Re: on TRA disclosure

RayDunakin wrote:

> So as long as someone flys rockets, it doesn't matter how much of a detriment
> they are to the organization??
>
> I don't know any of the details about why this person was removed from TRA, but
> judging from his vile behavior online and in emails, I can easily believe that
> his removal was deserved.

have TRA HQ contact all members who have been expelled or whose renewals
have been refused, [re]stating the confidentiality policy regarding
their membership records

every individual will then have the opportunity, consistent with the
current policy, to request of TRA in writing that the pertinent
materials released to them

each person who so chooses can then report here on TRA's stated reason,
deliberation, and conclusions, and their arguments in response. Then
group can then see if any objective conclusions can be drawn from the
TRA's exclusionary practices

how much money you want to bet that TRA will not only refuse to
cooperate, but will deliberately obstruct any such disclosure EVEN TO
THE INDIVIDUALS THEMSELVES! ?

- iz

First, I'll say that I wasn't around when all this happened & neither
were you.

We know Jerry's story from both sides. What else do you have?

THe TRA Handbook has the address of all the members in it. Why don't
you mail all the members a questionaire?

Phil



On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 05:04:29 GMT, Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>RayDunakin wrote:
>
>> So as long as someone flys rockets, it doesn't matter how much of a detriment
>> they are to the organization??
>>
>> I don't know any of the details about why this person was removed from TRA, but
>> judging from his vile behavior online and in emails, I can easily believe that
>> his removal was deserved.
>
>have TRA HQ contact all members who have been expelled or whose renewals
>have been refused, [re]stating the confidentiality policy regarding
>their membership records
>
>every individual will then have the opportunity, consistent with the
>current policy, to request of TRA in writing that the pertinent
>materials released to them
>
>each person who so chooses can then report here on TRA's stated reason,
>deliberation, and conclusions, and their arguments in response. Then
>group can then see if any objective conclusions can be drawn from the
>TRA's exclusionary practices
>
>how much money you want to bet that TRA will not only refuse to
>cooperate, but will deliberately obstruct any such disclosure EVEN TO
>THE INDIVIDUALS THEMSELVES! ?
>
>- iz
>

How much do you want to bet that even if HQ were able to count the
number of issues of HPR there are in a year, they wouldn't have kept a
'black list'?

Phil

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 05:04:29 GMT, Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>have TRA HQ contact all members who have been expelled or whose renewals
>have been refused, [re]stating the confidentiality policy regarding
>their membership records
>
>every individual will then have the opportunity, consistent with the
>current policy, to request of TRA in writing that the pertinent
>materials released to them
>
>each person who so chooses can then report here on TRA's stated reason,
>deliberation, and conclusions, and their arguments in response. Then
>group can then see if any objective conclusions can be drawn from the
>TRA's exclusionary practices
>
>how much money you want to bet that TRA will not only refuse to
>cooperate, but will deliberately obstruct any such disclosure EVEN TO
>THE INDIVIDUALS THEMSELVES! ?
>
>- iz
>

In article <xl_Ub.183204$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> RayDunakin wrote:
>
> > So as long as someone flys rockets, it doesn't matter how much of a
> > detriment
> > they are to the organization??
> >
> > I don't know any of the details about why this person was removed from TRA,
> > but
> > judging from his vile behavior online and in emails, I can easily believe
> > that
> > his removal was deserved.
>
> have TRA HQ contact all members who have been expelled or whose renewals
> have been refused, [re]stating the confidentiality policy regarding
> their membership records
>
> every individual will then have the opportunity, consistent with the
> current policy, to request of TRA in writing that the pertinent
> materials released to them
>
> each person who so chooses can then report here on TRA's stated reason,
> deliberation, and conclusions, and their arguments in response. Then
> group can then see if any objective conclusions can be drawn from the
> TRA's exclusionary practices
>
> how much money you want to bet that TRA will not only refuse to
> cooperate, but will deliberately obstruct any such disclosure EVEN TO
> THE INDIVIDUALS THEMSELVES! ?
>
> - iz
>
>

I bet a trillion quatloos and $100 earth dollars from 2004.

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:(E-Mail Removed)>
Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com
My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv

Phil Stein wrote:

> First, I'll say that I wasn't around when all this happened & neither
> were you.
>
> We know Jerry's story from both sides. What else do you have?
>
> THe TRA Handbook has the address of all the members in it. Why don't
> you mail all the members a questionaire?

you don't have the actual minutes (which reflect what would is on audio
tape) regarding Jerry's reinstatement hearing with the TRA BoD, so you
have hardly heard "both sides"

all you have is what they want you to know

re: the handbook, the point is to contact expelled or refused members,
and they wouldn't be in the handbook

BTW, did you not see Bob Kaplow's posts about his renewal refusal?

- iz

I said I wasn't around but, I have heard the story from both sides.
I've also heard it from disinterested people that were there. As I
said, neither of us were there. So, I don't think you or I are
qualified to make judjement. I would like to see Jerry back in but,
unless Jerry does what the BoD wants it's not gonna happen. You know
I've asked about his on the TRA list & you know the answer as well as
Jerry & I do.

I've been hearing Bob's rants about it for years. What's you point?
I've never seen him say that he has tried to get back in. I think
that unless he did somethng very offensive or unsafe, he could get
back in unless he kept badmouthing the organization. There is a rule
in the bylaws that would allow you to be expelled for running down
the organization as I feel you are doing here. Obviously they (BoD)
is more tollerant than in the 'old days'.

I also know that there was only one suspension since 1999 & it was
over a sefety issue that cause property damage. THe person is no
longer suspended & is a member.

Maybe you could borrow Bob John or Jerry's handbook.

Phil

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 18:49:31 GMT, Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Phil Stein wrote:
>
>> First, I'll say that I wasn't around when all this happened & neither
>> were you.
>>
>> We know Jerry's story from both sides. What else do you have?
>>
>> THe TRA Handbook has the address of all the members in it. Why don't
>> you mail all the members a questionaire?
>
>you don't have the actual minutes (which reflect what would is on audio
>tape) regarding Jerry's reinstatement hearing with the TRA BoD, so you
>have hardly heard "both sides"
>
>all you have is what they want you to know
>
>re: the handbook, the point is to contact expelled or refused members,
>and they wouldn't be in the handbook
>
>BTW, did you not see Bob Kaplow's posts about his renewal refusal?
>
>- iz

Phil Stein wrote:
>
> I said I wasn't around but, I have heard the story from both sides.
> I've also heard it from disinterested people that were there. As I
> said, neither of us were there. So, I don't think you or I are
> qualified to make judjement. I would like to see Jerry back in but,
> unless Jerry does what the BoD wants it's not gonna happen.

Last I heard "what the BOD wanted" was for Jerry
to "apologize" for something that never happened.

-dave w

They asked for an apology for something that he says he never did. I
thought that since it was like 10 years ago they should forget it but
that's not happening. I also suggested to Jerry that weather he did
it or not why couldn't he just say he's sorry & he won't do it again.
Jerry says he to honest to do that so here we are.

Seems to me that if Jerry were to apologize for something he didn't
do, it's not really an apology since, it never happened in the first
place. Maybe Iz could CITE precedence on this.

Phil



On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 11:50:58 -0800, David Weinshenker
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Phil Stein wrote:
>>
>> I said I wasn't around but, I have heard the story from both sides.
>> I've also heard it from disinterested people that were there. As I
>> said, neither of us were there. So, I don't think you or I are
>> qualified to make judjement. I would like to see Jerry back in but,
>> unless Jerry does what the BoD wants it's not gonna happen.
>
>Last I heard "what the BOD wanted" was for Jerry
>to "apologize" for something that never happened.
>
>-dave w

Phil Stein wrote:

> There is a rule
> in the bylaws that would allow you to be expelled for running down
> the organization as I feel you are doing here. Obviously they (BoD)
> is more tollerant than in the 'old days'.

I think this is a just a practice of "keep your friends close, but keep
your [percieved] enemies closer'

- iz

Phil Stein wrote:
> They asked for an apology for something that he says he never did. I
> thought that since it was like 10 years ago they should forget it but
> that's not happening.

Hmmm... TRA seems to have this occasional odd tendency to back itself
into strangely awkward positions which it then clings to with eerie
tenacity. (It seems that after a while they almost start believing
their own cover stories, like spies gone senile).

> I also suggested to Jerry that weather he did
> it or not why couldn't he just say he's sorry & he won't do it again.
> Jerry says he to honest to do that so here we are.
>
> Seems to me that if Jerry were to apologize for something he didn't
> do, it's not really an apology since, it never happened in the first
> place.

I see your point - why not just "make up" (sort of like the conventional
advice to married men: "apologize anyway") - but I think I see at least
one reason why he could have a problem with it, though... if he "apologized"
for something that never happened, people might start believing it did
happen anyway.

-dave w