I see via ANN that Zoom has been served his annual non-invitation!

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:50:17 GMT, "Cy Galley" > wrote:

>I see via ANN that Zoom has been served his annual non-invitation!

Sometimes the old traditions are the best. :-)

For those who haven't heard, half of Zoom's lawsuit against SnF was dismissed
last fall... the claim of invasion of privacy.

Ron Wanttaja

It's too bad they didn't write the message on paint-balls and deliver them
with CO2


"Cy Galley" > wrote in message
news:tmQ6e.9042$Bb3.7700@attbi_s22...
> I see via ANN that Zoom has been served his annual non-invitation!
>
>

"Cy Galley" > wrote in message
news:tmQ6e.9042$Bb3.7700@attbi_s22...
>I see via ANN that Zoom has been served his annual non-invitation!
>

The fact that so many see it on ANN is not helping the cause of the SnF
folks. (or really Zoom).

I think both sides would do better to let it go, but its more likely that I
will catch a ride to Oshkosh on a supersonic flying pig.

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cy Galley" > wrote in message
> news:tmQ6e.9042$Bb3.7700@attbi_s22...
>>I see via ANN that Zoom has been served his annual non-invitation!
>>
>
> The fact that so many see it on ANN is not helping the cause of the SnF
> folks. (or really Zoom).
>
> I think both sides would do better to let it go, but its more likely that
> I will catch a ride to Oshkosh on a supersonic flying pig.

I figure that SnF has let it go.. They would be happy leaving it as status
quo- i.e. no zoom at SnF. Zoom's the one who can't give it up.

My guess is that SnF would probably drop the ban if Zoom behaved nicely for
a few years and stopped publishing the annual series of anti-SnF pieces.
Today's selection was pitiful at best, with ANN taking plenty of implied
shots at SnF just in the tone of their articles.

KB

Steve Foley wrote:
> It's too bad they didn't write the message on paint-balls and deliver them
> with CO2
>
....or lead balls delivered with gunpowder.

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:0bR6e.3405$ha3.2909@trndny02...
> It's too bad they didn't write the message on paint-balls and deliver them
> with CO2

You makin' fun of me?

:)

>
> I figure that SnF has let it go.. They would be happy leaving it as status
> quo- i.e. no zoom at SnF. Zoom's the one who can't give it up.
>
> My guess is that SnF would probably drop the ban if Zoom behaved nicely
> for a few years and stopped publishing the annual series of anti-SnF
> pieces. Today's selection was pitiful at best, with ANN taking plenty of
> implied shots at SnF just in the tone of their articles.
>
> KB
>

Unless you don't believe the ANN story about them taping multiple copies of
the ban to the door of the ANN office, then you can't believe they have
dropped it. Even if the story is embellished, it would be best for them to
use a process server or professional delivery service rather than tape.

I think there is plenty of anymosity on both sides, and if SnF were to let
it go, they would simply let Zoom have his press pass and let him in to rant
and rave however he sees fit. Better yet, keep him under unobtrusive
surveillance so that if he starts any fights with anyone they have all the
evidence they need to throw him out and deny him entrance forever.

I met Zoom not too long ago, and frankly, I found him to be a rather meek
and nerdy kind of guy. I bet I could raise his blood pressure with a stern
look.

The experience put the lie to both his self promoted test pilot image as
well as many stores about his behavior. He did seem the type that would
hide behind a lawyer though, so I can believe those tales. I understand he
did a good job of ruining some businesses, and I can't blame anyone for
taking action for being so maligned. Unfortunately, everyone who reads his
reviews hasn't had a chance to meet him.

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Steve Foley wrote:
>
>> It's too bad they didn't write the message on paint-balls and deliver
>> them
>> with CO2
>>
> ...or lead balls delivered with gunpowder.

You guys are just not being creative enough. Think of all the toys Acme™
has.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 02:42:54 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:

>>
>> I figure that SnF has let it go.. They would be happy leaving it as status
>> quo- i.e. no zoom at SnF. Zoom's the one who can't give it up.
>>
>> My guess is that SnF would probably drop the ban if Zoom behaved nicely
>> for a few years and stopped publishing the annual series of anti-SnF
>> pieces. Today's selection was pitiful at best, with ANN taking plenty of
>> implied shots at SnF just in the tone of their articles.
>
>Unless you don't believe the ANN story about them taping multiple copies of
>the ban to the door of the ANN office, then you can't believe they have
>dropped it. Even if the story is embellished, it would be best for them to
>use a process server or professional delivery service rather than tape.

I don't think SnF sent Zoom a notice reminding him that he was banned from the
show last year. And, of course, Zoom entered SnF grounds, despite the fact that
the ban was still valid, and despite the fact that he had an ongoing lawsuit
against the organization. I don't blame SnF for sending a reminder this year.

Whether SnF or "parties unknown" were responsible for the alleged multiple-copy
delivery, we'll probably never know. Like the "unwanted poster" Richard
mentioned, I bet it becomes a real collector's item....

Ron Wanttaja

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:12:54 -0400, Ron Natalie >
wrote:

>Steve Foley wrote:
>> It's too bad they didn't write the message on paint-balls and deliver them
>> with CO2
>>
>...or lead balls delivered with gunpowder.

Don't be surprised to see Zoom take this and write up a story about
having his life threatened.

Corky Scott

> Don't be surprised to see Zoom take this and write up a story about
> having his life threatened.
>
> Corky Scott

Why can't some one at SnF get a restraining order against him then when
he shows up they can have him arrested?

Tony

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 02:42:54 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I figure that SnF has let it go.. They would be happy leaving it as
>>> status
>>> quo- i.e. no zoom at SnF. Zoom's the one who can't give it up.
>>>
>>> My guess is that SnF would probably drop the ban if Zoom behaved nicely
>>> for a few years and stopped publishing the annual series of anti-SnF
>>> pieces. Today's selection was pitiful at best, with ANN taking plenty of
>>> implied shots at SnF just in the tone of their articles.
>>
>>Unless you don't believe the ANN story about them taping multiple copies
>>of
>>the ban to the door of the ANN office, then you can't believe they have
>>dropped it. Even if the story is embellished, it would be best for them
>>to
>>use a process server or professional delivery service rather than tape.
>
> I don't think SnF sent Zoom a notice reminding him that he was banned from
> the
> show last year. And, of course, Zoom entered SnF grounds, despite the
> fact that
> the ban was still valid, and despite the fact that he had an ongoing
> lawsuit
> against the organization. I don't blame SnF for sending a reminder this
> year.
>
> Whether SnF or "parties unknown" were responsible for the alleged
> multiple-copy
> delivery, we'll probably never know. Like the "unwanted poster" Richard
> mentioned, I bet it becomes a real collector's item....
>
> Ron Wanttaja

I am certainly not the most educated guy on the history of these antics, but
it has always seemed to me that SnF, or related parties, didn't handle it
well. Not that Zoom was not at fault, but fixing his behavior isn't going
to happen. The crux of Zoom's argument is that the airport is public
property or some sort of whining. At any rate, fighting fire with fire
would seem to be the best plan. Get his idiocy on video, and post it to the
net.

>
> That's exactly what they did last time. He got in a fight, they
> issued him a tresspass notice and escorted him from the grounds. He
> did it again, they issued him a tresspass notice and escorted him from
> the grounds. To get back in he had to sign a "code of conduct"
> agreement. Then he violated that by serving SnF volunteers with a
> SLAPP suit in the middle of the show, while they were working.
> :

Who is he "fighting" with that can't put him down with a single lick?

Dude wrote:

> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 02:42:54 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I figure that SnF has let it go.. They would be happy leaving it as
>>>>status
>>>>quo- i.e. no zoom at SnF. Zoom's the one who can't give it up.
>>>>
>>>>My guess is that SnF would probably drop the ban if Zoom behaved nicely
>>>>for a few years and stopped publishing the annual series of anti-SnF
>>>>pieces. Today's selection was pitiful at best, with ANN taking plenty of
>>>>implied shots at SnF just in the tone of their articles.
>>>
>>>Unless you don't believe the ANN story about them taping multiple copies
>>>of
>>>the ban to the door of the ANN office, then you can't believe they have
>>>dropped it. Even if the story is embellished, it would be best for them
>>>to
>>>use a process server or professional delivery service rather than tape.
>>
>>I don't think SnF sent Zoom a notice reminding him that he was banned from
>>the
>>show last year. And, of course, Zoom entered SnF grounds, despite the
>>fact that
>>the ban was still valid, and despite the fact that he had an ongoing
>>lawsuit
>>against the organization. I don't blame SnF for sending a reminder this
>>year.
>>
>>Whether SnF or "parties unknown" were responsible for the alleged
>>multiple-copy
>>delivery, we'll probably never know. Like the "unwanted poster" Richard
>>mentioned, I bet it becomes a real collector's item....
>>
>>Ron Wanttaja
>
>
> I am certainly not the most educated guy on the history of these antics, but
> it has always seemed to me that SnF, or related parties, didn't handle it
> well. Not that Zoom was not at fault, but fixing his behavior isn't going
> to happen. The crux of Zoom's argument is that the airport is public
> property or some sort of whining. At any rate, fighting fire with fire
> would seem to be the best plan. Get his idiocy on video, and post it to the
> net.
>
>
I'm surprised it hasn't been done already.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Maybe someone could post a transcript of his competency hearing.

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
news:Qid7e.11977$d43.10070@lakeread03...
> Dude wrote:
> > Get his idiocy on video, and post it to the
> > net.
> >
> >
> I'm surprised it hasn't been done already.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:50:17 GMT, "Cy Galley" >
wrote:

>I see via ANN that Zoom has been served his annual non-invitation!
>

OHMYGAWD! They affixed the non-invitations with packaging tape, and
"In each case, removing the paperwork did cause damage to the paint."
So a criminal complaint has been filed, a case which should be a slam
dunk if Winter Haven CSI kept the tape with the paint chips still
adhered. Somebody needs to click here pronto! http://tinyurl.com/5yvcf

Wayne

wmbjk wrote:

> OHMYGAWD! They affixed the non-invitations with packaging tape, and
> "In each case, removing the paperwork did cause damage to the paint."
> So a criminal complaint has been filed, a case which should be a slam
> dunk if Winter Haven CSI kept the tape with the paint chips still
> adhered. Somebody needs to click here pronto! http://tinyurl.com/5yvcf

If they'd have taped all the doors with that stuff, problem solved.
Florida has already proven that without food or water you'll eventually
expire from natural causes...

Darrel Toepfer wrote:
> If they'd have taped all the doors with that stuff, problem solved.
> Florida has already proven that without food or water you'll eventually
> expire from natural causes...


That same "proof" occurs in every state around the nation, probably on a
daily basis.. it just doesn't become a manipulative media spectacle.

Dave

Steve Foley wrote:
> Maybe someone could post a transcript of his competency hearing.

Read the transcript of the 1980 NTSB hearing (Document se-4661) where
Zoom lost his Medical for his "mental illness". Compare testimony with
some of his current statements and behavior.
http://www.ousterhout.net/zoom/se-4661.html

The Jim "Captain Zoom" Campbell Story: http://www.ousterhout.net/zoom.html

- John Ousterhout -
rah-14, still united

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:10:56 GMT, Anthony W > wrote:

>
>> Don't be surprised to see Zoom take this and write up a story about
>> having his life threatened.
>
>Why can't some one at SnF get a restraining order against him then when
>he shows up they can have him arrested?

Actually, they issued him a formal trespass warning when they kicked him out
back in the '90s. It's a misdemeanor if he comes on the grounds.

As Richard posted, he'd promised to behave after a previous "permanent"
ejection, and didn't. Since his final ejection in 1998, it's illegal for him to
enter the grounds...but he did last year.

For those who think SnF should give him one more chance, consider: He doesn't
keep his word, and he has no compunction about breaking the law. How, exactly,
is Sun and Fun supposed to trust him?


Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

>>Why can't some one at SnF get a restraining order against him then when
>>he shows up they can have him arrested?
>
>
> Actually, they issued him a formal trespass warning when they kicked him out
> back in the '90s. It's a misdemeanor if he comes on the grounds.
>
> As Richard posted, he'd promised to behave after a previous "permanent"
> ejection, and didn't. Since his final ejection in 1998, it's illegal for him to
> enter the grounds...but he did last year.
>
> For those who think SnF should give him one more chance, consider: He doesn't
> keep his word, and he has no compunction about breaking the law. How, exactly,
> is Sun and Fun supposed to trust him?
>
>
> Ron Wanttaja

The difference with a restraining order is that he would have gone to
the gray-motel for a few days.

Tony

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 01:37:14 GMT, Anthony W > wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja wrote:

>> Actually, they issued him a formal trespass warning when they kicked him out
>> back in the '90s. It's a misdemeanor if he comes on the grounds.
>
>The difference with a restraining order is that he would have gone to
>the gray-motel for a few days.

Yep. Ignoring the no-trespass notice is a misdemeanor, but ignoring a
restraining order would be a felony.

There's a possibility Zoom's stunt played a part in the dismissal of the
"Invasion of Privacy" half of Campbell's suit. As I posted a while back,
Campbell's gaining access last year was a perfect example of *why* SnF had felt
it necessary to post his driver's license photo at the entries. The Clerk of
Court's web page...

http://evilurl.com/HELLhymentitRUMP (doncha just LOVE evilurl.com? :-)

....doesn't list a transcript of the hearing on the motion to dismiss, just the
judge's order dismissing that count. However, Campbell's attorney declined the
opportunity to refile (that's the 11/22 letter from Mr. Kuhn). It might have
been because of the security company's legal arguments...or it could have been
because Zoom's actions made it impossible to claim that posting the photo was
unnecessary.

In Zoom's answers to interrogatories, he refuses to answer some questions
because of Sun-N-Fun's supposed "...propensity to use some information in a
smear campaign on the internet." Sounds to me like he's blaming SnF for the
things said about him on RAH. Interesting, no?

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 01:37:14 GMT, Anthony W > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
>
>>>Actually, they issued him a formal trespass warning when they kicked him out
>>>back in the '90s. It's a misdemeanor if he comes on the grounds.
>>
>>The difference with a restraining order is that he would have gone to
>>the gray-motel for a few days.
>
>
> Yep. Ignoring the no-trespass notice is a misdemeanor, but ignoring a
> restraining order would be a felony.
>
> There's a possibility Zoom's stunt played a part in the dismissal of the
> "Invasion of Privacy" half of Campbell's suit. As I posted a while back,
> Campbell's gaining access last year was a perfect example of *why* SnF had felt
> it necessary to post his driver's license photo at the entries. The Clerk of
> Court's web page...
>
> http://evilurl.com/HELLhymentitRUMP (doncha just LOVE evilurl.com? :-)
>
> ...doesn't list a transcript of the hearing on the motion to dismiss, just the
> judge's order dismissing that count. However, Campbell's attorney declined the
> opportunity to refile (that's the 11/22 letter from Mr. Kuhn). It might have
> been because of the security company's legal arguments...or it could have been
> because Zoom's actions made it impossible to claim that posting the photo was
> unnecessary.
>
> In Zoom's answers to interrogatories, he refuses to answer some questions
> because of Sun-N-Fun's supposed "...propensity to use some information in a
> smear campaign on the internet." Sounds to me like he's blaming SnF for the
> things said about him on RAH. Interesting, no?
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Egads, this guy should be locked up.

Tony

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:07:29 GMT, Dave S >
wrote:

>
>
>Darrel Toepfer wrote:
>> If they'd have taped all the doors with that stuff, problem solved.
>> Florida has already proven that without food or water you'll eventually
>> expire from natural causes...

Of course, most people given food and water sitll expire from natural
causes.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
>That same "proof" occurs in every state around the nation, probably on a
>daily basis.. it just doesn't become a manipulative media spectacle.
>
>Dave

Dave S wrote:

> That same "proof" occurs in every state around the nation, probably on a
> daily basis.. it just doesn't become a manipulative media spectacle.

Thats true, people get served legal documentation all the time and you
never read about it anywhere...

Richard Riley wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:59:47 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:
>
> :>
> :> That's exactly what they did last time. He got in a fight, they
> :> issued him a tresspass notice and escorted him from the grounds. He
> :> did it again, they issued him a tresspass notice and escorted him from
> :> the grounds. To get back in he had to sign a "code of conduct"
> :> agreement. Then he violated that by serving SnF volunteers with a
> :> SLAPP suit in the middle of the show, while they were working.
> :> :
> :
> :Who is he "fighting" with that can't put him down with a single lick?
> :
> Each time he's been ejected he's claimed that someone from SnF has run
> him over (with a golf cart in one case, and the garbage tractor in the
> other) and that he had serious physical injuries. That was without
> any actual physical contact.
>
> Imagine how long you'd be in court with him if you actually DID lay
> him out.
>
> So, yes, they were basically yelling matches, perhaps with a shove
> thrown in. IIRC it was Frank Hitlaw - who occasionally shows up here
> in RAH - and RB Brady from Parascender. RB was recovering from a
> heart attack at the time.
>
> John, if you read this - I have several pictures of Zoom being
> escorted from the SnF grounds by police. Would you have space at
> Zoomland to post them?

I'd like to see them if you don't mind sending them to my AOL address.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 01:37:14 GMT, Anthony W > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
>
>>>Actually, they issued him a formal trespass warning when they kicked him out
>>>back in the '90s. It's a misdemeanor if he comes on the grounds.
>>
>>The difference with a restraining order is that he would have gone to
>>the gray-motel for a few days.
>
>
> Yep. Ignoring the no-trespass notice is a misdemeanor, but ignoring a
> restraining order would be a felony.
>
> There's a possibility Zoom's stunt played a part in the dismissal of the
> "Invasion of Privacy" half of Campbell's suit. As I posted a while back,
> Campbell's gaining access last year was a perfect example of *why* SnF had felt
> it necessary to post his driver's license photo at the entries. The Clerk of
> Court's web page...
>
> http://evilurl.com/HELLhymentitRUMP (doncha just LOVE evilurl.com? :-)
>
> ...doesn't list a transcript of the hearing on the motion to dismiss, just the
> judge's order dismissing that count. However, Campbell's attorney declined the
> opportunity to refile (that's the 11/22 letter from Mr. Kuhn). It might have
> been because of the security company's legal arguments...or it could have been
> because Zoom's actions made it impossible to claim that posting the photo was
> unnecessary.
>
> In Zoom's answers to interrogatories, he refuses to answer some questions
> because of Sun-N-Fun's supposed "...propensity to use some information in a
> smear campaign on the internet." Sounds to me like he's blaming SnF for the
> things said about him on RAH. Interesting, no?
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Has he ever actually admitted fault for his losing jobs and false
claims? Just how many types is certified in now?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Anthony W wrote:

> Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 01:37:14 GMT, Anthony W > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Actually, they issued him a formal trespass warning when they kicked
>>>> him out
>>>> back in the '90s. It's a misdemeanor if he comes on the grounds.
>>>
>>>
>>> The difference with a restraining order is that he would have gone to
>>> the gray-motel for a few days.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yep. Ignoring the no-trespass notice is a misdemeanor, but ignoring a
>> restraining order would be a felony.
>> There's a possibility Zoom's stunt played a part in the dismissal of the
>> "Invasion of Privacy" half of Campbell's suit. As I posted a while back,
>> Campbell's gaining access last year was a perfect example of *why* SnF
>> had felt
>> it necessary to post his driver's license photo at the entries. The
>> Clerk of
>> Court's web page...
>> http://evilurl.com/HELLhymentitRUMP (doncha just LOVE evilurl.com? :-)
>>
>> ...doesn't list a transcript of the hearing on the motion to dismiss,
>> just the
>> judge's order dismissing that count. However, Campbell's attorney
>> declined the
>> opportunity to refile (that's the 11/22 letter from Mr. Kuhn). It
>> might have
>> been because of the security company's legal arguments...or it could
>> have been
>> because Zoom's actions made it impossible to claim that posting the
>> photo was
>> unnecessary.
>>
>> In Zoom's answers to interrogatories, he refuses to answer some questions
>> because of Sun-N-Fun's supposed "...propensity to use some information
>> in a
>> smear campaign on the internet." Sounds to me like he's blaming SnF
>> for the
>> things said about him on RAH. Interesting, no?
>>
>> Ron Wanttaja
>
>
> Egads, this guy should be locked up.
>
> Tony

Hey, I don't want my tax dollars paying for his room and board. Then
again I'd like to see the look on his face when he meets his new cell
mate who hasn't seen a female in years. Ain't love grand?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Richard Riley wrote:
>
> John, if you read this - I have several pictures of Zoom being
> escorted from the SnF grounds by police. Would you have space at
> Zoomland to post them?

I've received the photos and posted them along with a summary and some
links: http://www.ousterhout.net/zoom/zoomjection.html

- John Ousterhout -

"John Ousterhout" > wrote in
message news:bGy7e.14668$Bb3.291@attbi_s22...

Did you catch the tilt-rotor part of his testimony
http://www.ousterhout.net/zoom/fed-snf.html ? What is he talking about? I
guess the rotors of helicopters and gyros tilt a bit :)

C.D.Damron wrote:
> "John Ousterhout" > wrote in
> message news:bGy7e.14668$Bb3.291@attbi_s22...
>
> Did you catch the tilt-rotor part of his testimony
> http://www.ousterhout.net/zoom/fed-snf.html ? What is he talking about? I
> guess the rotors of helicopters and gyros tilt a bit :)
>
>
My favourite line was where he said no one knows as much about
experimental aircraft as he.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
news:%9D7e.16153$d43.4545@lakeread03...
> My favourite line was where he said no one knows as much about
> experimental aircraft as he.


I thought the judge was great, reminding counsel that there wasn't a jury
and objections weren't necessary to identify heresay and other issues.

C.D.Damron wrote:

> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
> news:%9D7e.16153$d43.4545@lakeread03...
>
>>My favourite line was where he said no one knows as much about
>>experimental aircraft as he.
>
>
>
> I thought the judge was great, reminding counsel that there wasn't a jury
> and objections weren't necessary to identify heresay and other issues.
>
>
>
>
I can picture him leaving the room mumbling something along the lines of
"that boy should be put in a box."

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"John Ousterhout" > wrote in
message news:bGy7e.14668$Bb3.291@attbi_s22...
> Richard Riley wrote:
>>
>> John, if you read this - I have several pictures of Zoom being
>> escorted from the SnF grounds by police. Would you have space at
>> Zoomland to post them?
>
> I've received the photos and posted them along with a summary and some
> links: http://www.ousterhout.net/zoom/zoomjection.html
>
> - John Ousterhout -

Q. Oh, yes -- one other question.

This, I think is going to be rather important. I am sure that as a
practicing psychiatrist you have had the opportunity to speak to people
about this, but do you find a lot of prejudice toward mental illness or
people who have experienced any type of mental health problem, or people who
have consulted with psychiatrists, psychologists?

A. There is considerable prejudice and much of it is irrational and
unwarranted.

Q. Would that -- would some of those feelings manifest themselves at times
in trying to either damage someone or make false statements concerning
someone?

Is that within the realm of possibility?

A. It certainly is.

Charlie_P wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 02:42:54 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:
>
>
>>Unless you don't believe the ANN story...
>
>
> I don't believe ANY ann story nor any other noises that emanates from
> the general direction of that lying *******.
>
> Charlie P... governing myself accordingly!

How about this ANN story?

(From the department of POT, KETTLE, BLACK)

[Begin Fair Use quote of ANN]

Al Thompson wanted to succeed in aviation in the worst way...
and apparently did just that. [snip]

Thompson, something of a long-term embarrassment to the
aviation community, was well-known for a confrontational
demeanor and long-rambling oratories... [snip]

[End Fair Use quote of ANN]

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html
the ANN article in its entirety: http://evilurl.com/screwlips

- John Ousterhout -
http://ousterhout.net/zoom.html

Another paintballer-pilot, eh? Me too.

LCT Paintball wrote:

> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> news:0bR6e.3405$ha3.2909@trndny02...
>
>>It's too bad they didn't write the message on paint-balls and deliver them
>>with CO2
>
>
> You makin' fun of me?
>
> :)
>
>

> Another paintballer-pilot, eh? Me too.
>

You're kidding! All this time I've been looking up to pilots assuming they
are a class above the rest of us. You've burst my bubble.

I'm not a paintballer-pilot yet. Mostly just a paintballer/small business
owner. I'm hoping to start some lessons this fall. In the mean time, I'm
lurking around and trying to learn what I can.

I enjoy building things that make the neighbors shake their head in
disbelief. I am amazed at the things the people in this group have
accomplished.

I've built a paintball tank with a 3" main gun, a "blooper" look alike for
taking out tanks that landed my picture in a magazine, and now I'm working
on a new tank that will borrow some building techniques from you guys. It
will be a fiberglass composite built around a steel frame, and will have a
semi auto main gun firering a foam round that I build, and boast a 40 rps
chain gun similar to the warthog's (but not quite as lethal I hope). :)

A very, very stupid thing for the SNF people to do. Just like the stupidity
of last year. First he can get in, then no, it was a mistake. Who's on
first? What a bunch of buffoons.

"Cy Galley" > wrote in message
news:tmQ6e.9042$Bb3.7700@attbi_s22...
>I see via ANN that Zoom has been served his annual non-invitation!
>
>

Are you inciting people to shoot Jim Campbell? This is a really stupid
thing, even for you it's a new low.

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley wrote:
>> It's too bad they didn't write the message on paint-balls and deliver
>> them
>> with CO2
>>
> ...or lead balls delivered with gunpowder.

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> >
> I met Zoom not too long ago, and frankly, I found him to be a rather meek
> and nerdy kind of guy. I bet I could raise his blood pressure with a
> stern look.

No, you definitely didn't meet Jim. More than likely you meet Slucarzyk.
Wrong side of SNF.

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't think SnF sent Zoom a notice reminding him that he was banned from
> the
> show last year.

He wasn't banned from the show last year. I was there when he went in, and I
took pictures. TV and newspaper crews took pictures, interviewed him, etc.
Bet Ousterhout won't publish those. :)

Juan Jimenez wrote:

> Are you inciting people to shoot Jim Campbell? This is a really stupid
> thing, even for you it's a new low.
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Steve Foley wrote:
>>
>>>It's too bad they didn't write the message on paint-balls and deliver
>>>them
>>>with CO2
>>>
>>
>>...or lead balls delivered with gunpowder.
>
>
>
Speaking of low blows, how are you?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired?

Juan Jimenez wrote:

> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I don't think SnF sent Zoom a notice reminding him that he was banned from
>>the
>>show last year.
>
>
> He wasn't banned from the show last year. I was there when he went in, and I
> took pictures. TV and newspaper crews took pictures, interviewed him, etc.
> Bet Ousterhout won't publish those. :)
>
>
>
Why don't you publish them? Better yet, send them to me and I'll post
them for you.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>
>> Are you inciting people to shoot Jim Campbell? This is a really stupid
>> thing, even for you it's a new low.
>>

> Speaking of low blows, how are you?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired?

Actually that would be a low BJ, juan is rather short.

Tony

Juan Jimenez wrote:
> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I don't think SnF sent Zoom a notice reminding him that he was banned from
>>the
>>show last year.
>
>
> He wasn't banned from the show last year. I was there when he went in, and I
> took pictures. TV and newspaper crews took pictures, interviewed him, etc.
> Bet Ousterhout won't publish those. :)


Jim Campbell was allowed to enter Sun 'n Fun once by mistake in 2004.

I've published portions of the Lakeland (FL) Ledger Newspaper story and
Jim Campbell's stories about the events of April 16, 2004. I also
included links to the entire original stories.

I recommend reading them all and then deciding which story seems more
objective.

http://www.ousterhout.net/zoom.html

- John Ousterhout -

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote

> Speaking of low blows, how are you?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired?

Naw, this is the right way.

Low blow? Speaking of low blows, how's your mom?
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote
>
>
>>Speaking of low blows, how are you?
>>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired?
>
>
> Naw, this is the right way.
>
> Low blow? Speaking of low blows, how's your mom?

Or That's a dirty crack, speaking of.....

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

For those keeping score, Zoom filed two more lawsuits at SnF: "Contract and
Indebtedness" claims against Powrachute and Controlvision. Polk County
(Florida) Court Case numbers:

2005CA-001448-0000-LK
2005CA-001449-0000-LK

This makes 30 lawsuits involving Campbell in the last 15 years, including five
in the past three years.

EAA previously reported that Powrachute has been in financial trouble, and the
imminent sale of the company was reported:

http://www.sportpilot.org/news/050331_powrachute.html

Ron Wanttaja

"Juan Jimenez" wrote in a message:
> A very, very stupid thing for the SNF people to do. Just like the
stupidity
> of last year. First he can get in, then no, it was a mistake. Who's on
first?
> What a bunch of buffoons.
>
"Juan Jimenez" wrote in another message:
> Are you inciting people to shoot Jim Campbell? This is a really stupid
> thing, even for it's a new low.
>
>
Hear, hear the puppy is barking. And about the shooting thing, ain't that
a good idea?
ower

"John Ousterhout" > wrote in
message news:AsF8e.26629$GJ.4309@attbi_s71...

> Jim Campbell was allowed to enter Sun 'n Fun once by mistake in 2004.

By mistake? ROFLMAO! There were no less than two TV crews and several
newspaper crews, right there at the media booth, they all waited right there
with Jim while Jim waited for the response to his request for media
credentials. He was told he couldn't have credentials, but he could buy a
ticket and come in like everyone else. He did. I was right there and can
confirm exactly what happened. No mistake, except maybe in your gullible
imagination.

Now, I'd like to see where you published on your web site the stories
confirming that SNF lied to the Polk County Tourism board in order to get
more funds from the board. They gave the PCT board one set of inflated
attendance numbers, and the IRS another set of much smaller numbers. Either
they lied to the board or they lied to the IRS. Which one is it, John?

In your mailbox. Let's see how good you are in keeping your word.

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
news:NYE8e.24563$d43.4473@lakeread03...
> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>
>> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>I don't think SnF sent Zoom a notice reminding him that he was banned
>>>from the
>>>show last year.
>>
>>
>> He wasn't banned from the show last year. I was there when he went in,
>> and I took pictures. TV and newspaper crews took pictures, interviewed
>> him, etc. Bet Ousterhout won't publish those. :)
>>
>>
>>
> Why don't you publish them? Better yet, send them to me and I'll post them
> for you.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Just cause the news crews were at the press booth doesn't mean they were
covering campbell. Just getting their credentials, more like.

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> For those keeping score, Zoom filed two more lawsuits at SnF: "Contract and
> Indebtedness" claims against Powrachute and Controlvision. Polk County
> (Florida) Court Case numbers:
>
> 2005CA-001448-0000-LK
> 2005CA-001449-0000-LK
>
> This makes 30 lawsuits involving Campbell in the last 15 years, including five
> in the past three years.
>
> EAA previously reported that Powrachute has been in financial trouble, and the
> imminent sale of the company was reported:
>
> http://www.sportpilot.org/news/050331_powrachute.html
>
> Ron Wanttaja

I must have missed something, what's his beef with Powrachute?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

John T wrote:

> Just cause the news crews were at the press booth doesn't mean they were
> covering campbell. Just getting their credentials, more like.
>
Just as likely they had no idea who zoom was.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Juan Jimenez wrote:
> In your mailbox. Let's see how good you are in keeping your word.
>
> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
> news:NYE8e.24563$d43.4473@lakeread03...
>
>>Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't think SnF sent Zoom a notice reminding him that he was banned
>>>
>>>>from the
>>>
>>>>show last year.
>>>
>>>
>>>He wasn't banned from the show last year. I was there when he went in,
>>>and I took pictures. TV and newspaper crews took pictures, interviewed
>>>him, etc. Bet Ousterhout won't publish those. :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Why don't you publish them? Better yet, send them to me and I'll post them
>>for you.
>>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
>
I'll post them of you want, but they don't prove what you say other than
someone appears to be interviewing him. There's nothing there showing
what year it was.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

check the pictures before talking about something of which you know
nothing...

"John T" > wrote in message
...
> Just cause the news crews were at the press booth doesn't mean they were
> covering campbell. Just getting their credentials, more like.
>

As I expected, your word isn't worth the nanoamperes used to transmit them.
Didn't your daddy teach you that a man is only as good as his word? That
ought to tell you what yours is worth. No one cares what you think the
pictures say or don't say, Dannyboy. All the events were independently
verified and reported in the general media and your opinion of them or the
pics is irrelevant, just like just about everything else that comes out of
your typing.

Get over it.

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
news:5uT8e.25681$d43.4823@lakeread03...
> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>> In your mailbox. Let's see how good you are in keeping your word.
>>
>> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
>> news:NYE8e.24563$d43.4473@lakeread03...
>>
>>>Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I don't think SnF sent Zoom a notice reminding him that he was banned
>>>>
>>>>>from the
>>>>
>>>>>show last year.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>He wasn't banned from the show last year. I was there when he went in,
>>>>and I took pictures. TV and newspaper crews took pictures, interviewed
>>>>him, etc. Bet Ousterhout won't publish those. :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Why don't you publish them? Better yet, send them to me and I'll post
>>>them for you.
>>>
>>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>
>>
> I'll post them of you want, but they don't prove what you say other than
> someone appears to be interviewing him. There's nothing there showing what
> year it was.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>

I just love it when your reply reflects directly back on your own
image. Once again, you have looked in the mirror and seen yourself.
We all know that you are as good as your word and your word isn't worth
****.

PS: What makes you think that anyone here, or anywhere else, cares
what you think?


Juan Jimenez wrote:
> As I expected, your word isn't worth the nanoamperes used to transmit
them.
> Didn't your daddy teach you that a man is only as good as his word?
That
> ought to tell you what yours is worth. No one cares what you think
the
> pictures say or don't say, Dannyboy. All the events were
independently
> verified and reported in the general media and your opinion of them
or the
> pics is irrelevant, just like just about everything else that comes
out of
> your typing.
>
> Get over it.
>
> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
> news:5uT8e.25681$d43.4823@lakeread03...
> > Juan Jimenez wrote:
> >> In your mailbox. Let's see how good you are in keeping your word.
> >>
> >> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
> >> news:NYE8e.24563$d43.4473@lakeread03...
> >>
> >>>Juan Jimenez wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>I don't think SnF sent Zoom a notice reminding him that he was
banned
> >>>>
> >>>>>from the
> >>>>
> >>>>>show last year.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>He wasn't banned from the show last year. I was there when he
went in,
> >>>>and I took pictures. TV and newspaper crews took pictures,
interviewed
> >>>>him, etc. Bet Ousterhout won't publish those. :)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Why don't you publish them? Better yet, send them to me and I'll
post
> >>>them for you.
> >>>
> >>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > I'll post them of you want, but they don't prove what you say other
than
> > someone appears to be interviewing him. There's nothing there
showing what
> > year it was.
> >
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >
> >

Quote from the MASTER of knowing nothing about everyting...Janu Jimenez

Juan Jimenez wrote:
> check the pictures before talking about something of which you know
> nothing...
>
> "John T" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Just cause the news crews were at the press booth doesn't mean they
were
> > covering campbell. Just getting their credentials, more like.
> >

"BobR" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I just love it when your reply reflects directly back on your own image.

Who cares what you think my image is, nitwit? Haven't you figured out yet
that if I want to know what your opinion is of me, I'll ask you? Shoo, back
under your brownnosing rock.

"BobR" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Quote from the MASTER of knowing nothing about everyting...Janu Jimenez

Spoken by the typical Texas moron who couldn't spell a word right if his
life depended on it. Hell, if it weren't for gravity, you probably would
never have figured out how to land a plane!

Juan Jimenez wrote:

> As I expected, your word isn't worth the nanoamperes used to transmit them.
> Didn't your daddy teach you that a man is only as good as his word? That
> ought to tell you what yours is worth. No one cares what you think the
> pictures say or don't say, Dannyboy. All the events were independently
> verified and reported in the general media and your opinion of them or the
> pics is irrelevant, just like just about everything else that comes out of
> your typing.
>
> Get over it.
>
> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
> news:5uT8e.25681$d43.4823@lakeread03...
>
>>Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>
>>>In your mailbox. Let's see how good you are in keeping your word.
>>>
>>>"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
>>>news:NYE8e.24563$d43.4473@lakeread03...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't think SnF sent Zoom a notice reminding him that he was banned
>>>>>
>>>>>>from the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>show last year.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>He wasn't banned from the show last year. I was there when he went in,
>>>>>and I took pictures. TV and newspaper crews took pictures, interviewed
>>>>>him, etc. Bet Ousterhout won't publish those. :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why don't you publish them? Better yet, send them to me and I'll post
>>>>them for you.
>>>>
>>>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I'll post them of you want, but they don't prove what you say other than
>>someone appears to be interviewing him. There's nothing there showing what
>>year it was.
>>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>
Yawn, I was just giving you a chance to change your mind. I posted them
in A.B.P.A if you care to look. I'll let other people decide what they
actually show.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:39:21 -0700, Richard Riley >
wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:24:50 -0500, "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired"
> wrote:
>
>:> http://www.sportpilot.org/news/050331_powrachute.html
>:>
>:> Ron Wanttaja
>:I must have missed something, what's his beef with Powrachute?

>
>My assumption (and it's just an assumption) it that it's Standard Zoom
>Business Tactic #1 - get them to run some ads, when the contract runs
>out keep running the ads, bill the company, sue when they don't pay.

Complicating this one is the fact that Powrachute was sold to new owners just
before Zoom filed his suit:

http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/050413_powrachute.html

Wouldn't THAT have been a pleasant surprise...getting served at their first air
show?

One can imagine their problems in trying to defend something like this. They
may just settle and then try to get the money back from the previous owner. The
new cases were filed in Circuit Court, which means the claimed damages are
greater than $15,000.

For the trading card collectors out there, Zoom's attorney in the two new cases
is the same one as in his SnF lawsuit. The previous suits, against Pulsar and
RAF, had a different attorney. They were in County court and were for quite a
bit less.

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> One can imagine their problems in trying to defend something like this.
> They
> may just settle and then try to get the money back from the previous
> owner. The
> new cases were filed in Circuit Court, which means the claimed damages are
> greater than $15,000.


Is this then the same type of action - for non-payment of advertising
invoices?

Rich S.

Boy that IS good advise! Why don't you try it sometime!

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
> check the pictures before talking about something of which you know
> nothing...
>
> "John T" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Just cause the news crews were at the press booth doesn't mean they were
>> covering campbell. Just getting their credentials, more like.
>>
>
>

I feel a little guilty taking this wonderful thread a bit off-topic, but
here goes.

First of all I'm rather part–time paintballer.. I'd play more often if I
didn't fly so much, that's for sure.

I too am amazed at a lot of the folks in this group, though I plan to
follow in their footsteps (or at least attempt to) in the very near
future: my RV–10 tail & wing kits have been ordered.

A few years ago the idea of becoming a pilot struck me as a very lofty,
perhaps unattainable, dream, as well. It's not! Here I am now pushing
300 hours with my instrument rating and owning a Cessna 152. Anybody of
reasonable intelligence who puts their mind to it can do this. Go for it!

~Paul

P.S. Your paintball tanks sound mighty cool. Sounds to me like you have
what it takes to build an airplane.

LCT Paintball wrote:

>>Another paintballer-pilot, eh? Me too.
>>
>
>
> You're kidding! All this time I've been looking up to pilots assuming they
> are a class above the rest of us. You've burst my bubble.
>
> I'm not a paintballer-pilot yet. Mostly just a paintballer/small business
> owner. I'm hoping to start some lessons this fall. In the mean time, I'm
> lurking around and trying to learn what I can.
>
> I enjoy building things that make the neighbors shake their head in
> disbelief. I am amazed at the things the people in this group have
> accomplished.
>
> I've built a paintball tank with a 3" main gun, a "blooper" look alike for
> taking out tanks that landed my picture in a magazine, and now I'm working
> on a new tank that will borrow some building techniques from you guys. It
> will be a fiberglass composite built around a steel frame, and will have a
> semi auto main gun firering a foam round that I build, and boast a 40 rps
> chain gun similar to the warthog's (but not quite as lethal I hope). :)
>
>

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:39:21 -0700, Richard Riley >
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:24:50 -0500, "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired"
> wrote:
>>
>>:> http://www.sportpilot.org/news/050331_powrachute.html
>>:>
>>:> Ron Wanttaja
>>:I must have missed something, what's his beef with Powrachute?
>
>
>>My assumption (and it's just an assumption) it that it's Standard Zoom
>>Business Tactic #1 - get them to run some ads, when the contract runs
>>out keep running the ads, bill the company, sue when they don't pay.
>
>
> Complicating this one is the fact that Powrachute was sold to new owners just
> before Zoom filed his suit:
>
> http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/050413_powrachute.html
>
> Wouldn't THAT have been a pleasant surprise...getting served at their first air
> show?
>
> One can imagine their problems in trying to defend something like this. They
> may just settle and then try to get the money back from the previous owner. The
> new cases were filed in Circuit Court, which means the claimed damages are
> greater than $15,000.
>
> For the trading card collectors out there, Zoom's attorney in the two new cases
> is the same one as in his SnF lawsuit. The previous suits, against Pulsar and
> RAF, had a different attorney. They were in County court and were for quite a
> bit less.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

They sue him right back for filing a harassing lawsuit. Then again,
anyone winning against zoom would get very little. Maybe the winner can
make something out of ANN. Other than that they will get a little money
from zoom, some personal posessions and his boy toy yawn.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Dude" > wrote:
> I met Zoom not too long ago, and frankly, I found him to be a rather meek
> and nerdy kind of guy. I bet I could raise his blood pressure with a
> stern look.

"Juan Jimenez" > replied:
> No, you definitely didn't meet Jim. More than likely you meet Slucarzyk.
> Wrong side of SNF.

As a card-carrying "nerd" who has met Chuck, I doubt anyone would ever
classify Chuck as a "nerdy kind of guy." "Someone entirely too enamored of
all things Polish" perhaps. :-)

That said, I've never me Jim Campbell so I have no opinion if Dude's
(unflattering but not outright hostile)characterization is accurate.

Russell Kent

>
> P.S. Your paintball tanks sound mighty cool. Sounds to me like you have
> what it takes to build an airplane.
>

From what I've learned it takes 2 things to build an airplane. Time, and
money. At this stage in my life I don't have an abundance of either one.
Maybe in 10 years when I get some of these kids raised....;)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:52:30 GMT, "LCT Paintball"
> wrote:

>From what I've learned it takes 2 things to build an airplane. Time, and
>money. At this stage in my life I don't have an abundance of either one.
>Maybe in 10 years when I get some of these kids raised....;)

Or, you could start, and just keep at it for 15 years like me.

Corky (going for longest buildtime) Scott

In article <bGy7e.14668$Bb3.291@attbi_s22>, John Ousterhout says...
>
>Richard Riley wrote:
>>
>> John, if you read this - I have several pictures of Zoom being
>> escorted from the SnF grounds by police. Would you have space at
>> Zoomland to post them?
>
>I've received the photos and posted them along with a summary and some
>links: http://www.ousterhout.net/zoom/zoomjection.html
>

Those photos were taken in front of my booth and I'm in 3 of them along with
zoom. He was telling me that he was run over by a SnF tram and other assorted
tales of woe. I enjoyed watching Lakeland's finest escorting him off the
premises:-)

I just got back from SnF this AM and must sadly report that my $100.00 reward
for anyone spotting zoom and notifying me or SnF security went unclaimed. My new
"ANN free zone" sign was a big hit and I had a nice conversation with Kevin O
Brian.I missed John Ballentine when he was at the booth because I was with a
customer in my trailer so I couldn't say Hi.

Some of the RAH-15 stopped in I heard that zoom had filed some lawsuits against
2 vendors at the show. Bet he did his usual AD contract rip off. I'm going to
contact the 2 companies and see if they could use some background on zoom .

See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

In article >, Richard Riley says...
>Each time he's been ejected he's claimed that someone from SnF has run
>him over (with a golf cart in one case, and the garbage tractor in the
>other) and that he had serious physical injuries. That was without
>any actual physical contact.

I think the term used at the time about his "injuries" was "more drama then
trauma" :-)

See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

In article >, Dude says...
>
>>
>> I figure that SnF has let it go.. They would be happy leaving it as status
>> quo- i.e. no zoom at SnF. Zoom's the one who can't give it up.
>>
>> My guess is that SnF would probably drop the ban if Zoom behaved nicely
>> for a few years and stopped publishing the annual series of anti-SnF
>> pieces. Today's selection was pitiful at best, with ANN taking plenty of
>> implied shots at SnF just in the tone of their articles.
>>
>> KB
>>
>
>Unless you don't believe the ANN story about them taping multiple copies of
>the ban to the door of the ANN office, then you can't believe they have
>dropped it. Even if the story is embellished, it would be best for them to
>use a process server or professional delivery service rather than tape.
>
>I think there is plenty of anymosity on both sides, and if SnF were to let
>it go, they would simply let Zoom have his press pass and let him in to rant
>and rave however he sees fit. Better yet, keep him under unobtrusive
>surveillance so that if he starts any fights with anyone they have all the
>evidence they need to throw him out and deny him entrance forever.
>
>I met Zoom not too long ago, and frankly, I found him to be a rather meek
>and nerdy kind of guy. I bet I could raise his blood pressure with a stern
>look.
>
>The experience put the lie to both his self promoted test pilot image as
>well as many stores about his behavior. He did seem the type that would
>hide behind a lawyer though, so I can believe those tales. I understand he
>did a good job of ruining some businesses, and I can't blame anyone for
>taking action for being so maligned. Unfortunately, everyone who reads his
>reviews hasn't had a chance to meet him.
>
>
>

In article >, Russell Kent says...

>As a card-carrying "nerd" who has met Chuck, I doubt anyone would ever
>classify Chuck as a "nerdy kind of guy." "Someone entirely too enamored of
>all things Polish" perhaps. :-)

Actually I'm a closet nerd and was outed this week at SnF. I left my pocket
protector resplendent with 2 drafting pencils,matching ball point pen ,a 6" SS
rule and 2 magic markers ,one red one black out in the open and I was quickly
found out.It's amazing how fast one can be exposed LOL!!!

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret.

In article <CPX8e.25696$d43.10782@lakeread03>, Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired says

Hey Dan,

Yawn said:
>>>>>He wasn't banned from the show last year. I was there when he went in,
>>>>>>and I took pictures. TV and newspaper crews took pictures, interviewed
>>>>>>him, etc.


Hmm ...not banned? No Press credientials were provided so he had to take
advantage of a bungle in the ticket office to buy a ticket and get in ,then he
stayed long enough to get some photos and beat feet before the cops came. Sounds
like he knew he wasn't a VIP at SNF. Oh the dashing young Dr Campbell is now a
fearless investigative reporter ,Oops, I mean kinda fearless ,ah...maybe a bit
fearful, well actually he's a coward, but he investigates err sorta
investigates...ah in reality he mostly fabricates his reporting. Did I mention
that this is all in my own humble opinion? :-)

>>>>>>Bet Ousterhout won't publish those. :)

I bet he would if jaun would send them to John or better yet send them to me
LOL!!I'll make sure the Judge that did the papers gets them :-)


>Yawn, I was just giving you a chance to change your mind. I posted them
>in A.B.P.A if you care to look. I'll let other people decide what they
>actually show.
>

If he's not banned then why didn't he show up at SnF??

Chuck S RAH 15/1 ret oops I mean RAH 14/1 ret

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article <CPX8e.25696$d43.10782@lakeread03>, Dan, U.S. Air Force,
> retired says
>
> Hey Dan,
>
> Yawn said:
>>>>>>He wasn't banned from the show last year. I was there when he went in,
>>>>>>>and I took pictures. TV and newspaper crews took pictures,
>>>>>>>interviewed
>>>>>>>him, etc.
>
>
> Hmm ...not banned? No Press credientials were provided so he had to take
> advantage of a bungle in the ticket office to buy a ticket and get in

Wrong again, as usual. He was told he would not be given press credentials
and could buy a ticket to get in like everyone else. It's all documented,
the general media took pictures, video and wrote about the entire incident.

> then he stayed long enough to get some photos and beat feet before the
> cops came.

Wrong yet again. He went all over the show, and I was with him. We all
thoroughly enjoyed the reaction of people at the show when he would show up
at booths and display areas.

You still haven't figured out how to shut your trap when you don't have a
clue. Figures.

Juan Jimenez wrote:
> "ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In article <CPX8e.25696$d43.10782@lakeread03>, Dan, U.S. Air Force,
>>retired says
>>
>>Hey Dan,
>>
>>Yawn said:
>>
>>>>>>>He wasn't banned from the show last year. I was there when he went in,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>and I took pictures. TV and newspaper crews took pictures,
>>>>>>>>interviewed
>>>>>>>>him, etc.
>>
>>
>>Hmm ...not banned? No Press credientials were provided so he had to take
>>advantage of a bungle in the ticket office to buy a ticket and get in
>
>
> Wrong again, as usual. He was told he would not be given press credentials
> and could buy a ticket to get in like everyone else. It's all documented,
> the general media took pictures, video and wrote about the entire incident.
>
>
>>then he stayed long enough to get some photos and beat feet before the
>>cops came.
>
>
> Wrong yet again. He went all over the show, and I was with him. We all
> thoroughly enjoyed the reaction of people at the show when he would show up
> at booths and display areas.

You really enjoy the "look what idiot showed up" reaction? :-)


Matt

> Or, you could start, and just keep at it for 15 years like me.
>
> Corky (going for longest buildtime) Scott
>

How far along are you?

Corky Scott wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:52:30 GMT, "LCT Paintball"
> > wrote:
>
>>From what I've learned it takes 2 things to build an airplane. Time, and
>>money. At this stage in my life I don't have an abundance of either one.
>>Maybe in 10 years when I get some of these kids raised....;)
>
> Or, you could start, and just keep at it for 15 years like me.
>
> Corky (going for longest buildtime) Scott
Naw Corky I'm giving you a run for your money! I've been working on my KR-2
for 13 years so far and am at least .05% done!
John

Gang,
I believe Mr. Campbell was inside S&F at least one morning of the
2000 show.

I arrived at my airplane about 15 minutes after dawn to find a
person in the midst of a photo session. The cockpit cover had been
removed, dew was dripping off the wing into the rear cockpit, and all
my flight gear was in a pile on the wet grass. I was ****ed. After a
few words I went to find security, but the mystery man was gone when we
returned.

I made no immediate connection with Campbell, as I had no idea what
he looked like at the time. After returning home I read some Zoom
discussion on RAH and realized the likely identity of my visitor. I
think I posted my suspicion to RAH back then.

Nope, can't prove a thing. The guy was 5'9", maybe 5'10", thick
torso, bearded, with hair and beard color brown going gray. I was
facing into the sunrise, so his face was shadowed and under a hat brim.
He was wearing one of those bulging safari vests popular with
journalists, and was brandishing a very fancy camera. When I asked if
he was with a magazine, his response was "No, but I have a website".

Does this fit Campbell circa 2000? To the best of my knowledge no
dawn photo of the airplane ever showed up on the net.

Dan

In article >,
Juan Jimenez > wrote:
>Are you inciting people to shoot Jim Campbell? This is a really stupid
>thing, ...

OH! You mean that bullets would just bounce when they encounter such a
concentrated level of BS, right?

>"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
>> Steve Foley wrote:
>>> It's too bad they didn't write the message on paint-balls and deliver
>>> them
>>> with CO2
>>>
>> ...or lead balls delivered with gunpowder.
>
>

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>
>> "ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in
>> message ...
>>
>>> In article <CPX8e.25696$d43.10782@lakeread03>, Dan, U.S. Air Force,
>>> retired says
>>>
>>> Hey Dan,
>>>
>>> Yawn said:
>>>
>>>>>>>> He wasn't banned from the show last year. I was there when he
>>>>>>>> went in,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and I took pictures. TV and newspaper crews took pictures,
>>>>>>>>> interviewed
>>>>>>>>> him, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm ...not banned? No Press credientials were provided so he had to take
>>> advantage of a bungle in the ticket office to buy a ticket and get in
>>
>>
>>
>> Wrong again, as usual. He was told he would not be given press
>> credentials and could buy a ticket to get in like everyone else. It's
>> all documented, the general media took pictures, video and wrote about
>> the entire incident.
>>
>>
>>> then he stayed long enough to get some photos and beat feet before
>>> the cops came.
>>
>>
>>
>> Wrong yet again. He went all over the show, and I was with him. We all
>> thoroughly enjoyed the reaction of people at the show when he would
>> show up at booths and display areas.
>
>
> You really enjoy the "look what idiot showed up" reaction? :-)
>
>
> Matt

More like "look what the cat dragged in."

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Robert Bonomi wrote:

> In article >,
> Juan Jimenez > wrote:
>
>>Are you inciting people to shoot Jim Campbell? This is a really stupid
>>thing, ...
>
>
> OH! You mean that bullets would just bounce when they encounter such a
> concentrated level of BS, right?
>
>
>>"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Steve Foley wrote:
>>>
>>>>It's too bad they didn't write the message on paint-balls and deliver
>>>>them
>>>>with CO2
>>>>
>>>
>>>...or lead balls delivered with gunpowder.
>>
>>
>
>
Actually yawn is concerned if anyone shoots zoom in the butt they might
hit yawn in the head.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I certainly would take issue with either of those statements.

It's good you have your priorities straight. Good luck on the aviation
career if and when it becomes a reality.

> From what I've learned it takes 2 things to build an airplane. Time, and
> money. At this stage in my life I don't have an abundance of either one.
> Maybe in 10 years when I get some of these kids raised....;)
>
>

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
> In article <CPX8e.25696$d43.10782@lakeread03>, Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired says
>
> Hey Dan,
>
> Yawn said:
>
>>>>>>He wasn't banned from the show last year. I was there when he went in,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>and I took pictures. TV and newspaper crews took pictures, interviewed
>>>>>>>him, etc.
>
>
>
> Hmm ...not banned? No Press credientials were provided so he had to take
> advantage of a bungle in the ticket office to buy a ticket and get in ,then he
> stayed long enough to get some photos and beat feet before the cops came. Sounds
> like he knew he wasn't a VIP at SNF. Oh the dashing young Dr Campbell is now a
> fearless investigative reporter ,Oops, I mean kinda fearless ,ah...maybe a bit
> fearful, well actually he's a coward, but he investigates err sorta
> investigates...ah in reality he mostly fabricates his reporting. Did I mention
> that this is all in my own humble opinion? :-)
>
>
>>>>>>>Bet Ousterhout won't publish those. :)
>
>
> I bet he would if jaun would send them to John or better yet send them to me
> LOL!!I'll make sure the Judge that did the papers gets them :-)
>
>
>
>>Yawn, I was just giving you a chance to change your mind. I posted them
>>in A.B.P.A if you care to look. I'll let other people decide what they
>>actually show.
>>
>
>
> If he's not banned then why didn't he show up at SnF??
>
> Chuck S RAH 15/1 ret oops I mean RAH 14/1 ret
>
Chuck, what's a good e-mail address to send you the pictures yawn sent me?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article >, Juan Jimenez says...

>Wrong again, as usual. He was told he would not be given press credentials

Hmmm I wonder why? Why couldn't a famous (in his mind) reporter get Press
Credientials at an Air Show where anyone with even a remote Press connection
gets them? I think maybe it was because he was banned from the show?

>and could buy a ticket to get in like everyone else.

Who told him that ? Bill Eickoff, John Burton,Patrick Slay ? Or was it a low
level Snafu by people who were not aware of the zoom situation ? Were they aware
they would have called security. They didn't know who zoom was and handled it
as if he were some one who just walked off the street and asked for Press
Credientials.
Why didn't he just buy a ticket this year and pay me a visit ?

> It's all documented,
>the general media took pictures, video and wrote about the entire incident.
>

I'm soon to get the photos but what general media wrote about the incident and
when was it published? Documents ? oh good lets see them ,or is this the
typical ANN ploy where your the general media and wrote about it on Ann ?


>> then he stayed long enough to get some photos and beat feet before the
>> cops came.
>
>Wrong yet again. He went all over the show, and I was with him.

Maybe so but you didn't go where anyone knew him .Only one person told me that
he saw zoom but it was a day later.Had I seen him I would have had security
there in a minute.

>We all
>thoroughly enjoyed the reaction of people at the show when he would show up
>at booths and display areas.

Whose booths? What display areas? Names please . Why didn't you and zoom show up
at "my" booth so you could "throughly enjoy" "my" reaction? Why didn't you stop
at Paradise city and talk to Dave Piper or Chaz or Wayne Thomas??? You bought a
ticket.. Fact is you went to safe places where you were unknown and
people didn't know zoom would be arrested if caught.


>You still haven't figured out how to shut your trap when you don't have a
>clue. Figures.

Not true ,if anyone is clueless around here it's not me ..I don't believe zoom
was ever a test pilot ,a father,an Etheopian food relief pilot,Doctor,high time
pilot ,etc., etc....but you do.


Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

"zoom can fool most the people some of the time ,some of the people none of the
time,and jaun all of the time" anon

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> You really enjoy the "look what idiot showed up" reaction? :-)

Yes, the few times we ran into you and saw you trying to impress people with
your ignorance. *8)

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
news:ocE9e.28698$d43.4837@lakeread03...
> Actually yawn is concerned if anyone shoots zoom in the butt they might
> hit yawn in the head.

good thing you're retired, because your jokes suck. i suppose that's the
reason you keep trying to get attention by taking off your clothes in
public, eh? what a dweeb.

get over it already, dannyboy.

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Juan Jimenez says...
>
>>Wrong again, as usual. He was told he would not be given press credentials
>
> Hmmm I wonder why?

If I have to explain it to you, you won't understand it anyway. <chuckle>

>>and could buy a ticket to get in like everyone else.
>
> Who told him that ?

The staff at the press credentials at the booth, after talking to HQ on the
radio. Even you should be able to figure that out. Then again, maybe not...

>> It's all documented, the general media took pictures, video and wrote
>> about the entire incident.
>
> I'm soon to get the photos but what general media wrote about the incident
> and
> when was it published?

That's for you to do the research. i'm sure you can get one of your
brownnosers to find that out for you on the internet. :)

But tell you what, I'll take pity on your ignorance this time and start you
off in the general direction. <chuckle>

http://search.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20040416&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=404160391&Ref=AR

Better yet, ask your buddy Ousterhout to look that up for you, he posted it
right here on April 17, 2004. <roflmao!>

> Maybe so but you didn't go where anyone knew him.

Bwaahahahaha! Now there's an idiotic statement if there ever was one. One
thing I can guarantee you, Chuck, is that the number of exhibitors and
visitors at SNF that know Jim is much, MUCH larger than the ones who know
you, kiddo. Sorry to burst your bubble. Kleenex are to your left.//

> Only one person told me that he saw zoom but it was a day later.

Awwww. poor baby, you miffed you missed the fun? Don't worry, dannyboy will
send you the pictures. :P

> Had I seen him I would have had security there in a minute.

Unhuh. Sure. :)

> Whose booths? What display areas? Names please.

Look, putz, I think you're confusing me with someone who gives a **** if you
know what booths, what areas and what names. Shall I spell that out for you?
Go ask them yourself. Oh, wait, I forgot, many of those didn't go this year,
and many won't come next year because they only saw 1/3 as many people as
last year. I wonder why? Maybe you can ask your buddy Hognose to list the
booths, areas and names for you, since he was there too, as you can see from
the pics. Poor Hognose screwed up one of his legs on a jump and had to do
the entire show on one of those electric scooters. Oh, wait, Kevin is also
on your worthless ****list? That's too bad. Ask John Ballantyne then. Pick a
name, any name! <chuckle>

> Why didn't you and zoom show up at "my" booth so you could "throughly
> enjoy" "my" reaction?

Because you didn't rate the privilege, clueless. If you had a single neuron
left between your ears you would have figured that out for yourself...

Juan Jimenez wrote:

> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
> news:ocE9e.28698$d43.4837@lakeread03...
>
>>Actually yawn is concerned if anyone shoots zoom in the butt they might
>>hit yawn in the head.
>
>
> good thing you're retired, because your jokes suck.

I wasn't joking.

i suppose that's the
> reason you keep trying to get attention by taking off your clothes in
> public, eh? what a dweeb.

Oh? When, pray tell, did I do that? Does the thought turn you on?


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Juan Jimenez wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>You really enjoy the "look what idiot showed up" reaction? :-)
>
>
> Yes, the few times we ran into you and saw you trying to impress people with
> your ignorance. *8)
>
>

Except that you've never run into me.


Matt

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
news:I3U9e.28947$d43.19193@lakeread03...
> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>
>> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
>> news:ocE9e.28698$d43.4837@lakeread03...
>>
>>>Actually yawn is concerned if anyone shoots zoom in the butt they might
>>>hit yawn in the head.
>>
>> good thing you're retired, because your jokes suck.
>
> I wasn't joking.

You're right, you weren't, much as you tried.

> i suppose that's the
>> reason you keep trying to get attention by taking off your clothes in
>> public, eh? what a dweeb.
>
> Oh? When, pray tell, did I do that? Does the thought turn you on?

That's your reaction to that, dannyboy, not mine. Did you think we wouldn't
find out how much you like to hang out in rec.nudism? <chuckle>

Juan

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>You really enjoy the "look what idiot showed up" reaction? :-)
>>
>> Yes, the few times we ran into you and saw you trying to impress people
>> with your ignorance. *8)
> Except that you've never run into me.

How would you know? :)

Juan

Y'know Juan, I noticed that the emotions in your messages (chuckle,
roflmao) are kinda....oddly placed. Almost forced. Or maybe more like an
automatic reaction type thing. Just out of place for whatever you've
just said.
In fact, I think you're the only one who's used <chuckle> constantly in
messages...

Maybe switching to emoticons...

John

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:50:17 GMT, "Cy Galley" >
wrote:

>I see via ANN that Zoom has been served his annual non-invitation!
>

OHMYGAWD! They affixed the non-invitations with packaging tape, and
"In each case, removing the paperwork did cause damage to the paint."
So a criminal complaint has been filed, a case which should be a slam
dunk if Winter Haven CSI kept the tape with the paint chips still
adhered. Somebody needs to click here pronto! http://tinyurl.com/5yvcf

Wayne

Juan Jimenez wrote:

> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
> news:I3U9e.28947$d43.19193@lakeread03...
>
>>Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
>>>news:ocE9e.28698$d43.4837@lakeread03...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Actually yawn is concerned if anyone shoots zoom in the butt they might
>>>>hit yawn in the head.
>>>
>>>good thing you're retired, because your jokes suck.
>>
>>I wasn't joking.
>
>
> You're right, you weren't, much as you tried.
>
>
>>i suppose that's the
>>
>>>reason you keep trying to get attention by taking off your clothes in
>>>public, eh? what a dweeb.
>>
>>Oh? When, pray tell, did I do that? Does the thought turn you on?
>
>
> That's your reaction to that, dannyboy, not mine. Did you think we wouldn't
> find out how much you like to hang out in rec.nudism? <chuckle>
>
> Juan
>
>
I also go to ham radio groups too. I got out of ham in 1972. I also go
to rec.aviation.military and I retired in 1994. As far as going to
rec.nudism does it mean I try to get attention as you say? It's quite a
stretch.

I know you are an immature boy who gets his jollies by being annoying,
but it won't work with me.

BTW, I notice you still haven't thanked me fot posting your pictures as
you requested. I won't hold my breath since you aren't man enogh to do so.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
news:_pdae.29034$d43.9494@lakeread03...
>
> I also go to ham radio groups too. I got out of ham in 1972. I also go to
> rec.aviation.military and I retired in 1994.

Your last post in rec.nude was today. Wrong answer.

> As far as going to rec.nudism does it mean I try to get attention as you
> say? It's quite a stretch.

Is it? :)

> I know you are an immature boy who gets his jollies by being annoying, but
> it won't work with me.

Oh, I'm sure you think you know a lot of things. Reality's a bit different.

> BTW, I notice you still haven't thanked me fot posting your pictures as
> you requested. I won't hold my breath since you aren't man enogh to do so.

I didn't ask you to do anything, dannyboy. That was your idea, not mine. Get
over it.

Juan

Juan Jimenez wrote:

> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
> news:_pdae.29034$d43.9494@lakeread03...
>
>>I also go to ham radio groups too. I got out of ham in 1972. I also go to
>>rec.aviation.military and I retired in 1994.
>
>
> Your last post in rec.nude was today. Wrong answer.

Now you are being deliberately ignorant. My last post to R.A.M. was
today too.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
news:WWdae.29042$d43.15059@lakeread03...
> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>
>> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
>> news:_pdae.29034$d43.9494@lakeread03...
>>
>>>I also go to ham radio groups too. I got out of ham in 1972. I also go to
>>>rec.aviation.military and I retired in 1994.
>>
>>
>> Your last post in rec.nude was today. Wrong answer.
>
> Now you are being deliberately ignorant. My last post to R.A.M. was today
> too.

You're the one in the hole, not me. You just keep diggin', keep yourself
busy. And do try to get over it. :)

>>You still haven't figured out how to shut your trap when you don't have a
>>clue. Figures. - Yawn J.
>
>Not true ,if anyone is clueless around here it's not me ..I don't believe zoom
>was ever a test pilot ,a father,an Etheopian food relief pilot,Doctor,high time
>pilot ,etc., etc....but you do.
>
>
>Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret
>
>"zoom can fool most the people some of the time ,some of the people none of the
>time,and jaun all of the time" anon

==========================================

YEAAAAAAH...
Best zinger of the month. :o)


Barnyard BOb -

The more people I meet,
the more I love my dog....
and Chuck S sense of humor.

"UltraJohn" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Corky Scott wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:52:30 GMT, "LCT Paintball"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>From what I've learned it takes 2 things to build an airplane. Time, and
>>>money. At this stage in my life I don't have an abundance of either one.
>>>Maybe in 10 years when I get some of these kids raised....;)
>>
>> Or, you could start, and just keep at it for 15 years like me.
>>
>> Corky (going for longest buildtime) Scott
> Naw Corky I'm giving you a run for your money! I've been working on my
> KR-2
> for 13 years so far and am at least .05% done!
> John
>

I have a Pietenpol on the gear and ready to build the wings. I started it
in 1967. If I don't get it finished pretty soon we will both be "antiques"
before it flies! :-)

Highflyer

In article >, Juan Jimenez says...
>
>
>> Why didn't you and zoom show up at "my" booth so you could "throughly
>> enjoy" "my" reaction?
>
>Because you didn't rate the privilege, clueless. If you had a single neuron
>left between your ears you would have figured that out for yourself...

Privilege?? You were both to cowardly to let me see zoom because you both know
I would have called security and had him booted out again.You both knew he was
there illegally and the only reason he got in was a snafu.

Chuck (never been kicked out of an Airshow) S RAH-14/1 ret

In article >, Barnyard BOb - says...
>
>
>>>You still haven't figured out how to shut your trap when you don't have a
>>>clue. Figures. - Yawn J.
>>
>>Not true ,if anyone is clueless around here it's not me ..I don't believe zoom
>>was ever a test pilot ,a father,an Etheopian food relief pilot,Doctor,high time
>>pilot ,etc., etc....but you do.
>>
>>
>>Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret
>>
>>"zoom can fool most the people some of the time ,some of the people none of the
>>time,and jaun all of the time" anon
>
>==========================================
>
>YEAAAAAAH...
>Best zinger of the month. :o)
>
>
>Barnyard BOb -
>
>The more people I meet,
>the more I love my dog....
>and Chuck S sense of humor.


Hi Unka Bob
Coming from you that's a true compliment that I most thankfully accept. Your
"best zinger of the month" award has way more value then even zoomys "bozo of
the show" awards.LOL!!!

Maybe see ya at P'ville

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
> Actually I'm a closet nerd and was outed this week at SnF. I left my pocket
> protector resplendent with 2 drafting pencils,matching ball point pen ,a 6" SS
> rule and 2 magic markers ,one red one black out in the open and I was quickly
> found out.!

What, no Kielbasa?

- J.O.-

John Ousterhout wrote...
> ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
> > Actually I'm a closet nerd and was outed this week at SnF. I left my
pocket
> > protector resplendent with 2 drafting pencils,matching ball point pen ,a
6" SS
> > rule and 2 magic markers ,one red one black out in the open and I was
quickly
> > found out.!
>
> What, no Kielbasa?

He was talking about his *shirt* pocket.

Dave 'TMI' Hyde

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Juan Jimenez says...
>>
>>
>>> Why didn't you and zoom show up at "my" booth so you could "throughly
>>> enjoy" "my" reaction?
>>
>>Because you didn't rate the privilege, clueless. If you had a single
>>neuron
>>left between your ears you would have figured that out for yourself...
>
> Privilege?? You were both to cowardly to let me see zoom because you both
> know
> I would have called security and had him booted out again.You both knew he
> was
> there illegally and the only reason he got in was a snafu.

Sure, clueless, you keep believing that. Take it to the pharmacy, maybe
they'll give you something for it. <chuckle>

Speaking of cowards, when are you going to grow some gonads and come visit
the ANN trailer? Oh, wait, I forgot, that white stripe on your back is
nailed to your booth... hahahaha!

Dave Hyde wrote:

> John Ousterhout wrote...
>
>>ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
>>
>>>Actually I'm a closet nerd and was outed this week at SnF. I left my
>
> pocket
>
>>>protector resplendent with 2 drafting pencils,matching ball point pen ,a
>
> 6" SS
>
>>>rule and 2 magic markers ,one red one black out in the open and I was
>
> quickly
>
>>>found out.!
>>
>>What, no Kielbasa?
>
>
> He was talking about his *shirt* pocket.
>
> Dave 'TMI' Hyde
>
>
>
Um...Dave, John.....is there something you aren't telling us?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

> > What, no Kielbasa?
>
> He was talking about his *shirt* pocket.
>
> Dave 'TMI' Hyde

And your point is? <g>
--
Jim in NC

In article >, Juan Jimenez says...
>
>Sure, clueless, you keep believing that. Take it to the pharmacy, maybe
>they'll give you something for it. <chuckle>
>

Just answer the question why didn't zoom get a Press pass? Where did he get the
one he was wearing in the picture?

>Speaking of cowards, when are you going to grow some gonads and come visit
>the ANN trailer? Oh, wait, I forgot, that white stripe on your back is
>nailed to your booth... hahahaha!

I'll be there during Oshkosh. Unless it's locked ...again.

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

In article >, Morgans says...
>
>
>> > What, no Kielbasa?
>>
>> He was talking about his *shirt* pocket.
>>
>> Dave 'TMI' Hyde
>
>And your point is? <g>

The point is, there's no point on kielbasa don't you remember the old saying
"you can lead kielbasa to the plate but a "pencil" must be pointed". :-)

Anyway that could be the point ...or might be ,,,or not.

See ya
Chuck (the pierogi Kid) S

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:33:49 GMT, "LCT Paintball"
> wrote:

>How far along are you?

The wings are complete to the point where I'm ready to install the
fuel tanks. The fuselage is complete to the point where I'm ready to
install the engine. The problem with this is that I still need to
weld on some stand offs for the stringers that will define the belly.
Because the exhaust and the Piper Tripacer landing gear need to be
integrated, I have to move slowly and carefully there. So I'll be
refining the engine and testing it this summer and installing the fuel
tanks. Then when the engine is tested, I'll install it and finish the
belly.

One of my "tricks" I need to think about is how to route the exhaust
through the bottom of the firewall. The plan is to have the exhaust
system augment the cooling. It's going to take a while to figure
things out.

Corky Scott

Chuck, if you do wanna visit zoom and juan, I'll go with ya. I'd like to
see what these guys look like!
You don't know me, but I've seen you several times at your Oshkosh
booth...always busy!

John

I can't believe the attention that Zoom is able to get. Who was the actor
that said: " I don't care what they say as long as they spell my name
right". Other than providing keyboard practice to several people, what has
this thread achieved? I'm at a loss to see anyway that any homebuilt cause
or education has been advanced.

--
Stuart Fields
Experimental Helo magazine
P. O. Box 1585
Inyokern, CA 93527
(760) 377-4478
(760) 408-9747 general and layout cell
(760) 608-1299 technical and advertising cell

www.vkss.com
www.experimentalhelo.com


"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley wrote:
> > It's too bad they didn't write the message on paint-balls and deliver
them
> > with CO2
> >
> ...or lead balls delivered with gunpowder.

In article >, John T says...
>
>Chuck, if you do wanna visit zoom and juan, I'll go with ya. I'd like to
>see what these guys look like!
>You don't know me, but I've seen you several times at your Oshkosh
>booth...always busy!
>
>John

Hi John
Next time stop by and say Hi.Sounds like a plan that way I have a witness LOL!!!
See ya at Oshkosh..

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret.

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
> In article >, Morgans says...
>
>>
>>>>What, no Kielbasa?
>>>
>>>He was talking about his *shirt* pocket.
>>>
>>>Dave 'TMI' Hyde
>>
>>And your point is? <g>
>
>
> The point is, there's no point on kielbasa don't you remember the old saying
> "you can lead kielbasa to the plate but a "pencil" must be pointed". :-)
>
> Anyway that could be the point ...or might be ,,,or not.
>
> See ya
> Chuck (the pierogi Kid) S
>

Chuck, I am beginning to worry about you.

"Life is like a mug of beer, once the head is gone the rest is flat" -
Sgt. Carter

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article >, Stuart & Kathryn Fields says...
>
>I can't believe the attention that Zoom is able to get. Who was the actor
>that said: " I don't care what they say as long as they spell my name
>right". Other than providing keyboard practice to several people, what has
>this thread achieved? I'm at a loss to see anyway that any homebuilt cause
>or education has been advanced.

Probably because you've never been zoomed. You probably haven't been hurt by his
half truths and lies,you've never been hurt finiancially by him or have had your
reputation either personal or businesswise damaged by him. You probably never
had him call the Police on you and say you were threatening him etc ., etc.,Many
of us have been zoomed and we won't forget it.
He's never been held accountable for all the harm he's done in the past 12 years
to a lot of good people.

Your probably not aware of the whole story If you think he's just another
aviation writer why not write him and ask what the fuss is about .Ask him if he
ever flew Etheopian food relief missions like he claims,ask him what company was
he a test pilot for? Ask how he accumilated the flight time he claims when
people who fly for a living don't have that many hours. Chances are you'll get
"zoomed" and then you'll have a better understanding of what this is all about.
Go to http://www.ousterhout.net/ for a better overview about this guy called
zoom.

Chuck S RaH-14/1 ret

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
> In article >, Stuart & Kathryn Fields says...
>
>>I can't believe the attention that Zoom is able to get. Who was the actor
>>that said: " I don't care what they say as long as they spell my name
>>right". Other than providing keyboard practice to several people, what has
>>this thread achieved? I'm at a loss to see anyway that any homebuilt cause
>>or education has been advanced.
>
>
> Probably because you've never been zoomed. You probably haven't been hurt by his
> half truths and lies,you've never been hurt finiancially by him or have had your
> reputation either personal or businesswise damaged by him. You probably never
> had him call the Police on you and say you were threatening him etc ., etc.,Many
> of us have been zoomed and we won't forget it.
> He's never been held accountable for all the harm he's done in the past 12 years
> to a lot of good people.

Chuck, why haven't you all gotten together, pooled your resources and
then sued Zoom into oblivion? I'm asking this seriously. It seems like
a number of folks have reasonable grounds for lots of claims. I can see
it being hard for any one person to fund this, then again, I'm surprised
that this zoom character can have enough money to keep suing people.
However, if 20+ people got together, you ought to be able to keep suing
him for quite some time.


Matt

In article >, Matt Whiting says...

That's been recently discussed among a few of us .It would be done not for
profit because he doesn't have anything but for principle. Maybe it's time to
get serious about it . I'm all for it. I'd love to see him on a stand under oath
trying to explain his wild claims...

See ya

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

>Chuck, why haven't you all gotten together, pooled your resources and
>then sued Zoom into oblivion? I'm asking this seriously. It seems like
>a number of folks have reasonable grounds for lots of claims. I can see
>it being hard for any one person to fund this, then again, I'm surprised
>that this zoom character can have enough money to keep suing people.
>However, if 20+ people got together, you ought to be able to keep suing
>him for quite some time.
>
>
>Matt

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Juan Jimenez says...
>>
>>Sure, clueless, you keep believing that. Take it to the pharmacy, maybe
>>they'll give you something for it. <chuckle>
>
> Just answer the question why didn't zoom get a Press pass? Where did he
> get the
> one he was wearing in the picture?

Growing dumber in your old age. That's been explained ad-nauseum already.
Read, or get one of your gagglers to explain it to you again.

>>Speaking of cowards, when are you going to grow some gonads and come visit
>>the ANN trailer? Oh, wait, I forgot, that white stripe on your back is
>>nailed to your booth... hahahaha!
>
> I'll be there during Oshkosh. Unless it's locked ...again.

Try borrowing some balls that don't shrink and disappear when the sun comes
out. <rofl!>

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
>You probably haven't been hurt by his half truths and lies,you've never
>been hurt finiancially by him or have had your
> reputation either personal or businesswise damaged by him.

Awwww, poor baby, your feelings are hurt? Why didn't you ask someone to put
something on that?

What a joke, the pot calling the kettle black. :)

Juan

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Chuck, why haven't you all gotten together, pooled your resources and then
> sued Zoom into oblivion?

Get a clue, Matt. Do you think that after all these years, if they had
anything even remotely resembling a legally actionable cause, they wouldn't
have already done that? That's why the vast majority of what you see in
these threads is hot air and putzes whose valor ends where the mouse cords
run out. :)

Matt Whiting wrote:
> ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
> > In article >, Stuart & Kathryn
Fields says...
> >
> >>I can't believe the attention that Zoom is able to get. Who was
the actor
> >>that said: " I don't care what they say as long as they spell my
name
> >>right". Other than providing keyboard practice to several people,
what has
> >>this thread achieved? I'm at a loss to see anyway that any
homebuilt cause
> >>or education has been advanced.
> >
> >
> > Probably because you've never been zoomed. You probably haven't
been hurt by his
> > half truths and lies,you've never been hurt finiancially by him or
have had your
> > reputation either personal or businesswise damaged by him. You
probably never
> > had him call the Police on you and say you were threatening him etc
.., etc.,Many
> > of us have been zoomed and we won't forget it.
> > He's never been held accountable for all the harm he's done in the
past 12 years
> > to a lot of good people.
>
> Chuck, why haven't you all gotten together, pooled your resources and

> then sued Zoom into oblivion? I'm asking this seriously. It seems
like
> a number of folks have reasonable grounds for lots of claims. I can
see
> it being hard for any one person to fund this, then again, I'm
surprised
> that this zoom character can have enough money to keep suing people.
> However, if 20+ people got together, you ought to be able to keep
suing
> him for quite some time.

1) He didn't have any money. Once you win, you don't get anything from
him.
2) The goal would be to put him out of business. Didn't need to sue
him to do that.

Juan Jimenez wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Chuck, why haven't you all gotten together, pooled your resources and then
>>sued Zoom into oblivion?
>
>
> Get a clue, Matt. Do you think that after all these years, if they had
> anything even remotely resembling a legally actionable cause, they wouldn't
> have already done that? That's why the vast majority of what you see in
> these threads is hot air and putzes whose valor ends where the mouse cords
> run out. :)
>
>
Valor Juan???? I have personally seen him selling subscriptions to his
defunct magazine at Arlington.

wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, Stuart & Kathryn
>
> Fields says...
>
>>>>I can't believe the attention that Zoom is able to get. Who was
>
> the actor
>
>>>>that said: " I don't care what they say as long as they spell my
>
> name
>
>>>>right". Other than providing keyboard practice to several people,
>
> what has
>
>>>>this thread achieved? I'm at a loss to see anyway that any
>
> homebuilt cause
>
>>>>or education has been advanced.
>>>
>>>
>>>Probably because you've never been zoomed. You probably haven't
>
> been hurt by his
>
>>>half truths and lies,you've never been hurt finiancially by him or
>
> have had your
>
>>>reputation either personal or businesswise damaged by him. You
>
> probably never
>
>>>had him call the Police on you and say you were threatening him etc
>
> ., etc.,Many
>
>>>of us have been zoomed and we won't forget it.
>>>He's never been held accountable for all the harm he's done in the
>
> past 12 years
>
>>>to a lot of good people.
>>
>>Chuck, why haven't you all gotten together, pooled your resources and
>
>
>>then sued Zoom into oblivion? I'm asking this seriously. It seems
>
> like
>
>>a number of folks have reasonable grounds for lots of claims. I can
>
> see
>
>>it being hard for any one person to fund this, then again, I'm
>
> surprised
>
>>that this zoom character can have enough money to keep suing people.
>>However, if 20+ people got together, you ought to be able to keep
>
> suing
>
>>him for quite some time.
>
>
> 1) He didn't have any money. Once you win, you don't get anything from
> him.

He must have some money as you don't hire a lawyer and sue people for free.


> 2) The goal would be to put him out of business. Didn't need to sue
> him to do that.


Isn't he still in business?


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

>
> Chuck, why haven't you all gotten together, pooled your resources and
> then sued Zoom into oblivion? I'm asking this seriously.

Because the man is "judgement proof." Any real assets he had lost a
long time ago in bankrupcy. He's left a whole string of creditors
behind.

While Chuck and others have some assets, they don't have an infinite
amount to try to out-zoom zoom.

Ron Natalie wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>
>> Chuck, why haven't you all gotten together, pooled your resources and
>> then sued Zoom into oblivion? I'm asking this seriously.
>
>
> Because the man is "judgement proof." Any real assets he had lost a
> long time ago in bankrupcy. He's left a whole string of creditors behind.
>
> While Chuck and others have some assets, they don't have an infinite
> amount to try to out-zoom zoom.

If he has no assets, how does he keep hiring lawyers to file law suits?
Most lawyers don't work for free and if he doesn't have credible cases
then he isn't likely to get a contingency lawyer either.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

>
> If he has no assets, how does he keep hiring lawyers to file law suits?
> Most lawyers don't work for free and if he doesn't have credible cases
> then he isn't likely to get a contingency lawyer either.
>
I've always wondered about this. Even when he was in the dire throws of
the Chapter 7 proceedings on USAviator, he still managed to get legal
representation. There are two reasons for this. One is that there
are lawyers who are willing to take on cases like this even despite the
risk of not recovering anything (I think he has left behind a string of
stiffed lawyers as well if I remember the USAviator bankrupcy
proceedings). Two, when he chooses to be, the man is quite charming
and persuasive. This is why he succeeds at all. If he didn't go off
the deep end when the rest of his skills didn't work for him, he'd be
quite a succesful figure.

In article >, Matt Whiting says...

>If he has no assets, how does he keep hiring lawyers to file law suits?
> Most lawyers don't work for free and if he doesn't have credible cases
>then he isn't likely to get a contingency lawyer either.

First you need to read his bankruptcy reports and see how many attorneys he's
stiffed. Secondly it dosen't take a lot of money to sue a couple thousand will
start it. The real money starts when you get ready for court ,but there's a lot
of posturing that goes on before that happens. When he sues so called dead beat
advertizers the Collection attorneys take a piece of that if they prevail.
He served 2 former advertizers papers at SnF this year . That guy is a piece of
work.
He's got a lawsuit against SnF going on right now over his being banned from the
show. I guess jaun thinks zooms not banned so then why the lawsuit? Talk about
clueless.


Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

"zoom can fool most of the people some of the time,some of the people none of
the time and jaun all of the time" anon

In article >, Ron Natalie says...
>
Two, when he chooses to be, the man is quite charming
>and persuasive. This is why he succeeds at all. If he didn't go off
>the deep end when the rest of his skills didn't work for him, he'd be
>quite a succesful figure.

I've said that for a long time but the guys his own worst enemy and he believes
his own hype.He's a joke in the industry and among his peers, he went from
having a fairly sucessful magazine and ended up with a nickle and dime web site.
Sadly he's hurt a lot of people in the process.

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

> Juan Jimenezwrote:
"Matt Whiting" <whiting_no_spam_AT_epix.net> wrote in message
> news:_idbe.1475$4a.148403_no_spam_AT_news1.epix.ne t...
>
> Chuck, why haven't you all gotten together, pooled your resources
and then
> sued Zoom into oblivion?
>
Get a clue, Matt. Do you think that after all these years, if they had

anything even remotely resembling a legally actionable cause, they
wouldn't
have already done that? That's why the vast majority of what you see
in
these threads is hot air and putzes whose valor ends where the mouse
cords
run out. :)[/quote:ecd2946046]

Juan, do you have a job yet? Its' about 18 months since you left
Borland, isn't it?

Did you know that when you apply for a job with any large or medium
size company, HR googles your name? What do you think they do when
they find all the posts about Zoom?


-------------= Posted from Ugroups.com =-------------
---= Fast & Free Web Portal to Usenet Newsgroups =---
-------------= http://www.ugroups.com/ =-------------

In article >, McCroskey says...

>Juan, do you have a job yet? Its' about 18 months since you left
>Borland, isn't it?
>
>Did you know that when you apply for a job with any large or medium
>size company, HR googles your name? What do you think they do when
>they find all the posts about Zoom?

Gee I never thought of that, think I'll do a google myself and see what happens
when I google jaun. After all I'm an employer:-)

See ya
Chuck (got a job) S RAH-14/1 ret

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:09:23 -0700, Richard Riley
> wrote:

>On 25 Apr 2005 10:51:24 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk
> wrote:
>
>:In article >, John T says...
>:>
>:>Chuck, if you do wanna visit zoom and juan, I'll go with ya. I'd like to
>:>see what these guys look like!
>:>You don't know me, but I've seen you several times at your Oshkosh
>:>booth...always busy!
>:>
>:>John
>:
>:Hi John
>:Next time stop by and say Hi.Sounds like a plan that way I have a witness LOL!!!
>:See ya at Oshkosh..
>
>I'll be hanging around Chuck's tent most of the show - it'd be great
>to meet another RAH recalcitrant.

I was going every year and worked as one of the chairmen over in the
home building center, but haven't made it in about 5 years. I need to
grab the cameras, go this year and record this momumentous event.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:01:34 -0500, "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired"
> wrote:

>ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
>> In article >, Morgans says...
>>
>>>
>>>>>What, no Kielbasa?
>>>>
>>>>He was talking about his *shirt* pocket.
>>>>
>>>>Dave 'TMI' Hyde
>>>
>>>And your point is? <g>
>>
>>
>> The point is, there's no point on kielbasa don't you remember the old saying
>> "you can lead kielbasa to the plate but a "pencil" must be pointed". :-)
>>
>> Anyway that could be the point ...or might be ,,,or not.
>>
>> See ya
>> Chuck (the pierogi Kid) S
>>
>
>Chuck, I am beginning to worry about you.

He's been "Zoomed" far too many times. <:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>"Life is like a mug of beer, once the head is gone the rest is flat" -
>Sgt. Carter
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On 26 Apr 2005 19:06:47 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk
> wrote:

>In article >, McCroskey says...
>
>>Juan, do you have a job yet? Its' about 18 months since you left
>>Borland, isn't it?
>>
>>Did you know that when you apply for a job with any large or medium
>>size company, HR googles your name? What do you think they do when
>>they find all the posts about Zoom?
>
>Gee I never thought of that, think I'll do a google myself and see what happens
>when I google jaun. After all I'm an employer:-)
>

yah don't even need to be an employer Chuck. Any thing on here is
public and *almost* all of it gets archived.

Just search on some of the past posters. It does go a longggg way
back. <:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>See ya
>Chuck (got a job) S RAH-14/1 ret

In article >, Roger says...

>>Chuck, I am beginning to worry about you.
>
>He's been "Zoomed" far too many times. <:-))

Got that right "we" have been zoomed for a long time LOL!!

See ya
Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret


"there are those who have been zoomed,those who will be zoomed and those too
dumb to know they've been zoomed" anon

In article >, Roger says...

>yah don't even need to be an employer Chuck. Any thing on here is
>public and *almost* all of it gets archived.
>
>Just search on some of the past posters. It does go a longggg way
>back. <:-))

If that's the case I sure glad I never posted anything I wouldn't want publicly
known :-) Bet yawn and zoom can't say that .IMHO LOL!!

Chuck (I don't care what ya Goggle) S RAH-14/1 ret

In article >, Richard Riley says...

>I'll be hanging around Chuck's tent most of the show - it'd be great
>to meet another RAH recalcitrant.

Geez Richard between you and Wainfan I have to keep a dictionary handy for all
those ,if not big ,wierd words you guys use.I've been called a "raconteur" by
Mary Jones of EAA and that took a day to find out it was a good thing LOL!!!
Now I had to deal with "recalcitrant" :-) As Sister Mary Hand Grenade used to
say "keep your eyes open and your mouth shut and ya just might learn something".

See ya

Chuck (raconteur par excellance)S RAH-14/1 ret

"you can fool most of the nuns some of the time,But nobody fools Sister Mary
Hand Grenade ...ever". chuck s

On 26 Apr 2005 20:11:14 -0500,
(McCroskey) wrote:


>Juan, do you have a job yet? Its' about 18 months since you left
>Borland, isn't it?
>
>Did you know that when you apply for a job with any large or medium
>size company, HR googles your name? What do you think they do when
>they find all the posts about Zoom?

Hire him as manager of the Inappropriate Emoticons Department?

Wayne

"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
...
> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Chuck, why haven't you all gotten together, pooled your resources and
>>>then sued Zoom into oblivion?
>>
>>
>> Get a clue, Matt. Do you think that after all these years, if they had
>> anything even remotely resembling a legally actionable cause, they
>> wouldn't have already done that? That's why the vast majority of what you
>> see in these threads is hot air and putzes whose valor ends where the
>> mouse cords run out. :)
> Valor Juan???? I have personally seen him selling subscriptions to his
> defunct magazine at Arlington.

Oh, so that's why you and your buddies haven't sued? :)

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
>
> Now he's back in business, if you can call it that. Basically he has
> a blog that mostly posts press releases and accident reports. Not
> really impressive.

He never stopped being in business. And of course, no one who matters in
this industry agrees with your assessment of ANN, so so much for that. In
fact, I know of no one outside the gaggle who gives a flying intercourse
about your opinion of anything. Nuff said. :)

In other words, you tried to break the corporate veil and failed. Boo hoo.
Whine on.

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>
>> Chuck, why haven't you all gotten together, pooled your resources and
>> then sued Zoom into oblivion? I'm asking this seriously.
>
> Because the man is "judgement proof." Any real assets he had lost a long
> time ago in bankrupcy. He's left a whole string of creditors behind.
>
> While Chuck and others have some assets, they don't have an infinite
> amount to try to out-zoom zoom.

"McCroskey" > wrote in
message ...
> Juan, do you have a job yet? Its' about 18 months since you left
> Borland, isn't it?

As a matter of fact, I do. What's _your_excuse, putz? :)

Juan Jimenez wrote:
> "Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>
>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Chuck, why haven't you all gotten together, pooled your resources and
>>>>then sued Zoom into oblivion?
>>>
>>>
>>>Get a clue, Matt. Do you think that after all these years, if they had
>>>anything even remotely resembling a legally actionable cause, they
>>>wouldn't have already done that? That's why the vast majority of what you
>>>see in these threads is hot air and putzes whose valor ends where the
>>>mouse cords run out. :)
>>
>>Valor Juan???? I have personally seen him selling subscriptions to his
>>defunct magazine at Arlington.
>
>
> Oh, so that's why you and your buddies haven't sued? :)
>
>
He didn't sue me, I didn't buy a subscription so why should I sue, Putz?

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>Chuck, why haven't you all gotten together, pooled your resources and
>>>>then sued Zoom into oblivion?
>>>
>>>
>>> Get a clue, Matt. Do you think that after all these years, if they had
>>> anything even remotely resembling a legally actionable cause, they
>>> wouldn't have already done that? That's why the vast majority of what
>>> you see in these threads is hot air and putzes whose valor ends where
>>> the mouse cords run out. :)
>> Valor Juan???? I have personally seen him selling subscriptions to his
>> defunct magazine at Arlington.
>
> Oh, so that's why you and your buddies haven't sued? :)

Kinda pointless suing someone who barely has two nickles to rub together,
ain't it?

Kyle Boatright wrote:

> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Chuck, why haven't you all gotten together, pooled your resources and
>>>>>then sued Zoom into oblivion?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Get a clue, Matt. Do you think that after all these years, if they had
>>>>anything even remotely resembling a legally actionable cause, they
>>>>wouldn't have already done that? That's why the vast majority of what
>>>>you see in these threads is hot air and putzes whose valor ends where
>>>>the mouse cords run out. :)
>>>
>>>Valor Juan???? I have personally seen him selling subscriptions to his
>>>defunct magazine at Arlington.
>>
>>Oh, so that's why you and your buddies haven't sued? :)
>
>
> Kinda pointless suing someone who barely has two nickles to rub together,
> ain't it?
>
>
>
Well, you could try selling zoom for what he think's he's worth. Since
yawn is firmly attached to zoom's backside you can throw him in for free.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
news:vKXbe.73$xY3.6@lakeread03...
> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
>> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Chuck, why haven't you all gotten together, pooled your resources and
>>>>>>then sued Zoom into oblivion?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Get a clue, Matt. Do you think that after all these years, if they had
>>>>>anything even remotely resembling a legally actionable cause, they
>>>>>wouldn't have already done that? That's why the vast majority of what
>>>>>you see in these threads is hot air and putzes whose valor ends where
>>>>>the mouse cords run out. :)
>>>>
>>>>Valor Juan???? I have personally seen him selling subscriptions to his
>>>>defunct magazine at Arlington.
>>>
>>>Oh, so that's why you and your buddies haven't sued? :)
>>
>>
>> Kinda pointless suing someone who barely has two nickles to rub together,
>> ain't it?
>>
>>
>>
> Well, you could try selling zoom for what he think's he's worth. Since
> yawn is firmly attached to zoom's backside you can throw him in for free.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Which leaves us somewhat short of the aforementioned two nickles...

KB

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
> news:vKXbe.73$xY3.6@lakeread03...
>
>>Kyle Boatright wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Chuck, why haven't you all gotten together, pooled your resources and
>>>>>>>then sued Zoom into oblivion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Get a clue, Matt. Do you think that after all these years, if they had
>>>>>>anything even remotely resembling a legally actionable cause, they
>>>>>>wouldn't have already done that? That's why the vast majority of what
>>>>>>you see in these threads is hot air and putzes whose valor ends where
>>>>>>the mouse cords run out. :)
>>>>>
>>>>>Valor Juan???? I have personally seen him selling subscriptions to his
>>>>>defunct magazine at Arlington.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, so that's why you and your buddies haven't sued? :)
>>>
>>>
>>>Kinda pointless suing someone who barely has two nickles to rub together,
>>>ain't it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Well, you could try selling zoom for what he think's he's worth. Since
>>yawn is firmly attached to zoom's backside you can throw him in for free.
>>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
> Which leaves us somewhat short of the aforementioned two nickles...
>
> KB
>
>
I beg to differ, zoom thinks he's important,I bet you could get a whol3
dollar for him if you sell him for what he thinks he's worth.

Does e-bay allow selling of people?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:

> Does e-bay allow selling of people?

Neither whole or parted out...

Darrel Toepfer wrote:

> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
>
>> Does e-bay allow selling of people?
>
>
> Neither whole or parted out...

Guess I gotta work on my theory a bit more.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Juan Jimenez wrote:
> In other words, you tried to break the corporate veil and failed. Boo hoo.
> Whine on.
I didn't try anything. You know you do no justice to your point by
throwing out groundless insults to people who have done nothing to
you (and even if they did, you'd look better if you could behave in
a civil manner in your postings).

Someone asked why Zoom doesn't get sued, and I answered factually.
There's nothing there to get. I didn't, nor did anybody else here,
try to "pierce the corporate veil." Your knowledge of the law
seems to be even less deep than your knowledge of aviation. Neither
Zoom's businesses nor him personally has any assets worth going after.
All this was exposed during the US Aviator days and I have seen nothing
that indicates that has changed.

The pot calling the kettle black. How quaint.

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>> In other words, you tried to break the corporate veil and failed. Boo
>> hoo. Whine on.
> I didn't try anything. You know you do no justice to your point by
> throwing out groundless insults to people who have done nothing to
> you (and even if they did, you'd look better if you could behave in
> a civil manner in your postings).
>
> Someone asked why Zoom doesn't get sued, and I answered factually.
> There's nothing there to get. I didn't, nor did anybody else here,
> try to "pierce the corporate veil." Your knowledge of the law
> seems to be even less deep than your knowledge of aviation. Neither
> Zoom's businesses nor him personally has any assets worth going after.
> All this was exposed during the US Aviator days and I have seen nothing
> that indicates that has changed.

"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
...
>
> He didn't sue me, I didn't buy a subscription so why should I sue, Putz?

yet another big talker falls off the side of the boat....

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>
> Kinda pointless suing someone who barely has two nickles to rub together,
> ain't it?

That's probably the reason no one sues you, ain't it?

Juan Jimenez wrote:

>>Kinda pointless suing someone who barely has two nickles to rub together,
>>ain't it?
>
>
> That's probably the reason no one sues you, ain't it?

It must be hard to type with Zoom's hand up your ass.

Tony

Juan Jimenez wrote:
> "Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>He didn't sue me, I didn't buy a subscription so why should I sue, Putz?
>
>
> yet another big talker falls off the side of the boat....
>
>
Amazes me how every time you post you show just that much more how big
of an idiot you are.

Jerry Springer wrote:

> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>
>> "Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> He didn't sue me, I didn't buy a subscription so why should I sue, Putz?
>>
>>
>>
>> yet another big talker falls off the side of the boat....
>>
> Amazes me how every time you post you show just that much more how big
> of an idiot you are.

Actually yawn is short.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
...
> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>> "Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>He didn't sue me, I didn't buy a subscription so why should I sue, Putz?
>>
>>
>> yet another big talker falls off the side of the boat....
> Amazes me how every time you post you show just that much more how big of
> an idiot you are.

After all this time, Jerry, you still think I care what you think about me?
Does it really take years for you to take a hint?

"Anthony W" > wrote in message
news:M3tce.375$7K.98@trnddc06...
> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>
>>>Kinda pointless suing someone who barely has two nickles to rub together,
>>>ain't it?
>>
>>
>> That's probably the reason no one sues you, ain't it?
>
> It must be hard to type with Zoom's hand up your ass.

Wouldn't know. But you seem to be the expert, why don't you tell us about
it?

Juan Jimenez wrote:

> "Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>
>>>"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>He didn't sue me, I didn't buy a subscription so why should I sue, Putz?
>>>
>>>
>>>yet another big talker falls off the side of the boat....
>>
>>Amazes me how every time you post you show just that much more how big of
>>an idiot you are.
>
>
> After all this time, Jerry, you still think I care what you think about me?
> Does it really take years for you to take a hint?
>
>
If you didn't care you wouldn't respond.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>> After all this time, Jerry, you still think I care what you think
>> about me? Does it really take years for you to take a hint?
>>
>>
> If you didn't care you wouldn't respond.

Please! Please! Take the hint. DO NOT RESPOND.

NO-ONE (not Juan, Dan, or Jerry) CARES. REALLY!

Juan Jimenez wrote:
> "Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>
>>>"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>He didn't sue me, I didn't buy a subscription so why should I sue, Putz?
>>>
>>>
>>>yet another big talker falls off the side of the boat....
>>
>>Amazes me how every time you post you show just that much more how big of
>>an idiot you are.
>
>
> After all this time, Jerry, you still think I care what you think about me?
> Does it really take years for you to take a hint?
>
>

You don't care about what anyone here posts about you and we feel
likewise, so why do you keep posting here?

Matt

Frank van der Hulst wrote:

> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
>
>> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>
>>> After all this time, Jerry, you still think I care what you think
>>> about me? Does it really take years for you to take a hint?
>>>
>>>
>> If you didn't care you wouldn't respond.
>
>
> Please! Please! Take the hint. DO NOT RESPOND.
>
> NO-ONE (not Juan, Dan, or Jerry) CARES. REALLY!

I care deeply, really I do. I care so deeply....wait, what is it I care
about?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article >, Matt Whiting says...
>
>You don't care about what anyone here posts about you and we feel
>likewise, so why do you keep posting here?

Because in order to earn brownie points with zoom he must keep defending
his hero.zoom lacks the testicular fortitude to defend himself here or on any
other forum so his lackey jaun tries to do it for him.

zoom could end all of this by providing proof that what many of say about him
is false. I'm prepared to prove that anything I say I have proof for.For
example, if I say zoom claimed to have flown food relief missions in Ethiopia.I
have a copy of his magazine where he made the claim. I also know 2 of the
pilot's who actually flew those missions. One of them is a RAH-14 member and has
the log books to prove it.

For years he has harmed people with threats of lawsuits and damaged reputations
with his half truth innuendos and got away with it. He needs to be periodically
exposed so that other uninformed people don't get taken in by "young Dr
Campbell"s charm".

It would be a different thing if he apologized ,changed his ways and is now
doing what any of us trys to do.But that's not the case he's still billing
people for ads they didn't want and sueing them among other things.

Some say just ignore him he'll go away.But the fact is he is still doing to
people what he did 10 years ago. The 2 recent lawsuits against former
advertizers are proof of that, nothing's changed. I'm sure neither one of them
were aware of his past or tactics until they got threatened. I bet they wish now
that someone would have warned them.

If you bury your head in the sand when dealing with zoom he'll kick you in the
butt.

I had aother long talk with his former editor Tim Kerns at SnF and believe me
nothings changed in the way zoom does people. I can't wait till it's jauns
turn. LOL!!


ChuckS RAH-14/1 ret

"zoom can fool most of the people some of the time,some of the people none of
the time & jaun all of the time" anon

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
news:f5Cce.154$aB.23@lakeread03...
>>
>> After all this time, Jerry, you still think I care what you think about
>> me? Does it really take years for you to take a hint?
>>
>>
> If you didn't care you wouldn't respond.

Look in the mirror, and get over it, willya? <chuckle>

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> You don't care about what anyone here posts about you and we feel
> likewise, so why do you keep posting here?

To watch puppets like you fall all over yourselves. It's cheap
entertainment. I yank the chain, the RAH gaggle does the clown act. :)

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because in order to earn brownie points with zoom he must keep defending
> his hero.zoom lacks the testicular fortitude to defend himself here or on
> any
> other forum so his lackey jaun tries to do it for him.

....sez the spineless one who's so afraid of Zoom he won't come within 1000
feet of the ANN trailer and will run to the toilet and hide in the bowl at
the sight of "ANN" on his caller ID. :)

> I had aother long talk with his former editor Tim Kerns at SnF and believe
> me
> nothings changed in the way zoom does people.

Which just goes to say nothing's changed in your pathological lying ways,
boy. Hell, you can't even tell a straight lie about Zoom taking photos of
you. That's why you'll always be nothing more than a spineless putz.
<chuckle>

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Anthony W" > wrote in message
> news:M3tce.375$7K.98@trnddc06...
>> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>
>>>>Kinda pointless suing someone who barely has two nickles to rub
>>>>together, ain't it?
>>>
>>>
>>> That's probably the reason no one sues you, ain't it?
>>
>> It must be hard to type with Zoom's hand up your ass.
>
> Wouldn't know. But you seem to be the expert, why don't you tell us about
> it?

Well, this is a classic. An intelligent ****wad would ignore the insult An
average ****wad says, "Wouldn't know...". Juan, connect the dots! Anthony
was insulting you! You graced his insult with, "Wouldn't know". I think I
speak for many hundreds of people who evaluate you as an avergage ****wad on
your best day. Poll?

- cj

In article >, Juan Jimenez says...

>...sez the spineless one who's so afraid of Zoom he won't come within 1000
>feet of the ANN trailer and will run to the toilet and hide in the bowl at
>the sight of "ANN" on his caller ID. :)

Hmm haven't seen you near my tent either so I guess your "spineless " like me.
So do you do the toilet thing too??? LOL!!!

>
>> I had aother long talk with his former editor Tim Kerns at SnF and believe
>> me
>> nothings changed in the way zoom does people.
>
>Which just goes to say nothing's changed in your pathological lying ways,
>boy. Hell, you can't even tell a straight lie about Zoom taking photos of
>you. That's why you'll always be nothing more than a spineless putz.
><chuckle>

Spineless Putz ? That's coming from a guy who won't test fly the BD-4 1/2 he
built. Therefore if I'm a spinless putz and I test flew all my designs then I
guess your even lower then a "spineless putz" ROFL!!! Yes sirre bob you and zoom
are both cases of all sizzle and no bacon.True aviation heros!!...NOT!!

Chuck(see ya at Oshkosh) S RAH-14/1 ret

>

Well Chuck, I assume by your reply that something measurably positive is
being created by all of this bashing? I wish there was as much creative
information about homebuilts here. If you look at the relative amount of
postings and the content, the name of the newsgroup might be better called
"Bashing Practice 101"

--
Stuart Fields
Experimental Helo magazine
P. O. Box 1585
Inyokern, CA 93527
(760) 377-4478
(760) 408-9747 general and layout cell
(760) 608-1299 technical and advertising cell

www.vkss.com
www.experimentalhelo.com


"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Stuart & Kathryn Fields
says...
> >
> >I can't believe the attention that Zoom is able to get. Who was the
actor
> >that said: " I don't care what they say as long as they spell my name
> >right". Other than providing keyboard practice to several people, what
has
> >this thread achieved? I'm at a loss to see anyway that any homebuilt
cause
> >or education has been advanced.
>
> Probably because you've never been zoomed. You probably haven't been hurt
by his
> half truths and lies,you've never been hurt finiancially by him or have
had your
> reputation either personal or businesswise damaged by him. You probably
never
> had him call the Police on you and say you were threatening him etc .,
etc.,Many
> of us have been zoomed and we won't forget it.
> He's never been held accountable for all the harm he's done in the past 12
years
> to a lot of good people.
>
> Your probably not aware of the whole story If you think he's just another
> aviation writer why not write him and ask what the fuss is about .Ask him
if he
> ever flew Etheopian food relief missions like he claims,ask him what
company was
> he a test pilot for? Ask how he accumilated the flight time he claims when
> people who fly for a living don't have that many hours. Chances are you'll
get
> "zoomed" and then you'll have a better understanding of what this is all
about.
> Go to http://www.ousterhout.net/ for a better overview about this guy
called
> zoom.
>
> Chuck S RaH-14/1 ret
>

CJ wrote:
> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Anthony W" > wrote in message
>>news:M3tce.375$7K.98@trnddc06...
>>
>>>Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Kinda pointless suing someone who barely has two nickles to rub
>>>>>together, ain't it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's probably the reason no one sues you, ain't it?
>>>
>>>It must be hard to type with Zoom's hand up your ass.
>>
>>Wouldn't know. But you seem to be the expert, why don't you tell us about
>>it?
>
>
> Well, this is a classic. An intelligent ****wad would ignore the insult An
> average ****wad says, "Wouldn't know...". Juan, connect the dots! Anthony
> was insulting you! You graced his insult with, "Wouldn't know". I think I
> speak for many hundreds of people who evaluate you as an avergage ****wad on
> your best day. Poll?
>
> - cj

His reply didn't make it back to my server. The reason I and the rest
of us here are experts on this, is that we can plainly see the effects
of Zoom's hand up juan's ass.

Tony

"CJ" > wrote in message ...
>
> Well, this is a classic. An intelligent ****wad would ignore the insult
> An average ****wad says, "Wouldn't know...". Juan, connect the dots!
> Anthony was insulting you! You graced his insult with, "Wouldn't know".
> I think I speak for many hundreds of people who evaluate you as an
> avergage ****wad on your best day. Poll?

What would you know about intelligence? You see, if you were the owner of a
IQ in anything over two digits you'd figure out that 1) Anthony doesn't have
the brainmass to figure out how to put together a decent insult, let alone
one that deserves a response at his level, and 2) there aren't enough people
at your level of idiocy for you to claim that you speak for "hundreds". Now,
it may be the case that you're suffering from multiple personality disorder,
in which case, all I can say is that y'all need help with this personal
problem of yours. Any questions? One at a time, please. <rofl>

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hmm haven't seen you near my tent either so I guess your "spineless " like
> me.
> So do you do the toilet thing too??? LOL!!!

How quickly you've forgotten that you don't rate the privilege. Alzheimer's
already? *8)

> Spineless Putz ? That's coming from a guy who won't test fly the BD-4 1/2
> he built.

Ah, but in my case, ye spineless one, I will have the opportunity to do so,
whereas in your case, you can only wish for the opportunity, because you
will never, ever have the chance to fly something the likes of which I own.
That I can guarantee to you, in writing, stapled to that stripe on your
back. <chuckle>

In article >, Stuart & Kathryn Fields says...
>
>Well Chuck, I assume by your reply that something measurably positive is
>being created by all of this bashing?

Granted there is some bashing in some of the posts but the point of the posts
is to instruct not bash for bashing sake. It evident to me that you missed the
point of the postings. Did you go to http://www.ousterhout.net/ to get some
background before assuming that there was no positives to all this? Did you do
any Google searches to get a feel for what this is all about or are you just
playing newsgroup censor?

In my opinion zoom is a phony and thru the years he has damaged many peoples
name ,reputation and livihoods, is this OK with you? I would hope not. I'm sure
the 2 companies he just sued at SnF for non payment of unwanted ads wish they
could have been informed before doing business with him. That's the positve
message.


> I wish there was as much creative
>information about homebuilts here.

There is loads of homebuilt info here and from time to time a zoom thread will
pop up, run a while and stop .No big deal. Maybe you don't realize that most of
the people and companies zoom has hurt are deeply involved in the homebuilt
field. People that he bullied into silence while he had his magazine where he
controlled the content and never ran a letter to the editor from a lot of us
defending our positions. His side was the only one heard for a long time.

Only thru the Internet and RAH in particular did those of us who were zoomed
have a voice. I never knew that there were more then a couple of us who had been
zoomed until I started posting my story on the net. Then the gates opened and
the truth about zoom was opened to the light of day. The list of those who have
been zoomed reads like a "Who's Who in homebuilt aviation" list.



> If you look at the relative amount of
>postings and the content, the name of the newsgroup might be better called
>"Bashing Practice 101"

Maybe from you seemingly uninformed perspective it may seem that way but I
respectfully disagree with your conclusions.


Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

"zoom can fool most of the people some of the time ,some of the people none of
the time& jaun all of the time" anon

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
> Granted there is some bashing in some of the posts but the point of the
> posts
> is to instruct not bash for bashing sake.

ROFLMAO! Instruct what, that guilt by association is the standard in this
country? Perhaps in your native Poland, but certainly not here. Or maybe
you're just trying to prove that being dense is an excuse to do anything you
want on Usenet? Or maybe you're just banging your head against the wall
because it feels good when you stop. Who knows.

> Only thru the Internet and RAH in particular did those of us who were
> zoomed
> have a voice.

And then again only because not one of you have the gonads to do it in
person. Hide behind the keyboard and throw rocks. Such a positive
mentality...

Juan

"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" > wrote in message
...
> Well Chuck, I assume by your reply that something measurably positive is
> being created by all of this bashing?

Granted, there is bashing going on, but they are always doing it with the
word zoom in the subject. Simply put that word in your filter, and you
never will have to look at the zoom bashing again.
--
Jim in NC

On Sun, 1 May 2005 19:25:29 -0400, "Juan Jimenez"
> wrote:

>"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Granted there is some bashing in some of the posts but the point of the
>> posts
>> is to instruct not bash for bashing sake.
>
>ROFLMAO! Instruct what, that guilt by association is the standard in this
>country? Perhaps in your native Poland, but certainly not here. Or maybe
>you're just trying to prove that being dense is an excuse to do anything you
>want on Usenet? Or maybe you're just banging your head against the wall
>because it feels good when you stop. Who knows.
>
>> Only thru the Internet and RAH in particular did those of us who were
>> zoomed
>> have a voice.
>
>And then again only because not one of you have the gonads to do it in
>person. Hide behind the keyboard and throw rocks. Such a positive
>mentality...
>
>Juan
>


Juan,

Your post has no relevance to what Chuck posted. Chuck made
the point that Jim Campbell had a magazine that he edited
and that he used to attack various people and companys.
However, he NEVER allowed any "letters to the editor"
telling their "side of the story" to be published.

The only way the "rest of the story" could be told was RAH
and the internet. Only here did everyone have the same
ability to post. Jim Campbell soon found out that his lies
and accusations would be found out and exposed for the rest
of the aviation world to see.

It's documented that he said he flew rescue missions in
Ethopia... He did not

It's documented that he said he fathered a child .... He did
not

It's documented that he represented himself as a Medical
Doctor.... He is not

It appears that Jim Campbell hasn't changed any...

In that light, it's pretty obvious that RAH is the only menu
available for the truth to come out about Jim Campbell.

Do you have any suggestions as to a better means to exposing
Jim Campbells past and current actions??

Actually, John Ousterhout's website does quite a good job of
it and I highly recommend anyone even thinking of believing
what Jim Campbell says to check it out thoroughly....

http://www.ousterhout.net/

In article >,
says...
>
>"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in messag
>e
...
>>
>> Granted there is some bashing in some of the posts but the point of
>the
>> posts
>> is to instruct not bash for bashing sake.
>
>ROFLMAO! Instruct what, that guilt by association is the standard in t
>his
>country? Perhaps in your native Poland, but certainly not here. Or may
>be
>you're just trying to prove that being dense is an excuse to do anythi
>ng you
>want on Usenet? Or maybe you're just banging your head against the wal
>l
>because it feels good when you stop. Who knows.
>
>> Only thru the Internet and RAH in particular did those of us who wer
>e
>> zoomed
>> have a voice.
>
>And then again only because not one of you have the gonads to do it in
>
>person. Hide behind the keyboard and throw rocks. Such a positive
>mentality...
>
>Juan
>

You must have conviently missed those pictures of Chuck confronting
Zoom and then Zoom being escorted out of Sun N Fun that recently were
referenced on this list:)

sleepy6 wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
>
>>"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in messag
>>e
...
>>
>>>Granted there is some bashing in some of the posts but the point of
>>
>>the
>>
>>>posts
>>>is to instruct not bash for bashing sake.
>>
>>ROFLMAO! Instruct what, that guilt by association is the standard in t
>>his
>>country? Perhaps in your native Poland, but certainly not here. Or may
>>be
>>you're just trying to prove that being dense is an excuse to do anythi
>>ng you
>>want on Usenet? Or maybe you're just banging your head against the wal
>>l
>>because it feels good when you stop. Who knows.
>>
>>
>>>Only thru the Internet and RAH in particular did those of us who wer
>>
>>e
>>
>>>zoomed
>>>have a voice.
>>
>>And then again only because not one of you have the gonads to do it in
>>
>>person. Hide behind the keyboard and throw rocks. Such a positive
>>mentality...
>>
>>Juan
>>
>
>
> You must have conviently missed those pictures of Chuck confronting
> Zoom and then Zoom being escorted out of Sun N Fun that recently were
> referenced on this list:)
>

Obviously you misunderstood what those pictures actually represent. It
seems there was an expected civil disturbance at the local Hardee's and
the police went to SnF to ask zoom's advice where upon he offered to go
take charge of the situation. The fact that no such disturbance ensued
is proof that, once again, zoom is an indespensible asset to the community.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article >, Juan Jimenez says...
>
>> Only thru the Internet and RAH in particular did those of us who were
>> zoomed
>> have a voice.
>
>And then again only because not one of you have the gonads to do it in
>person. Hide behind the keyboard and throw rocks. Such a positive
>mentality...

Seems you have me mixed up with your hero.He sends you to do his dirty work
for him since he lacks the courage of his convictions to speak for himself..Did
he or did he not sue 2 ex advertizers on the 15 of April? I bet your proud of
that .Not rocks just facts,something you don't understand FACTS.

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

In article >, sleepy6
says...
>
>You must have conviently missed those pictures of Chuck confronting
>Zoom and then Zoom being escorted out of Sun N Fun that recently were
>referenced on this list:)

Those don't count in jauns mind because it wrecks his premise that I never had a
face to face with zoom. Fact is I had quite a few .The year the zoom un-wanted
posters went up at SnF zoom was running around telling people (me included) that
the FBI had sent special agents to the show to investigate and that they had
latent fingerprints from the posters. And that who ever did it should confess
now and recieve a lesser penalty.

He asked me who I thought had done it. I said did you **** anybody off in the
last few years? Fact is there were a ton of people who could have done it.

In another face to face I told him he lied in his article on the Hawk where he
said he looped rolled and spun the Hawk . A group of about 5 or 6 of us watched
his entire flight and there were no loops, rolls and spins.Terry Fuller our test
pilot did in fact do some loops and wingovers that zoom saw in a previous
flight. He looked me square in the eye and said "If I wrote it I did it" .He
obviously believes his own BS. Just shows that jaun is wrong again....

"John Ammeter" > wrote in message
...
>
> Your post has no relevance to what Chuck posted.

That's because you can't read. Not my problem.

> The only way the "rest of the story" could be told was RAH
> and the internet.

And yet ANN has exactly the opposite policy. Yeah, right.

> Do you have any suggestions as to a better means to exposing
> Jim Campbells past and current actions??

I have a better idea... why don't you get a life and find something positive
to do with your time rather than waste it throwing pebbles at the cinder
block wall? NOBODY listens to you or the RAH Gaggle that means anything in
the aviation news industry, John. N-O-B-O-D-Y. Get over it, get on with your
life and stop defending the indefensible.

In article <eQnde.3343$aB.2874@lakeread03>, says...
>
>sleepy6 wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>t
>> says...
>>
>>>"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in mess
>ag
>>>e
...
>>>
>>>>Granted there is some bashing in some of the posts but the point of
>
>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>>posts
>>>>is to instruct not bash for bashing sake.
>>>
>>>ROFLMAO! Instruct what, that guilt by association is the standard in
> t
>>>his
>>>country? Perhaps in your native Poland, but certainly not here. Or m
>ay
>>>be
>>>you're just trying to prove that being dense is an excuse to do anyt
>hi
>>>ng you
>>>want on Usenet? Or maybe you're just banging your head against the w
>al
>>>l
>>>because it feels good when you stop. Who knows.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Only thru the Internet and RAH in particular did those of us who we
>r
>>>
>>>e
>>>
>>>>zoomed
>>>>have a voice.
>>>
>>>And then again only because not one of you have the gonads to do it
>in
>>>
>>>person. Hide behind the keyboard and throw rocks. Such a positive
>>>mentality...
>>>
>>>Juan
>>>
>>
>>
>> You must have conviently missed those pictures of Chuck confronting
>> Zoom and then Zoom being escorted out of Sun N Fun that recently wer
>e
>> referenced on this list:)
>>
>
>Obviously you misunderstood what those pictures actually represent. It
>
>seems there was an expected civil disturbance at the local Hardee's an
>d
>the police went to SnF to ask zoom's advice where upon he offered to g
>o
>take charge of the situation. The fact that no such disturbance ensued
>
>is proof that, once again, zoom is an indespensible asset to the commu
>nity.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>

That sounds like the version that would get reported in ANN:)

sleepy6 wrote:
> In article <eQnde.3343$aB.2874@lakeread03>, says...
>
>>sleepy6 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>
>>t
>>
>>>says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in mess
>>
>>ag
>>
>>>>e
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Granted there is some bashing in some of the posts but the point of
>>
>>>>the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>posts
>>>>>is to instruct not bash for bashing sake.
>>>>
>>>>ROFLMAO! Instruct what, that guilt by association is the standard in
>>
>>t
>>
>>>>his
>>>>country? Perhaps in your native Poland, but certainly not here. Or m
>>
>>ay
>>
>>>>be
>>>>you're just trying to prove that being dense is an excuse to do anyt
>>
>>hi
>>
>>>>ng you
>>>>want on Usenet? Or maybe you're just banging your head against the w
>>
>>al
>>
>>>>l
>>>>because it feels good when you stop. Who knows.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Only thru the Internet and RAH in particular did those of us who we
>>
>>r
>>
>>>>e
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>zoomed
>>>>>have a voice.
>>>>
>>>>And then again only because not one of you have the gonads to do it
>>
>>in
>>
>>>>person. Hide behind the keyboard and throw rocks. Such a positive
>>>>mentality...
>>>>
>>>>Juan
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You must have conviently missed those pictures of Chuck confronting
>>>Zoom and then Zoom being escorted out of Sun N Fun that recently wer
>>
>>e
>>
>>>referenced on this list:)
>>>
>>
>>Obviously you misunderstood what those pictures actually represent. It
>>
>>seems there was an expected civil disturbance at the local Hardee's an
>>d
>>the police went to SnF to ask zoom's advice where upon he offered to g
>>o
>>take charge of the situation. The fact that no such disturbance ensued
>>
>>is proof that, once again, zoom is an indespensible asset to the commu
>>nity.
>>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>
>
> That sounds like the version that would get reported in ANN:)
>

The truly frightening part is I learned how to write like that in the
Air Force.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Chuck: Reading the list of the posters and some of their comments, it seems
that all of the instruction is going to the choir. It seems all agree with
your point of view except Juan Jimenez. It doesn't look like any kind of
open discussion, but if it makes the participants feel better, I guess
that's reason enough to continue. Although I would like to see the number
of T hangars that could be built with the energy and time spent.
BTW I've been aware of Campbell's reputation for some time and have no
reason to defend him.

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Stuart & Kathryn Fields
says...
> >
> >Well Chuck, I assume by your reply that something measurably positive is
> >being created by all of this bashing?
>
> Granted there is some bashing in some of the posts but the point of the
posts
> is to instruct not bash for bashing sake. It evident to me that you missed
the
> point of the postings. Did you go to http://www.ousterhout.net/ to get
some
> background before assuming that there was no positives to all this? Did
you do
> any Google searches to get a feel for what this is all about or are you
just
> playing newsgroup censor?
>
> In my opinion zoom is a phony and thru the years he has damaged many
peoples
> name ,reputation and livihoods, is this OK with you? I would hope not. I'm
sure
> the 2 companies he just sued at SnF for non payment of unwanted ads wish
they
> could have been informed before doing business with him. That's the
positve
> message.
>
>
> > I wish there was as much creative
> >information about homebuilts here.
>
> There is loads of homebuilt info here and from time to time a zoom thread
will
> pop up, run a while and stop .No big deal. Maybe you don't realize that
most of
> the people and companies zoom has hurt are deeply involved in the
homebuilt
> field. People that he bullied into silence while he had his magazine where
he
> controlled the content and never ran a letter to the editor from a lot of
us
> defending our positions. His side was the only one heard for a long time.
>
> Only thru the Internet and RAH in particular did those of us who were
zoomed
> have a voice. I never knew that there were more then a couple of us who
had been
> zoomed until I started posting my story on the net. Then the gates opened
and
> the truth about zoom was opened to the light of day. The list of those who
have
> been zoomed reads like a "Who's Who in homebuilt aviation" list.
>
>
>
> > If you look at the relative amount of
> >postings and the content, the name of the newsgroup might be better
called
> >"Bashing Practice 101"
>
> Maybe from you seemingly uninformed perspective it may seem that way but I
> respectfully disagree with your conclusions.
>
>
> Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret
>
> "zoom can fool most of the people some of the time ,some of the people
none of
> the time& jaun all of the time" anon
>

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
news:Byxde.4948$aB.3751@lakeread03...
>>>
>>>Obviously you misunderstood what those pictures actually represent. It
>>>
>>>seems there was an expected civil disturbance at the local Hardee's an
>>>d the police went to SnF to ask zoom's advice where upon he offered to g
>>>o take charge of the situation. The fact that no such disturbance ensued
>>>
>>>is proof that, once again, zoom is an indespensible asset to the commu
>>>nity.
>>>
>>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>
>>
>>
>> That sounds like the version that would get reported in ANN:)
>>
>
> The truly frightening part is I learned how to write like that in the Air
> Force.

I can tell. They forgot to teach you how to use a spell checker.

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
sleepy6
> says...
> >
> >You must have conviently missed those pictures of Chuck confronting
> >Zoom and then Zoom being escorted out of Sun N Fun that recently were
> >referenced on this list:)
>
> Those don't count in jauns mind because it wrecks his premise that I never
had a
> face to face with zoom. Fact is I had quite a few .The year the zoom
un-wanted
> posters went up at SnF zoom was running around telling people (me
included) that
> the FBI had sent special agents to the show to investigate and that they
had
> latent fingerprints from the posters. And that who ever did it should
confess
> now and recieve a lesser penalty.
<snip>

What was the charge going to be? Felony satire?

Tim Ward

In article >, Stuart Fields says...
>
>Chuck: Reading the list of the posters and some of their comments, it seems
>that all of the instruction is going to the choir. It seems all agree with
>your point of view except Juan Jimenez.

Beside the people who do post there is a large group of folks who just lurk.
Some because of their jobs (aviation writers) who must be careful of
controversy so they don't post but they certainly read the posts. Usually I see
them at air shows and we discuss zoom among other things.I talked to Kevin
O'Brien from ANN this year and had a friendly ,as usual, discussion with him. I
also saw John Ballentyne from ANN who stopped at our booth to visit but I was in
the trailer working a deal so I couldn't say hi. There are things said that I,
out of courtesy to all the writers I know, wouldn't repeat in public.

You might be surprised to know how many writers zoom has zoomed :-)Most if not
all are aware of zoom and take a tar baby approach to him.

Others have written me private e mails stating they were not aware of zoom's
tactics and took him at face value until they saw the posts and went to John O's
zoom site.However they didn't want to get involved in a public forum.

Generally speaking the "choir" consists mainly of people who have been "zoomed"
at one time or another and have no fear in posting.

> It doesn't look like any kind of
>open discussion, but if it makes the participants feel better, I guess
>that's reason enough to continue.

The purpose or at least my purpose in bringing up zoom from time to time is to
make people aware of what a phony he is and how he used his magazine to unfairly
malign people. Also to warn potential advertisers that zoom may do to them what
he has done for years ,that is to run unwanted ads and bill the companies .If
they don't pay he bullies them with threats of lawsuits and collection agency's.
There would be an open discussion if zoom would defend himself but he's in a non
defensible position .His toady jaun doesn't provide any logical arguments he
just name calls and makes irrelevant statements.

> Although I would like to see the number
>of T hangars that could be built with the energy and time spent.

Might make an interesting study . However the 5 mins I take to write a post
wouldn't get much done in the T hangar dept.LOL!! At that rate it would take me
about 10 years :-)

>BTW I've been aware of Campbell's reputation for some time and have no
>reason to defend him.

Which makes me all the more curious as to why you took me to task on this thread
and not jaun. jaun evidently approves of zooms tactics because he constantly
defends him. You say you have no reason to defend zoom but you took the side of
criticizing the thread. I suspect that you knew if you criticized jaun you'd be
blasted and called names by him. On the other hand you and I have had a dialog
that didn't involve name calling and was on a civil level even though we may
not entirely agree.I'd call that an "open discussion." :-)

See ya

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

"evil didn't prosper because good men spoke and evil was nuts" anon

Juan Jimenez wrote:
> "John Ammeter" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Do you have any suggestions as to a better means to exposing
> > Jim Campbells past and current actions??
>
> I have a better idea... why don't you get a life and find something
positive
> to do with your time rather than waste it throwing pebbles at the
cinder
> block wall? NOBODY listens to you or the RAH Gaggle that means
anything in
> the aviation news industry, John. N-O-B-O-D-Y.

This is nice! Juan admits he is a nobody in aviation journalism!

> Get over it, get on with your
> life and stop defending the indefensible.

This could qualify as the official usenet definition for
Pot-Kettle-Black.

Otto

(my back hurts)

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote
>
> Which makes me all the more curious as to why you took me to task on this
thread
> and not jaun. jaun evidently approves of zooms tactics because he
constantly
> defends him. You say you have no reason to defend zoom but you took the
side of
> criticizing the thread. I suspect that you knew if you criticized jaun
you'd be
> blasted and called names by him. On the other hand you and I have had a
dialog
> that didn't involve name calling and was on a civil level even though we
may
> not entirely agree.I'd call that an "open discussion." :-)
>
> See ya
>
> Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

All good points. There are many, among the movers and shakers in the
aviation industry, that need to know the pitfalls of being zoomed. They
should continue to read and learn, and not ignore the zoom threads.

There are others, like myself, that are not among the movers and shakers
(for now - I might have an ace up my sleeve for a future day ;-)...), that
continue to read, just because.. it's good entertainment, or... or...
whatever!

There are others that care not of zoom, or yaun, and who feel that the zoom
threads are an annoyance to their enjoyment of this newsgroup. They should
use the zoom subject as a kill filter, and read not. That was the reason
for one of my posts in this thread; to tell Stuart to filter, and others,
that feel the need to complain, that don't want to learn and be warned.

Clear enough, everyone? :-)
--
Jim in NC

In article . com>, Otto says...


>> NOBODY listens to you or the RAH Gaggle that means
>anything in
>> the aviation news industry, John. N-O-B-O-D-Y.
>
>This is nice! Juan admits he is a nobody in aviation journalism!

Thanks Otto for saving me a reply .That's the first honest thing jaun has said
in a long,long time...and by accident LOL!!!
>
>> Get over it, get on with your
>> life and stop defending the indefensible.
>
>This could qualify as the official usenet definition for
>Pot-Kettle-Black.

Or jaun slipping again and telling the truth about himself :-)
Stand by for in coming silly statements from the MInister of Silly Statements
jaun. My apologys to Monty Python....


Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

"even a blind pig finds an acorn and every so often jaun is truthful" anon

In article >, Richard Riley says...
>
>On Wed, 4 May 2005 00:29:09 -0400, "Morgans" >
>wrote:
>He accurately named the thread "Zoom". But he didn't include the
>Zzzz's that make Zoom filtering work. Of course, anyone who doesn't
>want to read Zoom threads isn't going to accidentally open this one
>up. But the Zzz's have worked to keep the Zoom Wars from scaring the
>children and horses, so it's probably a good convention to keep.

Mea cupa ,mea cupa ,mea maxima cupa for I also am guilty of same. I shall
correct it immeadiatly :-)
However the "zoom" in the title block would be a tip off but technically you are
absolutely correct.

See ya

Chuck (flagellating as I write) S RAH-14/1 ret

In article >, Morgans says...
>All good points. There are many, among the movers and shakers in the
>aviation industry, that need to know the pitfalls of being zoomed. They
>should continue to read and learn, and not ignore the zoom threads.
>
>There are others, like myself, that are not among the movers and shakers
>(for now - I might have an ace up my sleeve for a future day ;-)...), that
>continue to read, just because.. it's good entertainment, or... or...
>whatever!
>
>There are others that care not of zoom, or yaun, and who feel that the zoom
>threads are an annoyance to their enjoyment of this newsgroup. They should
>use the zoom subject as a kill filter, and read not. That was the reason
>for one of my posts in this thread; to tell Stuart to filter, and others,
>that feel the need to complain, that don't want to learn and be warned.
>
>Clear enough, everyone? :-)

Good points as well Jim and appreciated.

See ya

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

Truly amazing!
I don't read RAH for years, but when I do, people are *still*
being zoomed, lawsuits are *still* being filed, and RAH *still*
has postings with "zoom" in the subject line!

ry (I got zoomed before it was stylish)
--

Robert Yoder wrote:

> Truly amazing!
> I don't read RAH for years, but when I do, people are *still*
> being zoomed, lawsuits are *still* being filed, and RAH *still*
> has postings with "zoom" in the subject line!
>
> ry (I got zoomed before it was stylish)
> --

Just felt the need to beat the Christmas rush?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Robert Yoder wrote:
> Truly amazing!
> I don't read RAH for years, but when I do, people are *still*
> being zoomed, lawsuits are *still* being filed, and RAH *still*
> has postings with "zoom" in the subject line!
>
> ry (I got zoomed before it was stylish)
> --

Hi Robert;

Glad to see you are still kicking. I'm still here in Jakarta ducking
bombs and mother nature.

Pretty amazing, if you did the Rip Van Winkle thing in 1991 and just
woke up. Nothing would be different,a Bush in the White House ,war in
Iraq and people still being zooomed!

Frank Hitlaw (zoomed before Robert)

In article >, Richard Riley says...

>I've been exchanging emails with LR, she's doing good.

Tell her Hi for me I didn't see her at SnF or Oshkosh last year. By the way
Richard while poking thru some stuff for my attorney I found the 2 documents you
asked about. Should I mail them to JO or you?

See ya
Chuck ( zoomed while the Earths was cooling) S RAH-14/1 ret

"You can lead a horse to water but a chicken won't always lay". clyde

In article . com>,
says...
Robert;
>
>Glad to see you are still kicking. I'm still here in Jakarta ducking
>bombs and mother nature.
>
>Pretty amazing, if you did the Rip Van Winkle thing in 1991 and just
>woke up. Nothing would be different,a Bush in the White House ,war in
>Iraq and people still being zooomed!

Hi Frank #2 chicken thief
Missed ya at SnF this year .Still got that can of "pop" ya gave me a couple
years ago.I still can't get past the name to open and drink it :-)

See ya

Chuck( #1 chicken thief ) S RAH-14/1 ret

In article >, Robert Yoder says...
>
>Truly amazing!
>I don't read RAH for years, but when I do, people are *still*
>being zoomed, lawsuits are *still* being filed, and RAH *still*
>has postings with "zoom" in the subject line!
>
>ry (I got zoomed before it was stylish)

Hi Bob

Just goes to show why we have to keep exposing the zoomster for what he is a
Phoney. And that's an opinion and fact..he ain't changed a bit :-) Maybe it's
time for a "I've been zoomed and survived " reunion or maybe a listing of names
of those who have been zoomed.Would read like a who's who of Homebuilt aviation
LOL!! The list is long and illustrious :-)

Nice to hear from you.

See ya
Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

Hey Chuck,

Didn't that dork yawn say something about you never having a face to
face with his puppeteer. I guess he never heard of the time we tried to
thank the mooz for the chicken dinners that we were accused of
stealing. I'd say that was pretty much face to face at least it was
till he called the cop. If I recall correctly several went through the
serving line with us,Norm Goyer ,Richard Riley,Happy Miles and a couple
of others. What set you and I apart was that we went looking for zooom
to actually thank him for the chicken. Best of all we found him and
then the fun really began!!!

I will have bring you a case of the famous Indonesian drink Procari
Sweat. That has to be the perfect chaser for Muzzleloader.Think about
it a shot of Muzzleloader washed down with a chilled can of Sweat.

Frank Hitlaw, Official chicken thief #2 and executive assistant to El
Pollo Loco. Fighting the dark forces since 1990

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Robert Yoder says...
>>
>>Truly amazing!
>>I don't read RAH for years, but when I do, people are *still*
>>being zoomed, lawsuits are *still* being filed, and RAH *still*
>>has postings with "zoom" in the subject line!
>>
>>ry (I got zoomed before it was stylish)
>
> Hi Bob
>
> Just goes to show why we have to keep exposing the zoomster for what he is
> a
> Phoney. And that's an opinion and fact..he ain't changed a bit :-) Maybe
> it's
> time for a "I've been zoomed and survived " reunion or maybe a listing of
> names
> of those who have been zoomed.Would read like a who's who of Homebuilt
> aviation
> LOL!! The list is long and illustrious :-)
>
> Nice to hear from you.
>
> See ya
> Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret
>

Shucks, you old chicken thief! We do that every May at Pinckneyville! Only
two weeks away now. May 20, 21, and 22 this year. The 107th annual rah
flyin. :-)

Highflyer

In article >, Highflyer says...
>
>Shucks, you old chicken thief! We do that every May at Pinckneyville! Only
>two weeks away now. May 20, 21, and 22 this year. The 107th annual rah
>flyin. :-)

Hi John
P'ville was the site of my 2nd greatest chicken raid. I must admit that the
chicken was better there then the stuff I got at zooms party. So far I still
coming so hide the chickens LOL!!

See ya

Chuck( el Pollo Loco) S

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:

> In article >, Highflyer says...
>
>>Shucks, you old chicken thief! We do that every May at Pinckneyville! Only
>>two weeks away now. May 20, 21, and 22 this year. The 107th annual rah
>>flyin. :-)
>
>
> Hi John
> P'ville was the site of my 2nd greatest chicken raid. I must admit that the
> chicken was better there then the stuff I got at zooms party. So far I still
> coming so hide the chickens LOL!!
>
> See ya
>
> Chuck( el Pollo Loco) S
>

Y'know, Chuck, I never would have you pegged as s chicken plucker. Do
you really get into it to are you just doing sympathy plucks?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hey Chuck,
>
> Didn't that dork yawn say something about you never having a face to
> face with his puppeteer. I guess he never heard of the time we tried to
> thank the mooz for the chicken dinners that we were accused of
> stealing.

If I didn't hear about it, it wasn't a story worth telling, either that or
it was another expression of the chucksteak's pathological lying streak. :)

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
> Beside the people who do post there is a large group of folks who just
> lurk.
> Some because of their jobs (aviation writers) who must be careful of
> controversy so they don't post but they certainly read the posts. Usually
> I see
> them at air shows and we discuss zoom among other things.I talked to
> Kevin
> O'Brien from ANN this year and had a friendly ,as usual, discussion with
> him.

And it says a lot about you that you don't mention that Kevin is a regular
writer for ANN and continues year after year to do the same, in spite of all
your BS.

> I also saw John Ballentyne from ANN who stopped at our booth to visit but
> I was in
> the trailer working a deal so I couldn't say hi. There are things said
> that I,
> out of courtesy to all the writers I know, wouldn't repeat in public.

Such as the fact that John also continues to write for ANN, and has a high
regard for Jim?

Now why does that not surprise me about you? :)

> Others have written me private e mails stating they were not aware of
> zoom's
> tactics and took him at face value until they saw the posts and went to
> John O's
> zoom site.However they didn't want to get involved in a public forum.

And yet many times more others write on a daily basis to ANN praising the
publication for its content. You'd be surprised of the people who write.
There are some who will be VERY surprised, very soon, to hear who supports
ANN in a major way.

> The purpose or at least my purpose in bringing up zoom from time to time
> is to
> make people aware of what a phony he is and how he used his magazine to
> unfairly
> malign people.

And year after year it fails to make the slightest dent in ANN's continued
growth and success. But what the hell, you like to bang your head against
the wall, go right ahead. :)

> Which makes me all the more curious as to why you took me to task on this
> thread
> and not jaun.

One guess.

> On the other hand you and I have had a dialog
> that didn't involve name calling and was on a civil level even though we
> may
> not entirely agree.I'd call that an "open discussion." :-)

Pot, kettle, black, coming from someone who openly admitted in this very
forum that you started this by attacking me on the newsgroup without
provocation and without any other reason other than I said I had begun
writing for ANN.

You're nothing more than a two-bit, two-faced lying hypocrit, Chuck, and
nothing you say or do will ever change that. And _that_ is something _I_
will never stop reminding everyone of. Get used to it.

Juan

In article >, Juan Jimenez says...
>
>
>"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Beside the people who do post there is a large group of folks who just
>> lurk.
>> Some because of their jobs (aviation writers) who must be careful of
>> controversy so they don't post but they certainly read the posts. Usually
>> I see
>> them at air shows and we discuss zoom among other things.I talked to
>> Kevin
>> O'Brien from ANN this year and had a friendly ,as usual, discussion with
>> him.
>
>And it says a lot about you that you don't mention that Kevin is a regular
>writer for ANN and continues year after year to do the same, in spite of all
>your BS.
>
>> I also saw John Ballentyne from ANN who stopped at our booth to visit but
>> I was in
>> the trailer working a deal so I couldn't say hi. There are things said
>> that I,
>> out of courtesy to all the writers I know, wouldn't repeat in public.
>
>Such as the fact that John also continues to write for ANN, and has a high
>regard for Jim?
>
>Now why does that not surprise me about you? :)
>
>> Others have written me private e mails stating they were not aware of
>> zoom's
>> tactics and took him at face value until they saw the posts and went to
>> John O's
>> zoom site.However they didn't want to get involved in a public forum.
>
>And yet many times more others write on a daily basis to ANN praising the
>publication for its content. You'd be surprised of the people who write.
>There are some who will be VERY surprised, very soon, to hear who supports
>ANN in a major way.
>
>> The purpose or at least my purpose in bringing up zoom from time to time
>> is to
>> make people aware of what a phony he is and how he used his magazine to
>> unfairly
>> malign people.
>
>And year after year it fails to make the slightest dent in ANN's continued
>growth and success. But what the hell, you like to bang your head against
>the wall, go right ahead. :)
>
>> Which makes me all the more curious as to why you took me to task on this
>> thread
>> and not jaun.
>
>One guess.
>
>> On the other hand you and I have had a dialog
>> that didn't involve name calling and was on a civil level even though we
>> may
>> not entirely agree.I'd call that an "open discussion." :-)
>
>Pot, kettle, black, coming from someone who openly admitted in this very
>forum that you started this by attacking me on the newsgroup without
>provocation and without any other reason other than I said I had begun
>writing for ANN.
>
>You're nothing more than a two-bit, two-faced lying hypocrit, Chuck, and
>nothing you say or do will ever change that. And _that_ is something _I_
>will never stop reminding everyone of. Get used to it.

Yawn....

http://www.ousterhout.net/

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

"zoom can fool most of the people some of the time,some of the people none of
the time and jaun all of the time" chuck s

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yawn....

<flashlight>

As I suspected, just like 7-Up, never had it, never will, no thing more than
empty space. Dork. :)

Juan Jimenez wrote:
> "ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Yawn....
>
>
> <flashlight>
>
> As I suspected, just like 7-Up, never had it, never will, no thing more than
> empty space. Dork. :)
>
>

Dork, well at last an honest signature finally! :-)


Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>> "ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Yawn....
>>
>>
>> <flashlight>
>>
>> As I suspected, just like 7-Up, never had it, never will, no thing more
>> than empty space. Dork. :)
>
> Dork, well at last an honest signature finally! :-)

Ah, Young Whiting. You underestimate the power of the Dork Side. . .

Rich S.

In article >, Matt Whiting says...

>Dork, well at last an honest signature finally! :-)

Hey Matt I'm glad I wasn't the only one to see jaun be honest about something
for a change even if he didn't realize it LOL!!

See ya

Chuck S

"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>> "ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>Yawn....
>>>
>>>
>>> <flashlight>
>>>
>>> As I suspected, just like 7-Up, never had it, never will, no thing more
>>> than empty space. Dork. :)
>>
>> Dork, well at last an honest signature finally! :-)
>
> Ah, Young Whiting. You underestimate the power of the Dork Side. . .

No he doesn't, like every whiting that ever lived, he too got hooked by his
dork side and wound up frozen and worthless in some nameless supermarket. :)

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Matt Whiting says...
>
>>Dork, well at last an honest signature finally! :-)
>
> Hey Matt I'm glad...

Simple minds, so easily entertained. Here, chew on this wire while I plug it
in. <chuckle>

Juan Jimenez wrote:
> "Rich S." > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>>
>>>>"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Yawn....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><flashlight>
>>>>
>>>>As I suspected, just like 7-Up, never had it, never will, no thing more
>>>>than empty space. Dork. :)
>>>
>>>Dork, well at last an honest signature finally! :-)
>>
>>Ah, Young Whiting. You underestimate the power of the Dork Side. . .
>
>
> No he doesn't, like every whiting that ever lived, he too got hooked by his
> dork side and wound up frozen and worthless in some nameless supermarket. :)

Don't quit your day job ... if you have one.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> No he doesn't, like every whiting that ever lived, he too got hooked by
>> his dork side and wound up frozen and worthless in some nameless
>> supermarket. :)
>
> Don't quit your day job ... if you have one.

Speaking from experience? Told you to say at the day care center and
continue receiving preferred customer treatment. :)