Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as "model aircraft parts"?
Dave Grayvis
LeRoycom
.
RayDunakin
so he has to hide what he's shipping.
The real question is why does Jerry keep making a lightning rod of himself? He
KNEW he was shipping illegally, so the smart move would be to keep his mouth
shut and his business under the table. Does he do this? No! Instead, he loudly
and repeatedly insists that he's perfectly legal, that he's been screwed by
TRA/NAR, and that everyone who catches him in a lie is a traitor/liar/etc.
Figuratively speaking, Jerry's standing on a mountaintop during a thunderstorm
holding a ten foot steel launch rod, and bitching 'cause he keeps getting
fried.
Paxton
Pax
Word of Reason
Could it be greed and a lack of ethics?
Scott Schuckert
<raydu...@aol.com> wrote:
> The real question is why does Jerry keep making a lightning rod of himself? He
> KNEW he was shipping illegally, so the smart move would be to keep his mouth
> shut and his business under the table. Does he do this? No! Instead, he loudly
> and repeatedly insists that he's perfectly legal, that he's been screwed by
> TRA/NAR, and that everyone who catches him in a lie is a traitor/liar/etc.
Hmmm... Don't neglect the possibility that he's right. To parapharase
something James Mason said in "Heaven Can Wait", the probability
someone is right increases the more people try to convince him he's
wrong.
It may well be that shipping his motors is perfectly legal by the word
of law, which is what Jerry seems to maintain - but that doesn't mean
he can't be prosecuted; the word of law meaning little these days.
(Heck, 90% of what the IRS does isn't supported by law)
Sometimes you just have to rub blue mud in your navel if that's the
local custom - and calling them "model airplane parts" could be
considered such an accomodation. There's even a shred of truth in it,
at least as much as there is in 5 year-olds being accused of "making
terroristic threats".
WallaceF
ring to us previous believers/suckers..
Fred
RayDunakin
law, which is what Jerry seems to maintain >>
If he really believed that, he wouldn't have disguised the contents by labeling
it "model aircraft parts".
<< Sometimes you just have to rub blue mud in your navel if that's the local
custom - and calling them "model airplane parts" could be considered such an
accomodation. >>
That's not a "local custom" or accomodation to the law. It's just cheating to
get around a law.
Jerry Irvine
raydu...@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:
> << It may well be that shipping his motors is perfectly legal by the word of
> law, which is what Jerry seems to maintain >>
>
> If he really believed that, he wouldn't have disguised the contents by
> labeling
> it "model aircraft parts".
Disclusure is not disguise.
If you claim I thought I shipped explsives as nothing, you miss the
point.
If you admit I have papers that say they are NOT explosives, you get the
point.
Of course the DOT monologue and menu of lies in administrative orders is
going to take the most aberrant position possible. They are a
bureaucracy!
Look at the ATF!
But then you miss the point so often it is either intentional or you
cannot comprehend basic logic and english. Or both.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01ro...@gte.net>
Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com
My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv
Dave Grayvis
> In article <20040527151918...@mb-m10.aol.com>,
> raydu...@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:
>
>
>><< It may well be that shipping his motors is perfectly legal by the word of
>>law, which is what Jerry seems to maintain >>
>>
>>If he really believed that, he wouldn't have disguised the contents by
>>labeling
>>it "model aircraft parts".
>
>
> Disclusure is not disguise.
>
> If you claim I thought I shipped explsives as nothing, you miss the
> point.
>
> If you admit I have papers that say they are NOT explosives, you get the
> point.
> Jerry
>
You lied, plain and simple. How is labeling class B materials, as
"model aircraft parts", disclosure? How is that not fraudulent on ANY
level?
No, you do not have ANY paperwork authorizing you to ship class B materials.
The point is, you, jerry irvine are a liar, so do everybody a favor and
sit down and shut up.
David Weinshenker
> No, you do not have ANY paperwork authorizing you to ship class B materials.
The point is that requiring propellant, in the forms and formulas encountered
in sport rocketry products, to be shipped and stored as "Explosives, Class 1"
(or "class B materials" by the old designations) is excessive and overly restrictive.
Such a designation overstates the actual hazards associated with handling the
material in practice, and creates unnecessary hassles in its commerce, transport,
and use.
-dave w
Dave Grayvis
Wipe your chin.
Actually, the point is, "Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as
"model aircraft parts"?". That's the point. Got it now?
Jerry Irvine
Dave Grayvis <davegr...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Jerry Irvine wrote:
>
> > In article <20040527151918...@mb-m10.aol.com>,
> > raydu...@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:
> >
> >
> >><< It may well be that shipping his motors is perfectly legal by the word of
> >>law, which is what Jerry seems to maintain >>
> >>
> >>If he really believed that, he wouldn't have disguised the contents by
> >>labeling
> >>it "model aircraft parts".
> >
> >
> > Disclusure is not disguise.
> >
> > If you claim I thought I shipped explsives as nothing, you miss the
> > point.
> >
> > If you admit I have papers that say they are NOT explosives, you get the
> > point.
>
> > Jerry
> >
>
>
> You lied, plain and simple. How is labeling class B materials,
NOT Class B materials. That much we DO know to an utter certainty!!
Therefore your question assumes facts proven opposite. Not merely not in
evidence.
Here:
www.v-serv.com/usr/images/ACS.BOEreport.jpg
Hey dude. It says what it says!
That has to stick in your craw really, really bad!
> as
> "model aircraft parts", disclosure? How is that not fraudulent on ANY
> level?
>
> No, you do not have ANY paperwork authorizing you to ship class B materials.
>
> The point is, you, jerry irvine are a liar, so do everybody a favor and
> sit down and shut up.
>
--
Dave Grayvis
A lot of hot air, but still no answer to the question.
David Weinshenker
> Actually, the point is, "Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as
> "model aircraft parts"?". That's the point. Got it now?
How would you label them? "Scary Dangerous Flammable Rocket Motors
that Don't Actually Qualify For The 'Class 1 Explosives' Hazard
Category But We Want Everyone To Think They Do"??
-dave w
Dave Grayvis
Is that the only possibility you can come up with? I think you I.Q. is
showing.
Jerry Irvine
David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:) They would have fined me for that too, but it would look great in the
pleading!!
Top 10 things Jerry should label the next "exempt" shipment:
Jerry Irvine
Dave Grayvis <davegr...@netscape.net> wrote:
That makes you stupid and myopic.
Engage the discussion or be plonked.
Your choice.
Dave Grayvis
> In article <40B64D18...@earthlink.net>,
> David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Dave Grayvis wrote:
>>
>>>Actually, the point is, "Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as
>>>"model aircraft parts"?". That's the point. Got it now?
>>
>>How would you label them? "Scary Dangerous Flammable Rocket Motors
>>that Don't Actually Qualify For The 'Class 1 Explosives' Hazard
>>Category But We Want Everyone To Think They Do"??
>>
>>-dave w
>
>
> :) They would have fined me for that too, but it would look great in the
> pleading!!
>
> Top 10 things Jerry should label the next "exempt" shipment:
>
The question is, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as "model
aircraft parts"?
For Christ's sake, it's a jerry thread, try to stay on topic.
Dave Grayvis
Answer the question, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as "model
aircraft parts"?
After you answer that one, you can try this one, how is fraudulently
mislabeling hazardous materials as inert, NOT a violation of federal law
and more importantly, how negates the PAD exemption! How were the
motors manufactured, transported or properly labeled for their intended use?
Jerry Irvine
Dave Grayvis <davegr...@netscape.net> wrote:
Plonk.
All evidence retained.
Jerry Irvine
Jerry Irvine <01ro...@gte.net> wrote:
> > >>>www.v-serv.com/usr/images/ACS.BOEreport.jpg
> > >>>
> > >>>Hey dude. It says what it says!
> > >>>
> > >>>That has to stick in your craw really, really bad!
> Plonk.
:)
Repetition is next to godliness.
Dave Grayvis
> Repetition is next to godliness.
>
What does that mean, exactly?
Doug Sams
>
> > Repetition is next to godliness.
Dave Grayvis wrote:
>
> What does that mean, exactly?
Well, I was taught that someone who keeps trying the same thing, over
and over, expecting a different outcome was, well, not very smart. But
Jerry continues trying to solve all his business problems via rmr,
droning on and on with the same ol' stuff, saying the same crap, and
getting the same responses.
You'd think he'd realize someday that no matter how much you whine and
cry on rmr, you can't get a LEMP, DOT numbers or NAR certification here.
So I wouldn't say "Repetition is next to godliness." I'd say "Jerryness
is next to dumbassness."
But tha'ts JMO.
Doug
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Brian Efforts
<daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>How would you label them? "Scary Dangerous Flammable Rocket Motors
>that Don't Actually Qualify For The 'Class 1 Explosives' Hazard
>Category But We Want Everyone To Think They Do"??
Wipe your chin again.
If Skippy is so sure of himself why didn't he label them "Rocket
Motors"?
Brian Efforts
<doug_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>So I wouldn't say "Repetition is next to godliness." I'd say "Jerryness
>is next to dumbassness."
THAT should be in the FAQ.
default
"David Weinshenker" <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:40B64D18...@earthlink.net...
A non-ass-kisser would have come up with some better words, Dave.
How 'bout
1) Non-explosive rocket motors
2) Non-explosive rocket propellant
3) Non-regulated rocket motors
4) Non-regulated rocket propellant
5) Unclassified rocket motors
6) Unclassified rocket propellant
7) Safe and sane rocket motors (okay, that's kinda funny)
Anyway, see a trend here, Dave? All the descriptions mention rocket motors or propellant.
If Jerry was really trying to set a new benchmark, why did he hide in subterfuge and
deception?
Jerry is a very crafty, deceptive, dishonest man, Dave. He has you under his spell. You
are totally brainwashed by the man. It is a classic case of... what do they call it when
an older man seduces a young boy?
default
> > If you admit I have papers that say they are NOT explosives, you get the
> > point.
>
> > Jerry
Then why not lable the 200 pounds of rocket motors as "non-explosive rocket propellant"?
Or better yet, "Unregulated Rocket Propellant".
Jerry (and ass kisser Dave): If you two trolls really thought that Jerry was some kind of
civil disobedient trend setter, then why didn't Jerry flont the fact that his shipment
contained unregulated non-explosive rocket motors instead of lying about it and trying to
hide them under a false name?
steve
Jerry, I have $50 right here that says you will not answer this question truthfully and
forthright.
steve bloom
(truthfully and forthright will be judged by the readers of rmr. Hint; It ain't no
Jerry-Speak.)
Phil Stein
following the law. My suggestion is that people follow the law or
regulation or whatever you want to call it.
Phil Stein
table salt.
On Thu, 27 May 2004 13:12:21 -0700, Jerry Irvine <01ro...@gte.net>
wrote:
Phil Stein
On Thu, 27 May 2004 13:55:17 -0700, Jerry Irvine <01ro...@gte.net>
wrote:
>
Jerry Irvine
Phil Stein <PSt...@ArielSystems.spamsks.net> wrote:
> You may or may not be right but, no one can dispute the result of not
> following the law. My suggestion is that people follow the law or
> regulation or whatever you want to call it.
How do you do that when it varies from person to person and from time to
time and away from the written documents?
Remember that silly NAR/ATF lawsuit?
W. E.Fred Wallace
Jerry Irvine wrote:
>
> In article <20040527151918...@mb-m10.aol.com>,
> raydu...@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:
>
> > << It may well be that shipping his motors is perfectly legal by the word of
> > law, which is what Jerry seems to maintain >>
> >
> > If he really believed that, he wouldn't have disguised the contents by
> > labeling
> > it "model aircraft parts".
>
> Disclusure is not disguise.
>
> If you claim I thought I shipped explsives as nothing, you miss the
> point.
>
> If you admit I have papers that say they are NOT explosives, you get the
> point.
>
> Of course the DOT monologue and menu of lies in administrative orders is
> going to take the most aberrant position possible. They are a
> bureaucracy!
>
> Look at the ATF!
>
> But then you miss the point so often it is either intentional or you
> cannot comprehend basic logic and english. Or both.
>
> Jerry
>
The point is; 40 grand to the man, on demand, lost on appeal-- hey we
now know the deal and listen to him squeal...
Jerry Irvine
"default" <undeli...@mail.com> wrote:
> > Jerry Irvine wrote:
>
> > > If you admit I have papers that say they are NOT explosives, you get the
> > > point.
> >
> > > Jerry
>
>
> Then why not lable the 200 pounds of rocket motors as "non-explosive rocket
> propellant"?
> Or better yet, "Unregulated Rocket Propellant".
I'll add those to the top 10.
>
> Jerry (and ass kisser Dave): If you two trolls really thought that Jerry was
> some kind of
> civil disobedient trend setter, then why didn't Jerry flont the fact that his
> shipment
> contained unregulated non-explosive rocket motors instead of lying about it
> and trying to
> hide them under a false name?
How could I have flaunted it any more than I did? It had the paper work
with the shipment and the paperwork was presneted in the administrative
action, AND the paperwork was presented to Ken Allen prior to shipment.
Which incidentally he agreed to keep in "commercial" confidence. That
went out the window when he went the "narc" route I guess.
>
> steve
>
> Jerry, I have $50 right here that says you will not answer this question
> truthfully and
> forthright.
Pay me.
NOW.
>
> steve bloom
>
> (truthfully and forthright will be judged by the readers of rmr. Hint; It
> ain't no
> Jerry-Speak.)
>
>
>
--
W. E.Fred Wallace
W. E.Fred Wallace
Jerry Irvine wrote:
>
> In article <01rocket-D4BA3E...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Jerry Irvine <01ro...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> > > >>>www.v-serv.com/usr/images/ACS.BOEreport.jpg
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Hey dude. It says what it says!
> > > >>>
> > > >>>That has to stick in your craw really, really bad!
>
> > Plonk.
>
> :)
>
> Repetition is next to godliness.
>
> --
Jerry Irvine
"default" <undeli...@mail.com> wrote:
> "David Weinshenker" <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:40B64D18...@earthlink.net...
> > Dave Grayvis wrote:
> > > Actually, the point is, "Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as
> > > "model aircraft parts"?". That's the point. Got it now?
> >
> > How would you label them? "Scary Dangerous Flammable Rocket Motors
> > that Don't Actually Qualify For The 'Class 1 Explosives' Hazard
> > Category But We Want Everyone To Think They Do"??
> >
> > -dave w
>
> A non-ass-kisser would have come up with some better words, Dave.
>
> How 'bout
>
> 1) Non-explosive rocket motors
> 2) Non-explosive rocket propellant
Why use the word explosive?
> 3) Non-regulated rocket motors
> 4) Non-regulated rocket propellant
Perhaps.
> 5) Unclassified rocket motors
> 6) Unclassified rocket propellant
False since there WERE tests and classifications.
> 7) Safe and sane rocket motors (okay, that's kinda funny)
Has a legal meaning in fireworks.
>
> Anyway, see a trend here, Dave?
Trolling?
> All the descriptions mention rocket motors
> or propellant.
> If Jerry was really trying to set a new benchmark, why did he hide in
> subterfuge and
> deception?
>
> Jerry is a very crafty, deceptive, dishonest man, Dave. He has you under his
> spell.
Spell? The same person that made a H2O2 rocket and H2O2 you couldn't do
on your best day is able to be put under spells?
Cool!
Dave W.
Make me 5000 gallons of 90% H2O2.
Make me 5000 gallons of 90% H2O2.
Make me 5000 gallons of 90% H2O2.
Make me 5000 gallons of 90% H2O2.
I have a spaceplane I want to fly :)
You will comply.
> You
> are totally brainwashed by the man. It is a classic case of... what do they
> call it when
> an older man seduces a young boy?
>
>
--
J.A. Michel
alright. Just because you THINK the regulations are "excessive and overly
restrictive" doesn't mean that it's OK to slap a "model aircraft parts"
label on a 210 pound crate of rocket motors and ship it. It's wrong,
fraudulent, and illegal. If this were not true, Jerry would not be sitting
on a 40,000 fine.
If you weren't so busy being a Jerry suck-ass, you might be able to
understand this very simple concept.
--
Joe Michel
NAR 82797 L2
http://home.alltel.net/jm44316/
W. E.Fred Wallace
Jerry Irvine wrote:
>
> In article <cqocb0l9qj7ai55bn...@4ax.com>,
> Phil Stein <PSt...@ArielSystems.spamsks.net> wrote:
>
> > You may or may not be right but, no one can dispute the result of not
> > following the law. My suggestion is that people follow the law or
> > regulation or whatever you want to call it.
>
> How do you do that when it varies from person to person and from time to
> time and away from the written documents?
>
> Remember that silly NAR/ATF lawsuit?
>
> Jerry
>
> --
Answer the question, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as
"model
aircraft parts"?
Jerry Irvine
Brian Efforts <eff...@symbols.com> wrote:
That has a legal meaning.
They were grains.
Jerry Irvine
"W. E.Fred Wallace" <wall...@olg.com> wrote:
> The point is; 40 grand to the man, on demand, lost on appeal-- hey we
> now know the deal and listen to him squeal...
I have not squaled once.
W. E.Fred Wallace
Well Jerry, Answer the question, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket
W. E.Fred Wallace
Jerry Irvine wrote:
>
> In article <40B667E7...@olg.com>,
> "W. E.Fred Wallace" <wall...@olg.com> wrote:
>
> > The point is; 40 grand to the man, on demand, lost on appeal-- hey we
> > now know the deal and listen to him squeal...
>
> I have not squaled once.
>
Answer the question Jerry, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors
David Weinshenker
> Which incidentally he agreed to keep in "commercial" confidence. That
> went out the window when he went the "narc" route I guess.
I'm wondering if the "pressure from TRA not to sell Jerry motors for indy
launches" went farther than has been explicitly mentioned here: perhaps
someone from TRA ratted _him_ to DOT and got him "caught in the middle"
with DOT making "you're part of the Conspiracy if you don't cooperate with
the Investigation" noises at him.
The above is strictly speculation - and I know it sounds like cold-heartedly
suspicious speculation - but _someone_ - and it appears that it wasn't the
sender, the receiver, or the carrier - made the initial complaint to DOT
and got the whole fuss started.
This seems to be the simplest explanation that I can think of.
-dave w
David Weinshenker
> Dave W.
> Make me 5000 gallons of 90% H2O2.
E-mail me this time next year.
We're just in the pilot plant
stage now.
-dave w
Jerry Irvine
"J.A. Michel" <jm4...@spamnotalltel.net> wrote:
On the other hand the fine is a separate issue from right and wrong in
terms of the law and regulations since any objective person (or judge)
can read the order and see for themselves DOT had to lie their ass off
to achieve it.
It becomes a reasonable debate to discuss what "should have been".
Jerry
Jerry Irvine
David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
The spell is working....
Jerry Irvine
David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Jerry Irvine wrote:
> > Which incidentally he agreed to keep in "commercial" confidence. That
> > went out the window when he went the "narc" route I guess.
>
> I'm wondering if the "pressure from TRA not to sell Jerry motors for indy
> launches" went farther than has been explicitly mentioned here: perhaps
> someone from TRA ratted _him_ to DOT and got him "caught in the middle"
> with DOT making "you're part of the Conspiracy if you don't cooperate with
> the Investigation" noises at him.
Something along those lines definitely happened. He was brought before
the TRA BOD in 8-01 after I was refused reinstatement. He was decidedly
in no comment mode toward me for the first time ever after that.
And for the first time he did not arrive back home with a boatload of
motors in his van.
>
> The above is strictly speculation - and I know it sounds like cold-heartedly
> suspicious speculation - but _someone_ - and it appears that it wasn't the
> sender, the receiver, or the carrier - made the initial complaint to DOT
> and got the whole fuss started.
Exactly. I can certify that speculation as FACT.
Not sure how much I do know I am legally allowed to disclose since narcs
have protection unless they admit their role as Wallace has done.
>
> This seems to be the simplest explanation that I can think of.
>
> -dave w
--
W. E.Fred Wallace
Jerry Irvine wrote:
>
> In article <40B66BE6...@earthlink.net>,
> David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Jerry Irvine wrote:
> > > Which incidentally he agreed to keep in "commercial" confidence. That
> > > went out the window when he went the "narc" route I guess.
> >
> > I'm wondering if the "pressure from TRA not to sell Jerry motors for indy
> > launches" went farther than has been explicitly mentioned here: perhaps
> > someone from TRA ratted _him_ to DOT and got him "caught in the middle"
> > with DOT making "you're part of the Conspiracy if you don't cooperate with
> > the Investigation" noises at him.
>
> Something along those lines definitely happened. He was brought before
> the TRA BOD in 8-01
BS, never happened..
>after I was refused reinstatement. He was decidedly
> in no comment mode toward me for the first time ever after that.
>
> And for the first time he did not arrive back home with a boatload of
> motors in his van.
>
> >
> > The above is strictly speculation - and I know it sounds like cold-heartedly
> > suspicious speculation - but _someone_ - and it appears that it wasn't the
> > sender, the receiver, or the carrier - made the initial complaint to DOT
> > and got the whole fuss started.
>
> Exactly. I can certify that speculation as FACT.
BS, pure and simple..
>
> Not sure how much I do know I am legally allowed to disclose since narcs
> have protection unless they admit their role as Wallace has done.
>
Gotcha jerry; Answer the question, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket
W. E.Fred Wallace
Jerry Irvine wrote:
>
> In article <c95of8$tll$1...@www.flugmodellbau.de>,
> "J.A. Michel" <jm4...@spamnotalltel.net> wrote:
>
> > You are a pathetic Jerry suck-ass. Obviously, you think what Jerry did is
> > alright. Just because you THINK the regulations are "excessive and overly
> > restrictive" doesn't mean that it's OK to slap a "model aircraft parts"
> > label on a 210 pound crate of rocket motors and ship it. It's wrong,
> > fraudulent, and illegal. If this were not true, Jerry would not be sitting
> > on a 40,000 fine.
> >
> > If you weren't so busy being a Jerry suck-ass, you might be able to
> > understand this very simple concept.
> >
> > --
> > Joe Michel
> > NAR 82797 L2
> > http://home.alltel.net/jm44316/
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> On the other hand the fine is a separate issue from right and wrong in
> terms of the law and regulations since any objective person (or judge)
> can read the order and see for themselves DOT had to lie their ass off
> to achieve it.
>
> It becomes a reasonable debate to discuss what "should have been".
>
> Jerry
>
Answer the question Jerry, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors
W. E.Fred Wallace
Jerry Irvine wrote:
>
> In article <40B66C6C...@earthlink.net>,
> David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Jerry Irvine wrote:
> > > Dave W.
> > > Make me 5000 gallons of 90% H2O2.
> > > I have a spaceplane I want to fly :)
> >
> > E-mail me this time next year.
> > We're just in the pilot plant
> > stage now.
> >
> > -dave w
>
> The spell is working....
>
> Jerry
Answer the question Jerry, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors
Jerry Irvine
"W. E.Fred Wallace" <wall...@olg.com> wrote:
> Jerry Irvine wrote:
> >
> > In article <40B66BE6...@earthlink.net>,
> > David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Jerry Irvine wrote:
> > > > Which incidentally he agreed to keep in "commercial" confidence. That
> > > > went out the window when he went the "narc" route I guess.
> > >
> > > I'm wondering if the "pressure from TRA not to sell Jerry motors for indy
> > > launches" went farther than has been explicitly mentioned here: perhaps
> > > someone from TRA ratted _him_ to DOT and got him "caught in the middle"
> > > with DOT making "you're part of the Conspiracy if you don't cooperate
> > > with
> > > the Investigation" noises at him.
> >
> > Something along those lines definitely happened. He was brought before
> > the TRA BOD in 8-01
>
> BS, never happened..
I witnessed it!!!
I was there.
How can I have a real conversation with someone who disputes clear fact?
Jerry
[whether] "Mr. Irvine has complied with the instructions provided him,
with no response from your office unless he has taken liberties with
the truth, there are problems he has failed to disclose, resulting in
a delay in the response from you or your office, and or both."
- W.E. "Fred" Wallace, MDRA 6-26-01 letter to DOT
almax
news:mpetc.3619$mK4...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
because he could.
W. E.Fred Wallace
Jerry Irvine wrote:
>
> In article <40B67422...@olg.com>,
> "W. E.Fred Wallace" <wall...@olg.com> wrote:
>
> > Jerry Irvine wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <40B66BE6...@earthlink.net>,
> > > David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jerry Irvine wrote:
> > > > > Which incidentally he agreed to keep in "commercial" confidence. That
> > > > > went out the window when he went the "narc" route I guess.
> > > >
> > > > I'm wondering if the "pressure from TRA not to sell Jerry motors for indy
> > > > launches" went farther than has been explicitly mentioned here: perhaps
> > > > someone from TRA ratted _him_ to DOT and got him "caught in the middle"
> > > > with DOT making "you're part of the Conspiracy if you don't cooperate
> > > > with
> > > > the Investigation" noises at him.
> > >
> > > Something along those lines definitely happened. He was brought before
> > > the TRA BOD in 8-01
> >
> > BS, never happened..
>
> I witnessed it!!!
Never happened..
>
> I was there.
See above..
>
> How can I have a real conversation with someone who disputes clear fact?
Admit you are a liar, simple..
>
> Jerry
>
almax
news:mpetc.3619$mK4...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
Oh Grave, where are the motors ?
I'm more interested in what happened to the 200 pounds of grains
then I am about why Jerry calculated the mislabeling of the manifest.
We all know why, don't we ? no mystery that I can see.
Heck, he just should have labeled them propellent activated device parts.
He still would have gotten the fine, but the rmr fodder would not be as
great.
Has anyone volunteered to take those un-regulated motors off of Ken's hands
?
I'm sure Ken does not want them around and all, right ?
Maybe you could call it a disposal service.
David Schultz
Scott Schuckert wrote:
> In article <20040527014957...@mb-m10.aol.com>, RayDunakin
> <raydu...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The real question is why does Jerry keep making a lightning rod of himself? He
>>KNEW he was shipping illegally, so the smart move would be to keep his mouth
>>shut and his business under the table. Does he do this? No! Instead, he loudly
>>and repeatedly insists that he's perfectly legal, that he's been screwed by
>>TRA/NAR, and that everyone who catches him in a lie is a traitor/liar/etc.
>
>
> Hmmm... Don't neglect the possibility that he's right. To parapharase
> something James Mason said in "Heaven Can Wait", the probability
> someone is right increases the more people try to convince him he's
> wrong.
>
> It may well be that shipping his motors is perfectly legal by the word
> of law, which is what Jerry seems to maintain - but that doesn't mean
> he can't be prosecuted; the word of law meaning little these days.
>
From the appeal document:
"The July 14, 1986 BOE report of examination specified the dimensions of the
samples of solid propellant submitted to BOE, but that report cannot be read to
indicate that a smaller quantity of this material is not an explosive."
I made this argument ages ago. But Jerry has labeled me a "moron" so my opinion
doesn't count. The DOT however cannot be dismissed so easily.
"RSPA’s Office of Hazardous Materials Technology has confirmed that, based on
the composition of the solid propellent described in BOE’s July 14, 1986 report
of examination, any quantity of this material would be expected to be properly
classified as an explosive."
Jerry was apparantly given a chance to come into compliance with the hazmat
regulations which would have certainly reduced the fine. But Jerry said he would
do something and then didn't.
"During a subsequent telephone conference on September 26, 2002, Mr. Irvine
stated that he would submit the rocket motors and solid propellant for
examination, classification, and approval. However, there is no indication that
any further examination has been conducted."
Jerry is lucky that the DOT hasn't brought the big guns to bear on him yet:
--------------
49 CFR Sec. 107.333 Criminal penalties generally.
A person who knowingly violates Sec. 171.2(g) or willfully violates
a provision of the Federal hazardous material transportation law or an
order or regulation issued thereunder shall be fined under title 18,
United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.
---------------
Three violations could net Jerry up to 15 years. RMR would be a much quieter and
saner place.
> (Heck, 90% of what the IRS does isn't supported by law)
>
> Sometimes you just have to rub blue mud in your navel if that's the
> local custom - and calling them "model airplane parts" could be
> considered such an accomodation. There's even a shred of truth in it,
> at least as much as there is in 5 year-olds being accused of "making
> terroristic threats".
--
David W. Schultz
http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz
Jerry Irvine
"almax" <a...@unverified.com> wrote:
He has refused three formal efforts by firms hired by me to take them
off his hands.
Speaking of Grayvis, where are the 400+ pounds of motors HE is allegedly
keeping "in trust"?
Seriously.
Jerry
Dave Grayvis
> Remember that silly NAR/ATF lawsuit?
>
> Jerry
>
How does that have anything to do with the DOT?
Dave Grayvis
Need a hankie?
Jerry Irvine
David Schultz <ab...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
They "conclude it" but do not justify how their reading is the OPPOSITE
of a common man reading. JUST LIKE ATF AND PADs.
>
> I made this argument ages ago. But Jerry has labeled me a "moron" so my
> opinion
> doesn't count. The DOT however cannot be dismissed so easily.
The language cannot either.
Okay, maybe only a moron context specific :)
Stop fixating!
>
> "RSPA¹s Office of Hazardous Materials Technology has confirmed that, based on
> the composition of the solid propellent described in BOE¹s July 14, 1986
> report
> of examination, any quantity of this material would be expected to be
> properly
> classified as an explosive."
As of new samples submitted today.
But NOT in 86 and not if grandfathered by virtue of being issued a
proper classification on the super-exempt material as this WAS (which
they LIED about in the pleading).
This distinction is CENTRAL to the case.
>
>
> Jerry was apparantly given a chance to come into compliance with the hazmat
> regulations which would have certainly reduced the fine. But Jerry said he
> would
> do something and then didn't.
Huh? The DOT KEPT losing the papers. Over and over.
>
> "During a subsequent telephone conference on September 26, 2002, Mr. Irvine
> stated that he would submit the rocket motors and solid propellant for
> examination, classification, and approval. However, there is no indication
> that
> any further examination has been conducted."
Jerry
--
Dave Grayvis
> In article <c95of8$tll$1...@www.flugmodellbau.de>,
> "J.A. Michel" <jm4...@spamnotalltel.net> wrote:
>
>
>>You are a pathetic Jerry suck-ass. Obviously, you think what Jerry did is
>>alright. Just because you THINK the regulations are "excessive and overly
>>restrictive" doesn't mean that it's OK to slap a "model aircraft parts"
>>label on a 210 pound crate of rocket motors and ship it. It's wrong,
>>fraudulent, and illegal. If this were not true, Jerry would not be sitting
>>on a 40,000 fine.
>>
>>If you weren't so busy being a Jerry suck-ass, you might be able to
>>understand this very simple concept.
>>
>>--
>>Joe Michel
>>NAR 82797 L2
>>http://home.alltel.net/jm44316/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> On the other hand the fine is a separate issue from right and wrong in
> terms of the law and regulations since any objective person (or judge)
> can read the order and see for themselves DOT had to lie their ass off
> to achieve it.
Explain in detail how The DOT lied. In detail.
Dave Grayvis
Patience, the wheels of justice grind slowly, but they do grind.
David Weinshenker
> Need a hankie?
Yeah. You're creaming in your jeans so hard over Jerry's
hassles that you're making a mess all over the place, and
we need to clean up after you: http://tinyurl.com/2klcs
-dave w
RayDunakin
<< Disclusure is not disguise.>>
You did not disclose the true nature of the contents. You falsely labeled it as
"model aircraft parts", when they are rocket motors/reloads consisting of an
unclassified hazmat.
<<If you claim I thought I shipped explsives as nothing, you miss the point.>>
You didn't put "nothing" on that label, and it's clear that a box of "nothing"
wouldn't weigh 210 pounds.
<<If you admit I have papers that say they are NOT explosives, you get the
point. >>
You do not have papers that say that, nor do you have papers which say you can
ship motors deceptively labeled as "model aircraft parts".
You only have an outdated document showing that someone, somewhere once had
some kind of APCP tested and that the quantities tested deserved a Class B
explosive classification. It says nothing about you or your propellent, nor
does it specifically address smaller quantities.
RayDunakin
encountered in sport rocketry products, to be shipped and stored as
"Explosives, Class 1" (or "class B materials" by the old designations) is
excessive and overly restrictive. >>
Dave, that may well be the case, but it's irrelevant. If Jerry would simply
say, "I think the DOT regs are excessive and I refuse to comply with them",
that would be fine. He's not saying that. He's lying about being legal when he
clearly is not, and then compounding matters by attacking everyone who catches
him in the lie.
If Jerry wants to openly defy DOT and ship motors whatever way he wants to, so
that he can become a martyr for "living the lifestyle", then he should do so
and cut the crap.
If Jerry simply wants to do business under the table and get away with as much
as he can without getting caught, more power to him. But again, he should cut
the crap and stop making these ridiculous claims. Insisting he's legal when he
clearly is not, and attacking everyone for pointing out the facts, is just
asking for trouble.
RayDunakin
I don't know, Dave. Maybe he should have his own propellent properly tested by
a currently approved agency, and then label it according to its DOT
classification. You know, like the legitimate manufacturers do?
Of course, if he doesn't want to be a legitimate manufacturer, that's fine too.
He can run a black market operation if he wants. I don't have a problem with
that. But that comes with certain limitations; such as keeping a low profile,
not getting your motors certified, missing out on the mass market, etc. You
have to stick doing business with folks who don't care if the motors they buy
were legally made or legally shipped, and you shouldn't go around daring people
to prove you wrong and asking to be a "test case".
Phil Stein
Once there was an investigation statred, they found that you there
was no way you didn't intensionally mislabel the box. If you had done
it properly, you might have had an argument on the other points.
On Thu, 27 May 2004 15:06:26 -0700, Jerry Irvine <01ro...@gte.net>
wrote:
>In article <cqocb0l9qj7ai55bn...@4ax.com>,
> Phil Stein <PSt...@ArielSystems.spamsks.net> wrote:
>
>> You may or may not be right but, no one can dispute the result of not
>> following the law. My suggestion is that people follow the law or
>> regulation or whatever you want to call it.
>
>How do you do that when it varies from person to person and from time to
>time and away from the written documents?
Phil Stein
rid of them. I guess they're disposed of by now. Ken doesn't have
them.
Phil Stein
On Thu, 27 May 2004 17:24:08 -0700, Jerry Irvine <01ro...@gte.net>
wrote:
>In article <7qKdnbZ6iKm...@buckeye-express.com>,
RayDunakin
Here:
www.v-serv.com/usr/images/ACS.BOEreport.jpg >>
Now Jerry, did you really think no one would look at that document? Or maybe
you hoped it was too blurry to read. Because that document recommends that the
tested material be given a Class B classification in certain quantities. It
does NOT say that smaller quantities are not Class B. It doesn't address
smaller quantities at all.
Oh, and it doesn't say "Jerry Irvine" or "U. S. Rockets" either, and the
propellent formula has been redacted. What proof do you have that _your_
propellent is the same propellent that was tested?
RayDunakin
By labeling it honestly.
RayDunakin
<< The above is strictly speculation...>>
Not just speculation, but an attempt to shift the blame away from the person
who committed the crime.
<< but _someone_ - and it appears that it wasn't the
sender, the receiver, or the carrier - made the initial complaint to DOT and
got the whole fuss started. >>
Well now, didn't Jerry say he needed to be busted in order to take on the DOT?
Maybe Jerry turned himself in -- after all, if he didn't get busted he'd never
have the chance to achieve his alleged goal.
W. E.Fred Wallace
I think they call it self flagellation; or is it self deification
fixation..(:-)
W. E.Fred Wallace
Answer the question, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as
"model
aircraft parts"?
W. E.Fred Wallace
Jerry Irvine wrote:
> In article <7qKdnbZ6iKm...@buckeye-express.com>,
> "almax" <a...@unverified.com> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone volunteered to take those un-regulated motors off of Ken's hands
> > ?
> > I'm sure Ken does not want them around and all, right ?
> >
> > Maybe you could call it a disposal service.
> >
> >
> >
>
> He has refused three formal efforts by firms hired by me to take them
> off his hands.
>
From what I hear, I'm sure if you contact Bob Lynch at DOT, he may
help you with your little disposal problem.
Seriously.
Fred
>
> Jerry
>
RayDunakin
<< I can certify that speculation as FACT. >>
LOL! Your "certification" isn't worth the pixels it's displayed with.
<< Not sure how much I do know I am legally allowed to disclose since narcs
have protection unless they admit their role as Wallace has done. >>
Translation: "I'm cornered, so I'll make up some BS about being legally
restrained from saying more."
RayDunakin
<< They "conclude it" but do not justify how their reading is the OPPOSITE of a
common man reading. >>
Actually it seems like a real stretch to claim that the tested propellent isn't
hazmat under a certain size, when the document never addresses that issue.
>> "RSPA1s Office of Hazardous Materials Technology
>> has confirmed that, based on the composition of
>> the solid propellent described in BOE1s July 14,
>> 1986 report of examination, any quantity of this
>> material would be expected to be properly
>> classified as an explosive."
<<As of new samples submitted today.>>
So you're admitting that if the material were submitted for testing today, it
would be classified as "explosive" by DOT even in smaller quantities?
<< But NOT in 86...>>
As I said above, that's a stretch. The document does not say that smaller
quantities are not Class B. It simply fails to address that issue.
<< ...and not if grandfathered by virtue of being issued a proper
classification on the super-exempt material as this WAS (which they LIED about
in the pleading). >>
Exactly how did they lie?
<< The DOT KEPT losing the papers. Over and over. >>
No, they never said they lost them, they said they never received them. Since
no one else has had any problems with DOT either losing things or failing to
receive them, one must assume that you never actually sent what you claimed to
have sent.
Word of Reason
>
<snip>
>
>
> Answer the question, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as
> "model
>
> aircraft parts"?
Becaue Jerry lacks morals, integrity and honor ... that should about cover the
bases?
Jerry Irvine
raydu...@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:
> As I said above, that's a stretch. The document does not say that smaller
> quantities are not Class B. It simply fails to address that issue.
You are simply wrong.
Furthermore smaller sizes were addressed in the recommendation as
follows:
W.S. Chang, BOE Chief Chemist wrote 7-14-86:
It is recommended that the material represented by this sample [sample
representing all size ranges] is described as Propellant Exoplosive,
Solid and classed as a Class B Explosive [fire hazard but minimal
projection or blast hazard] when the material [note only when the
material] is shipped [only when shippping] in a cast form [particle size
is a hard solid form, ie. NOT a powder] with the minimum dimensions of
36.00"h x 3.30"d. [a solid cylinder 3.3 x 36 inches] [emphasis mine]
Jerry Irvine
raydu...@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:
> << NOT Class B materials. That much we DO know to an utter certainty!!
> Here:
> www.v-serv.com/usr/images/ACS.BOEreport.jpg >>
>
> Now Jerry, did you really think no one would look at that document? Or maybe
> you hoped it was too blurry to read. Because that document recommends that the
> tested material be given a Class B classification in certain quantities.
Furthermore smaller sizes were addressed in the recommendation as
follows:
W.S. Chang, BOE Chief Chemist wrote 7-14-86:
It is recommended that the material represented by this sample [sample
representing all size ranges] is described as Propellant Exoplosive,
Solid and classed as a Class B Explosive [fire hazard but minimal
projection or blast hazard] when the material [note only when the
material]
is shipped [only when shippping] in a cast form [particle size is a hard
solid form, ie. NOT a powder] with the minimum dimensions of 36.00"h x
3.30"d.
[a solid cylinder 3.3 x 36 inches] [emphasis mine]
> It
> does NOT say that smaller quantities are not Class B. It doesn't address
> smaller quantities at all.
ONLY WHEN
Chad L. Ellis
There are many things in life that seem excessive. Get over it and comply or
go away. Why don't you go to the rental car companies and complain that they
are enforcing state laws by requiring a valid driver license to rent a car.
Nobody will deny that Jerry has been around the hobby for a long time but
you will have a difficult time finding those that think he is good for the
hobby. That situation was created and fostered by his actions. He knows it
and it's what makes him angry. With all of his supposed knowledge he could
form his own rocketry org and make the rules that he has tried to have TRA
implement. The only problem is 6 members won't cut it. Jerry could fix
things and sell a ton of motors but it slaps his "Look what they did to me"
mantra in the face. If he wanted to make $$$ he would change things.
"David Weinshenker" <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:40B64904...@earthlink.net...
> Dave Grayvis wrote:
> > No, you do not have ANY paperwork authorizing you to ship class B
materials.
>
> The point is that requiring propellant, in the forms and formulas
encountered
> in sport rocketry products, to be shipped and stored as "Explosives, Class
1"
> (or "class B materials" by the old designations) is excessive and overly
restrictive.
> Such a designation overstates the actual hazards associated with handling
the
> material in practice, and creates unnecessary hassles in its commerce,
transport,
> and use.
>
> -dave w
John Stein
John
"W. E.Fred Wallace" <wall...@olg.com> wrote in message
news:40B67478...@olg.com...
> > It becomes a reasonable debate to discuss what "should have been".
> >
> > Jerry
> >
>
> Answer the question Jerry, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors
Jerry Irvine
"Chad L. Ellis" <c...@pcm.net> wrote:
> How would you know? You are not conducting a rocket motor business are you?
> There are many things in life that seem excessive. Get over it and comply or
> go away. Why don't you go to the rental car companies and complain that they
> are enforcing state laws by requiring a valid driver license to rent a car.
> Nobody will deny that Jerry has been around the hobby for a long time but
> you will have a difficult time finding those that think he is good for the
> hobby. That situation was created and fostered by his actions. He knows it
> and it's what makes him angry. With all of his supposed knowledge he could
> form his own rocketry org and make the rules that he has tried to have TRA
> implement. The only problem is 6 members won't cut it. Jerry could fix
> things and sell a ton of motors but it slaps his "Look what they did to me"
> mantra in the face. If he wanted to make $$$ he would change things.
If I wanted to sell to 2500 (listed and party approved) screaming
whiners you mean.
The old days were better. There were HPR lone rangers all over the place.
Jerry
>
>
>
> "David Weinshenker" <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:40B64904...@earthlink.net...
> > Dave Grayvis wrote:
> > > No, you do not have ANY paperwork authorizing you to ship class B
> materials.
> >
> > The point is that requiring propellant, in the forms and formulas
> encountered
> > in sport rocketry products, to be shipped and stored as "Explosives, Class
> 1"
> > (or "class B materials" by the old designations) is excessive and overly
> restrictive.
> > Such a designation overstates the actual hazards associated with handling
> the
> > material in practice, and creates unnecessary hassles in its commerce,
> transport,
> > and use.
> >
> > -dave w
>
>
--
RayDunakin
<< It is recommended that the material represented by this sample [sample
representing all size ranges]>>
Where does it say that the sample "represents ALL size ranges? It does NOT say
that.
<< ...is described as Propellant Exoplosive, Solid and classed as a Class B
Explosive [fire hazard but minimal projection or blast hazard] >>
Class B is Class B.
<< when the material [note only when the material] is shipped [only when
shippping] in a cast form [particle size is a hard solid form, ie. NOT a
powder] with the minimum dimensions of 36.00"h x 3.30"d. [a solid cylinder 3.3
x 36 inches] [emphasis mine]>>
The word "only" is yours too. You added that to change the meaning of the
document. As written, it contains no minimum size limitation on the
classification of the material -- it simply fails to address smaller sizes. And
no one has said anything about "powder", so why are you throwing that in there?
Dave Grayvis
> It's funny how Jerry answers for Dave and Dave answers for Jerry, isn't it?
>
> John
That's what lovers do.
Chad L. Ellis
"If I wanted to sell to 2500 (listed and party approved) screaming whiners
you mean."
Jerry
Their money spends just the same. It's probably for the best. The motor
supply is strong right now and another mfg. would probably have a tough time
starting out in a saturated market. :-(
I just received the a shipment of the Pro75 reloads. Packaging is first
rate. Really nice stuff. The M1400 will fly this weekend.
Phil Stein
RayDunakin
>>
First time I've ever seen a dual ventriloquy act. :)
Scott
> The language cannot either.
>
> Okay, maybe only a moron context specific :)
>
> Stop fixating!
>
>
OH this is rich, Jerry telling others to "STOP FIXATING!" This from a
person who can turn every post on RMR into and anti-TRA/NAR rant and
how the world is conspiring againts Poor FIXATING Jerry.
Take a clue from yourself Jerry and STOP FIXATING!!!
Scott
Jerry Irvine
aksarb...@yahoo.com (Scott) wrote:
> Jerry Irvine <01ro...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:<01rocket-5E5919...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > The language cannot either.
> >
> > Okay, maybe only a moron context specific :)
> >
> > Stop fixating!
> >
> >
> > Jerry
>
> OH this is rich, Jerry telling others to "STOP FIXATING!" This from a
> person who can turn every post on RMR into and anti-TRA/NAR rant
NOT every one.
But ones where the analogy fits.
Quite a few I admit.
> and
> how the world is conspiring againts Poor FIXATING Jerry.
>
> Take a clue from yourself Jerry and STOP FIXATING!!!
>
> Scott
This message was in reply to a nice guy who took a comment I made
probably about his position on ATF (which was moronic) and extrapolating
that to mean he was a moron on all things at all times.
Nope.
Logical break.
Jerry
Want an example of fixation? Read several posts from Dave Grayvis, Fred
Wallace and Ray Dunakin. THEY are fixated.
Jerry Irvine
"Chad L. Ellis" <c...@pcm.net> wrote:
snip chaff
> I just received the a shipment of the Pro75 reloads. Packaging is first
> rate. Really nice stuff. The M1400 will fly this weekend.
So post more about those cool products.
W. E.Fred Wallace
Answer the question Jerry, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors
W. E.Fred Wallace
Answer the question Jerry, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors
Rick Dickinson
<PSt...@ArielSystems.spamsks.net> wrote:
>It's invalid - the formula isn't shown. That could be a report for
>table salt.
I'm pretty sure that table salt won't explode under *any*
circumstances. Not even in 36" x 3.30" diameter castings.
- Rick "Just a thought" Dickinson
--
"The vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world.
And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice."
- George W. Bush (Washington DC, Oct 27 2003)
John Stein
John
"Phil Stein" <PSt...@ArielSystems.spamsks.net> wrote in message
news:j6neb011tqnkde8h3...@4ax.com...
Chad L. Ellis
meant the internal packaging of the grains and the other parts needed. CTI
always does a nice jog with protecting the products.news:01rocket-1EFDBB...@corp.supernews.com...
Rick Dickinson
wrote:
Actually, Jerry, you've added a word, there. As you quoted (but with
typos fixed and your editorial additions removed), it says:
-> It is recommended that the material represented by this sample is
-> described as a Propellant Explosive, Solid and classed as a Class
-> B Explosive when the material is shipped in a cast form with the
-> minimum dimensions of 36.00"h x 3.30"d.
The word "ONLY" does not appear before the word "WHEN".
Thus, while the document specifically states that a propellant slug of
at least that size should be classed as a Class B Explosive, it makes
no limitations on what to do with smaller slugs.
Was 3.30"d x 36.00"h the exact size of the propellant slugs that
ACS-Reaction Labs submitted for testing? Based solely on the careful
wording of the document, I suspect that it was. Care to confirm or
deny?
Thanks,
- Rick "Astute Reader" Dickinson
Chad L. Ellis
Phil Stein
THese are getting old & repetitious. Can you change them a little?
Maybe do some with a mosaic theme?
Phil
Phil Stein
that know more than I do. <--ok guys here's an easy opening.
On Fri, 28 May 2004 11:13:04 -0700, Rick Dickinson <r...@notesguy.com>
wrote: