Airspace Privacy over your house !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Fitzair4]

Streisand's Silly Suit Sings Sour Song
Judge Throws Out Suit Against Pilot

Singer Barbra Streisand's lawsuit against a helicopter pilot
accusing him of violating her privacy was thrown out of court
Wednesday. Not only that, but she's going to have to pay Ken
Adelman's legal fees -- estimated somewhere in the six-figure
range.

Sweet.

"It was a clean sweep," Adelman (with wife and pilot
Gabrielle, above) said after the ruling. "We didn't win just
on a technicality, but on all the substantive issues. The judge
ruled that what we did was free speech and not an infringement of
privacy."

Adelman, a 39-year old Silicon Valley millionaire, takes the
pictures while his wife, Gabrielle, flies the R-44. The helicopter
was flown southeast-bound along the coast at altitudes ranging from
150 to 2000ft, but typically 500-700ft, depending on the terrain,
detail, and air traffic control constraints. The port-side rear
door was removed, giving the photographer an unobstructed view of
the coast.

Streisand sued Adelman for $50 million May
20th, after his website, which photographically traces
the California coast, published an aerial photograph of her estate.
The photographs were among about 12,700, many of which highlight
overdevelopment along the water's edge.

The lawsuit "sought to reaffirm that everyone should have the
right to retain their privacy, in their home, even in this
technologically invasive age," according to Streisand lawyer John
Gatti.

After the ruling, Adelman attorney Richard Kendall said Superior
Court Judge Allan Goodman sent a message: Environmental activists
have a right to fly where they want in public airspace and take
pictures of whatever they want. To have ruled any other way, said
Kendall, would have given the likes of Streisand "ownership" of
vistas and making them off-limits to photographers -- even from
several hundred feet above.

"That seemed absurd," Kendall said. "Many people familiar with
privacy law agreed with us that the case was not well-founded."

Wow. A lawyer with
common sense.

Gatti said Judge Goodman's ruling was a tentative one. "The
court's tentative decision found that intrusion occurred. But the
court failed to accord Ms. Streisand a remedy."

He said Streisand would wait to see the final ruling before
deciding whether to appeal. If she decides to continue the suit,
Judge Goodman ruled she would first have to reimburse Adelman for
his big-time legal expenses.

Here's the funny part: Streisand's suit actually caused her
mansion more exposure than if she'd just left the whole thing
alone. Since the suit was filed, Adelman's site got hundreds of
thousands of hits, whereas it was relatively obscure to the general
public before.

Does this mean Adelman has to send a thank-you note?

Adelman says he'll use the legal reimbursement to expand his
site. Already, he's posted thousands of aerial shots from the
1970s. He plans to fly the entire length of California again,
taking pictures to provide comparisons, sort of a then-and-now view
of the coastline. And, yeah, you can bet he'll shoot Streisand's
ranch again.
www.californiacoastline.org

[Ron Natalie]

"Fitzair4" > wrote in message ...

> Here's the funny part: Streisand's suit actually caused her
> mansion more exposure than if she'd just left the whole thing
> alone. Since the suit was filed, Adelman's site got hundreds of
> thousands of hits, whereas it was relatively obscure to the general
> public before.
>
Yep, this is what famed lawyer Louis Nizer used to warn his clients about.
His analogy is like having mud spashed on your overcoat. You can leave
it alone and it will dry and flake off, or you can start rubbing on it while it
is still wet, smearing it around and making a bigger mess.

[RobertR237]

In article >,
(Fitzair4) writes:

>
>
>Streisand's Silly Suit Sings Sour Song
>Judge Throws Out Suit Against Pilot
>
>Singer Barbra Streisand's lawsuit against a helicopter pilot
>accusing him of violating her privacy was thrown out of court
>Wednesday. Not only that, but she's going to have to pay Ken
>Adelman's legal fees -- estimated somewhere in the six-figure
>range.
>
>Sweet.
>

It couldn't have happened to a more deserving BITCH but I thought that we had
finally gotten rid of her in 2000 when Bush was elected. I seem to remember
her making a promise to leave the country if that happened.

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Rich S.]

"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,

>
> It couldn't have happened to a more deserving BITCH but I thought that we
had
> finally gotten rid of her in 2000 when Bush was elected. I seem to
remember
> her making a promise to leave the country if that happened.
>
> Bob Reed

Sheesh, Bob! How far away do you want her to go? She's already on her own
planet, right next to Red Ford's.

Rich S.

[RobertR237]

In article >, "Rich S."
> writes:

>>
>> It couldn't have happened to a more deserving BITCH but I thought that we
>had
>> finally gotten rid of her in 2000 when Bush was elected. I seem to
>remember
>> her making a promise to leave the country if that happened.
>>
>> Bob Reed
>
>Sheesh, Bob! How far away do you want her to go? She's already on her own
>planet, right next to Red Ford's.
>
>Rich S.
>
>

Pluto! or beyond... ;-)


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Russell Kent]

RobertR237 wrote:

> It couldn't have happened to a more deserving BITCH but I thought that we had
> finally gotten rid of her [Barbara Streisand] in 2000 when Bush was elected. I
> seem to remember her making a promise to leave the country if that happened.

I have no love for Barbara Streisand, but her failure to follow through on that
(alleged?) promise merely puts her in the same classification as EVERY(*)
politician on the planet (including Dubya).

Russell Kent

(*) With a possible exception for our own Jim "One-buck" Weir. :-)

[RobertR237]

In article >, Russell Kent > writes:

>
>> It couldn't have happened to a more deserving BITCH but I thought that we
>had
>> finally gotten rid of her [Barbara Streisand] in 2000 when Bush was
>elected. I
>> seem to remember her making a promise to leave the country if that
>happened.
>
>I have no love for Barbara Streisand, but her failure to follow through on
>that
>(alleged?) promise merely puts her in the same classification as EVERY(*)
>politician on the planet (including Dubya).
>
>Russell Kent
>
>(*) With a possible exception for our own Jim "One-buck" Weir. :-)
>
>

Yeah, I know but it doesn't keep one from hoping does it?


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club]

Fitzair4 wrote:

> Streisand's Silly Suit Sings Sour Song
> Judge Throws Out Suit Against Pilot
>
> Singer Barbra Streisand's lawsuit against a helicopter pilot
> accusing him of violating her privacy was thrown out of court
> Wednesday. Not only that, but she's going to have to pay Ken
> Adelman's legal fees -- estimated somewhere in the six-figure
> range.
>
> Sweet.
>
> "It was a clean sweep," Adelman (with wife and pilot
> Gabrielle, above) said after the ruling. "We didn't win just
> on a technicality, but on all the substantive issues. The judge
> ruled that what we did was free speech and not an infringement of
> privacy."
>
> Adelman, a 39-year old Silicon Valley millionaire, takes the
> pictures while his wife, Gabrielle, flies the R-44. The helicopter
> was flown southeast-bound along the coast at altitudes ranging from
> 150 to 2000ft, but typically 500-700ft, depending on the terrain,
> detail, and air traffic control constraints. The port-side rear
> door was removed, giving the photographer an unobstructed view of
> the coast.
>
> Streisand sued Adelman for $50 million May
> 20th, after his website, which photographically traces
> the California coast, published an aerial photograph of her estate.
> The photographs were among about 12,700, many of which highlight
> overdevelopment along the water's edge.
>
> The lawsuit "sought to reaffirm that everyone should have the
> right to retain their privacy, in their home, even in this
> technologically invasive age," according to Streisand lawyer John
> Gatti.
>
> After the ruling, Adelman attorney Richard Kendall said Superior
> Court Judge Allan Goodman sent a message: Environmental activists
> have a right to fly where they want in public airspace and take
> pictures of whatever they want. To have ruled any other way, said
> Kendall, would have given the likes of Streisand "ownership" of
> vistas and making them off-limits to photographers -- even from
> several hundred feet above.
>
> "That seemed absurd," Kendall said. "Many people familiar with
> privacy law agreed with us that the case was not well-founded."
>
> Wow. A lawyer with
> common sense.
>
> Gatti said Judge Goodman's ruling was a tentative one. "The
> court's tentative decision found that intrusion occurred. But the
> court failed to accord Ms. Streisand a remedy."
>
> He said Streisand would wait to see the final ruling before
> deciding whether to appeal. If she decides to continue the suit,
> Judge Goodman ruled she would first have to reimburse Adelman for
> his big-time legal expenses.
>
> Here's the funny part: Streisand's suit actually caused her
> mansion more exposure than if she'd just left the whole thing
> alone. Since the suit was filed, Adelman's site got hundreds of
> thousands of hits, whereas it was relatively obscure to the general
> public before.
>
> Does this mean Adelman has to send a thank-you note?
>
> Adelman says he'll use the legal reimbursement to expand his
> site. Already, he's posted thousands of aerial shots from the
> 1970s. He plans to fly the entire length of California again,
> taking pictures to provide comparisons, sort of a then-and-now view
> of the coastline. And, yeah, you can bet he'll shoot Streisand's
> ranch again.
> www.californiacoastline.org
>

Does anyone know what website her house photo is located?
Phil ..

[ET]

"Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club" > wrote
in :

> Fitzair4 wrote:
>
>> Streisand's Silly Suit Sings Sour Song
>> Judge Throws Out Suit Against Pilot
>>
>> Singer Barbra Streisand's lawsuit against a helicopter pilot
>> accusing him of violating her privacy was thrown out of court
>> Wednesday. Not only that, but she's going to have to pay Ken
>> Adelman's legal fees -- estimated somewhere in the six-figure
>> range.
>>
>> Sweet.
>>
>> "It was a clean sweep," Adelman (with wife and pilot
>> Gabrielle, above) said after the ruling. "We didn't win just
>> on a technicality, but on all the substantive issues. The judge
>> ruled that what we did was free speech and not an infringement of
>> privacy."
>>
>> Adelman, a 39-year old Silicon Valley millionaire, takes the
>> pictures while his wife, Gabrielle, flies the R-44. The helicopter
>> was flown southeast-bound along the coast at altitudes ranging from
>> 150 to 2000ft, but typically 500-700ft, depending on the terrain,
>> detail, and air traffic control constraints. The port-side rear
>> door was removed, giving the photographer an unobstructed view of
>> the coast.
>>
>> Streisand sued Adelman for $50 million May
>> 20th, after his website, which photographically traces
>> the California coast, published an aerial photograph of her estate.
>> The photographs were among about 12,700, many of which highlight
>> overdevelopment along the water's edge.
>>
>> The lawsuit "sought to reaffirm that everyone should have the
>> right to retain their privacy, in their home, even in this
>> technologically invasive age," according to Streisand lawyer John
>> Gatti.
>>
>> After the ruling, Adelman attorney Richard Kendall said Superior
>> Court Judge Allan Goodman sent a message: Environmental activists
>> have a right to fly where they want in public airspace and take
>> pictures of whatever they want. To have ruled any other way, said
>> Kendall, would have given the likes of Streisand "ownership" of
>> vistas and making them off-limits to photographers -- even from
>> several hundred feet above.
>>
>> "That seemed absurd," Kendall said. "Many people familiar with
>> privacy law agreed with us that the case was not well-founded."
>>
>> Wow. A lawyer with
>> common sense.
>>
>> Gatti said Judge Goodman's ruling was a tentative one. "The
>> court's tentative decision found that intrusion occurred. But the
>> court failed to accord Ms. Streisand a remedy."
>>
>> He said Streisand would wait to see the final ruling before
>> deciding whether to appeal. If she decides to continue the suit,
>> Judge Goodman ruled she would first have to reimburse Adelman for
>> his big-time legal expenses.
>>
>> Here's the funny part: Streisand's suit actually caused her
>> mansion more exposure than if she'd just left the whole thing
>> alone. Since the suit was filed, Adelman's site got hundreds of
>> thousands of hits, whereas it was relatively obscure to the general
>> public before.
>>
>> Does this mean Adelman has to send a thank-you note?
>>
>> Adelman says he'll use the legal reimbursement to expand his
>> site. Already, he's posted thousands of aerial shots from the
>> 1970s. He plans to fly the entire length of California again,
>> taking pictures to provide comparisons, sort of a then-and-now view
>> of the coastline. And, yeah, you can bet he'll shoot Streisand's
>> ranch again.
>> www.californiacoastline.org
>>
>
> Does anyone know what website her house photo is located?
> Phil ..
>
>
>

y'r kidding right??? look up :-) as in up above your message.... not
very far either >:)

--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[RR Urban]

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 05:02:41 GMT, ET > wrote:

>>> Adelman says he'll use the legal reimbursement to expand his
>>> site. Already, he's posted thousands of aerial shots from the
>>> 1970s. He plans to fly the entire length of California again,
>>> taking pictures to provide comparisons, sort of a then-and-now view
>>> of the coastline. And, yeah, you can bet he'll shoot Streisand's
>>> ranch again.
>>> www.californiacoastline.org
>>>
>>
>> Does anyone know what website her house photo is located?
>> Phil ..
>>

>y'r kidding right??? look up :-) as in up above your message.... not
>very far either >:)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Say ET....
It's perfectly OK to trim things down to a worthy...
rather than wordy, weighty and repetitive historic size.


Barnyard BOb -

[Eric Miller]

"Russell Kent" > wrote in message
...
> RobertR237 wrote:
>
> > It couldn't have happened to a more deserving BITCH but I thought that
we had
> > finally gotten rid of her [Barbara Streisand] in 2000 when Bush was
elected. I
> > seem to remember her making a promise to leave the country if that
happened.
>
> I have no love for Barbara Streisand, but her failure to follow through on
that
> (alleged?) promise merely puts her in the same classification as EVERY(*)
> politician on the planet (including Dubya).
>
> Russell Kent

My take on entertainers and celebrities, whether they're actors, athletes,
musicians or whatever is...

They're not paid to think, they're paid to entertain us.
They certainly have no business spouting off on political issues.
They're trained monkeys.
So shut up and do what you're paid to do!
Dance for me, monkey, dance!

Eric

[ET]

RR Urban > wrote in news:lkq2tvot4fff9vmlc7aq5jmdarafjp9li6@
4ax.com:

> It's perfectly OK to trim
>
> Barnyard BOb -
>
>
Uooops.... I knew better too.... <:-(


--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[richard riley]

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 18:17:06 -0800, "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic
Club" > wrote:

:
:Does anyone know what website her house photo is located?
:Phil ..
:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/barbrahouse1.html

[RobertR237]

In article >, "Eric Miller"
> writes:

>
>My take on entertainers and celebrities, whether they're actors, athletes,
>musicians or whatever is...
>
>They're not paid to think, they're paid to entertain us.
>They certainly have no business spouting off on political issues.
>They're trained monkeys.
>So shut up and do what you're paid to do!
>Dance for me, monkey, dance!
>
>Eric
>
>

They unfortunately use their very visible position to try and further their own
personal agendas which are far too often so far out in left field that nothing
but foul balls go there.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Eric Miller]

"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
> They unfortunately use their very visible position to try and further
their own
> personal agendas which are far too often so far out in left field that
nothing
> but foul balls go there.
>
>
> Bob Reed
> www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
> KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

The problem being that since they don't live in the real world, they're even
less qualified than the average person to even HAVE an opinion, much less
promote it.

Eric

[Rich Ahrens]

Eric Miller wrote:
> My take on entertainers and celebrities, whether they're actors, athletes,
> musicians or whatever is...
>
> They're not paid to think, they're paid to entertain us.
> They certainly have no business spouting off on political issues.
> They're trained monkeys.
> So shut up and do what you're paid to do!
> Dance for me, monkey, dance!

I presume that goes for Charlton Heston as well? Ahnooold? Ronnie? Or just
the ones whose positions on issues disagree with your own?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Rich Ahrens | Homepage: http://www.visi.com/~rma/ |
|-----------------------------------------------|
|"In a world full of people only some want to fly - isn't that crazy?" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 21:40:49 -0600, Rich Ahrens > wrote:

:Eric Miller wrote:
:> My take on entertainers and celebrities, whether they're actors, athletes,
:> musicians or whatever is...
:>
:> They're not paid to think, they're paid to entertain us.
:> They certainly have no business spouting off on political issues.
:> They're trained monkeys.
:> So shut up and do what you're paid to do!
:> Dance for me, monkey, dance!
:
:I presume that goes for Charlton Heston as well?

Charlton Heston spoke out on one particular topic (gun ownership) that
he had a lifelong interest in and was VERY well informed on. On that
topic, I listened to him the same way I'd listen to anyone else - with
an open mind. I didn't think he was correct just because he was in
"Omega Man."

:Ahnooold?

The jury is still out on Arnold. He may be fine. He may be awful.
No matter what, he'll be better than the walking disaster we had
before. Any trained monkey would be. YOU would be, no matter who you
are. A random number generator would be a better gov. than Davis.

:Ronnie?

He worked his way up. 16 years as president of a large, powerful
union before he ran for office. Popular governor, successful
President (unless you think the end of communism was a bad thing.)
Awful actor. Not a major star, as far as I'm concerned. No more than
Fred "Gopher" Grandy.

Performers *can* make good politicians. So can lawyers, doctors,
carpenters, salesmen, writers and auto mechanics. But before they run
for office, why should we listen to actors more than any of the
others?

:Or just
:the ones whose positions on issues disagree with your own?

I don't think Bruce Willis OR Cher should have a significant influence
on public policy.

[Eric Miller]

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
isi.com...
> Eric Miller wrote:
> > My take on entertainers and celebrities, whether they're actors,
athletes,
> > musicians or whatever is...
> >
> > They're not paid to think, they're paid to entertain us.
> > They certainly have no business spouting off on political issues.
> > They're trained monkeys.
> > So shut up and do what you're paid to do!
> > Dance for me, monkey, dance!
>
> I presume that goes for Charlton Heston as well? Ahnooold? Ronnie? Or just
> the ones whose positions on issues disagree with your own?

Correct, Rich... ALL of them!

As my friend is fond of saying.. .even a dead dog is right twice a day.

Eric

[Eric Miller]

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
isi.com...
> Eric Miller wrote:
> > My take on entertainers and celebrities, whether they're actors,
athletes,
> > musicians or whatever is...
> >
> > They're not paid to think, they're paid to entertain us.
> > They certainly have no business spouting off on political issues.
> > They're trained monkeys.
> > So shut up and do what you're paid to do!
> > Dance for me, monkey, dance!
>
> I presume that goes for Charlton Heston as well? Ahnooold? Ronnie? Or just
> the ones whose positions on issues disagree with your own?

Correct, Rich... ALL of them!

As my friend is fond of saying.. .even a dead dog is right twice a day.

Eric

[Del Rawlins]

On 06 Dec 2003 06:40 PM, Rich Ahrens posted the following:
> Eric Miller wrote:
>> My take on entertainers and celebrities, whether they're actors,
>> athletes, musicians or whatever is... They're not paid to think,
>> they're paid to entertain us. They certainly have no business
>> spouting off on political issues. They're trained monkeys. So shut up
>> and do what you're paid to do! Dance for me, monkey, dance!
>
> I presume that goes for Charlton Heston as well? Ahnooold? Ronnie? Or
> just the ones whose positions on issues disagree with your own?

That sounds like a fair trade.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[RR Urban]

>Eric Miller wrote:
>> My take on entertainers and celebrities, whether they're actors, athletes,
>> musicians or whatever is...
>>
>> They're not paid to think, they're paid to entertain us.
>> They certainly have no business spouting off on political issues.
>> They're trained monkeys.
>> So shut up and do what you're paid to do!
>> Dance for me, monkey, dance!
>
>I presume that goes for Charlton Heston as well? Ahnooold? Ronnie? Or just
>the ones whose positions on issues disagree with your own?
>
>|Rich Ahrens
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi stranger,

Haven't you been in 'hibernation' from rah since the
end of February 2002? You're awakened by this
little skirmish?

Don't you think the mighty Capt Zoom is gonna
feel terribly slighted if he ever gets wind of this? <g>


Barnyard BOb -- nothing but questions

[Blueskies]

..
> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 21:40:49 -0600, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>
> :Eric Miller wrote:
>
> :Ronnie?
>
> He worked his way up. 16 years as president of a large, powerful
> union before he ran for office. Popular governor, successful
> President (unless you think the end of communism was a bad thing.)


What is China, a republic? The only thing that Ronnie did was out-spend the USSR, a good thing don't get me wrong, but
certainly not the end of communism...

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 13:12:37 GMT, "Blueskies" > wrote:

:
:.
> wrote in message ...
:> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 21:40:49 -0600, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
:>
:> :Eric Miller wrote:
:>
:> :Ronnie?
:>
:> He worked his way up. 16 years as president of a large, powerful
:> union before he ran for office. Popular governor, successful
:> President (unless you think the end of communism was a bad thing.)
:
:
:What is China, a republic? The only thing that Ronnie did was out-spend the USSR, a good thing don't get me wrong, but
:certainly not the end of communism...

Outspending the USSR was a big part of it, but not the whole thing.
Being willing to use the military was another. Invading Grenada seems
like nothing in retrospect, but we were coming off Carter, who's only
use for a military was... well basically nothing. And Reagan was
only 5 years removed from the fall of S Viet Nam. We were cowed by
everyone at that point, we wouldn't even defend our people in Iran.
Reagan turned our national outlook. He was the one who walked away in
Iceland.

China's a dictatorship, with a LOT of state owned businesses
(especially the People's Liberation Army - it's unbelievable how much
of the stuff you buy in Toys R Us is made by the PLA) but they're no
longer communist. They say so themselves.

The only countries that are still communist are Cuba and North Korea.
A bunch of SEA countries are wierd mixes - Viet Nam, Laos, Burma (we
still offically call it Burma). They're like China - one party
dictatorships, with a lot of the production and property belonging to
the government. But they no longer teach Marx, Lennin and Mao.

[Rich Ahrens]

RR Urban wrote:

>>Eric Miller wrote:
>>
>>>My take on entertainers and celebrities, whether they're actors, athletes,
>>>musicians or whatever is...
>>>
>>>They're not paid to think, they're paid to entertain us.
>>>They certainly have no business spouting off on political issues.
>>>They're trained monkeys.
>>>So shut up and do what you're paid to do!
>>>Dance for me, monkey, dance!
>>
>>I presume that goes for Charlton Heston as well? Ahnooold? Ronnie? Or just
>>the ones whose positions on issues disagree with your own?
>>
>>|Rich Ahrens
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Hi stranger,
>
> Haven't you been in 'hibernation' from rah since the
> end of February 2002? You're awakened by this
> little skirmish?

Nope. Don't know what gave you that impression. I've been otherwise
occupied and haven't posted a lot, but I've been in and out of here
regularly all along. I've posted in here nine out of 12 months this year,
including tweaking you for missing Pville again. (You could have driven!) I
even posted *from* Pville in May.

Makes me wonder who's *really* been hibernating, Bob!

> Don't you think the mighty Capt Zoom is gonna
> feel terribly slighted if he ever gets wind of this? <g>

Not sure I follow that one. But if you think it will make him feel better,
I'll repost a few of my favorite quotes from the 1980 NTSB hearing[1] which
found Jim Campbell:

"...not medically qualified to exercise the privileges of any class of
airman medical certificate now or for the next two years, due to the fact
that he does have a personality disorder that makes him unable to safely
perform those duties at the present time or within the next two years."

and:

"I think as a result of his personality disorder the Respondent, as
testified to by both Dr. Powers and Dr. Pakull, has and will in the future
- at least for the next two years and somewhat beyond - exercised poor
judgment.

"He has shown a lack of impulse control, feels little guilt or willingness
to assume responsibilities for his own acts, and would prefer placing that
blame on something else or someone else, rather than accept the
responsibility himself."

Think much has changed since then? Is "somewhat beyond" measured in decades?

> Barnyard BOb -- nothing but questions

There ya go - a couple more questions for you...


[1] http://mywebpages.comcast.net/ousterj/zoom/se-4661.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Rich Ahrens | Homepage: http://www.visi.com/~rma/ |
|-----------------------------------------------|
|"In a world full of people only some want to fly - isn't that crazy?" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[L&P Jerome]

Caution flying into Easern North Carolina. The local NC news is reporting
that security is being setup in such a way that those attending the
celebration "may" be able to see the president there. Could be hype...but?
CAVU, Lyle

[Henry Bibb]

"L&P Jerome" > wrote in message
...
> Caution flying into Easern North Carolina. The local NC news is reporting
> that security is being setup in such a way that those attending the
> celebration "may" be able to see the president there. Could be hype...but?
> CAVU, Lyle

Check the NOTAMS. Especially on the 17th.

Henry

[Blueskies]

If GW visits, then the TFR would keep the flier grounded - no transponder, radio, etc. I wonder what sort of waiver
would be required. Oh, I get it, no planes with a range of over 1000'...

--
Dan D.



..
"Henry Bibb" > wrote in message hlink.net...
>
> "L&P Jerome" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Caution flying into Easern North Carolina. The local NC news is reporting
> > that security is being setup in such a way that those attending the
> > celebration "may" be able to see the president there. Could be hype...but?
> > CAVU, Lyle
>
> Check the NOTAMS. Especially on the 17th.
>
> Henry
>
>