Wow, I see you haven't become any less aggressive and hysterical Pete Svarrior
Refrain from further insulting other members in the upper. If you want to talk about how hysterical you find it that I don't appreciate you mocking the dead, especially someone I knew, take it to AR.
1) it's quite clear that whether or not his interests in home made rocketry initial stretched to FET
Indeed, it is quite clear - he was working on the rocket many years before any involvement with FET. To imply that we suddenly became responsible for him when he developed this interest is callous, and defies logic.
I regarded this misadventure part of an ongoing FET investigation/experiment - thus, I posted it in "investigations".
I really don't care what you "regard" things as. Read the "read before posting" threads before posting. If in doubt, ask for help.
3) Slander? Oh dear. It is clearly beyond your education to realise the difference between slander (oral defamation) and libel (written word)
Your obsession with the US legal system is noted, but not all of us are Americans, and not all of us treat online forum conversations as if they were a foreign court of law.
Finally, judging an ESL speaker for using a word in a way you consider is incorrect is stooping pretty low, even for you. This has very little to do with my education, and quite a lot to do with your inability to separate your feelings from the merit of the argument.
Going back to my OP, and given that Mike Hughes patently developed a secondary aim of proving a flat earth
Once again, Mike has made it patently clear that no launch of this height would prove anything about FET.
I genuinely think that any FET's that knew him and had an opportunity to advise him had a duty of care to warn him that his ill-advised (FAA UNAPPROVED) "rocket" launches carried an extremely high chance of death
Yes, and I'm sure the dating site that paid him for advertising had a duty of care, too. After all, he had words on his rocket!
Secondly, as you were already informed, and neglected to take into account,
I personally advised him of the risk. Many others did too. It's telling that you wouldn't adapt your views when information contradicting your viewpoint emerges.
Once again, the ethically sensible thing would be to retract and apologise. Not to double down. Think about that in your own time.