Question on Argonia rule?

mpitfield said:

Actually no dixontj93060 I have never heard of Xylene. That aside I really don't quite understand why you have to be rude, but if it makes you feel like a big man then fill yer boots!

Click to expand...

Do some research.

So, lets just summarize.


edit-

dixontj93060 said:

Do some research.

Click to expand...

dixonjt93060 out of respect to other TRF members, including Kloudbusters I will PM you and we can discuss this off line.

mpitfield said:

dixonjt93060 out of respect to other TRF members, including Kloudbusters I will PM you and we can discuss this off line.

Click to expand...

Good cause I'm getting messages from Kloudbusters members right now thanking them for the support and vowing that they are done with this wonky thread.

cwbullet said:

If the landowner tells me not to bring "xyz" on the field, that I all I need to know. You have to be glad they gave you the right to use their property.

Click to expand...

Indeed. But that does not seem to be what is happening.

OK.... hypothetically.....

If a landowner said "No Metal" as a condition of being allowed to fly, and if the launch organizers the landowner trusts NOT not allow metal, tells fliers to PAINT any metals parts so they do not appear to be metal....then allows rockets with painted metal to fly.....

Would that be doing what the landowner wants?

Or would that be the launch organizers ignoring the landowners wishes for the convenience of the fliers, by using paint to fool the landowners?

Hypothetically, of course.

Hypothetically, if the landowners were all contacted and informed about rockets with metal being painted and flown, would the hypothetical launch organizers be OK with that?

- George Gassaway

And there we go. The thread could likely have been avoided if handled differently.... But the choice to pile on and belittle people will always just fan the fire to the inevitable conclusion.

georgegassaway said:

Indeed. But that does not seem to be what is happening.

OK.... hypothetically.....

If a landowner said "No Metal" as a condition of being allowed to fly, and if the launch organizers the landowner trusts NOT not allow metal, tells fliers to PAINT any metals parts so they do not appear to be metal....then allows rockets with painted metal to fly.....

Would that be doing what the landowner wants?

Or would that be the launch organizers ignoring the landowners wishes for the convenience of the fliers, by using paint to fool the landowners?

Hypothetically, of course.

Hypothetically, if the landowners were all contacted and informed about rockets with metal being painted and flown, would the hypothetical launch organizers be OK with that?

- George Gassaway

Click to expand...

Don't be so literal and read between the lines... If you can't then please restrain from commenting in this thread.

dixontj93060 said:

Don't be so literal and read between the lines... If you can't then please restrain from commenting in this thread.

Click to expand...

Treating people in this manner will only keep this thread alive forever... reaching more and more eyes with every post.... all wondering.... "why WOULD you need to paint metal?"

Of course, getting pissed and talking down to people seems to be working great for you. Could just keep running with that.

A hypothetical scenario.

Owner of a launch site says no wooden rocket parts.

Launch organizer requires fliers to fill and paint all wooden parts so they do not look like wood. Not for aesthetics, but to simply to try to hide the fact that the rocket is using wooden parts.

Other fliers, not knowing the landowner’s wishes not allowing wooden parts, innocently ask why there would be a rule requiring filling and painting all wooden parts?

They are given a runaround, told it’s “private business”, and so forth. Or led to believe that it is the landowner who is requiring all wooden parts to be filled and painted, which is not true.

What would appear to be occurring would be that the launch organizers are not doing what the landowner said is a provision for being able to fly there. And that ....hypothetically....they are encouraging fliers to violate the landowner's wishes that no rockets be flown with wooden parts.

Now, hypothetically, it could be that it was not as bad as it looked. But the reactions to the questioning would seem to support the hypothesis that what appeared to be going on, was indeed going on - that impression greatly reinforced by the refusal for give any other logical explanation.

Then when the truth of what it really going on seems to be dawning on people.... it’s quickly hushed up and the questions disappear without a trace.

What should people think of the ethics involved if a launch organizer hypothetically violated the requirements of the landowner like that?

Hypothetically……

- George Gassaway

hmm, given a no wood parts scenario...one could argue that since paper products are made from wood, they should not be used. would charcoal count? that would eliminate blackpowder too. guess one would have to use guncotton .
Rex

Rex R said:

hmm, given a no wood parts scenario...one could argue that since paper products are made from wood, they should not be used. would charcoal count? that would eliminate blackpowder too. guess one would have to use guncotton .
Rex

Click to expand...

Interesting approach to expanding the logic. I see the connection.

So, only fiberglass airframes, composite motors/propellants and CO2 ejection charges??? Or the suggested Guncotton.
Sounds theoretically doable. There's still the liner in the motor case to contend with, but maybe you just don't say anything?

It may be that the club received permission from the main landowner(s) to "hide the wood" as there was an unreasonable minority landowner that felt it was an issue. This isn't an ethics issue, it is following direction. The club may have been asked to not discuss in public and they are abiding by the request. It is best to leave it alone and/or go to the launch and discuss it with them in person.

So this whole thread is someones childish attempt to "beat a dead horse", in my opinion. Even if this "horse" was the land owners prize horse, and even if the landowner were to see the continued beating, to the point of saying enough is enough, we just will not allow these people on our land any more!

Nothing on these posts explains the whole situation, and it will not be explained here! Enough is Enough, no one needs all the information. There is a rule in place, abide by it, or do not fly, period.

Just when I think rocketeers are the best people out there, a thread like this pops up to prove me wrong.

The thread has reached the point of diminishing returns. If you have further questions about the launch rules then I suggest they need to be addressed to the organizers.