how much faith
to put in such 'hearings' -- and, of ALL things, I'm somewhat surprised
that you would 'lower yourself' to believing in hearsay.
If Bruce chooses to (continue to) bury his head in the sand about the
direction he (an you) are taking your little 'klan' (which is your
perogative) and/or the hobby at large (which is NOT your perogative),
that only makes my case.
> Why was that John?
Tell you what -- we'll get into the 'why' in THIS situation (if you want
to) here -- AFTER you answer my "why" question (remember -- posted back
in May '94 IIRC -- AIDRC (and I DO recall correctly) that you never
answered that 'why' question, Chuck).
[clarification for RMR readers (and forgetful TRA 'prezidints'), this is
the 'subject question'...]
CIS post -- Sport Rocketry forum -- Msg #223475 -- 5/29/94 -- 3:33pm
Subject: ? to TRA President
To the President of Tripoli,
I want to ask you just one simple question.
Very simple - very short - only 3 letters.
I am not anxious for a reply. I will give you time to
think about it - all the way to LDRS XIII,
where I will ask it again.
But first, a little background...
Robert's Rules of Order makes the statement about raising
'points of order' thusly:
"This is called raising a question, or point of order,
because the member in effect puts to the chair (that's you),
WHOSE DUTY IT IS TO ENFORCE ORDER, the question as to
whether there is not now a breach of order."
In July 1990, you had an *unbelievable amount* of power
fall right in your lap but, as President...
you never said a word.
In January 1994, I asked you a question about the member's
knowledge of our bylaws. You decided to print them but
nothing else and, except for that, again as President...
you never said a word.
Now, Chuck -- here we are in 1997 -- the 'storm' has passed, you're
still around and I'm now 'wandering the wilderness' <g> -- but, you know
something, you STILL haven't answered that one, simple question.
Why is that?
[since I got my question in about 3 years ahead of you, I got 'dibs'
> Please spare me the E-mail barrage.
Don't worry - I don't even know how to do it -- and I fear that your
'concerns' about being 'bombed' are simply an overly-inflated assessment
of your own importance.
> Just my opinion John, but I think the quality of discussion in a
> newsgroup, or in any forum is really up to the members of that forum.
... as is the *quality* of organizations they may belong to.
I mean, what's good for the 'goose' is good for the 'gander'.
Aren't you the 'lucky one' that folks' 'goals' are so low and that
mediocrity can be so (apparently) satisfying.
> ...many dealing with issues from 2-3 years ago,
Help me out here with the 'logic', Chuck? The 'deal' is that all you
gotta do is 'duck it' for a year or two and then you can just counter
with, "this is all from 2 or 3 years ago - what does it have to do with
Is that the jist of it?
Admittedly, based on your past history and 'twerpoli's' past history, I
can understand how you came to that conclusion - but, from the middle of
the Black Rock playa, the world looks flat.
Whether you are aware of it or not - there is a 'score card' that is
being kept. Be wary of those things and loyalties that are as
"ephemeral as the winds."
Just a little bit of wisdom.
Remember what is going on in France right now?
> Actually it can take a while to slog through a lot of the threads.
> Just be upfront about what a thread is about and people can decide
> whether to start reading it or not.
I *like* this 'new you', Chuck. Such terms as 'common courtesy',
'upfront' (and the implied: "straightforward", "honest", "professional",
<and dare we go so far as to say:> "ethical"????)
The 'pollution index' must be WAY down there in the 'valley', huh?
> >> Oh, one last thing. I have been E-mail bombed in the past,
> >> so anyone sending E-mail to my address above be forewarned that
> >> depending if or when the attacks start again
> >Don't you just HATE it when that happens?!?!??
> John, are you condoning E-mail bombing?
Chuck, I've already told you - "I don't know HOW to 'bomb' folks with
email. I have had NO offers to 'sub-contract' that 'service' out,
I've actually got in mind SEVERAL activities that are 'more
> Do you think it's an appropriate activity?
> Pretty funny how certain people have complained about lack
> of E-mail access to the Tripoli Board of Directors when the
> entire Board, a couple Committee Chairman, and even headquarters
> have been E-mail bombed.
If you think THAT is 'pretty funny', I've got a GOOD one for you -- just
resign your 'bored' seat, get Brucie to appoint you chair of TMT (you
won't have to wait long before the 'position' will be open - it's an
annual rite <g>) and then just start READING the 'jibberish' they pawn
off as 'minutes' in 'Reportskaya Tripoliya' and then compare a few
things. Oh, to make SURE this is as 'funny' as possible -- then SAY
SOMETHING about what you find out.
I tell you -- this hobby isn't 'funny' -- it's a damn ZOO!!!
> Chuck Rogers
Nice <?> to have you drop by for a chat, Chuck.
"But, as you can see, the stronger you are, the dumber
you can be and still get down here alright."
-- Martin Litton -- 78 year-old
Colorado/Grand Canyon boatman
... while discussing the difference between the 'smarts'
needed by Mary, a young female boat'person' in his group
as compared to some of the 'guys' who can just 'muscle'
their way out of the mistakes they may make while
running the rapids in the Grand Canyon.
So... how 'smart' are you, 'twerpoli'? How 'strong'?
Because, it looks to me that you are neither.