MSNBC Reporting on GA Security Threat

[Scott Schluer]

http://msnbc.com/news/993760.asp?0cv=CB10

Seems to be a little more well written and objective than most articles on
this subject. They mentioned AOPA's Airport Watch program among other
things. They also have a picture of that C-172 hanging from that building in
Florida (it was Florida, right)? Just seems to prove that a light aircraft
can't do much damage to a building.

[Robert Perkins]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:51:22 -0700, "Scott Schluer"
> wrote:

>http://msnbc.com/news/993760.asp?0cv=CB10
>
>Seems to be a little more well written and objective than most articles on
>this subject. They mentioned AOPA's Airport Watch program among other
>things. They also have a picture of that C-172 hanging from that building in
>Florida (it was Florida, right)? Just seems to prove that a light aircraft
>can't do much damage to a building.

Their caption was, "The January 2002 theft of a plane from a Florida
airport that resulted in this crash shows how vulnerable such general
aviation airports are to potential terrorist use, the GAO says."

One event. Two outlooks. And since the more alarmist outlook got the
first paragraphs and the above-the-fold picture caption, I'd say it
wasn't all that objective.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

[Scott Schluer]

That's a very valid point, especially the part about which outlook got the
first paragraphs (I didn't think about that). However, I only said it was
more objective than most of the articles I've read, not that it was a
totally objective piece. ;-)

"Working with groups like AOPA, TSA has instituted a number of measures to
help increase the level the security surrounding general aviation, said
Brian Turmail, an agency spokesman. "

"We basically feel that the whole premise that the typical [general
aviation] aircraft can be used as a terrorist weapon is flawed," said Chris
Dancy, a spokesman for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. "These
small planes just don't have the kinetic energy, don't have the carrying
capacity to be an effective weapon," Dancy said. In addition, there's never
been a verified episode of a small plane actually being used in a terrorist
incident, the association says."

"Other steps TSA has taken include putting flight restrictions in place for
national sporting events and working with local law enforcement to visually
identify pilots of banner towing airplanes. "

I was focusing more on the fact that they showed BOTH sides of the story
rather than sensationalizing the "terrorist threat" aspect of the story like
so many others do.

Scott

"Robert Perkins" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:51:22 -0700, "Scott Schluer"
> > wrote:
>
> >http://msnbc.com/news/993760.asp?0cv=CB10
> >
> >Seems to be a little more well written and objective than most articles
on
> >this subject. They mentioned AOPA's Airport Watch program among other
> >things. They also have a picture of that C-172 hanging from that building
in
> >Florida (it was Florida, right)? Just seems to prove that a light
aircraft
> >can't do much damage to a building.
>
> Their caption was, "The January 2002 theft of a plane from a Florida
> airport that resulted in this crash shows how vulnerable such general
> aviation airports are to potential terrorist use, the GAO says."
>
> One event. Two outlooks. And since the more alarmist outlook got the
> first paragraphs and the above-the-fold picture caption, I'd say it
> wasn't all that objective.
>
> Rob
>
> --
> [You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
> ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
> educate themselves.
>
> -- Orson Scott Card

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:51:22 -0700, "Scott Schluer"
> wrote in Message-Id:
<Udrub.6903$Ue4.3752@fed1read01>:

>http://msnbc.com/news/993760.asp?0cv=CB10
>
>Seems to be a little more well written and objective than most articles on
>this subject. They mentioned AOPA's Airport Watch program among other
>things. They also have a picture of that C-172 hanging from that building in
>Florida (it was Florida, right)? Just seems to prove that a light aircraft
>can't do much damage to a building.
>

The author of this article is doing his best to paint general aviation
as a security threat to satisfy his need for sensational headlines.

Here's the author's e-mail address:


Article excerpts with comments:

Big holes seen in aviation security

The above headline says more about the misapprehension of its author
than the security of general aviation operations.

"The January 2002 theft of a plane from a Florida airport that
resulted in this crash shows how vulnerable such general aviation
airports are to potential terrorist use, the GAO says."

While the implication is ominous, the fact is, that the aircraft in
the picture failed to hurt anyone but its pilot. It isn't clear why
that wasn't mentioned by the author, but it vividly demonstrates that
the public have little to fear from little airplanes.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 — Federal workers at the nation’s largest
commercial airports screen everything from toddlers to tennis
shoes, but there are few such requirements in place for the more
than 200,000 privately owned planes located at more than 19,000
airports in the U.S. that make up the country’s general aviation
sector. That fact was noted in recent congressional testimony by a
General Accounting Office official to underscore findings that
general aviation is “far more open and potentially vulnerable than
commercial aviation.”

While the implication of not screening general aviation baggage and
passengers will doubtless elicit a twinge of shock among the airline
flying public, it is completely appropriate for general aviation
flights. Or is the author attempting to imply, that federal screeners
and their ancillary equipment need to be installed at 19,000 airports?
Either way, it's a blatant and erroneous attempt to incite public
opinion against general aviation.

THE TRANSPORTATION Security Administration has “taken limited
action to improve general aviation security,” since Sept. 11,
2001, GAO’s Cathleen Berrick, director of Homeland Security and
Justice Issues, told the Senate Commerce Committee during a Nov. 5
hearing on aviation security

Another ominous quote calculated to elicit visceral response from the
lay public. "Limited action is more than appropriate, it's
reasonable, prudent and cost effective. (Incidently, Ms. Cathleen
Berrick is only one of the six HS directors, not a Managing Director.)

The vulnerability of general aviation stems, in large part,
Berrick said, from the fact that “pilots and passengers are not
screened before takeoff and the contents of general aviation
planes are not screened at any point.”

Ms. Barric's failure to mention, that there has never been a single
reported incident of general aviation aircraft used for terrorist
purposes, unlike heavily fuel laden airline aircraft used in the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, speaks volumes regarding her
apparent lack of knowledge and personal agenda.

That’s true for the vast majority of flights in the general
aviation, which is broadly defined as “all aviation other than
commercial airlines and military aviation” that includes “small,
single-engine pistons to mid-size turboprops to large turbofans
capable of flying non-stop from New York to Tokyo,” according to
the General Aviation Manufacturers Association.

While the Mr. Meeks's hasty research of the definition of general
aviation is commendable, his attempt to imply that general aviation
aircraft might be useful to terrorists is laughable, and reveals his
attempt at sensationalism.

About 4 percent of all general aviation flights, those planes
weighing 12,500 pounds or more, must adhere to the security
regulations laid out in a federal law known as the “twelve-five”
rule. Crews on these aircraft must undergo criminal history
checks. Operators of “twelve-five” aircraft “must adopt and carry
out a security program approved by TSA to ensure that passengers
and their accessible property are screened prior to boarding,”
says an entry in the Federal Register noting the implementation of
the rule.

While Mr. Meeks's research is again admirable, and it appears that he
is attempting to provide a balanced viewpoint, his next paragraph
reveals his sensational motivation once again.

But implementation of those rules is spotty; there’s no routine
federal inspection to ensure adherence with them, though a TSA
spokesman said the agency does conduct regular inspections to
[sic] “to ensure that the rules are being implemented.”

So Mr. Meeks personally feels, that although the TSA conducts regular
inspections, they are inadequate to insure adherence to the rules.
Such journalistic hubris begs the question, "what are Mr. Meeks
qualifications to make such an assertion?" Does he possess security
training? Does he possess general aviation experience? Or is he just
another sensationalistic journalist seeking to use general aviation as
a whipping boy to sell his drek? Has he considered the fact, that the
personnel who operate the 12,500+ pound aircraft may be more than just
a little motivated to insure their flights are not hijacked or
detonated?

According to the GAO, which is the investigative arm of Congress,
about 70 percent of all general aviation planes are four- to
six-seat, single-engine, piston-driven propeller planes. These
types of planes, like a Cessna 172, cruise about 145 mph and fully
loaded weigh less than a Honda Civic.

It's obvious why Mr. Meeks failed to mention, that the 70% of the GA
fleet he mentions, have a fuel capacity of about 50 gallons compared
to the thousands of gallons of fuel contained in airliners. It's also
obvious why he fails to mention the Cessna 172's ~600 pound useful
load limit in comparison to that of airliners. Directly comparing the
fuel and load capacity of a C-172 to an airliner would make it look
impotent as a terrorist weapon.

In May, the Department of Homeland Security issued a warning to
the general aviation community that terrorists were interested in
using small planes packed with explosives to attack U.S. targets.
The basis of the warning came on the heels of a foiled plot to fly
[sic] “obtain a small fixed-wing aircraft or helicopter [loaded
with] with explosives” and crash it into the U.S. Consulate in
Karachi, Pakistan, the warning said. The warning noted that such a
plot demonstrated “al-Qaida’s continued fixation with using
explosives-laden small aircraft in attacks.”

The author's error contained in the second sentence of that paragraph
reveals the care he employed in crafting his propaganda.

The warning noted that the impact from such an explosion would be
akin to “a medium-sized truck bomb.”

That explosion estimate presumes that the explosives could be
effectively detonated by the impact of the collision. Doubtful.

Because of lax security measures, such planes could easily be
rented with just a credit card or simply stolen, the warning
suggests. In Berrick’s testimony, she notes that 70 general
aviation aircraft have been stolen in the last five years,
“indicating a potential weakness that could be exploited by
terrorists.”

What qualifications does Mr. Meeks possess that permit him to
characterize GA security as lax? Isn't it possible, and even more
likely, that a terrorist might steal or rent a light truck than an
airplane? Would Mr. Meeks characterize automotive security as even
more lax? Or wouldn't that be adequately sensational and misleading
for his journalistic style?

Such vulnerability “was demonstrated” in January of 2002, Berrick
said, “when a teenage flight student stole and crashed a
single-engine airplane into a Tampa, Fla., skyscraper.”

Why has Mr. Meeks chosen to omit the fact that the airplane involved
in the Tampa incident failed to do any meaningful damage?

But such statements and examples are viewed with skepticism by
those with vested interests in general aviation.

No their not. We fully acknowledge what happened in that Tampa
incident, unlike Mr. Meeks.

“We basically feel that the whole premise that the typical
[general aviation] aircraft can be used as a terrorist weapon is
flawed,” said Chris Dancy, a spokesman for the Aircraft Owners and
Pilots Association. “These small planes just don’t have the
kinetic energy, don’t have the carrying capacity to be an
effective weapon,” Dancy said. In addition, there’s never been a
verified episode of a small plane actually being used in a
terrorist incident, the association says.

Who is a better judge of how effective a weapon a C-172 can be, a
sensationalism seeking journalist or an aviation organization?

RISK MANAGEMENT
There are no overarching federal guidelines for security at
general aviation airports despite the fact that some of these
airports rank among the nation’s Top 20 in terms of overall
traffic.

First Mr. Meeks reports that "planes weighing 12,500 pounds or more,
must adhere to the security regulations laid out in a federal law
known as the “twelve-five” rule," then he laments a lack of federal
guidelines for security at GA airports. His failure to suggest a
workable security policy for GA airports reveals his lack of knowledge
of such matters.

Part of the problem is that general aviation airports cover a
wide-range of facilities, from rural to urban. “The 2,000-foot,
grass strip, public use airport that’s privately owned, does not
have the same needs as a large general aviation airport like
Manassas in Washington, and TSA has sort of set up the machinery
to let those airports assess their needs and act accordingly,”
Dancy said.

So now Mr. Meeks implies that he knows better than the TSA how to
secure GA airports.

[...]

Despite general aviation’s best efforts, small planes continue to
be seen as a major risk.

What leads Mr. Meeks to this erroneous conclusion. If GA were a major
risk, it would be grounded.

Just last week, a single-engine plane
“punctured the bubble” of the flight-restricted zone surrounding
the White House; an errant pilot had simply wandered off course.

Unfortunately, Mr. Meeks fails to fault the FAA for not depicting the
boundaries of the "bubble" to which he refers on aeronautical charts.
His failure to mention the FAA's culpability in such incidents further
reveals his lack of knowledge and understanding of the true situation.
He's not qualified to write on this subject.

Far from being a “non-event,” the incident caused NORAD to
scramble a couple of F-16 fighters to intercept the perceived
threat.

Such a flight was not a "perceived threat" prior to September 11,
2001. It's only the TSA (and duplicitous journalists) who perceive it
as a threat now. The facts fail to support that perception, and the
incident demonstrates that there was no REAL threat.

Although the president and first lady weren’t in the White
House at the time, the vice president and other senior members of
the White House staff were immediately moved to a secure location
by the Secret Service until the threat was gone.

Now Mr. Meeks, in his quest for sensationalism, has elevated the
incident to a real threat by failing to qualify it as perceived. Mr.
Meeks duplicitous attempt to stir public sentiment against GA is as
nauseating as the monopolistic practices of Microsoft, his employer.

[Mike Rapoport]

Since the author (and his boss) undoubtedly measure success by the volume of
response, don't encourage them by emailing.

Mike
MU-2



"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:51:22 -0700, "Scott Schluer"
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> <Udrub.6903$Ue4.3752@fed1read01>:
>
> >http://msnbc.com/news/993760.asp?0cv=CB10
> >
> >Seems to be a little more well written and objective than most articles
on
> >this subject. They mentioned AOPA's Airport Watch program among other
> >things. They also have a picture of that C-172 hanging from that building
in
> >Florida (it was Florida, right)? Just seems to prove that a light
aircraft
> >can't do much damage to a building.
> >
>
> The author of this article is doing his best to paint general aviation
> as a security threat to satisfy his need for sensational headlines.
>
> Here's the author's e-mail address:
>
>
> Article excerpts with comments:
>
> Big holes seen in aviation security
>
> The above headline says more about the misapprehension of its author
> than the security of general aviation operations.
>
> "The January 2002 theft of a plane from a Florida airport that
> resulted in this crash shows how vulnerable such general aviation
> airports are to potential terrorist use, the GAO says."
>
> While the implication is ominous, the fact is, that the aircraft in
> the picture failed to hurt anyone but its pilot. It isn't clear why
> that wasn't mentioned by the author, but it vividly demonstrates that
> the public have little to fear from little airplanes.
>
> WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 - Federal workers at the nation's largest
> commercial airports screen everything from toddlers to tennis
> shoes, but there are few such requirements in place for the more
> than 200,000 privately owned planes located at more than 19,000
> airports in the U.S. that make up the country's general aviation
> sector. That fact was noted in recent congressional testimony by a
> General Accounting Office official to underscore findings that
> general aviation is "far more open and potentially vulnerable than
> commercial aviation."
>
> While the implication of not screening general aviation baggage and
> passengers will doubtless elicit a twinge of shock among the airline
> flying public, it is completely appropriate for general aviation
> flights. Or is the author attempting to imply, that federal screeners
> and their ancillary equipment need to be installed at 19,000 airports?
> Either way, it's a blatant and erroneous attempt to incite public
> opinion against general aviation.
>
> THE TRANSPORTATION Security Administration has "taken limited
> action to improve general aviation security," since Sept. 11,
> 2001, GAO's Cathleen Berrick, director of Homeland Security and
> Justice Issues, told the Senate Commerce Committee during a Nov. 5
> hearing on aviation security
>
> Another ominous quote calculated to elicit visceral response from the
> lay public. "Limited action is more than appropriate, it's
> reasonable, prudent and cost effective. (Incidently, Ms. Cathleen
> Berrick is only one of the six HS directors, not a Managing Director.)
>
> The vulnerability of general aviation stems, in large part,
> Berrick said, from the fact that "pilots and passengers are not
> screened before takeoff and the contents of general aviation
> planes are not screened at any point."
>
> Ms. Barric's failure to mention, that there has never been a single
> reported incident of general aviation aircraft used for terrorist
> purposes, unlike heavily fuel laden airline aircraft used in the
> September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, speaks volumes regarding her
> apparent lack of knowledge and personal agenda.
>
> That's true for the vast majority of flights in the general
> aviation, which is broadly defined as "all aviation other than
> commercial airlines and military aviation" that includes "small,
> single-engine pistons to mid-size turboprops to large turbofans
> capable of flying non-stop from New York to Tokyo," according to
> the General Aviation Manufacturers Association.
>
> While the Mr. Meeks's hasty research of the definition of general
> aviation is commendable, his attempt to imply that general aviation
> aircraft might be useful to terrorists is laughable, and reveals his
> attempt at sensationalism.
>
> About 4 percent of all general aviation flights, those planes
> weighing 12,500 pounds or more, must adhere to the security
> regulations laid out in a federal law known as the "twelve-five"
> rule. Crews on these aircraft must undergo criminal history
> checks. Operators of "twelve-five" aircraft "must adopt and carry
> out a security program approved by TSA to ensure that passengers
> and their accessible property are screened prior to boarding,"
> says an entry in the Federal Register noting the implementation of
> the rule.
>
> While Mr. Meeks's research is again admirable, and it appears that he
> is attempting to provide a balanced viewpoint, his next paragraph
> reveals his sensational motivation once again.
>
> But implementation of those rules is spotty; there's no routine
> federal inspection to ensure adherence with them, though a TSA
> spokesman said the agency does conduct regular inspections to
> [sic] "to ensure that the rules are being implemented."
>
> So Mr. Meeks personally feels, that although the TSA conducts regular
> inspections, they are inadequate to insure adherence to the rules.
> Such journalistic hubris begs the question, "what are Mr. Meeks
> qualifications to make such an assertion?" Does he possess security
> training? Does he possess general aviation experience? Or is he just
> another sensationalistic journalist seeking to use general aviation as
> a whipping boy to sell his drek? Has he considered the fact, that the
> personnel who operate the 12,500+ pound aircraft may be more than just
> a little motivated to insure their flights are not hijacked or
> detonated?
>
> According to the GAO, which is the investigative arm of Congress,
> about 70 percent of all general aviation planes are four- to
> six-seat, single-engine, piston-driven propeller planes. These
> types of planes, like a Cessna 172, cruise about 145 mph and fully
> loaded weigh less than a Honda Civic.
>
> It's obvious why Mr. Meeks failed to mention, that the 70% of the GA
> fleet he mentions, have a fuel capacity of about 50 gallons compared
> to the thousands of gallons of fuel contained in airliners. It's also
> obvious why he fails to mention the Cessna 172's ~600 pound useful
> load limit in comparison to that of airliners. Directly comparing the
> fuel and load capacity of a C-172 to an airliner would make it look
> impotent as a terrorist weapon.
>
> In May, the Department of Homeland Security issued a warning to
> the general aviation community that terrorists were interested in
> using small planes packed with explosives to attack U.S. targets.
> The basis of the warning came on the heels of a foiled plot to fly
> [sic] "obtain a small fixed-wing aircraft or helicopter [loaded
> with] with explosives" and crash it into the U.S. Consulate in
> Karachi, Pakistan, the warning said. The warning noted that such a
> plot demonstrated "al-Qaida's continued fixation with using
> explosives-laden small aircraft in attacks."
>
> The author's error contained in the second sentence of that paragraph
> reveals the care he employed in crafting his propaganda.
>
> The warning noted that the impact from such an explosion would be
> akin to "a medium-sized truck bomb."
>
> That explosion estimate presumes that the explosives could be
> effectively detonated by the impact of the collision. Doubtful.
>
> Because of lax security measures, such planes could easily be
> rented with just a credit card or simply stolen, the warning
> suggests. In Berrick's testimony, she notes that 70 general
> aviation aircraft have been stolen in the last five years,
> "indicating a potential weakness that could be exploited by
> terrorists."
>
> What qualifications does Mr. Meeks possess that permit him to
> characterize GA security as lax? Isn't it possible, and even more
> likely, that a terrorist might steal or rent a light truck than an
> airplane? Would Mr. Meeks characterize automotive security as even
> more lax? Or wouldn't that be adequately sensational and misleading
> for his journalistic style?
>
> Such vulnerability "was demonstrated" in January of 2002, Berrick
> said, "when a teenage flight student stole and crashed a
> single-engine airplane into a Tampa, Fla., skyscraper."
>
> Why has Mr. Meeks chosen to omit the fact that the airplane involved
> in the Tampa incident failed to do any meaningful damage?
>
> But such statements and examples are viewed with skepticism by
> those with vested interests in general aviation.
>
> No their not. We fully acknowledge what happened in that Tampa
> incident, unlike Mr. Meeks.
>
> "We basically feel that the whole premise that the typical
> [general aviation] aircraft can be used as a terrorist weapon is
> flawed," said Chris Dancy, a spokesman for the Aircraft Owners and
> Pilots Association. "These small planes just don't have the
> kinetic energy, don't have the carrying capacity to be an
> effective weapon," Dancy said. In addition, there's never been a
> verified episode of a small plane actually being used in a
> terrorist incident, the association says.
>
> Who is a better judge of how effective a weapon a C-172 can be, a
> sensationalism seeking journalist or an aviation organization?
>
> RISK MANAGEMENT
> There are no overarching federal guidelines for security at
> general aviation airports despite the fact that some of these
> airports rank among the nation's Top 20 in terms of overall
> traffic.
>
> First Mr. Meeks reports that "planes weighing 12,500 pounds or more,
> must adhere to the security regulations laid out in a federal law
> known as the "twelve-five" rule," then he laments a lack of federal
> guidelines for security at GA airports. His failure to suggest a
> workable security policy for GA airports reveals his lack of knowledge
> of such matters.
>
> Part of the problem is that general aviation airports cover a
> wide-range of facilities, from rural to urban. "The 2,000-foot,
> grass strip, public use airport that's privately owned, does not
> have the same needs as a large general aviation airport like
> Manassas in Washington, and TSA has sort of set up the machinery
> to let those airports assess their needs and act accordingly,"
> Dancy said.
>
> So now Mr. Meeks implies that he knows better than the TSA how to
> secure GA airports.
>
> [...]
>
> Despite general aviation's best efforts, small planes continue to
> be seen as a major risk.
>
> What leads Mr. Meeks to this erroneous conclusion. If GA were a major
> risk, it would be grounded.
>
> Just last week, a single-engine plane
> "punctured the bubble" of the flight-restricted zone surrounding
> the White House; an errant pilot had simply wandered off course.
>
> Unfortunately, Mr. Meeks fails to fault the FAA for not depicting the
> boundaries of the "bubble" to which he refers on aeronautical charts.
> His failure to mention the FAA's culpability in such incidents further
> reveals his lack of knowledge and understanding of the true situation.
> He's not qualified to write on this subject.
>
> Far from being a "non-event," the incident caused NORAD to
> scramble a couple of F-16 fighters to intercept the perceived
> threat.
>
> Such a flight was not a "perceived threat" prior to September 11,
> 2001. It's only the TSA (and duplicitous journalists) who perceive it
> as a threat now. The facts fail to support that perception, and the
> incident demonstrates that there was no REAL threat.
>
> Although the president and first lady weren't in the White
> House at the time, the vice president and other senior members of
> the White House staff were immediately moved to a secure location
> by the Secret Service until the threat was gone.
>
> Now Mr. Meeks, in his quest for sensationalism, has elevated the
> incident to a real threat by failing to qualify it as perceived. Mr.
> Meeks duplicitous attempt to stir public sentiment against GA is as
> nauseating as the monopolistic practices of Microsoft, his employer.
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:43:11 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote in Message-Id:
et>:

>Since the author (and his boss) undoubtedly measure success by the volume of
>response, don't encourage them by emailing.

So in the end, it comes down to a choice of whether to surrender your
voice to the despotic power of the public press, or openly challenge
their competence and impartiality thus falling prey to the
prevarication of their cunning yellow journalism*.





* http://alt.tnt.tv/movies/tntoriginals/roughriders/jour.home.html

The Sensational Beginnings of Yellow Journalism
In 1898, newspapers provided the major source of news in America.
At this time, it was common practice for a newspaper to report the
editor's interpretation of the news rather than objective
journalism. If the information reported was inaccurate or biased,
the American public had little means for verification. With this
sort of influence, the newspapers wielded much political power. In
order to increase circulation, the publishers of these papers
often exploited their position by sponsoring a flamboyant and
irresponsible approach to news reporting that became known as
"yellow journalism." Though the term was originally coined to
describe the journalistic practices of Joseph Pulitzer, William
Randolph Hearst proved himself worthy of the title. Today, it is
his name that is synonymous with "yellow journalism."

[Mike Rapoport]

When the conditions are such that you can't win, don't play.

Mike
MU-2


"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:43:11 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> et>:
>
> >Since the author (and his boss) undoubtedly measure success by the volume
of
> >response, don't encourage them by emailing.
>
> So in the end, it comes down to a choice of whether to surrender your
> voice to the despotic power of the public press, or openly challenge
> their competence and impartiality thus falling prey to the
> prevarication of their cunning yellow journalism*.
>
>
>
>
>
> * http://alt.tnt.tv/movies/tntoriginals/roughriders/jour.home.html
>
> The Sensational Beginnings of Yellow Journalism
> In 1898, newspapers provided the major source of news in America.
> At this time, it was common practice for a newspaper to report the
> editor's interpretation of the news rather than objective
> journalism. If the information reported was inaccurate or biased,
> the American public had little means for verification. With this
> sort of influence, the newspapers wielded much political power. In
> order to increase circulation, the publishers of these papers
> often exploited their position by sponsoring a flamboyant and
> irresponsible approach to news reporting that became known as
> "yellow journalism." Though the term was originally coined to
> describe the journalistic practices of Joseph Pulitzer, William
> Randolph Hearst proved himself worthy of the title. Today, it is
> his name that is synonymous with "yellow journalism."
>

[Robert Perkins]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:56:48 -0700, "Scott Schluer"
> wrote:

>I was focusing more on the fact that they showed BOTH sides of the story
>rather than sensationalizing the "terrorist threat" aspect of the story like
>so many others do.

You're right, of course. On balance it was an OK piece, considering
that it *was* NBC. But only one viewpoint got above-the-fold, so the
bias remains, along with the innocent look on the face of the reporter
and editor.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

[Scott Schluer]

I stand corrected. When I initially read the article, I was consciously
looking to see if they said anything positive about GA (which most
GA/terrorist articles don't) and when I found the few good points I focused
on those to the exclusion of the actual intent of the story. Anyways, I
didn't want to start a debate or anything on the subject, just thought I'd
point out another article I came across...

Scott

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:51:22 -0700, "Scott Schluer"
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> <Udrub.6903$Ue4.3752@fed1read01>:
>
> >http://msnbc.com/news/993760.asp?0cv=CB10
> >
> >Seems to be a little more well written and objective than most articles
on
> >this subject. They mentioned AOPA's Airport Watch program among other
> >things. They also have a picture of that C-172 hanging from that building
in
> >Florida (it was Florida, right)? Just seems to prove that a light
aircraft
> >can't do much damage to a building.
> >
>
> The author of this article is doing his best to paint general aviation
> as a security threat to satisfy his need for sensational headlines.
>
> Here's the author's e-mail address:
>
>
> Article excerpts with comments:
>
> Big holes seen in aviation security
>
> The above headline says more about the misapprehension of its author
> than the security of general aviation operations.
>
> "The January 2002 theft of a plane from a Florida airport that
> resulted in this crash shows how vulnerable such general aviation
> airports are to potential terrorist use, the GAO says."
>
> While the implication is ominous, the fact is, that the aircraft in
> the picture failed to hurt anyone but its pilot. It isn't clear why
> that wasn't mentioned by the author, but it vividly demonstrates that
> the public have little to fear from little airplanes.
>
> WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 - Federal workers at the nation's largest
> commercial airports screen everything from toddlers to tennis
> shoes, but there are few such requirements in place for the more
> than 200,000 privately owned planes located at more than 19,000
> airports in the U.S. that make up the country's general aviation
> sector. That fact was noted in recent congressional testimony by a
> General Accounting Office official to underscore findings that
> general aviation is "far more open and potentially vulnerable than
> commercial aviation."
>
> While the implication of not screening general aviation baggage and
> passengers will doubtless elicit a twinge of shock among the airline
> flying public, it is completely appropriate for general aviation
> flights. Or is the author attempting to imply, that federal screeners
> and their ancillary equipment need to be installed at 19,000 airports?
> Either way, it's a blatant and erroneous attempt to incite public
> opinion against general aviation.
>
> THE TRANSPORTATION Security Administration has "taken limited
> action to improve general aviation security," since Sept. 11,
> 2001, GAO's Cathleen Berrick, director of Homeland Security and
> Justice Issues, told the Senate Commerce Committee during a Nov. 5
> hearing on aviation security
>
> Another ominous quote calculated to elicit visceral response from the
> lay public. "Limited action is more than appropriate, it's
> reasonable, prudent and cost effective. (Incidently, Ms. Cathleen
> Berrick is only one of the six HS directors, not a Managing Director.)
>
> The vulnerability of general aviation stems, in large part,
> Berrick said, from the fact that "pilots and passengers are not
> screened before takeoff and the contents of general aviation
> planes are not screened at any point."
>
> Ms. Barric's failure to mention, that there has never been a single
> reported incident of general aviation aircraft used for terrorist
> purposes, unlike heavily fuel laden airline aircraft used in the
> September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, speaks volumes regarding her
> apparent lack of knowledge and personal agenda.
>
> That's true for the vast majority of flights in the general
> aviation, which is broadly defined as "all aviation other than
> commercial airlines and military aviation" that includes "small,
> single-engine pistons to mid-size turboprops to large turbofans
> capable of flying non-stop from New York to Tokyo," according to
> the General Aviation Manufacturers Association.
>
> While the Mr. Meeks's hasty research of the definition of general
> aviation is commendable, his attempt to imply that general aviation
> aircraft might be useful to terrorists is laughable, and reveals his
> attempt at sensationalism.
>
> About 4 percent of all general aviation flights, those planes
> weighing 12,500 pounds or more, must adhere to the security
> regulations laid out in a federal law known as the "twelve-five"
> rule. Crews on these aircraft must undergo criminal history
> checks. Operators of "twelve-five" aircraft "must adopt and carry
> out a security program approved by TSA to ensure that passengers
> and their accessible property are screened prior to boarding,"
> says an entry in the Federal Register noting the implementation of
> the rule.
>
> While Mr. Meeks's research is again admirable, and it appears that he
> is attempting to provide a balanced viewpoint, his next paragraph
> reveals his sensational motivation once again.
>
> But implementation of those rules is spotty; there's no routine
> federal inspection to ensure adherence with them, though a TSA
> spokesman said the agency does conduct regular inspections to
> [sic] "to ensure that the rules are being implemented."
>
> So Mr. Meeks personally feels, that although the TSA conducts regular
> inspections, they are inadequate to insure adherence to the rules.
> Such journalistic hubris begs the question, "what are Mr. Meeks
> qualifications to make such an assertion?" Does he possess security
> training? Does he possess general aviation experience? Or is he just
> another sensationalistic journalist seeking to use general aviation as
> a whipping boy to sell his drek? Has he considered the fact, that the
> personnel who operate the 12,500+ pound aircraft may be more than just
> a little motivated to insure their flights are not hijacked or
> detonated?
>
> According to the GAO, which is the investigative arm of Congress,
> about 70 percent of all general aviation planes are four- to
> six-seat, single-engine, piston-driven propeller planes. These
> types of planes, like a Cessna 172, cruise about 145 mph and fully
> loaded weigh less than a Honda Civic.
>
> It's obvious why Mr. Meeks failed to mention, that the 70% of the GA
> fleet he mentions, have a fuel capacity of about 50 gallons compared
> to the thousands of gallons of fuel contained in airliners. It's also
> obvious why he fails to mention the Cessna 172's ~600 pound useful
> load limit in comparison to that of airliners. Directly comparing the
> fuel and load capacity of a C-172 to an airliner would make it look
> impotent as a terrorist weapon.
>
> In May, the Department of Homeland Security issued a warning to
> the general aviation community that terrorists were interested in
> using small planes packed with explosives to attack U.S. targets.
> The basis of the warning came on the heels of a foiled plot to fly
> [sic] "obtain a small fixed-wing aircraft or helicopter [loaded
> with] with explosives" and crash it into the U.S. Consulate in
> Karachi, Pakistan, the warning said. The warning noted that such a
> plot demonstrated "al-Qaida's continued fixation with using
> explosives-laden small aircraft in attacks."
>
> The author's error contained in the second sentence of that paragraph
> reveals the care he employed in crafting his propaganda.
>
> The warning noted that the impact from such an explosion would be
> akin to "a medium-sized truck bomb."
>
> That explosion estimate presumes that the explosives could be
> effectively detonated by the impact of the collision. Doubtful.
>
> Because of lax security measures, such planes could easily be
> rented with just a credit card or simply stolen, the warning
> suggests. In Berrick's testimony, she notes that 70 general
> aviation aircraft have been stolen in the last five years,
> "indicating a potential weakness that could be exploited by
> terrorists."
>
> What qualifications does Mr. Meeks possess that permit him to
> characterize GA security as lax? Isn't it possible, and even more
> likely, that a terrorist might steal or rent a light truck than an
> airplane? Would Mr. Meeks characterize automotive security as even
> more lax? Or wouldn't that be adequately sensational and misleading
> for his journalistic style?
>
> Such vulnerability "was demonstrated" in January of 2002, Berrick
> said, "when a teenage flight student stole and crashed a
> single-engine airplane into a Tampa, Fla., skyscraper."
>
> Why has Mr. Meeks chosen to omit the fact that the airplane involved
> in the Tampa incident failed to do any meaningful damage?
>
> But such statements and examples are viewed with skepticism by
> those with vested interests in general aviation.
>
> No their not. We fully acknowledge what happened in that Tampa
> incident, unlike Mr. Meeks.
>
> "We basically feel that the whole premise that the typical
> [general aviation] aircraft can be used as a terrorist weapon is
> flawed," said Chris Dancy, a spokesman for the Aircraft Owners and
> Pilots Association. "These small planes just don't have the
> kinetic energy, don't have the carrying capacity to be an
> effective weapon," Dancy said. In addition, there's never been a
> verified episode of a small plane actually being used in a
> terrorist incident, the association says.
>
> Who is a better judge of how effective a weapon a C-172 can be, a
> sensationalism seeking journalist or an aviation organization?
>
> RISK MANAGEMENT
> There are no overarching federal guidelines for security at
> general aviation airports despite the fact that some of these
> airports rank among the nation's Top 20 in terms of overall
> traffic.
>
> First Mr. Meeks reports that "planes weighing 12,500 pounds or more,
> must adhere to the security regulations laid out in a federal law
> known as the "twelve-five" rule," then he laments a lack of federal
> guidelines for security at GA airports. His failure to suggest a
> workable security policy for GA airports reveals his lack of knowledge
> of such matters.
>
> Part of the problem is that general aviation airports cover a
> wide-range of facilities, from rural to urban. "The 2,000-foot,
> grass strip, public use airport that's privately owned, does not
> have the same needs as a large general aviation airport like
> Manassas in Washington, and TSA has sort of set up the machinery
> to let those airports assess their needs and act accordingly,"
> Dancy said.
>
> So now Mr. Meeks implies that he knows better than the TSA how to
> secure GA airports.
>
> [...]
>
> Despite general aviation's best efforts, small planes continue to
> be seen as a major risk.
>
> What leads Mr. Meeks to this erroneous conclusion. If GA were a major
> risk, it would be grounded.
>
> Just last week, a single-engine plane
> "punctured the bubble" of the flight-restricted zone surrounding
> the White House; an errant pilot had simply wandered off course.
>
> Unfortunately, Mr. Meeks fails to fault the FAA for not depicting the
> boundaries of the "bubble" to which he refers on aeronautical charts.
> His failure to mention the FAA's culpability in such incidents further
> reveals his lack of knowledge and understanding of the true situation.
> He's not qualified to write on this subject.
>
> Far from being a "non-event," the incident caused NORAD to
> scramble a couple of F-16 fighters to intercept the perceived
> threat.
>
> Such a flight was not a "perceived threat" prior to September 11,
> 2001. It's only the TSA (and duplicitous journalists) who perceive it
> as a threat now. The facts fail to support that perception, and the
> incident demonstrates that there was no REAL threat.
>
> Although the president and first lady weren't in the White
> House at the time, the vice president and other senior members of
> the White House staff were immediately moved to a secure location
> by the Secret Service until the threat was gone.
>
> Now Mr. Meeks, in his quest for sensationalism, has elevated the
> incident to a real threat by failing to qualify it as perceived. Mr.
> Meeks duplicitous attempt to stir public sentiment against GA is as
> nauseating as the monopolistic practices of Microsoft, his employer.
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
| >
|
| The author of this article is doing his best to paint general aviation
| as a security threat to satisfy his need for sensational headlines.
|
| Here's the author's e-mail address:
|
|

Actually Meeks does not feel that general aviation is a threat and has
expressed his views in private to some of us. He writes these articles to
appear to comply with NBC's point of view so that they will be published,
but attempts to make that point of view look ridiculous.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:


> He writes these articles to
> appear to comply with NBC's point of view so that they will be published,
> but attempts to make that point of view look ridiculous.

well, that doesn't require much effort.

--
Bob Noel

['Vejita' S. Cousin]

In article <v3tub.6928$Ue4.2593@fed1read01>,
Scott Schluer > wrote:
>That's a very valid point, especially the part about which outlook got the
>first paragraphs (I didn't think about that). However, I only said it was
>more objective than most of the articles I've read, not that it was a
>totally objective piece. ;-)

Ultimately people are just scared of anything that flies post 9-11.
You can replace every statement made about GA with 'automobile.' The
difference is that most people are not pilots (that the hobby of the rich)
and more security sounds good.
Not to take anything away from the families that lost loved ones on
9-11 but trunks/vans/uhauls have been used multiple times before and after
9-11 to do far more (total) damage). But no one talks about restricting
who can rent a F250.
I still have enough faith in the system to believe that if we can ride
out the storm its only a matter of time before everyone moves onto
something else. The question is what rights will we as pilots (or for
that matter the nation as a whole) lost along the way.

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Actually Meeks does not feel that general aviation is a threat and has
> expressed his views in private to some of us. He writes these articles to
> appear to comply with NBC's point of view so that they will be published,
> but attempts to make that point of view look ridiculous.

IMHO, he didn't do a very good job with this last article, if that was the
intent. The one quote from AOPA was included without any other supporting
data, making it look like AOPA is just putting their heads in the sand.

He also allowed to go without comment the statement from the government that
GA planes are capable of producing an explosion similar to that of a
"medium-sized truck bomb" (e.g. Oklahoma), in spite of his early description
of typical GA airplanes weighing less than a Honda Civic fully loaded. How
he thinks a medium-sized truck bomb can fit in a Honda Civic isn't clear,
but allowing ridiculous statements from the government to be quoted without
rebuttal is the same as agreeing with them.

I agree that Meeks has in the past made vague indications to being
sympathetic to the plight of GA. However, I would not characterize him as
being clearly pro-GA or fully cognizant of the threat or lack thereof of GA.
This latest article just shows how far from being pro-GA he really is. He
had a great opportunity to provide some fair reporting, and instead just
quoted the GAO and TSA for the most part, letting their silly statements
stand without contradiction.

Pete

[Montblack]

("Peter Duniho" wrote)
<snip>
> I agree that Meeks has in the past made vague indications to being
> sympathetic to the plight of GA. However, I would not characterize him as
> being clearly pro-GA or fully cognizant of the threat or lack thereof of
GA.
> This latest article just shows how far from being pro-GA he really is. He
> had a great opportunity to provide some fair reporting, and instead just
> quoted the GAO and TSA for the most part, letting their silly statements
> stand without contradiction.

I enjoyed the 70% part...


According to the GAO, which is the investigative arm of Congress,
about 70 percent of all general aviation planes are four- to
six-seat, single-engine, piston-driven propeller planes. These
types of planes, like a Cessna 172, cruise about 145 mph and fully
loaded weigh less than a Honda Civic.


I wonder if all of those two-seat planes out there were part of that 70%
number? I doubt it.

--
Montblack

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:30:42 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>| >
>|
>| The author of this article is doing his best to paint general aviation
>| as a security threat to satisfy his need for sensational headlines.
>|
>| Here's the author's e-mail address:
>|
>|
>
>Actually Meeks does not feel that general aviation is a threat and has
>expressed his views in private to some of us. He writes these articles to
>appear to comply with NBC's point of view so that they will be published,
>but attempts to make that point of view look ridiculous.
>

You are savvy enough to see the truth, however the anxiety level of
average Americans will be increased as a result of reading this
article. Their reactions to small airplanes will no longer be one of
delight, but fear and hatred. Mr. Meeks obviously deliberate
omissions of pertinent information unquestionably reveal intentional
bias against GA in the view his article presents.

I canceled my subscription to Time magazine when they ran their
full-page promotional advertisement showing small aircraft juxtaposed
against nuclear generating plant condensation towers with the caption,
"Remember when only environmentalists would have been alarmed by this
photograph?" And I think less of MSNBC as a result of reading this
article.

Trading one's integrity for a few paltry dollars is rather ignoble,
IMO. And he who panders to those in power out of fear of reprisal
does himself more harm than any punishment they may threaten to
inflict.

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> [...] And I think less of MSNBC as a result of reading this article.

I guess the only thing that puzzles me is that you COULD think less of them.
The only reason I read MSNBC is that they carry a local news affiliate that
I like, and their font (unresizable, just like everyone else's) is larger
than the other news sites. It certainly has nothing to do with their
journalistic abilities.

I especially enjoyed the day that their so-called tech toy expert reported
that one brand of MiniDisc media (a digital format) resulted in better
sounding recordings than another. Fortunately, most of their content was
written somewhere else (AP, Newsweek, Washington Post, etc.).

Pete

[StellaStar]

>> [...] And I think less of MSNBC as a result of reading this article.
>
>I guess the only thing that puzzles me is that you COULD think less of them.

Simple. The American public can hold two opposing viewpoints: that "the media,"
from a smudgy weekly paper to the vast EIB radio network (snicker) is perfect
and all-knowing...and that all of them dish out lies on a daily basis that
everyone else but that individual reader/viewer/listener sucks up. Ask anyone
if some lying report in the media will sway their opinion and they'll staunchly
assert it never could. But they're sure everyone else is a gullible fool.

No problem - we can all go to the Usenet to get factual, corroborated,
infallible news. Now I have to go read some more instructions on how to tune
my tinfoil hat.

[Lynn Melrose]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> \I canceled my subscription to Time magazine when they ran their
> full-page promotional advertisement showing small aircraft juxtaposed
> against nuclear generating plant condensation towers with the caption,
> "Remember when only environmentalists would have been alarmed by this
> photograph?" And I think less of MSNBC as a result of reading this
> article.

That's a bit of an overreaction. First of all, unless you were familiar with
the particular airport/plant, you would have no idea if it was a nuclear plant
or not. Hyperbolic cooling towers that cool nuclear plants can look just like
hyperbolic cooling towers that cool coal plants, for example. Some nuclear
plants have cooling towers if they were built when/where environmental
regulations required them to protect thermal water quality, some do not. Same
with other types of thermal generating plants.

Now it turns out this particular photo WAS of a nuclear plant, although it did
not say that. Nor did it say that this particular plant was constructed to
withstand the impact of a jet, let alone the light singles in the foreground.
It also did not say that the plant's owner, Exelon Corporation, and its
predecessors have owned this particular airport in the foreground, KPTW, for
decades.

[C J Campbell]

"StellaStar" > wrote in message
...
| >> [...] And I think less of MSNBC as a result of reading this article.
| >
| >I guess the only thing that puzzles me is that you COULD think less of
them.
|
| Simple. The American public can hold two opposing viewpoints: that "the
media,"
| from a smudgy weekly paper to the vast EIB radio network (snicker) is
perfect
| and all-knowing...and that all of them dish out lies on a daily basis that
| everyone else but that individual reader/viewer/listener sucks up.

You have a very tough sell to try to convince anyone on this news group that
anything the news media report is accurate. After all, the news media mostly
portray us as a bunch of dangerous terrorists just waiting for our chance to
rain death from the skies. That, or we're a bunch of rich, spoiled
romanticists who enjoy risking our lives for the shear thrill of it.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 22:11:45 -0500, Lynn Melrose
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> \I canceled my subscription to Time magazine when they ran their
>> full-page promotional advertisement showing small aircraft juxtaposed
>> against nuclear generating plant condensation towers with the caption,
>> "Remember when only environmentalists would have been alarmed by this
>> photograph?" And I think less of MSNBC as a result of reading this
>> article.
>
>That's a bit of an overreaction.

To which 'that' are you referring, dumping Time? The implications in
that ad were criminal!

>First of all, unless you were familiar with
>the particular airport/plant, you would have no idea if it was a nuclear plant
>or not. Hyperbolic cooling towers that cool nuclear plants can look just like
>hyperbolic cooling towers that cool coal plants, for example. Some nuclear
>plants have cooling towers if they were built when/where environmental
>regulations required them to protect thermal water quality, some do not. Same
>with other types of thermal generating plants.

First of all, it's not about the towers. It's about the obscene
implication and inciting unwarranted fear of GA in the hearts of the
American public. It's about the irresponsible theft and squandering
of GA currency to swell Time magazine's subscription roster. My
indignation at the breach of public trust demonstrated by Time is more
than justified.

>Now it turns out this particular photo WAS of a nuclear plant, although it did
>not say that.

The ad CLEARLY implied that it was a nuclear facility, visually.
There was no need to be more explicit than that. In fact, if the Time
art director had been any more specific, she may have faced criminal
charges for suggesting/inciting terrorist sabotage. The ad was an
outrage, and I choose not to read a rag that would stoop to create and
publish such vicious, libelous and ill conceived excrement.

>Nor did it say that this particular plant was constructed to
>withstand the impact of a jet, let alone the light singles in the foreground.

You may have an idea of the potential magnitude of hazard that might
be unleashed in the event a C-172 collided with one of those towers,
but the lay public only sees the nuclear icon and cringes with visions
of Nagasaki.

>It also did not say that the plant's owner, Exelon Corporation, and its
>predecessors have owned this particular airport in the foreground, KPTW, for
>decades.
>

That's interesting data, but how is it relevant?

[Lynn Melrose]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 22:11:45 -0500, Lynn Melrose
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> >:
>
> >Larry Dighera wrote:
> >
> >> \I canceled my subscription to Time magazine when they ran their
> >> full-page promotional advertisement showing small aircraft juxtaposed
> >> against nuclear generating plant condensation towers with the caption,
> >> "Remember when only environmentalists would have been alarmed by this
> >> photograph?" And I think less of MSNBC as a result of reading this
> >> article.
> >
> >That's a bit of an overreaction.
>
> To which 'that' are you referring, dumping Time? The implications in
> that ad were criminal!

What crime under whose law?

>
>
> >First of all, unless you were familiar with
> >the particular airport/plant, you would have no idea if it was a nuclear plant
> >or not. Hyperbolic cooling towers that cool nuclear plants can look just like
> >hyperbolic cooling towers that cool coal plants, for example. Some nuclear
> >plants have cooling towers if they were built when/where environmental
> >regulations required them to protect thermal water quality, some do not. Same
> >with other types of thermal generating plants.
>
> First of all, it's not about the towers. It's about the obscene
> implication and inciting unwarranted fear of GA in the hearts of the
> American public. It's about the irresponsible theft and squandering
> of GA currency to swell Time magazine's subscription roster. My
> indignation at the breach of public trust demonstrated by Time is more
> than justified.

You give Time way to much credit.

>
>
> >Now it turns out this particular photo WAS of a nuclear plant, although it did
> >not say that.
>
> The ad CLEARLY implied that it was a nuclear facility, visually.

Visually with what? Ignore the smokestacks in this picture of a coal plant for a
moment. Does the picture imply a nuclear facility?
http://www.macgen.com.au/about_us/images/bayswater.jpg

>
> There was no need to be more explicit than that. In fact, if the Time
> art director had been any more specific, she may have faced criminal
> charges for suggesting/inciting terrorist sabotage. The ad was an
> outrage, and I choose not to read a rag that would stoop to create and
> publish such vicious, libelous and ill conceived excrement.
>
> >Nor did it say that this particular plant was constructed to
> >withstand the impact of a jet, let alone the light singles in the foreground.
>
> You may have an idea of the potential magnitude of hazard that might
> be unleashed in the event a C-172 collided with one of those towers,
> but the lay public only sees the nuclear icon and cringes with visions
> of Nagasaki.

But towers aren't a "nuclear icon", they are just cooling towers that happen to
be connected to a nuclear plant in this case. Cooling towers that are connected to
coal plants look suspiciously similar.

They could have showed the reactor building instead, but chose not to. I'm not
sure how the towers is relevant to nuclear safety. The only thing in those towers
is water vapor. Even if somebody hit the towers and miraculously knocked one down
instead of bouncing off it, the only thing that would happen would be a big mess of
cement blocks and a cloud of dust, steam, and liquid water. The reactor would shut
down, although the particular reactors at that plant may be run for 30 days without
the benefit of a cooling tower or even raising the river temperature. Oh yeah, TV
reception would probably improve in the area, with no more multipathing off the
tower.



>
> >It also did not say that the plant's owner, Exelon Corporation, and its
> >predecessors have owned this particular airport in the foreground, KPTW, for
> >decades.
> >
>
> That's interesting data, but how is it relevant?

Well for one thing, the power company isn't exactly about to notice the Time
article and then shut down the airport! They purchased the airport expressly for
the purpose of ensuring it continues in perpetuity.

[C J Campbell]

Well then, since you don't think Time was trying to incite anti GA hysteria
by implying that small airplanes could credibly be used to attack nuclear
power plants, perhaps you could tell us what the message of that ad was.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Lynn Melrose wrote:
>
> Now it turns out this particular photo WAS of a nuclear plant, although it did
> not say that.

And absolutely nobody with an IQ above 40 would have thought for one second
that it was anything else. Nobody over-reacted to that ad.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can
be learned no other way.

[Andrew Gideon]

C J Campbell wrote:

> You have a very tough sell to try to convince anyone on this news group
> that anything the news media report is accurate.

The NYTimes usually has the correct date.

- Andrew

[Tom S.]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> > You have a very tough sell to try to convince anyone on this news group
> > that anything the news media report is accurate.
>
> The NYTimes usually has the correct date.
>

But not always.

[Lynn Melrose]

C J Campbell wrote:

> Well then, since you don't think Time was trying to incite anti GA hysteria
> by implying that small airplanes could credibly be used to attack nuclear
> power plants,

That's a super sensitive outlook. It was just a picture of a friendly GA
field. It's an accurate picture, there was no doctoring. Do you know of
anyone being incited by the picture? Perhaps we should censor pictures of
general aviation airports in the media? Time also wrote a highly
complimentary article about general aviation, which you conveniently forgot to
mention here.

> perhaps you could tell us what the message of that ad was.

To get people to "Join the conversation." Looks like it did what it was
supposed to, right here on this newsgroup. If anything, it gives pilots the
opportunity to explain why such fears would be silly. When a mere photo is
attacked as some sort of inciting hysteria, that opportunity is lost.

[Lynn Melrose]

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

> Lynn Melrose wrote:
> >
> > Now it turns out this particular photo WAS of a nuclear plant, although it did
> > not say that.
>
> And absolutely nobody with an IQ above 40 would have thought for one second
> that it was anything else.

And unless you knew the particular plant in question, who would you know that from
the photo, whether your IQ is 40 or 140?

Take a look here: http://www.ucsusa.org/CoalvsWind/c02d1.html
Is that a nuclear plant? No, it's not.

Take a look here:
http://www.smartown.com/sp2000/energy_planet/media/photos/coolingtowers.html
Is that a nuclear plant? No, it a coal plant.

Take a look here:
http://www.edfenergy.com/server/uploads/approved/photo_stationatdawn.jpg
Is that a nuclear plant? No, it's not.


> Nobody over-reacted to that ad.
>
Except the people who charged that it was inciting hysteria.

[Peter Duniho]

"Lynn Melrose" > wrote in message
...
> To get people to "Join the conversation."

To join what conversation? Time doesn't care about conversations here.
They only care about magazine sales. And what exactly was it that
non-environmentalists were alarmed (according to Time) by the photograph?

Your head is in the sand. Everything you say about the reality of the
photograph is true, but none of that matters. Only the perception and the
implication in Time's statement are what are relevant, and they are very
different from the reality.

Pete

[C J Campbell]

"Lynn Melrose" > wrote in message
...
|
| C J Campbell wrote:
|
| > Well then, since you don't think Time was trying to incite anti GA
hysteria
| > by implying that small airplanes could credibly be used to attack
nuclear
| > power plants,
|
| That's a super sensitive outlook. It was just a picture of a friendly
GA
| field. It's an accurate picture, there was no doctoring.

I suppose the caption was meaningless as well.

[Lynn Melrose]

C J Campbell wrote:

> "Lynn Melrose" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | C J Campbell wrote:
> |
> | > Well then, since you don't think Time was trying to incite anti GA
> hysteria
> | > by implying that small airplanes could credibly be used to attack
> nuclear
> | > power plants,
> |
> | That's a super sensitive outlook. It was just a picture of a friendly
> GA
> | field. It's an accurate picture, there was no doctoring.
>
> I suppose the caption was meaningless as well.

It appears to have successfully encouraged you to converse....

[Lynn Melrose]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Lynn Melrose" > wrote in message
> ...
> > To get people to "Join the conversation."
>
> To join what conversation? Time doesn't care about conversations here.
> They only care about magazine sales. And what exactly was it that
> non-environmentalists were alarmed (according to Time) by the photograph?

Negative. If you saw the ad, it was clear that it was steering people to a
website for an online discussion. Apparently, some people such as yourself
chose to be alarmed by a photo of a general aviation field.

>
>
> Your head is in the sand.

No, it's not. You are acting as if Time yelled Fire in a crowded theater.

> Everything you say about the reality of the
> photograph is true, but none of that matters. Only the perception and the
> implication in Time's statement are what are relevant, and they are very
> different from the reality.

Perception is how the viewer sees it, how many people went into some kind of
mass hysteria about the photo? People are free to use the picture as an
opportunity to show that GA really isn't a big threat.

[Pixel Dent]

In article e.com>,
Andrew Gideon > wrote:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> > You have a very tough sell to try to convince anyone on this news group
> > that anything the news media report is accurate.
>
> The NYTimes usually has the correct date.
>
> - Andrew
>

There was a wonderful correction in the the Cleveland Plain Dealer...

Because of an editing error, a story on the front page yesterday
misattributed a quote from the speaker on an audiotape purportedly of
Saddam Hussein as coming from Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of
South Dakota. It was the speaker on the tape, not Daschle, who said,
"The evil ones now find themselves in crisis, and this is God's will for
them." The only solution for Iraq was for "the zealous Iraqi sons, who
ran its affairs and brought it out of backwardness . . . to return . . .
to run its affairs anew," the speaker on the tape said, referring to the
Baath leadership.

[Peter Duniho]

"Lynn Melrose" > wrote in message
...
> Negative.

"Negative" what? That's not an answer to my question. I will ask again:
"What exactly was it that non-environmentalists were alarmed (according to
Time) by the photograph?"

> If you saw the ad, it was clear that it was steering people to a
> website for an online discussion.

I did see the ad. If all they wanted to do was steer people to a website
for online discussion, why not just print a blank page with the text "Join
the discussion" and a URL?

Instead, they printed a picture (have you forgotten that a picture is worth
1000 words?), and text reading "Remember when only environmentalists would
have been alarmed by this photograph?"

> Apparently, some people such as yourself
> chose to be alarmed by a photo of a general aviation field.

Apparently, some people such as yourself are willing to believe practically
anything, so long as it does disturb your fragile feeling of calm and
well-being. The rest of us didn't "choose" to be alarmed. We saw exactly
what Time intended and didn't appreciate it.

You have continued to evade the very questions that go directly to the
meaning of the advertisement. Classic behavior of someone who simply
doesn't want to be confronted with the truth.

> > Your head is in the sand.
>
> No, it's not. You are acting as if Time yelled Fire in a crowded theater.

Hardly. I don't feel Time yelled "fire" in a crowded theater. I feel that
they stood up, pointed to me, and yelled "murderer". There's a difference,
you know.

> Perception is how the viewer sees it, how many people went into some kind
of
> mass hysteria about the photo? People are free to use the picture as an
> opportunity to show that GA really isn't a big threat.

Then why would Time take so much trouble to reinforce the idea that people
should be alarmed by the picture? Again, answer the question: "What exactly
was it that non-environmentalists were alarmed (according to Time) by the
photograph?"

I feel confident that the reason you keep evading the question is that you
cannot answer it without disturbing your tenuous grip on your soft and fuzzy
version of reality.

Pete

[G.R. Patterson III]

Lynn Melrose wrote:
>
> And unless you knew the particular plant in question, who would you know that from
> the photo, whether your IQ is 40 or 140?

That's completely superfluous. It doesn't matter at all whether the cooling
towers in the ad were or were not those of a nuke plant. What is important is
that absolutely 100% of the people who see that ad will assume that that's a
nuke plant.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
no other way.

[Lynn Melrose]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Lynn Melrose" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Negative.
>
> "Negative" what? That's not an answer to my question. I will ask again:
> "What exactly was it that non-environmentalists were alarmed (according to
> Time) by the photograph?"
>
> > If you saw the ad, it was clear that it was steering people to a
> > website for an online discussion.
>
> I did see the ad. If all they wanted to do was steer people to a website
> for online discussion, why not just print a blank page with the text "Join
> the discussion" and a URL?

For the same reason that nearly every other piece of advertising in a magazine
includes visuals, not just text on blank pages.

> Instead, they printed a picture (have you forgotten that a picture is worth
> 1000 words?), and text reading "Remember when only environmentalists would

> have been alarmed by this photograph?"
>
> > Apparently, some people such as yourself
> > chose to be alarmed by a photo of a general aviation field.
>
> Apparently, some people such as yourself are willing to believe practically
> anything,

I'm not willing to believe practically anything. Others in the thread are
willing to believe that Time somehow committing a crime and inciting hysteria.

> so long as it does disturb your fragile feeling of calm and
> well-being. The rest of us didn't "choose" to be alarmed. We saw exactly
> what Time intended and didn't appreciate it.
>
> You have continued to evade the very questions that go directly to the
> meaning of the advertisement. Classic behavior of someone who simply
> doesn't want to be confronted with the truth.

To the contrary, I pointed out that Time presented an opportunity to explain why
GA is NOT a threat. You seem to be more concerned with muzzling Time. Since
you seem committed into making this a personal attack on me instead of
restricting your comments to the arena of thoughts, my feelings are not so
fragile that a picture in a magazine can disturb them.

>
>
> > > Your head is in the sand.
> >
> > No, it's not. You are acting as if Time yelled Fire in a crowded theater.
>
> Hardly. I don't feel Time yelled "fire" in a crowded theater. I feel that
> they stood up, pointed to me, and yelled "murderer". There's a difference,
> you know.

And if you were not a murderer, you would have a winnable case of libel on your
hands. Where was the "damage" specifically caused by this photo/ad?

>
>
> > Perception is how the viewer sees it, how many people went into some kind
> of
> > mass hysteria about the photo? People are free to use the picture as an
> > opportunity to show that GA really isn't a big threat.
>
> Then why would Time take so much trouble to reinforce the idea that people
> should be alarmed by the picture?

Clearly, to provoke a response.

> Again, answer the question: "What exactly
> was it that non-environmentalists were alarmed (according to Time) by the
> photograph?"

You say "according to Time," yet you are asking me. I do not speak for Time
therefore I can't answer for them. I would suggest that they were being
provocative. Is the best response from GA an explanation of why GA is not a
major threat, or GA trying to censor Time? A person unfamiliar with GA might
ask, "hey if GA isn't a major threat, why don't they just say that instead of
trying to shut-up Time? Sounds like they're trying to hide something."

>
>
> I feel confident that the reason you keep evading the question is that you
> cannot answer it without disturbing your tenuous grip on your soft and fuzzy
> version of reality.

Then that would indicate you have a false sense of confidence.

[Peter Duniho]

"Lynn Melrose" > wrote in message
...
> For the same reason that nearly every other piece of advertising in a
magazine
> includes visuals, not just text on blank pages.

Are you really that thick, that you think the photo was chosen simply
because it's pleasing to the eye?

It was chosen for the implied meaning, in context of the text on the page.

> To the contrary, I pointed out that Time presented an opportunity to
explain why
> GA is NOT a threat.

Huh? So now you are saying that the ad DOES imply that GA is a threat?
This is a complete reversal from your previous statements.

By the way, that's not an answer to the question "What exactly was it that
non-environmentalists were alarmed (according to Time) by the photograph."
Again, you have evaded the question.

> And if you were not a murderer, you would have a winnable case of libel on
your
> hands. Where was the "damage" specifically caused by this photo/ad?

The implication that airplanes near cooling towers are somehow harmful.
Frankly, if GA had sufficient legal resources, I'd think they'd have a
legitimate legal case against Time.

> > Then why would Time take so much trouble to reinforce the idea that
people
> > should be alarmed by the picture?
>
> Clearly, to provoke a response.

Again, you are reversing your previous statements. How could Time provoke a
response unless they made the implication CJ, Larry, I, and many others have
inferred?

> You say "according to Time," yet you are asking me. I do not speak for
Time
> therefore I can't answer for them.

Of course you are speaking for Time. You are defending the ad as
non-inflammatory, claiming that it means something other than what the rest
of us saw that it means. Either you're just a run-of-the-mill troll, happy
to say "no it isn't" to practically anything that shows up in the newsgroup,
or you have an alternate theory.

If you're a troll, just fess up and let us drop the matter. If you have an
alternate theory, spit it out. Quit evading the question.

> > I feel confident that the reason you keep evading the question is that
you
> > cannot answer it without disturbing your tenuous grip on your soft and
fuzzy
> > version of reality.
>
> Then that would indicate you have a false sense of confidence.

Could very well be. But we'll never know as long as you keep evading the
question.

Pete

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 00:11:10 -0500, Lynn Melrose
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:


>To the contrary, I pointed out that Time presented an opportunity to explain why
>GA is NOT a threat.

Using your reasoning, perhaps you'll take this opportunity to explain
why you are NOT a pedophile.

>Where was the "damage" specifically caused by this photo/ad?

If there were no damage, why did Time agree to pull the ad in response
to complaints?

[Lynn Melrose]

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

> Lynn Melrose wrote:
> >
> > And unless you knew the particular plant in question, who would you know that from
> > the photo, whether your IQ is 40 or 140?
>
> That's completely superfluous. It doesn't matter at all whether the cooling
> towers in the ad were or were not those of a nuke plant. What is important is
> that absolutely 100% of the people who see that ad will assume that that's a
> nuke plant.

How did you arrive at this number? Would your same sample also think this is a nuclear
plant? http://www.ucsusa.org/CoalvsWind/c02d1.html

[Lynn Melrose]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 00:11:10 -0500, Lynn Melrose
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> >:
>
> >To the contrary, I pointed out that Time presented an opportunity to explain why
> >GA is NOT a threat.
>
> Using your reasoning, perhaps you'll take this opportunity to explain
> why you are NOT a pedophile.

> >Where was the "damage" specifically caused by this photo/ad?
>
> If there were no damage, why did Time agree to pull the ad in response
> to complaints?

And exactly how did we get to pedophile, or for that manner change the conversation
to me? You seem preoccupied with attacking me, but have little defense to offer to
explain why GA is not a threat and why a general aviation plane could not be used to
get by the national guard force on the ground and harm any of the plant's systems.
Obviously they said that they pulled it, to make somebody happy. How long was the ad
slated to run? Time magazine has run numerous of similar "join the conversation" ads
about other topics, which only ran once or twice. Where were the actual damages? If
there is a lawsuit, what should damages be set for, and how should they be
quantified?

[Lynn Melrose]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Lynn Melrose" > wrote in message
> ...
> > For the same reason that nearly every other piece of advertising in a
> magazine
> > includes visuals, not just text on blank pages.
>
> Are you really that thick,

Are you able to hold a conversation without resorting to cheap personal
attacks? Needing to attacking me as a person does not make your position
stronger, Peter.

> that you think the photo was chosen simply
> because it's pleasing to the eye?
>
> It was chosen for the implied meaning, in context of the text on the page.

I didn't say it was pleasing to the eye. You are inserting your words as if they
were my own. If you take a look at magazines, including Time, you will note
that many magazines include many pictures that are decidedly not pleasing to the
eye.

>
>
> > To the contrary, I pointed out that Time presented an opportunity to
> explain why
> > GA is NOT a threat.
>
> Huh? So now you are saying that the ad DOES imply that GA is a threat?
> This is a complete reversal from your previous statements.

Incorrect, I did NOT say that.

>
>
> By the way, that's not an answer to the question "What exactly was it that
> non-environmentalists were alarmed (according to Time) by the photograph."
> Again, you have evaded the question.

You keep wanting me to explain something "according to Time." Again, I do not
speak for Time, nor can I say anything "according to Time, so you are charging a
false premise to me.

>
>
> > And if you were not a murderer, you would have a winnable case of libel on
> your
> > hands. Where was the "damage" specifically caused by this photo/ad?
>
> The implication that airplanes near cooling towers are somehow harmful.
> Frankly, if GA had sufficient legal resources, I'd think they'd have a
> legitimate legal case against Time.

You would be thinking wrongly in that case.

>
>
> > > Then why would Time take so much trouble to reinforce the idea that
> people
> > > should be alarmed by the picture?
> >
> > Clearly, to provoke a response.
>
> Again, you are reversing your previous statements.

My previous statements stand.

> How could Time provoke a
> response unless they made the implication CJ, Larry, I, and many others have
> inferred?

Time presented a picture and a sentence, with an invitation to join a
conversation. They were not attempting to restrict that conversation to any
particular viewpoint.

>
>
> > You say "according to Time," yet you are asking me. I do not speak for
> Time
> > therefore I can't answer for them.
>
> Of course you are speaking for Time.

Incorrect. I am not connected to Time in any way.

> You are defending the ad as non-inflammatory, claiming that it means something
> other than what the rest of us saw that it means.

You can choose to imply what you want. That does not mean that you can expect
others, including myself, to imply the way you feel others should.

> Either you're just a run-of-the-mill troll, happy
> to say "no it isn't" to practically anything that shows up in the newsgroup,
> or you have an alternate theory.

I have a different viewpoint than yourself. What is your evidence to say that I
say, "no it isn't" to practically anything that shows up in the newsgroup?
Citations please, from your favorite newsgroup archive. There are a lot of
things that 'show up' in a newsgroup, what percentage of topics have I said "no
it isn't?" Clearly your charges against me are unfounded.

>
>
> If you're a troll, just fess up and let us drop the matter.

Your viewpoints are not an authority of what consitutes what is and is not a
troll. You may drop the matter if you so desire. When you cannot successfully
support your position, it is interesting that you need to resort to
name-calling.

> If you have an
> alternate theory, spit it out. Quit evading the question.

I have already answered your questions on my viewpoints (not Time's). You
respond by twisting my words and making baseless charges. Again, citations
please for your claim that I say "no it isn't" to practically anything that
shows up in the newsgroup.

> > > I feel confident that the reason you keep evading the question is that
> you
> > > cannot answer it without disturbing your tenuous grip on your soft and
> fuzzy
> > > version of reality.
> >
> > Then that would indicate you have a false sense of confidence.
>
> Could very well be. But we'll never know as long as you keep evading the
> question.

I answered your questions several times. You respond by putting words into my
mouth and telling me that I somehow evaded your questioning. It is unfortunate
that you are more concerned with personal attacks than defending GA against
charges of harm using logic.

[Peter Duniho]

"Lynn Melrose" > wrote in message
...
> I answered your questions several times.

No, you didn't answer the question even once. I guess you are a troll after
all.

[Lynn Melrose]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Lynn Melrose" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I answered your questions several times.
>
> No, you didn't answer the question even once.

How convenient of you to claim that after you snipped my message, Peter.

> I guess you are a troll after all.

Your guess at name calling is in correct.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:15:48 -0500, Lynn Melrose
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 00:11:10 -0500, Lynn Melrose
>> > wrote in Message-Id:
>> >:
>>
>> >To the contrary, I pointed out that Time presented an opportunity to explain why
>> >GA is NOT a threat.
>>
>> Using your reasoning, perhaps you'll take this opportunity to explain
>> why you are NOT a pedophile.
>
>> >Where was the "damage" specifically caused by this photo/ad?
>>
>> If there were no damage, why did Time agree to pull the ad in response
>> to complaints?
>
>And exactly how did we get to pedophile, or for that manner [sic] change the conversation
>to me?

You seem incapable of understanding how the false accusation implicit
in the Time ad is capable of provoking indignation in the one accused,
so I thought I'd provide you with some first hand experience. Don't
you want to "join the conversation" on that subject? :=) Now you
know how it feels. If you had been a pilot, I wouldn't have had to
resort to that.

>You seem preoccupied with attacking me,

I only attack your (deliberate?) lack of insight into the self serving
use of an erroneous premise (to the detriment of GA in the eyes of the
lay public) to attract subscribers in the Time ad. It was wrong, and
when called on it, Time vowed to pull the ad. Time could see their
error; why can't you?

>but have little defense to offer to explain why GA is not a threat

You seemed knowledgable enough to know why a C-172 impacting a
condensation tower posed no threat. I didn't realize that you needed
to have it explained to you.

>and why a general aviation plane could not be used to get by the national guard force
>on the ground and harm any of the plant's systems.

Engineering studies have shown that an airliner, let alone a GA
aircraft, impacting a nuclear containment structure will not
successfully compromise it. A cooling tower contains no radioactive
material, only hot water. Time's implied premise was bogus, and your
failure to understand that, while disappointing, does prove to me that
the lay public could be similarly duped into similar erroneous
conclusions.

>Obviously they said that they pulled it, to make somebody happy.

How is that obvious? Have you any impartial information to support
such an allegation? Couldn't they have just as easily have pulled the
ad in chagrin to save their public embarrassment over such an ill
conceived ad.

[...]

>Where were the actual damages? If there is a lawsuit, what should damages be
>set for, and how should they be quantified?

The damages are the same as they are in any case of defamatory
representation that unjustly conveys an erroneously unfavorable
impression (libel).

[Lynn Melrose]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:15:48 -0500, Lynn Melrose
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> >:
>
> >Larry Dighera wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 00:11:10 -0500, Lynn Melrose
> >> > wrote in Message-Id:
> >> >:
> >>
> >> >To the contrary, I pointed out that Time presented an opportunity to explain why
> >> >GA is NOT a threat.
> >>
> >> Using your reasoning, perhaps you'll take this opportunity to explain
> >> why you are NOT a pedophile.
> >
> >> >Where was the "damage" specifically caused by this photo/ad?
> >>
> >> If there were no damage, why did Time agree to pull the ad in response
> >> to complaints?
> >
> >And exactly how did we get to pedophile, or for that manner [sic] change the conversation
> >to me?
>
> You seem incapable of understanding how the false accusation implicit
> in the Time ad is capable of provoking indignation in the one accused,
> so I thought I'd provide you with some first hand experience. Don't
> you want to "join the conversation" on that subject? :=) Now you
> know how it feels. If you had been a pilot, I wouldn't have had to
> resort to that.

Your comments don't make sense, and your "if you had been a pilot" nonsense is laughable.
I've been a pilot for over 14 years now, with about 1,700 hours.

>
>
> >You seem preoccupied with attacking me,
>
> I only attack your (deliberate?) lack of insight

I provided plenty of insight. Now your "insight" is telling me that I'm no longer a pilot
too.

> into the self serving
> use of an erroneous premise (to the detriment of GA in the eyes of the
> lay public) to attract subscribers in the Time ad. It was wrong, and
> when called on it, Time vowed to pull the ad.

Yeah, they "vowed to pull" something that was extremely unlikely to run any longer than their
other "join the conversation" ads, that is a week or two.

> Time could see their
> error; why can't you?

Time didn't say they found any errors in their ad.

>
>
> >but have little defense to offer to explain why GA is not a threat
>
> You seemed knowledgable enough to know why a C-172 impacting a
> condensation tower posed no threat. I didn't realize that you needed
> to have it explained to you.

You are making more baseless charges about me. To quote myself from an earlier post, "Even
if somebody hit the towers and miraculously knocked one down instead of bouncing off it, the
only thing that would happen would be a big mess of cement blocks and a cloud of dust, steam,
and liquid water."

>
>
> >and why a general aviation plane could not be used to get by the national guard force
> >on the ground and harm any of the plant's systems.
>
> Engineering studies have shown that an airliner, let alone a GA
> aircraft, impacting a nuclear containment structure will not
> successfully compromise it.

That would of course depend on the particular plant, which is why some plants were built
stronger than others. GPU's Three Mile Island plant in Middletown, for example, had its
containment design strengthened just before construction to withstand a Boeing 727. The plant
in the aforementioned photo was designed ot withstand the impact of a light jet. By the way,
what 'engineering studies' are you using? A citation would be helpful.

Furthemore, a lot of a nuclear plant is not within the containment structure.

> A cooling tower contains no radioactive
> material, only hot water.

That's right.

> Time's implied premise was bogus,

That's right.

> and your
> failure to understand that,

I not only understand that, but clearly pointed that out earlier.
I said earlier, to wit,

"I'm not sure how the towers is relevant to nuclear safety. The only
thing in those towers is water vapor. Even if somebody hit the towers
and miraculously knocked one down instead of bouncing off it, the only
thing that would happen would be a big mess of cement blocks and a
cloud of dust, steam, and liquid water. The reactor would shut down,
although the particular reactors at that plant may be run for 30 days
without the benefit of a cooling tower or even raising the river
temperature."

> while disappointing, does prove to me that
> the lay public could be similarly duped into similar erroneous
> conclusions.

Your "proof" is that because I pointed out that the only thing in those towers is water vapor
etc, confirms the 'lay public could be similarly duped into......knowing that 'the only thing
that would happen would be a big mess of cement blocks and a cloud of dust, steam, and liquid
water.'

> >Obviously they said that they pulled it, to make somebody happy.
>
> How is that obvious?

Becuase they said that they pulled it after being asked, or demanded.

> Have you any impartial information to support
> such an allegation? Couldn't they have just as easily have pulled the
> ad in chagrin to save their public embarrassment over such an ill
> conceived ad.

Why do you think this ad was planned to run any longer than any of the other similar ads they
ran for just an issue or two? You ask for "impartial information" on my part but are
unwilling to supply same.

>
>
> [...]
>
> >Where were the actual damages? If there is a lawsuit, what should damages be
> >set for, and how should they be quantified?
>
> The damages are the same as they are in any case of defamatory
> representation that unjustly conveys an erroneously unfavorable
> impression (libel).

Huh? Damages are set individually for every (actual) case. Good luck finding a lawyer to take
this non-case.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 20:04:17 -0500, Lynn Melrose
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>> Time's implied premise was bogus,
>
>That's right.

I knew we could agree. :=)