Re: ZZZooommm rant latest

[Kyle Boatright]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> Here's zoomys latest rant from ANN dated Thursday /04/03:
>
__________________________________________________ __________________________
_
>
> "Ya Gotta Be Kidding" Award: (Rant Mode "On") Ultralight Aviation's
Ever-Present
> Clown/Part-Time Rip-Off Artist, Chuck Slusarczyk of CGS Aviation (Repeat
Award).
> Every time we go to these events, this clown parades around this silly
"Zoom
> Free Zone" sign trying to intimate that he is being picked on by ANN's
> Editor-In-Chief, Jim "Zoom" Campbell. Campbell has written extensively
about the
> problems experienced by a number (but clearly not all) of Slusarczyk's
> customers. While a number of CGS Aviation Hawk owners are rightfully happy
with
> their aircraft (which can be a delightful little flyer), this character
still
> pulls enough shady moves that we can not recommend him and whenever we
note
> this, a new round of personal attacks, falsehoods and other crapola
emerges.
> Fact: A number of CGS customers have had unpleasant experiences with the
company
> and Mr. Slusarczyk.
> Fact: A number of people have NOT gotten what they paid for and/or been
cheated
> by CGS.
> Fact: A number of people who have complained about CGS and/or Slusarczyk
have
> been the recipients of personal attacks and threats from same.
> Fact: CGS has been successfully sued by unhappy customers and is still in
the
> process of defending itself against same in other venues.
> Fact: What "Zoom Free Zone" really means (to us and many others) is that
the
> person who displays this nonsense is an immature fool (IMO) who won't make
good
> for his "shortfalls" in customer service and will NOT get a positive
> recommendation from Jim Campbell or anybody else at ANN until he satisfies
those
> aggrieved parties and all the personal attacks, threats, imbecilic signs,
and
> rumor mongering by Chuck and his buddies will not change that (but it will
keep
> us laughing our asses off at this pathetic character). (Rant Mode "Off")
>
__________________________________________________ __________________________
>
> Fact: I did not parade with the zoom free zone signs.They were simply hung
in
> the booth in a prominent location so his toadys could take pictures.There
was no
> Parade I wish those ANN guys would get their facts straight.Credibility
it's
> always about credibility.
>
> Fact : What does succesfully sued mean?? Does it mean they were
successfull in
> filing a suit?? or does it mean I lost a suit? If it means I lost then I
wonder
> if he or his toady jaun could tell me the name of the person I lost to.
:-)I
> think it's more of zoomspeak jibberish.
>
> Fact: Maybe next Oshkosh we should have a "parade" that's a great idea .We
could
> call it the "I've been zoomed and survived" Parade. We could parade in
front of
> the ANN compound . Hmmm maybe I should get some "ANN free zone" signs
made as
> well LOL!!!
>
> Boy for a guy that says he's laughing his ass off, my sign sure seems to
bother
> him.Hell he'll just have to go out and pull 10 or 12 G's in a Sukoy
> just to calm down ,then he'll do some surgery,while flying a food misson
to
> Africa,with his son on his lap,after teaching at a National Test Pilot
> School,with the CIA in Laos during a slow roll over a grave in a
Cub.....Sigh
> What a guy ! .....a real PHONY and still is....
>
> See ya
>
> Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret
>
> "Credibility it was always about credibility" chuck s
>

He's a loon with an axe to grind against both you and SnF. Interesting how
he always finds a way to bash those two entities, regardless of any relevant
facts...

Kyle "been there, been Zoomed" Boatright

[John Ammeter]

On 4 Sep 2003 19:13:16 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk
> wrote:

>Here's zoomys latest rant from ANN dated Thursday /04/03:
>__________________________________________________ ___________________________
>
>"Ya Gotta Be Kidding" Award: (Rant Mode "On") Ultralight Aviation's Ever-Present
>Clown/Part-Time Rip-Off Artist, Chuck Slusarczyk of CGS Aviation (Repeat Award).
>Every time we go to these events, this clown parades around this silly "Zoom
>Free Zone" sign trying to intimate that he is being picked on by ANN's
>Editor-In-Chief, Jim "Zoom" Campbell. Campbell has written extensively about the
>problems experienced by a number

and what is that "number"? is it one or two? greater than
10??


(but clearly not all) of Slusarczyk's
>customers. While a number

how about this number? is it numbered in the thousands?



of CGS Aviation Hawk owners are rightfully happy with
>their aircraft (which can be a delightful little flyer), this character still
>pulls enough shady moves that we can not recommend him and whenever we note
>this, a new round of personal attacks, falsehoods and other crapola emerges.
>Fact: A number of CGS customers have had unpleasant experiences with the company
>and Mr. Slusarczyk.

Again, Jimbo, what is this number? Can you produce
authentic figures? Or, will they be numbers similiar to
what you told me a few years ago? When you told me that
your magazine was about to be bought for several million
dollars.

>Fact: A number of people have NOT gotten what they paid for and/or been cheated
>by CGS.

Was this the same CGS that Chuck owns? Or was it the
company he worked for until he later bought it?

>Fact: A number of people who have complained about CGS and/or Slusarczyk have
>been the recipients of personal attacks and threats from same.

Again, Jimbo, please quantify that "number"... AND produce
proof of your "facts"... your history of allegations
without any proof doesn't lend much credence to your
veracity.


>Fact: CGS has been successfully sued by unhappy customers and is still in the
>process of defending itself against same in other venues.
>Fact: What "Zoom Free Zone" really means (to us and many others) is that the
>person who displays this nonsense is an immature fool (IMO) who won't make good
>for his "shortfalls" in customer service and will NOT get a positive
>recommendation from Jim Campbell or anybody else at ANN until he satisfies those
>aggrieved parties and all the personal attacks, threats, imbecilic signs, and
>rumor mongering by Chuck and his buddies will not change that (but it will keep
>us laughing our asses off at this pathetic character). (Rant Mode "Off")
>__________________________________________________ _______________

Do you REALLY think Chuck cares one little bit what your
pathetic ANN website says? NO ONE of any intelligence
believes what you say, anyway...

John Ammeter

___________
>
>Fact: I did not parade with the zoom free zone signs.They were simply hung in
>the booth in a prominent location so his toadys could take pictures.There was no
>Parade I wish those ANN guys would get their facts straight.Credibility it's
>always about credibility.
>
>Fact : What does succesfully sued mean?? Does it mean they were successfull in
>filing a suit?? or does it mean I lost a suit? If it means I lost then I wonder
>if he or his toady jaun could tell me the name of the person I lost to. :-)I
>think it's more of zoomspeak jibberish.
>
>Fact: Maybe next Oshkosh we should have a "parade" that's a great idea .We could
>call it the "I've been zoomed and survived" Parade. We could parade in front of
>the ANN compound . Hmmm maybe I should get some "ANN free zone" signs made as
>well LOL!!!
>
>Boy for a guy that says he's laughing his ass off, my sign sure seems to bother
>him.Hell he'll just have to go out and pull 10 or 12 G's in a Sukoy
>just to calm down ,then he'll do some surgery,while flying a food misson to
>Africa,with his son on his lap,after teaching at a National Test Pilot
>School,with the CIA in Laos during a slow roll over a grave in a Cub.....Sigh
>What a guy ! .....a real PHONY and still is....
>
>See ya
>
>Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret
>
>"Credibility it was always about credibility" chuck s

[C.D. Damron]

"Juan E Jimenez" > wrote in message
et...
> Be careful how you answer, toadsucker. Settlements count, particularly
when
> they happen about two weeks prior to the trial, about the time when you
> found out what expert witnesses were lined up to testify against you...


Settlements count? Maybe, in your eyes.

For most of us, they are an indication that something has gone terribly
wrong with our legal system, when it is cheaper to settle than fight.

[RobertR237]

In article >, "C.D. Damron"
> writes:

>
>"Juan E Jimenez" > wrote in message
et...
>> Be careful how you answer, toadsucker. Settlements count, particularly
>when
>> they happen about two weeks prior to the trial, about the time when you
>> found out what expert witnesses were lined up to testify against you...
>
>
>Settlements count? Maybe, in your eyes.
>
>For most of us, they are an indication that something has gone terribly
>wrong with our legal system, when it is cheaper to settle than fight.
>
>

And I wonder if Jimbo would be willing to compare his record on being sued and
bankruptcies to Chuck's? How about his tax record? How about his record on
billing for services NOT requested and not rendered? How about being banned
from events for using them as his personal method of serving lawsuits and
harrasing people. Shall we continue or is that enough?

Yeah, I think its enough too.




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)

[Juan E Jimenez]

You're entitled to your opinion. It can also mean that the defendant
realized there was no way he was going to win because the evidence simply
didn't support his arguments, and didn't want to take a chance with a judge
who, after listening to three knowledgeable expert witnesses, might give the
plaintiff a lot more than what would be acceptable to the plaintiff in an
out-of-court settlement. The circumstances in this case seem to point to the
latter, and that's not just my opinion.

"C.D. Damron" > wrote in message
et...
>
> Settlements count? Maybe, in your eyes.
>
> For most of us, they are an indication that something has gone terribly
> wrong with our legal system, when it is cheaper to settle than fight.

[Juan E Jimenez]

"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
>
> And I wonder if Jimbo would be willing to compare his record on being sued
and
> bankruptcies to Chuck's?

Jim's not the one claiming he's never been successfully sued. Your "hero"
is.

> Yeah, I think its enough too.

Wrong. It is not.

I just called his bluff. Let's see if he has what it takes to admit he lied.
Again.

What's that brown stuff on your nose, BTW?

<Ewwww....>

[C.D. Damron]

"Juan E Jimenez" > wrote in message
et...
> You're entitled to your opinion. It can also mean that the defendant
> realized there was no way he was going to win because the evidence simply
> didn't support his arguments, and didn't want to take a chance with a
judge
> who, after listening to three knowledgeable expert witnesses, might give
the
> plaintiff a lot more than what would be acceptable to the plaintiff in an
> out-of-court settlement. The circumstances in this case seem to point to
the
> latter, and that's not just my opinion.


It is also unfortunate that our educational system has produced jurors that
are incapable of understanding anything scientific. I'm not sure I would
place my future in the hands of an ignorant jury if I had other economical
options.

Of course, that is just my opinion, as well.

It is interesting to note why so many people have come to hold Chuck in such
high esteem. How does that happen, Juan?

[Juan E Jimenez]

"C.D. Damron" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> It is also unfortunate that our educational system has produced jurors
that
> are incapable of understanding anything scientific. I'm not sure I would
> place my future in the hands of an ignorant jury if I had other economical
> options.

It's the plaintiff's job to present the evidence to the jury in such a way
that they can understand and analyze it in order to reach a fair judgement.
The defense has to do the same to make their point. The legal system in this
country does not guarantee rocket scientists in the jury box, just peers,
i.e. fellow citizens. I find it a bit absurd to suggest that defendant in
this instance chose to settle in six figures a week before pretrial because
he thought he'd get idiots for jurors. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to
understand how an ultralight aircraft works...

> It is interesting to note why so many people have come to hold Chuck in
such
> high esteem. How does that happen, Juan?

Probably the same way as many or more people hold Jim Campbell in high
esteem.

[Juan E Jimenez]

Only he would know the totals, Dan. I just know his claim that he's never
been successfully sued is a lie on at least two counts. I have located the
details on one, and am awaiting the details on a second instance. Let's wait
and see what he says in response to my question.

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> Juan, I don't have a dog in this fight, but I would like your stats on
CGS. How
> many suits, how many unsatisfied customers etc.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Badwater Bill]

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 03:14:28 GMT, "Juan E Jimenez"
> wrote:

>I haven't responded to your query because I didn't see any point in
>embarassing you any further, and frankly I had better things to do such as
>working on installing a turbine ignition exciter on my jet, but since you
>insist...
>
>Are you claiming in this forum and in front of all your fellow gaggle
>groupies that you have _never_ been successfully sued on an issue related to
>your company and your products? Yes or No will suffice.
>
>Be careful how you answer, toadsucker. Settlements count, particularly when
>they happen about two weeks prior to the trial, about the time when you
>found out what expert witnesses were lined up to testify against you...


Settling out of court, pretrial, is not an admission of guilt.

BWB

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article <J5V5b.266971$cF.84535@rwcrnsc53>, Juan E Jimenez says...
>
>Only he would know the totals, Dan. I just know his claim that he's never
>been successfully sued is a lie on at least two counts. I have located the
>details on one, and am awaiting the details on a second instance. Let's wait
>and see what he says in response to my question.
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> Juan, I don't have a dog in this fight, but I would like your stats on
>CGS. How
>> many suits, how many unsatisfied customers etc.
>>
>> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Hi Dan
One thing about the ANN gang is that they are experts at twisting the truth to
create a perception when the reality is something different. An example are the
the words "sucessfully sued" used by both jaun and zoom.
Here's how it was used :

"Fact: CGS has been successfully sued by unhappy customers and is still in the
process of defending itself against same in other venues. "

The perception they are trying to create is that I or the company "lost"
lawsuits and am defending against others. The reality is that there were I
believe 3 lawsuits against either CGS Aviation Inc or CGS Aviation that were
settled out of court for obvious reasons. I am in fact involved in 2 more that
are still pending. Settling out of court is not a determination of guilt . The
use of "sucessfully sued" could have been replaced with "settled out of court"
but that wouldn't have created the perception that I "lostwhich is what they
were trying to do.

I was sucessfully sued but anyone who gets sued is "sucessfully sued" but it
doesn't mean anything about the case. 15 of us here on RAH were "sucessfully
sued" by zoom and zoom was "sucessfully sued" by a whole lot of creditors before
his magazine went bankrupt.They like to play word games to get back at any who
disagrees with them or asks for proof.

I don't know why they get so melodramatic about this ,as if I have something to
hide and I don't.Fact is I'm tied up this week end with our Annual Hawk Owners
Fly In at the airport and will be off line till monday. But I'll post the names
and case # of all the lawsuits since 1983 ,when CGS Aviation Inc. got it's
first. All that info is at the shop and I'll have to dig it up. I seem to recall
that from 1983 to date It's all a matter of court records nothing sinister here
or anything to hide from.

Off the top of my head I can recall 6 suits , 4 were settled out of court and 2
are pending. 2 of the 4 were settled for $5000 or less out of court and one was
awarded $750,000 and the one in 83 was I believe $10,000 .The difference being
the company had liability insurance at the time. They had nothing to do with the
fear of expert witnesses as jaun says.If jaun knew anything about the legal
system he wouldn't be making "babe in the woods" statements about the legal
system.

God I miss Tony at times like this.

I have always said my beef with ANN and zoom has always been about credibility
and that hasn't changed ,they still operate on distortion,half truths and
inuendo and zoom campbell is in my humble opinion a PHONY .

Now since we're all being truthful here I wonder if jaun can produce the dates
his hero zoom said he flew the Etheopian food missions.He published that as fact
in his now defunct magazine US Aviator .He also stated that he fathered a child
in his magazine and none exists yet he stated it as fact. Credibility it was
always about credibility.

See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

By the way my kid retired out of Barksdale AFB a couple years ago and my kid
brother retired out of Langley AFB about 5 yrs ago.

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

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article <ESU5b.356168$YN5.243591@sccrnsc01>, Juan E Jimenez says...
>
>
>"C.D. Damron" > wrote in message
.net...
>>
>It's the plaintiff's job to present the evidence to the jury in such a way
>that they can understand and analyze it in order to reach a fair judgement.
>The defense has to do the same to make their point. The legal system in this
>country does not guarantee rocket scientists in the jury box, just peers,
>i.e. fellow citizens. I find it a bit absurd to suggest that defendant in
>this instance chose to settle in six figures a week before pretrial because
>he thought he'd get idiots for jurors. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to
>understand how an ultralight aircraft works...
>

By the same token if the case was so strong and the jurors so smart and I was
so afraid why did they settle ? They should have stuck it out and got a whole
lot more money then they settled for.

It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to under stand how a hot cup of coffee works
either. I think jaun is very naive as to the legal system in this country.

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

"an idiot and his friends ....are still idiots" anon

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Badwater Bill says...
>
>On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 03:14:28 GMT, "Juan E Jimenez"
> wrote:
>
>>I haven't responded to your query because I didn't see any point in
>>embarassing you any further, and frankly I had better things to do such as
>>working on installing a turbine ignition exciter on my jet, but since you
>>insist...
>>
>>Are you claiming in this forum and in front of all your fellow gaggle
>>groupies that you have _never_ been successfully sued on an issue related to
>>your company and your products? Yes or No will suffice.
>>
>>Be careful how you answer, toadsucker. Settlements count, particularly when
>>they happen about two weeks prior to the trial, about the time when you
>>found out what expert witnesses were lined up to testify against you...
>
>
>Settling out of court, pretrial, is not an admission of guilt.
>
>BWB


Thank you BWB, but in zoooms and jauns world it is

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Juan E Jimenez
says...

>Are you claiming in this forum and in front of all your fellow gaggle
>groupies that you have _never_ been successfully sued on an issue related to
>your company and your products? Yes or No will suffice.

Yes to the "sucessfully sued" part but being sucessfully sued doesn't denote
guilt or a loss as you and zoom are attempting to imply. Be credible for a
change .

>
>Be careful how you answer, toadsucker. Settlements count, particularly when
>they happen about two weeks prior to the trial, about the time when you
>found out what expert witnesses were lined up to testify against you...

Boy how little you know and as Sister Mary Pontius Pilot used to say "empty cans
make the most noise". If you knew anything about lawsuits you would have known
that both sides know who the expert witnesses are months before a trial.There
was no dramatic "two weeks " before the trial incident I should know I was there
you weren't.It's only in the movies and in zooms head.
Settlements don't count as losses ,once again you show your ignorance as to how
it works. I guess using that logic when zoom sued the RAH-15 and none of us went
to jail I guess zoom "lost".

ChuckS RAH-15/1

"credibility it was always about credibility" chuck s

[RobertR237]

In article >,
(Badwater Bill) writes:

>
>Settling out of court, pretrial, is not an admission of guilt.
>
>BWB
>
>

Come on Bill, don't confuse the poor dumbass. If he has proof, he should
produce it or shut up.

This crap by Campbell has gone on way too long now and needs to be brought to
an end. Jim Campbell's never ending vendetta against Chuck, even if the so
call charges were true, is getting ridiculous. Nobody should have to put up
with having their name and business trashed in any publication on an ongoing,
never ending basis. This is especially true when the proof of the allegations
has never been forthcoming. The whole issue used as the justification for the
ongoing assault is more than 7 years old.


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)

[RobertR237]

In article <J5V5b.266971$cF.84535@rwcrnsc53>, "Juan E Jimenez"
> writes:

>
>Only he would know the totals, Dan. I just know his claim that he's never
>been successfully sued is a lie on at least two counts. I have located the
>details on one, and am awaiting the details on a second instance. Let's wait
>and see what he says in response to my question.
>
>

PROOF! Where is your PROOF? Produce it or shut up.

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)

[RobertR237]

In article <ZZT5b.269387$Oz4.71695@rwcrnsc54>, "Juan E Jimenez"
> writes:

>
>> And I wonder if Jimbo would be willing to compare his record on being sued
>and
>> bankruptcies to Chuck's?
>
>Jim's not the one claiming he's never been successfully sued. Your "hero"
>is.
>

Thank God he is not making the claim because the list of people he has screwed
is one hell of a lot longer. I don't really give a damn about either one but I
do believe that Jim's constant harping and publication of such garbage is
ridiculous, especially in light of his own record. Chuck is not my hero but
clearly Jimbo is yours.

>> Yeah, I think its enough too.
>
>Wrong. It is not.
>
>I just called his bluff. Let's see if he has what it takes to admit he lied.
>Again.

YOU DIDN"T CALL ****!

>
>What's that brown stuff on your nose, BTW?
>
><Ewwww....>
>
>
>

Better the brown stuff on my nose than the red ring around your neck from
having your entire head up Jim's ass.


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)

[RobertR237]

In article >, "Juan E Jimenez"
> writes:

>
>You're entitled to your opinion. It can also mean that the defendant
>realized there was no way he was going to win because the evidence simply
>didn't support his arguments, and didn't want to take a chance with a judge
>who, after listening to three knowledgeable expert witnesses, might give the
>plaintiff a lot more than what would be acceptable to the plaintiff in an
>out-of-court settlement. The circumstances in this case seem to point to the
>latter, and that's not just my opinion.
>
>
Jaun

Give way past time to give proof to backup your claims, otherwise all of your
ranting above remains "just your opinion" and yours alone. An opinion which,
from where I view it, looks very much like an attempt to slander someone.



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)

[Juan E Jimenez]

"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
>
> Thank God...

<snip>

Go whine somewhere else.

[Juan E Jimenez]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
> By the same token if the case was so strong and the jurors so smart and I
was
> so afraid why did they settle ? They should have stuck it out and got a
whole
> lot more money then they settled for.

That's their decision to make. The fact remains that they sucessfully sued
you.

Juan

[Juan E Jimenez]

"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
>
> Give way past time to give proof to backup your claims, otherwise all of
your
> ranting above remains "just your opinion" and yours alone. An opinion
which,
> from where I view it, looks very much like an attempt to slander someone.

Slander is not possible in the face of facts.

[Juan E Jimenez]

"Badwater Bill" > wrote in message
...
>
> Settling out of court, pretrial, is not an admission of guilt.

Civil lawsuits are not about guilt.

[Juan E Jimenez]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hi Dan
> One thing about the ANN gang is that they are experts at twisting the
truth to
> create a perception when the reality is something different. An example
are the
> the words "sucessfully sued" used by both jaun and zoom.
> Here's how it was used :
>
> "Fact: CGS has been successfully sued by unhappy customers and is still in
the
> process of defending itself against same in other venues. "

Seems to me that a customer who crashes and suffers serious long term
injuries as a result of a design problem in one of your aircraft qualifies
as an "unhappy customer."

> The perception they are trying to create is that I or the company "lost"
> lawsuits and am defending against others. The reality is that there were I
> believe 3 lawsuits against either CGS Aviation Inc or CGS Aviation that
were
> settled out of court for obvious reasons. I am in fact involved in 2 more
that
> are still pending. Settling out of court is not a determination of guilt .
The
> use of "sucessfully sued" could have been replaced with "settled out of
court"
> but that wouldn't have created the perception that I "lostwhich is what
they
> were trying to do.

$750,000 qualifies as a loss in anyone's book. And you are in fact defending
against others. Jim told the truth.

> I was sucessfully sued but anyone who gets sued is "sucessfully sued" but
it
> doesn't mean anything about the case.

ROFLMAO! _EXACTLY_ as I predicted, rationalizations left and right! Am I
good or what? :)

> I don't know why they get so melodramatic about this ,as if I have
something to
> hide and I don't.

Because you implied you weren't, and you lied, again, just as you lied about
who started hurling insults at me with no provocation. Remember?

And now that I've proven that neither I nor Jim were lying about this, I'm
outta here and back to my airplane.

Go ahead Bob, you can regurgitate all the crap you normally put out on
subjects like this. <plonk!>

Juan

[Juan E Jimenez]

Richmond, Virginia Circuit Court: Case # LK-989-3.

Now, close your trap before another fly gets attracted to the odor. Your
hero already admitted he lied.

"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
> In article <J5V5b.266971$cF.84535@rwcrnsc53>, "Juan E Jimenez"
> > writes:
>
> >
> >Only he would know the totals, Dan. I just know his claim that he's never
> >been successfully sued is a lie on at least two counts. I have located
the
> >details on one, and am awaiting the details on a second instance. Let's
wait
> >and see what he says in response to my question.
> >
> >
>
> PROOF! Where is your PROOF? Produce it or shut up.
>
> 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)
>

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 15:58:35 GMT, "Juan E Jimenez"
> wrote:

>
>"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Yes to the "sucessfully sued" part but being sucessfully sued doesn't
>denote
>> guilt or a loss as you and zoom are attempting to imply. Be credible for a
>> change .
>
>So finally you admit that you have been in fact been successfully sued for
>negligence in the design of one of your aircraft. It's about time. Looks
>like Jim was not lying after all, was he? :)

>Juan

Bzzzzt, clear foul Juan. Your original post mentioned nothing about
what the suits were for. You cannot add content after the statement
that wasn't originally there and claim Chuck has admitted to it.

By the way, didn't you at one point sit down with Chuck and view all
the material he had that proves he had nothing to do with Jim's
original complaint? My recollection is that you stated after that
meeting that it sure looked like Jim was a bit over the top on that
subject.

Am I remembering incorrectly?

Corky Scott

[Russell Kent]

Juan E Jimenez wrote:

> You're entitled to your opinion. It can also mean that the defendant
> realized there was no way he was going to win because the evidence simply
> didn't support his arguments, and didn't want to take a chance with a judge
> who, after listening to three knowledgeable expert witnesses, might give the
> plaintiff a lot more than what would be acceptable to the plaintiff in an
> out-of-court settlement. The circumstances in this case seem to point to the
> latter, and that's not just my opinion.

Juan,
I have no knowledge of any court cases involving CGS (and frankly don't want any
at this time), but I'd like to point out that your assertion may not be true.
You wrote:

[A legal settlement] can also mean that the defendant realized there
was no way he was going to win ... The circumstances in this case seem
to point to the latter, and that's not just my opinion.

I believe that a settlement merely means that both parties decided that it was
in their interests to settle their dispute outside the court. I am of the
opinion that this *usually* means that the plaintiff gets enough money (which
may be nowhere near the filed claim amount), and the respondent pays less than
they fear they *might* have to pay at trial (awards plus legal fees). In some
cases, the settlement amount paid by the respondent is *less* than the legal
bill from the defending firm if the case went to trial. In those cases, it may
make sense to settle even in cases where the plaintiff's cause of action is
completely without merit.

In summary, I believe it is very unwise to assume any "guilt" on the part of the
respondent if they chose to settle out-of-court on undisclosed terms.

Russell Kent

[RobertR237]

In article <vC26b.367444$uu5.70843@sccrnsc04>, "Juan E Jimenez"
> writes:

>
>Richmond, Virginia Circuit Court: Case # LK-989-3.
>
>Now, close your trap before another fly gets attracted to the odor. Your
>hero already admitted he lied.
>

Again, what are the specifics that prove your point. That doesn't tell anybody
anything. Did the case go to trial and was CGS found liable by a design fault?
If not, it proves nothing.

Now a question for you...even if the above case is fact and CGS has been sued,
how does that justify an ongoing personal and very public assult on Chuck and
CGS in USAviator and now into ANN? Is CGS the only aviation related company to
be sued, successfully or otherwise? How about your hero Bede, how many times
was he sued, how many bankruptcies has he been through, but does Jimbo
constantly rant on his past? What will it take for Jim to quit using ANN to
continue the attacks on CGS and Chuck or must he put up with it forever?

I don't really give a damn if Chuck has been sued, successfully or not, it is a
fact of doing business in this country. If you produce a product, you will
eventually get sued by somebody. Hell, even Jim's plane of the year is
produced by a company that is being sued for millions. Does he make a point to
repeatedly make that a newsworthy issue?

What I see as the problem is the use of a public news publication as a weapon
for personal use. Jim has used his position and his publications to attack
others, CGS is just one of a lengthy list, without providing factual
information and without providing any means for rebuttal by those charged. In
fact, any attempt at a rebuttle is met with threats of lawsuits if any further
contact is attempted. I find his actions and your support of those actions to
be unreasonable and unfair. It may not be illegal but certainly is unethical.


PS: If you are going to quote me, quote me entirely, not some out of context
quote that fits your warped sleezeball reporting style.


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)

[RobertR237]

In article <Lo26b.365019$Ho3.53747@sccrnsc03>, "Juan E Jimenez"
> writes:

>>
>> Yes to the "sucessfully sued" part but being sucessfully sued doesn't
>denote
>> guilt or a loss as you and zoom are attempting to imply. Be credible for a
>> change .
>
>So finally you admit that you have been in fact been successfully sued for
>negligence in the design of one of your aircraft. It's about time. Looks
>like Jim was not lying after all, was he? :)
>

Where the **** did you read that in his statement? Damn if you are not worse
than Zoomer on being able to read.

>> Boy how little you know and as Sister Mary Pontius Pilot used to say
>"empty cans
>> make the most noise". If you knew anything about lawsuits you would have
>known
>> that both sides know who the expert witnesses are months before a
>trial.There
>> was no dramatic "two weeks " before the trial incident I should know I was
>there
>> you weren't.It's only in the movies and in zooms head.
>> Settlements don't count as losses ,once again you show your ignorance as
>to how
>> it works. I guess using that logic when zoom sued the RAH-15 and none of
>us went
>> to jail I guess zoom "lost".
>
>If you knew anything about the civil court system in this country you would
>know that guilt is for criminal matters. No civil court judges do not assign
>guilt.
>
>Paying $750,000 are a result of a lawsuit is not a loss. Unhuh. You keep
>saying that to yourself, someday maybe someone will believe it.
>
>Juan

And if you knew anything about the civil courts in this country you would
realize that anybody can sue anybody for virtually anything and end up with a
settlement. That settlement may or may not be based on a ligitimate claim. In
most cases the settlement is an agreement between the parties to avoid the
costs of further litigation. It does little good for any company to fight and
win a case based on lack of merit, if the win will cost far more than the
settlement. In fact, with todays litigation system and its endless appeals, it
is far smarter to settle than to win.

Now go blow smoke up somebody elses ass.



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)

[RobertR237]

In article <mi26b.367262$uu5.70059@sccrnsc04>, "Juan E Jimenez"
> writes:

>
>> Thank God...
>
><snip>
>
>Go whine somewhere else.
>
>

NO!

I was here long before you showed up and I will be here long after you have
tucked you tain between your leggs and run home to mama.


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)

[RobertR237]

In article <Zj26b.367281$uu5.70933@sccrnsc04>, "Juan E Jimenez"
> writes:

>
>> Give way past time to give proof to backup your claims, otherwise all of
>your
>> ranting above remains "just your opinion" and yours alone. An opinion
>which,
>> from where I view it, looks very much like an attempt to slander someone.
>
>Slander is not possible in the face of facts.
>
>

What facts? You have never produced one single fact to support you
allegations. Either produce them or shut up and go away.


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)

[sean trost]

Juan,

Were you there at the court procedings or process? If not then where do
you get your infomation concerning CGS's decision tree ? from this
site ? http://www.tommcgrathlaw.com/. If this is your source of info a
lot can be inferred about your fact gathering skills as the information
listed is provided by the firm that was able to get a settlement out of
CGS and ATlantic uncerwriters and as such is biased info.

Now please tell me you have the integritry to have gathered all the
relevant records perused them and come up with an informed opionion that
you identify as such and not classify your opinon as fact.

all the best
Sean Trost

[Juan E Jimenez]

"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
>
> Where the **** did you read that in his statement? Damn if you are not
worse
> than Zoomer on being able to read.

Geez, what a pitiful little brownnoser you are, Bob. :) <plonk!>

[Juan E Jimenez]

"sean trost" > wrote in message
...
>
> Were you there at the court procedings or process? If not then where do
> you get your infomation concerning CGS's decision tree ? from this
> site ? http://www.tommcgrathlaw.com/. If this is your source of info a
> lot can be inferred about your fact gathering skills as the information
> listed is provided by the firm that was able to get a settlement out of
> CGS and ATlantic uncerwriters and as such is biased info.

Not much in there that is subject to bias. In fact, everything is factual.

> Now please tell me you have the integritry to have gathered all the
> relevant records perused them and come up with an informed opionion that
> you identify as such and not classify your opinon as fact.

I don't have to gather any other information to prove that Chuck was
successfully sued for an issue related to his company and his products, and
that neither Jim Campbell nor I lied about that. All I have to prove is that
he was, which I already have. If that's not enough for you, that's a
personal problem you'd best discuss with your chaplain.

Juan

[Juan E Jimenez]

"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
> In article <mi26b.367262$uu5.70059@sccrnsc04>, "Juan E Jimenez"
> > writes:
>
> >> Thank God...
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >Go whine somewhere else.
>
> NO!
>
> I was here long before you showed up and I will be here long after you
have
> tucked you tain between your leggs and run home to mama.

BTW, glad to see you're learning from your hero and not denying all you're
doing is WHINING. :)

[sean trost]

Juan My apologies I did not frame my question to you properly.
in reverence to this passage from your first responce.... aw hell never
mind i got more important things to do than argue with ya.

all the best
Sean



Juan E Jimenez wrote:
> "sean trost" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Were you there at the court procedings or process? If not then where do
>> you get your infomation concerning CGS's decision tree ? from this
>>site ? http://www.tommcgrathlaw.com/. If this is your source of info a
>>lot can be inferred about your fact gathering skills as the information
>>listed is provided by the firm that was able to get a settlement out of
>>CGS and ATlantic uncerwriters and as such is biased info.
>
>
> Not much in there that is subject to bias. In fact, everything is factual.
>
>
>>Now please tell me you have the integritry to have gathered all the
>>relevant records perused them and come up with an informed opionion that
>>you identify as such and not classify your opinon as fact.
>
>
> I don't have to gather any other information to prove that Chuck was
> successfully sued for an issue related to his company and his products, and
> that neither Jim Campbell nor I lied about that. All I have to prove is that
> he was, which I already have. If that's not enough for you, that's a
> personal problem you'd best discuss with your chaplain.
>
> Juan
>
>

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 17:05:05 GMT, "Juan E Jimenez"
> wrote:

>> By the way, didn't you at one point sit down with Chuck and view all
>> the material he had that proves he had nothing to do with Jim's
>> original complaint?
>
>Nope.
>
>> Am I remembering incorrectly?
>
>Yes.

So the next question obviously is, would you be willing to sit down
with Chuck to view the documentation he has the prooves Jim has not
got his facts straight?

I guess I'm recalling another worker for Jim who, like you, was
mouthing the Campbell line about Chuck. Chuck sat down with him,
showed him all the correspondence he has and let him read through it.
The guy then admitted that it sure looked like Jim appeared to be
carrying on a personal vendetta. He said it here in this group which
is why I thought it was you. Sorry, my mistake.

That information is still available from Chuck. Are you man enough to
sit down with him and see it?

Course, I can't speak for Chuck, he may feel you are too negative to
be objective, don't know.

Chuck did not start this latest thread, but the way, Jim Campbell did
by ranting about Chuck in ANN. Chuck has a right to defend himself.

Corky Scott

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 18:16:33 GMT, "Juan E Jimenez"
> wrote:

:As Chuck used RAH to attack me with no provocation, using his (and your)
:usual pattern of guilt by association. The difference is that now Chuck (and
:you) now know that I don't just bark, I bite, and walk away with chunks.

Go back and read Chucks post. It doesn't mention you. You broke your
leash and mauled the neighbor.

[Del Rawlins]

On 05 Sep 2003 12:30 PM, Bernie the Bunion posted the following:
>> Corky Scott > wrote:
>
>
>> Chuck did not start this latest thread, but the way, Jim Campbell did
>> by ranting about Chuck in ANN. Chuck has a right to defend himself.
>
>
> Just what pray tell has THIS NEWSGROUP got to do with
> a commercial website owned by Jim Campbell.

Jim Campbell's commercial website is devoted largely to the subject of
homebuilt aviation, and as such is subject to discussion here in RAH.

> Correct me if I am wrong but I don't recall any posts in this
> newsgroup by Jim Campbell but I sure see lots of posts in this
> newsgroup about him.

That is because you are a relative newcomer to this group and do not
have the first clue about what Campbell has done here or elsewhere. He
eventually left RAH when it became clear that the vast majority of
posters here do not take well to his brand of bull****.

> Usually by people that are not directly involved with the continuing
> saga between Chuck and Jim.
>
> People like YOU Corky who have no direct involvement in the squabble.

When an evil man like Campbell is allowed to defame a respected member
of our community with no response, it lessens us all. Unlike you, Corky
has been a member of this newsgroup community before there even was an
RAH and has generously shared of his building experiences and aviation
knowledge over that time. Like most of us, he has occasionally become
involved in the less than on topic discussions that take place here.
While I do not always agree with him, he has consistently raised the bar
of discussion, patiently and courteously responding to critics who have
in no way deserved it based upon their treatment of him. I have no
doubt he will respond in the same typical manner to you, even though you
have never contributed a thing to this newsgroup, and your only interest
seems to be participation in flame wars. You are not even in the same
league with Corky so when you speak of or to him, SHOW SOME DAMNED
RESPECT!

>> Chuck has a right to defend himself.
>
> Then let Chuck write a letter to the editor or sue him for slander.

Yeah, right. You want Chuck to write a letter which will either never
be published or will be dissected and taken out of context and used
against him. Nothing can be gained by feeding a vicious animal like
Campbell. As for suing him, it would likely be an open and shut case
but would cost him far more than he could ever hope to collect from
Campbell. And even if he did win, Campbell would likely just declare
another bankruptcy, and start another website where he could continue
his defamation of Chuck.

> What the heck does his ongoing, ad naseum problem have to do with this
> newsgroup or building planes.
>
> Name one realistic reason why every month someone just like you feels
> the need to troll this newsgroup by starting yet another Captain Zoom
> thread in this newsgroup.

The answer is simply that this is the only venue Chuck has available to
him where he can defend himself. Zoom has his website, where he is the
sole arbiter of what is published, which makes it impossible for Chuck
to respond there. The fact is that as a self-claimed expert on sport
aviation, Jim Campbell and his publications are right on topic for this
newsgroup. Besides which, if Jim would publicly apologize to Chuck (
unlikely as it may be) and cease his defamation of him, I would bet
money Chuck would be more than happy to not say/post another word about
him.

> The education of the masses..... Trust me Corky the masses in this
> group have had all the education they need on this subject.

The so-called "masses" of this group are not static. While many of the
regulars know the score and are admittedly getting tired of it, the fact
remains that Campbell continues his attacks, which demands a response.
The ever-changing membership of this group guarantees that if they are
willing to take the time to research the subject (as you so obviously
are not) that eventually the truth will get out about Zoom and he will
be known for what he is outside of this group.

>> Chuck did not start the latest thread......
>
> Your god damn right he did... Last night if my feeble memory serves me.

See above. Chuck was responding to another attack upon him published by
ANN. This is the most appropriate forum in which to respond to that
attack.

> What came first the chicken or the egg.
>
> At this stage of the game who cares.

Must have been the egg, since the only chicken I see here is you, a
cowardly ******* who hides behind anonymity.

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

[Jez]

Juan wrote:

> Now, close your trap before another fly gets attracted to the odor. Your
> hero already admitted he lied.


Jeremy (from across the pond in the UK) adds:

As an observer from afar I'm a bit perplexed by all this. This debate (as I
see it) is really about truthfulness, or the lack of it. The following are
a matter of public record, both from statements on here and from various
legal documents that are freely available:

1) Chuck Slusarczyk seems to have consistently told the truth, even when it
has been an admission that he has settled law suits for fairly large sums of
money, which could reasonably be expected to cause a certain amount of
embarrassment. Despite many attempts to catch Chuck out in a lie, no-one
seems to have succeeded.

2) Jim Campbell has been proven to be a liar several times, including in
courts of law. From my own investigations into false claims he made in a UK
aviation magazine I know beyond any doubt whatsoever that he has fabricated
large areas of his personal history and experience. The magazine
independently checked his credentials and subsequently watered down his bio
as a result.

Irrespective of the details of the various court cases, personally held
prejudices and vendettas, those are irrefutable facts, Jim Campbell is a
proven liar, Chuck Slusarczyk is not. I've read every post from Chuck
Slusarczyk on here over the years, and cannot recall one single statement of
his that has been proven to be untrue. Unfortunately the same cannot be
said about Jim Campbell's writings on ANN and elsewhere, he seems to
consistently exaggerate and lie, almost as if he suffers from some form of
delusional disorder.

Just the view from a distant Brit who has watched the saga unfold over the
years. Feel free to ignore my ramblings, many do.................

Jeremy

[Russell Kent]

Juan E Jimenez wrote:

> Russell,
>
> Civil courts do not adjudicate guilt or innocence, only criminal courts do
> that.

You will note that my response quoted "guilt". I am perfectly aware of the
differences between US civial and criminal courts. My intention in quoting
"guilt" in my summary was to connote the "in-the-wrong" flavor of having damages
awarded in a civil court; obviously in your case I failed to communicate that.

As for claims and counter-claims about "successfully sued", the answer lies in
the definition of "successfully sued". It appears to me that there are three
reasonable interpretations of that phrase: "has filed suit in civil court", "has
reached a settlement in a civil suit", "has been heard and awarded damages in a
civil suit". The first interpretation clearly has no connotation that the
respondent has "done harm". The third interpretation pretty clearly
communicates that the respondent has done harm. The second interpretation is
ambiguous: there may be external pressures on the respondent to settle even when
they have done no harm to the plaintiff.

I have seen (on the web, for what that's worth) evidence that interpretations #1
and #2 are true and that Chuck admits to. I have not seen evidence that
interpretation #3 is true, and have seen no admission from Chuck. And Chuck
pointed out in the original posting that spawned this thread that "succesfully
sued" is ambiguous.

Since you apparently asked an ambiguous question that could reasonably be
answered yes or no (depending on the interpretation), I think you have little
standing to accuse Chuck of lying (based on that evidence, at least).


> The issue is very simple: Chuck claimed he has never been successfully
> sued and is not currently defending himself from lawsuits,

I've seen no claim from Chuck that he is not currently in litigation. In fact,
in this very thread he said "I am in fact involved in 2 more that are still
pending."

> and that Jim and I were both lying about that.

Actually, he said that if "successfully sued" means prevailed, then who
prevailed against him? (paraphrased; he actually wrote it from the losing
respondent's point of view). I haven't seen any evidence that his statement is
untrue. Do you have evidence that Chuck, acting as CGS's respondent to a civil
plea, lost a civil action?

> I called his bluff, and Chuck now admits he wasn't being very truthful about
> the legal record of CGS Aviation.

I saw no such admission. Perhaps my newsfeed is slow today.

> End of story.

Not hardly. I expect this thread will continue to roll merrily along,
accomplishing nothing.

Here's an interesting thought: ANN presumably portrays itself as an unbaised
source of news about all things aviation (I can't confirm this/quote ANN at the
moment since the ANN website seems to be broken). Assuming this is true, why
would ANN permit "a number" of people (here in the newsgroup) to continue to
believe that it *is* biased against CGS aviation and/or Chuck Slusarczyk? I
mean if Chuck really is a bad guy, don't simply demonize him by calling him
names ("con-artist"), but publish the facts of Chuck's badness so that ANN's
readers can be informed. Calling him names ("Clown") seems to support some
people's perception that ANN has some personal bias against Chuck, whereas
publishing unshaded facts would seem to portray ANN as an unbiased news source.

Just my own ramblings...

Russell Kent

[RobertR237]

In article <5q46b.365864$o%2.165280@sccrnsc02>, "Juan E Jimenez"
> writes:

>"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Again, what are the specifics that prove your point.
>
>Go look up the case. Speaks for itself.
>
>> Now a question for you...even if the above case is fact and CGS has been
>sued,
>> how does that justify an ongoing personal and very public assult on Chuck
>and
>> CGS in USAviator and now into ANN?
>
>That's between Jim and Chuck. :)
>

If it were just between them, why is it plastered all over ANN every few
months?


>> I don't really give a damn if Chuck has been sued, successfully or not, it
>is a
>> fact of doing business in this country.
>
>I don't really care if you give a damn or not.
>

DITTO!

>> What I see as the problem is the use of a public news publication as a
>weapon
>> for personal use. Jim has used his position and his publications to
>attack
>> others...
>
>As Chuck used RAH to attack me with no provocation, using his (and your)
>usual pattern of guilt by association. The difference is that now Chuck (and
>you) now know that I don't just bark, I bite, and walk away with chunks.
>
>

You don't bark or bite, just whine and whimper.


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)

[RobertR237]

In article >, Pot Kettle Black
> writes:

>> RobertR237 > wrote:
>
>> What will it take for Jim to quit using ANN to continue the attacks
>> on CGS and Chuck or must he put up with it forever?
>
>Perhaps the same set of circumstances that would make Chuck,
>and all the other group chuckies stop using this newsgroup,
>and or public events like flyins as a platform for their continued
>snide attacks of Captain Zoomy......
>
>There is a time to hold them and a time to fold them and yet
>Robert there is not a month that goes by that someone doesn't
>start up yet another ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZOOOOOOOOOOOMMMM
>thread in this very newsgroup.
>
>Of all the subjects posted here on a continuing basis I defy you
>to show one other subject that has not been beaten to death
>ad nausem ad naseum as this one has these past few years.
>
>Since you yourself take part in many of the Zoomy threads with
>great glee why do you get upset when someone like Jim Campbell
>uses their own publications to fight back.
>
>Good, bad or indifferent what makes YOU any better than HIM.
>
>By YOUR very own posting history on the subject..... nothing!!!
>

Good agrument but doesn't wash.

This is a participation newsgroup where anyone and everyone has an opportunity
to establish their views and offer a rebuttal. Show me where Zoom offers the
same opportunity. His is a one sided attack without option for the opposition
views to be heard by any of his readers. Big difference, and if you can't see
that, you are not looking. Hell, even the local news stations offer free
rebuttle time for those with opposing opinions views to editorials. The only
response I ever got from Jim Campbell for offering an opposing view on
something was the threat of legal action for contacting him.

Now go back into hiding in your pottie.





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)

[C.D. Damron]

"Russell Kent" > wrote in message
...
> Here's an interesting thought: ANN presumably portrays itself as an
unbaised
> source of news about all things aviation


I only check out ANN when somebody brings it up here on RAH. In almost
every case, I see a case a questionable journalism, within moments.

Check out this blurb that appeared on ANN:

"Risky Business": Adam's A-700 Flight To Oshkosh. Barely a week after their
totally new bird with totally new engines takes flight, Adam Aircraft
decided to bring it to Oshkosh. While many consider the move gutsy
(including our staff, begrudgingly), we consider the move questionable.
Already under fire for safety practices and other concerns, what chance this
aircraft has of seeing the light of day (certification and production wise)
were put into jeopardy for what we consider a PR stunt that had questionable
value and WAY too many risks...



Is this good journalism?

[RobertR237]

In article >, Russell Kent > writes:

>
>Here's an interesting thought: ANN presumably portrays itself as an unbaised
>source of news about all things aviation (I can't confirm this/quote ANN at
>the
>moment since the ANN website seems to be broken). Assuming this is true, why
>would ANN permit "a number" of people (here in the newsgroup) to continue to
>believe that it *is* biased against CGS aviation and/or Chuck Slusarczyk? I
>mean if Chuck really is a bad guy, don't simply demonize him by calling him
>names ("con-artist"), but publish the facts of Chuck's badness so that ANN's
>readers can be informed. Calling him names ("Clown") seems to support some
>people's perception that ANN has some personal bias against Chuck, whereas
>publishing unshaded facts would seem to portray ANN as an unbiased news
>source.
>
>Just my own ramblings...
>
>Russell Kent

I asked the same question of Jim Campbell years ago and the response was a
threat of legal action among others. Seems I was labeled a terrorist for even
asking.

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)

[RobertR237]

In article >, Bernie the Bunion
> writes:

>> Corky Scott > wrote:
>
>
>> Chuck did not start this latest thread, but the way, Jim Campbell did
>> by ranting about Chuck in ANN. Chuck has a right to defend himself.
>
>
>Just what pray tell has THIS NEWSGROUP got to do with
>a commercial website owned by Jim Campbell.
>
>Correct me if I am wrong but I don't recall any posts in this newsgroup
>by Jim Campbell but I sure see lots of posts in this newsgroup about
>him.
>
>Usually by people that are not directly involved with the continuing
>saga between Chuck and Jim.
>
>People like YOU Corky who have no direct involvement in the squabble.
>
>> Chuck has a right to defend himself.
>
>Then let Chuck write a letter to the editor or sue him for slander.
>
>What the heck does his ongoing, ad naseum problem have to do with this
>newsgroup or buidling planes.
>
>Name one realistic reason why every month someone just like you feels
>the need to troll this newsgroup by starting yet another Captain Zoom
>thread in this newsgroup.
>
>Just one Corky.... Just one.
>
>The education of the masses..... Trust me Corky the masses in this
>group have had all the education they need on this subject.
>
>> Chuck did not start the latest thread......
>
>Your god damn right he did... Last night if my feeble memory serves me.
>
>What came first the chicken or the egg.
>
>At this stage of the game who cares.
>
>

Excuse me Bernie, but the newsgroup is about rec.aviation.homebuilt and zoomers
attack was on a member of that community. That kind of attack in any forum
will have an effect on all of us. Sorry it if bothers you, look at the title
and ignore it. Don't read it. Kill it. Or as you have done here and now,
exercise your option to bitch about it. Your choice and your freedom to
respond which is more than Jim Campbell ever gave anyone who compained about
one of his editorials.




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)

[Dave Hyde]

Juan E Jimenez wrote:

> ...he wasn't being very truthful...

I think it's very important that businessmen
possess honesty and integrity. Do you feel the same
about journalists? A yes or no answer will suffice.

Dave 'the company you keep' Hyde

[RobertR237]

In article <sk86b.368550$o%2.166125@sccrnsc02>, "C.D. Damron"
> writes:

>
>I only check out ANN when somebody brings it up here on RAH. In almost
>every case, I see a case a questionable journalism, within moments.
>
>Check out this blurb that appeared on ANN:
>
>"Risky Business": Adam's A-700 Flight To Oshkosh. Barely a week after their
>totally new bird with totally new engines takes flight, Adam Aircraft
>decided to bring it to Oshkosh. While many consider the move gutsy
>(including our staff, begrudgingly), we consider the move questionable.
>Already under fire for safety practices and other concerns, what chance this
>aircraft has of seeing the light of day (certification and production wise)
>were put into jeopardy for what we consider a PR stunt that had questionable
>value and WAY too many risks...
>
>
>
>Is this good journalism?
>
>

It is an editorial which has never required good journalism but in every
reputable medium that I know of, they offer a chance for rebuttal. Our local
TV Channels often do editorials on all sorts of subject but always offer to
give equal air time to any opposing views. The newspapers do the same and have
a letters to the editor section that allows for opposing views. In fact, both
the pro and con arguments will be presented at the same time and given equal
space. Campbell has never offered the same capability regarding his editoral
content in either USAviator or on his most recent "publication" ANN.

In reference to your quoted story, where is the view from Adam Aircraft on why
they felt it was necessary to have their plane at the biggest and most
important aviation even of the year? Was it really a risk to bring it here or
not? Were they even asked to comment? I doubt it but if they were, obviously
their comments were ignored.

The sad part of all this is that Campbell had a good idea with ANN. He was not
the first to come up with it, AVWEB has done a similar site for longer, but it
is still a good idea. He will continue to use it as his personal attack medium
and will eventually drive away both readers and sponsors, especially if he
continues to bill them for advertising they didn't request.


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)

[Warren & Nancy]

RobertR237 wrote:

> In reference to your quoted story, where is the view from Adam Aircraft on why
> they felt it was necessary to have their plane at the biggest and most
> important aviation even of the year? Was it really a risk to bring it here or
> not? Were they even asked to comment? I doubt it but if they were, obviously
> their comments were ignored.
>

I haven't been to ANN for quite a while, but has Adam Aircraft advertised with
zoom? Or did he use his reported tactic of putting in unauthorized advertising and
then sending a bill for it?

[Frank Hitlaw]

"Juan E Jimenez" > wrote in message news:<ESU5b.356168$YN5.243591@sccrnsc01>...
> "C.D. Damron" > wrote in message
> .net...
> >
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++SNIP++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> > It is interesting to note why so many people have come to hold Chuck in
> such
> > high esteem. How does that happen, Juan?
>
> Probably the same way as many or more people hold Jim Campbell in high
> esteem.
juan;
The same way as many or more people hold jim campbell in high esteem.
Are you kidding? That statement could only come from someone whos'
cognitive skills have slipped,alzheimers setting in? Eat alot of paint
chips when you were a kid? As the locals here in Jakarta would say
"goblok lu",(you are a total idiot).

Have a nice day,Frank:

[pac plyer]

(Frank Hitlaw) wrote
<snip>

As the locals here in Jakarta would say
> "goblok lu",(you are a total idiot).
>
> Have a nice day,Frank:

Hey Frank, do you know any of the Purple mechanics over at Flight Line
Engineering? Phil crossed over to the purple side before I left two
years ago. Before that had a situation were the locals were comming
over the airport fence, throwing stuff, it was kinda ugly, told Phil I
would take him illegally to Singapore to ensure his safety if he
wanted me to. But he toughed it out, and didn't wind up in jail like
before. How do you put up with that place? I guess there are
advantages to living there.

Is that derelict fleet of 737's still sitting there? Was tempted to
go down there and install myself as Cheif pilot (big fish in a little
pond fantasy of mine.) My email is currently broken.

Best Regards,

pacplyer

[Juan E Jimenez]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
>
> So the next question obviously is, would you be willing to sit down
> with Chuck to view the documentation he has the prooves Jim has not
> got his facts straight?

I'm not interested in the problems Chuck has with Jim. That's between them.

> I guess I'm recalling another worker for Jim who, like you, was
> mouthing the Campbell line about Chuck.

I'm not mouthing anything. Chuck claims I lied when I said he had been sued,
successfully. I proved he was the one who was lying, and I haven't even
presented another interesting case in the state of Florida.

> That information is still available from Chuck. Are you man enough to
> sit down with him and see it?

Chuck's problems with his manhood and Jim are for him and Jim to resolve.

> Chuck did not start this latest thread, but the way, Jim Campbell did
> by ranting about Chuck in ANN. Chuck has a right to defend himself.

And he decided to bring me into the thread, call me a toady and imply I was
lying. Now he knows better. Or do you think that the right to defend oneself
only applies to Chuck? I'm a little surprised at your selective reading of
the thread, to say the least. :)

Juan


>
> Corky Scott

[Juan E Jimenez]

Go read it again. It does. Have a nice day.

Juan

> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 18:16:33 GMT, "Juan E Jimenez"
> > wrote:
>
> :As Chuck used RAH to attack me with no provocation, using his (and your)
> :usual pattern of guilt by association. The difference is that now Chuck
(and
> :you) now know that I don't just bark, I bite, and walk away with chunks.
>
> Go back and read Chucks post. It doesn't mention you. You broke your
> leash and mauled the neighbor.
>

[Juan E Jimenez]

"Jez" > wrote in message
...
>
> 1) Chuck Slusarczyk seems to have consistently told the truth, even when
it
> has been an admission that he has settled law suits for fairly large sums
of
> money, which could reasonably be expected to cause a certain amount of
> embarrassment. Despite many attempts to catch Chuck out in a lie, no-one
> seems to have succeeded.

You're entitled to your opinion. I disagree.

[Juan E Jimenez]

"C.D. Damron" > wrote in message
news:sk86b.368550$o%2.166125@sccrnsc02...
>
>
> I only check out ANN when somebody brings it up here on RAH. In almost
> every case, I see a case a questionable journalism, within moments.
>
> Check out this blurb that appeared on ANN:
>
> "Risky Business": Adam's A-700 Flight To Oshkosh. Barely a week after
their
> totally new bird with totally new engines takes flight, Adam Aircraft
> decided to bring it to Oshkosh. While many consider the move gutsy
> (including our staff, begrudgingly), we consider the move questionable.
> Already under fire for safety practices and other concerns, what chance
this
> aircraft has of seeing the light of day (certification and production
wise)
> were put into jeopardy for what we consider a PR stunt that had
questionable
> value and WAY too many risks...
>
> Is this good journalism?

No, it's an editorial. It may surprise you, but there is a difference. If
you knew the background behind those comments, you'd probably reach the same
conclusion. Have you looked for the other side of the story?

Juan

[Juan E Jimenez]

"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...

> Were they even asked to comment? I doubt it but if they were, obviously
> their comments were ignored.

And you obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about. :)

[Juan E Jimenez]

"Dave Hyde" > wrote in message
...
> Juan E Jimenez wrote:
>
> > ...he wasn't being very truthful...
>
> I think it's very important that businessmen
> possess honesty and integrity. Do you feel the same
> about journalists? A yes or no answer will suffice.
>
> Dave 'the company you keep' Hyde
>

Sure, except unlike you I don't limit it to just businessmen.

Juan

[Juan E Jimenez]

I'll give this one... umm... at 1.8, and that's only because the foam is
amusing.

"Frank Hitlaw" > wrote in message
m...
> juan;
> The same way as many or more people hold jim campbell in high esteem.
> Are you kidding? That statement could only come from someone whos'
> cognitive skills have slipped,alzheimers setting in? Eat alot of paint
> chips when you were a kid? As the locals here in Jakarta would say
> "goblok lu",(you are a total idiot).
>
> Have a nice day,Frank:

[C.D. Damron]

"Juan E Jimenez" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> No, it's an editorial. It may surprise you, but there is a difference. If
> you knew the background behind those comments, you'd probably reach the
same
> conclusion. Have you looked for the other side of the story?

Juan, it surprises me that a journalist doesn't know the definition of
journalism.

The craft of journalism is not limited to the presentation of news, it also
includes any material of current or popular interest, including editorials.

Editorials differ from news stories by not necessarily examining all sides
or opinions. However, it is considered good journalism for editorials to
adequately argue their point based on facts presented.

The editorial I cited was an example of bad journalism. It made a rather
dramatic point without presenting any facts or supporting arguments. The
"if you knew what I know" approach would be considered yellow journalism by
just about any objective standard.

Would you like another lesson in journalism?

[Juan E Jimenez]

"C.D. Damron" > wrote in message
et...
>
> Juan, it surprises me that a journalist doesn't know the definition of
> journalism.

You didn't ask about a piece of news reported in ANN, you asked about an
editorial published in ANN.

Journalism: the profession or practice of reporting about, photographing, or
editing news stories for one of the mass media

Editorial: Of or pertaining to an editor; written or sanctioned by an
editor; as, editorial labors; editorial remarks.

As you can see, the two are quite different.

> The craft of journalism is not limited to the presentation of news, it
also
> includes any material of current or popular interest, including
editorials.

Editorials are pieces which express opinions, and they can come from many
different sources. There are editorials that express the views of the
publication, and there are guest editorials that express the views of people
who have standing in the community to talk about a specific issue.

> Editorials differ from news stories by not necessarily examining all sides
> or opinions. However, it is considered good journalism for editorials to
> adequately argue their point based on facts presented.

No. Editorials don't necessarily have to _argue_ a point. They may simply
state an opinion based on an observation of something that happened in the
community. In this case, ANN is presenting its opinion on whether or not it
was a good idea for Adam to rush through a few hours of flight and fly to
OSH just because they want to show the a/c. ANN doesn't have to argue
anything to present this opinion. It can simply present it, as it did. Same
as my tiny editorial awarding Adam Aircraft the Steel Cojones Award for
bring the a/c to the show. (Oh, you missed that? hmm... interesting example
of selective reading) I didn't have to argue anything, period. I simply
stated it.

> The editorial I cited was an example of bad journalism.

In your opinion... <shrug>

> It made a rather dramatic point without presenting any facts or supporting
arguments.

It didn't have to. You don't agree, write a letter to ANN stating so.

> The "if you knew what I know" approach would be considered yellow
journalism by
> just about any objective standard.

ROFLMAO! HAHAHAHA! That's funny!!!! You obviously don't have the slightest
clue of the definition of yellow journalism. To suggest that ANN engaged in
yellow journalism related to an activity attended by _hundreds of thousands
of people_ is patently absurd and bordering on the prepubescent. Did you
even bother to do a www.google.com and a simple "what is yellow journalism"?
Let me give you a hint, kiddo. Yellow journalism is about reporting news
with an editorial bias in a situation where most people cannot verify the
facts of the piece. It is _not_ about publishing editorials C.D. Damron does
not agree with.

> Would you like another lesson in journalism?

Another? <chuckle> Your entitled to your opinion. You're wrong, but you're
entitled to that as well.

Have fun!

Juan

[Dave Hyde]

Juan E Jimenez wrote:

> ...I don't limit it to just businessmen.

Who do you think does?

Dave 'value judgment' Hyde

[C.D. Damron]

Juan,

Your lack of education in the field of journalism is obvious and embracing
the narrowist definition of journalism you could find in your $1.99
dictionary is not surprising.

I've taken a couple of classes in journalism and honestly think that you
might benefit from the experience, as well.

I certainly know the difference between an editorial and news story. I also
know the definition of journalism, as it is presented in the classroom,
embraced by those in the field, and detailed in finer unabridged
dictionaries.

American Heritage Dictionary

journalism - 1) the collecting, writing, editing, and presentation of news
in print or electronic media. 2) Written material of current or popular
interest.

It is not surprising that you would argue that editorials need not be
journalistically responsible, as they are not examples of journalism or
products of journalists. Editorials can be irresponsible. When journalists
recuse themselves of all journalistic integrity when writing an editorial,
it is especially irresponsible and unprofessional.

In modern journalism, a distinction is often made between editorials and
commentaries. Editorials suggest the opinion of the editorial staff or
editor, (a journalist), while commentaries suggest that the opinions are not
necessarily those of the publication and are often written by
non-journalists. This distinction is made, I believe, to underscore that
opinions expressed in editorials are the result of honest journalist
pursuits.


> > The editorial I cited was an example of bad journalism.
>
> In your opinion... <shrug>


Yes, in my opinion is is an example of bad journalism.


> ROFLMAO! HAHAHAHA! That's funny!!!! You obviously don't have the slightest
> clue of the definition of yellow journalism. To suggest that ANN engaged
in
> yellow journalism related to an activity attended by _hundreds of
thousands
> of people_ is patently absurd and bordering on the prepubescent.

The fact that the event was attended by thousands, is of little consequence
to our discussion. ANN's "editorial" suggests that Adam Aircraft is "under
fire for safety practices and other concerns" without providing any details.
Likewise, ANN suggests that the appearance carried with it "WAY too many
risks", without detailing those risks.

Yellow journalism need not be limited to news stories.

[C.D. Damron]

"Juan E Jimenez" > wrote in message
news:MKu6b.278388$cF.86350@rwcrnsc53...
>
> Editorials are pieces which express opinions, and they can come from many
> different sources. There are editorials that express the views of the
> publication, and there are guest editorials that express the views of
people
> who have standing in the community to talk about a specific issue.


Juan,

I guess you didn't reach for your cheap-ass dictionary to look up the word,
editorial, did you?

While you might find editorials and commentaries on an "Editorial Page", an
editorial is strictly defined.

editorial - 1) An article in a publication expressing the opinion of its
editors or publishers. 2) A commentary on television or radio expressing the
opinion of the station or network.
(American Heritage Dictionary)


From your words, it sounds like you are more than comfortable with the word,
editorialize.

editorialize - 2) to present an opinion in the guise of an objective report.
(American Heritage Dictionary)


The modern convention is to make an obvious distinction between an editorial
and commentary.

[Juan E Jimenez]

Dave, I could care less. If you have a point, say so, and stop wasting my
time.

"Dave Hyde" > wrote in message
...
> Juan E Jimenez wrote:
>
> > ...I don't limit it to just businessmen.
>
> Who do you think does?
>
> Dave 'value judgment' Hyde
>

[Juan E Jimenez]

"C.D. Damron" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> editorial - 1) An article in a publication expressing the opinion of its
> editors or publishers. 2) A commentary on television or radio expressing
the
> opinion of the station or network.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

> editorialize - 2) to present an opinion in the guise of an objective
report.
> (American Heritage Dictionary)

I pity the students who attended your classes and learned from you how to be
a journalist by picking and choosing what suits your argument while ignoring
what doesn't. To wit:

editorialize - 1. To express an opinion in or as if in an editorial.
(American Heritage Dictionary)

BTW, rather than worrying so much about your uninformed opinions about
editorials vs. bonafide news and the difference between the two, you ought
to stick to what you allege you know and fix your web site.

Juan

[C.D. Damron]

"Juan E Jimenez" > wrote in message
news:w3w6b.281792$Oz4.74458@rwcrnsc54...
> So you gave a couple of classes. Good for you. You still don't have a clue
> what yellow journalism really is. The history of the term is plastered all
> over the net. Go read it.
>
> BTW, is putting words in people's mouths part of what you taught in your
> journalism "classes"? <chuckle>
>

I don't think I was putting any words in people's mouths. If so, I would
have hoped to do a better job.

For those of us that don't feel like Googling for definitions, don't have a
slang dictionary, or don't have time to take a class, why don't you define
"yellow journalism" for us. My understanding of the term might be
distorted, but I think not.

[C.D. Damron]

"Juan E Jimenez" > wrote in message
et...
>
> BTW, rather than worrying so much about your uninformed opinions about
> editorials vs. bonafide news and the difference between the two, you ought
> to stick to what you allege you know and fix your web site.

It hasn't been a priority. Thanks for the suggestion.

[B2431]

Depends on the deal. Sometimes confession to a lesser charge is a condition.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Dave Hyde]

Juan E Jimenez wrote:

> ...stop wasting my time.

You're going to have to do that yourself, Juan.

Dave 'OOC' Hyde

[RobertR237]

In article <MKu6b.278388$cF.86350@rwcrnsc53>, "Juan E Jimenez"
> writes:

>
>No. Editorials don't necessarily have to _argue_ a point. They may simply
>state an opinion based on an observation of something that happened in the
>community. In this case, ANN is presenting its opinion on whether or not it
>was a good idea for Adam to rush through a few hours of flight and fly to
>OSH just because they want to show the a/c. ANN doesn't have to argue
>anything to present this opinion. It can simply present it, as it did. Same
>as my tiny editorial awarding Adam Aircraft the Steel Cojones Award for
>bring the a/c to the show. (Oh, you missed that? hmm... interesting example
>of selective reading) I didn't have to argue anything, period. I simply
>stated it.
>
>

No Jaun, the Steel Cojones Award was not missed by anyone but, anyone with half
a brain also knows that it doesn't represent a compliment either. It was taken
as a slam on Adam Aircraft which is obviously, in light of the editorial, the
way it was intended.

Talk about selective reading! When are you going to learn to read?



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)

[RobertR237]

In article >, Warren & Nancy >
writes:

>
>> In reference to your quoted story, where is the view from Adam Aircraft on
>why
>> they felt it was necessary to have their plane at the biggest and most
>> important aviation even of the year? Was it really a risk to bring it here
>or
>> not? Were they even asked to comment? I doubt it but if they were,
>obviously
>> their comments were ignored.
>>
>
>I haven't been to ANN for quite a while, but has Adam Aircraft advertised
>with
>zoom? Or did he use his reported tactic of putting in unauthorized
>advertising and
>then sending a bill for it?
>
>

Can't say for sure but I wouldn't give any odds.


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)

[RobertR237]

In article >, "Juan E Jimenez"
> writes:

>>
>> If it were just between them, why is it plastered all over ANN every few
>> months?
>
>Probably for the same reason Chuck puts up his silly signs up every few
>months.
>

Funny, I have seen the signs and do not recalling Jim Campbell's name on any of
those signs. They do say "Zoom Free Zone" or something similar but whats the
big deal about that? Only a very few insiders know what that means and aside
from that, its his right to post any damn sign he wants. I don't see Chuck
going out of his way to publish on a public news service a condemnation of
Campbell every few months. I wouldn't blame him if he did. I also wouldn't
blame him if he made it a point to go to every potiential advertiser on ANN and
tell them the details of Campbell's past dealings. I wonder how Jim would like
that?



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)

[RobertR237]

In article >, "C.D. Damron"
> writes:

>
>Juan, it surprises me that a journalist doesn't know the definition of
>journalism.
>
>The craft of journalism is not limited to the presentation of news, it also
>includes any material of current or popular interest, including editorials.
>
>Editorials differ from news stories by not necessarily examining all sides
>or opinions. However, it is considered good journalism for editorials to
>adequately argue their point based on facts presented.
>
>The editorial I cited was an example of bad journalism. It made a rather
>dramatic point without presenting any facts or supporting arguments. The
>"if you knew what I know" approach would be considered yellow journalism by
>just about any objective standard.
>
>Would you like another lesson in journalism?
>
>

One only needs to look back at some of Jim's articles / editorials in USAviator
and even many on ANN to see many examples of the "if you knew what I know or
suspect" type of story. When asked for specifics and facts to back it up the
response has always been to counterattack the request.


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)

[Barnyard BOb --]

"C.D. Damron" wrote:

>Yellow journalism need not be limited to news stories.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

IMO....

You will convince Jaun of nothing of
which he is not already convinced.

Not even that Chuck and the Pope are Catholic,
if Zooom editorializes otherwise. ; - (


Barnyard BOb --

[Warren & Nancy]

Juan E Jimenez wrote:

>
>
> > It made a rather dramatic point without presenting any facts or supporting
> arguments.
>
> It didn't have to. You don't agree, write a letter to ANN stating so.
>

There's an idea C. D.! Send an e-mail to ANN disagreeing, and then post the
response here. THAT should be interesting reading, and you might earn an "I've
been zoomed" t-shirt.

Warren

[Cy Galley]

As a school teacher I always recommended that the teasing would stop if the
person being teased ignored the teaser. They just like the attention that
your response brings. Likewise Juan and Jim. Might be worth a try.

"Warren & Nancy" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Juan E Jimenez wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > It made a rather dramatic point without presenting any facts or
supporting
> > arguments.
> >
> > It didn't have to. You don't agree, write a letter to ANN stating so.
> >
>
> There's an idea C. D.! Send an e-mail to ANN disagreeing, and then post
the
> response here. THAT should be interesting reading, and you might earn an
"I've
> been zoomed" t-shirt.
>
> Warren
>

[Eric Miller]

"Juan E Jimenez" wrote
> > Actually, he said that if "successfully sued" means prevailed, then who
> > prevailed against him? (paraphrased; he actually wrote it from the
losing
> > respondent's point of view). I haven't seen any evidence that his
> statement is
> > untrue.
>
> The evidence is right there in front of your eyes. When you agree to
settle
> a suit and pay damages, you lose.

Not taking sides, but there's generally no admission of wrong-doing when a
settlement is reached.

Something else to consider in regards to the "big" settlement is that they
had liability insurance, therefore the insurance company was named as
co-defendant, and they might have driven the decision to settle.

The cost of settling could have smaller than the cost of defending a case
and appeals that might've dragged on for a couple years.
Better a known figure now which you can write off, than an unknown amount
(for both defense and outcome) in the future.

It also could've been an insignificant sum to the insurance company...
remember, insurances companies have insurance too (called re-insurance) to
spread their risk. (And re-insurers have insurance, etc, etc... it can even
come full circle, which makes calculating responsibility for payouts fun and
interesting.)

So it could be just as fair to say that the suit was successfully defended.

Just because money changed hands doesn't mean bupkis about the merits of the
suit.

And frankly speaking, I wouldn't trust a "jury of my peers" to decide if it
was day or night.
These are the same "peers" that bankrupted Dow with a $3.2 billion payout
for silicone breast implants which showed no scientific or statistical
evidence of causing disease (systemic or otherwise).

As a disinterested third party, I also found Chuck to be very forthcoming
about his past and current litigation, which is a far cry from catching him
in a lie.
Did he supply it in his initial post? No, but then it wasn't relevant.
Similarly, you'll notice I haven't provided a list of my civil, criminal and
traffic violations :p

Eric "you can't flame me... I said "breast" :-)"

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 11:46:32 GMT, "C.D. Damron"
> wrote:

:
:"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
.. .
:> You will convince Jaun of nothing of
:> which he is not already convinced.
:
:
:I must stop jousting with windmills.

All you get is a torn up windmill. ;)

[Warren & Nancy]

You are probably right, but Juan said to write to ANN. All I suggested is that
he do so, and publish the results here. Then Juan could see the type of
response one gets from honest questions and criticism. I got mine when I asked
a former friend if he actually wrote a letter published in ANN. My question
was forwarded to JC, and the zooming began.

Warren

Cy Galley wrote:

> As a school teacher I always recommended that the teasing would stop if the
> person being teased ignored the teaser. They just like the attention that
> your response brings. Likewise Juan and Jim. Might be worth a try.
>
> "Warren & Nancy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Juan E Jimenez wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > It made a rather dramatic point without presenting any facts or
> supporting
> > > arguments.
> > >
> > > It didn't have to. You don't agree, write a letter to ANN stating so.
> > >
> >
> > There's an idea C. D.! Send an e-mail to ANN disagreeing, and then post
> the
> > response here. THAT should be interesting reading, and you might earn an
> "I've
> > been zoomed" t-shirt.
> >
> > Warren
> >

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 14:17:39 GMT, "Cy Galley" >
wrote:

:As a school teacher I always recommended that the teasing would stop if the
:person being teased ignored the teaser. They just like the attention that
:your response brings. Likewise Juan and Jim. Might be worth a try.

As a former victim of a school bully, who spent 2 weeks in the
hospital with multiple broken bones and a fractured skull, I disagree.

The only way to deal with teasing and bullying is with overwhelming
counter force. When the local authority - the teacher - tells the
victim to not respond, it guarantees an escalation of the threat.
Other counter force must be found, or eventually the victim will be
killed. That counterforce will be found either with police, lawyers,
or, in some cases, superior violence.

Teachers that support one group of students abusing others is why
Columbine happened.

[Stu Fields]

It is impossible to believe the amount of energy going into this kind of
thing!!! I could build a house with the time and energy spent in flaming
each other in this newsgroup. What does everyone get out of this excercise?
What is the purpose or goal behind it?? I'm really curious.
Stu Fields
"Juan E Jimenez" > wrote in message
news:y_t6b.278017$cF.86657@rwcrnsc53...
>
> "Jez" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > 1) Chuck Slusarczyk seems to have consistently told the truth, even when
> it
> > has been an admission that he has settled law suits for fairly large
sums
> of
> > money, which could reasonably be expected to cause a certain amount of
> > embarrassment. Despite many attempts to catch Chuck out in a lie,
no-one
> > seems to have succeeded.
>
> You're entitled to your opinion. I disagree.
>
>

[RobertR237]

In article >, Warren & Nancy >
writes:

>
>You are probably right, but Juan said to write to ANN. All I suggested is
>that
>he do so, and publish the results here. Then Juan could see the type of
>response one gets from honest questions and criticism. I got mine when I
>asked
>a former friend if he actually wrote a letter published in ANN. My question
>was forwarded to JC, and the zooming began.
>
>Warren
>
>

It is really a total waste of time to even try to write a letter to the editor
of ANN unless that letter is to sing praises to them. The archives of this
newsgroup are loaded with the examples of those who did otherwise.


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)

[Del Rawlins]

On 07 Sep 2003 06:17 AM, Cy Galley posted the following:
> As a school teacher I always recommended that the teasing would stop
> if the person being teased ignored the teaser. They just like the
> attention that your response brings. Likewise Juan and Jim. Might be
> worth a try.

Despite what teachers like you have recommended, I always found that the
ONLY thing a bully understands is force. As a teacher, all you can
expect to see is the teasing since a kid like that is usually careful
not to do anything physical in your presence, and unless caught red
handed it will be one kid's word against the other's. Don't expect
classmates to rat him out either.

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

[Jez]

"Juan E Jimenez" > wrote in message
news:y_t6b.278017$cF.86657@rwcrnsc53...
>
> "Jez" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > 1) Chuck Slusarczyk seems to have consistently told the truth, even when
> it
> > has been an admission that he has settled law suits for fairly large
sums
> of
> > money, which could reasonably be expected to cause a certain amount of
> > embarrassment. Despite many attempts to catch Chuck out in a lie,
no-one
> > seems to have succeeded.
>
> You're entitled to your opinion. I disagree.
>
>

Jeremy replied:

Ahhh, I see! This has nothing to do with good American values, like truth,
honesty and justice, it's really just an expression of personal hatred for
an individual.

As far as I can see, opinions dont really come into it, either something is
demonstrably true, or it's not. My original statements stand as being a
matter of public record, nothing to do with my opinion (or yours for that
matter). Jim Campbell, whether you like it or not Juan, is a proven liar.
This is not my opinion, it's fact.

Jeremy

[Warren & Nancy]

Stu Fields wrote:

> It is impossible to believe the amount of energy going into this kind of
> thing!!! I could build a house with the time and energy spent in flaming
> each other in this newsgroup. What does everyone get out of this excercise?
> What is the purpose or goal behind it?? I'm really curious.

To educate the uneducated as to the type of person the zoomer really is?

[Bernie the Bunion]

> Warren & Nancy > wrote:

> To educate the uneducated as to the type of person the zoomer really is?

So the next time that Bill Phillips goes of on a tangent in this group
we can depend on you to step forward and educate the uneducated
as to what type of person Bill really is....????????????????

[Del Rawlins]

On 07 Sep 2003 03:21 PM, Bernie the Bunion posted the following:
>> Warren & Nancy > wrote:
>
>> To educate the uneducated as to the type of person the zoomer really
>> is?
>
> So the next time that Bill Phillips goes of on a tangent in this group
> we can depend on you to step forward and educate the uneducated
> as to what type of person Bill really is....????????????????

The difference is that it is generally pretty easy to tell what type of
person Bill is just from reading a few of his posts. Zoom, on the other
hand, is holding himself out as an unbiased source of information, and
because he is a talented liar, he gets away with it. Many of his
detractors began by supporting him, and only became aware of the truth
over time.

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

[Juan E Jimenez]

"C.D. Damron" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> I don't think I was putting any words in people's mouths. If so, I would
> have hoped to do a better job.

Yes you were. This:

> It is not surprising that you would argue that editorials need not be
> journalistically responsible...

Is your words, not mine.

> For those of us that don't feel like Googling for definitions, don't have
a
> slang dictionary, or don't have time to take a class, why don't you
define
> "yellow journalism" for us. My understanding of the term might be
> distorted, but I think not.

I already did.

[Juan E Jimenez]

I'll give that one a 0.5.

"Dave Hyde" > wrote in message
...
>
> You're going to have to do that yourself, Juan.
>
> Dave 'OOC' Hyde
>

[Juan E Jimenez]

"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
>
> No Jaun, the Steel Cojones Award was not missed by anyone but, anyone with
half
> a brain also knows that it doesn't represent a compliment either. It was
taken
> as a slam on Adam Aircraft which is obviously, in light of the editorial,
the
> way it was intended.

You're entitled to your own rationalizations. Unless you ask Jim himself,
you don't have a damn clue what you're talking about. And since you're not
Adam Aircraft but do have an ulterior agenda on making these comments, I
don't really care how you took it.

[RobertR237]

In article >, Del Rawlins
> writes:

>>
>> So the next time that Bill Phillips goes of on a tangent in this group
>> we can depend on you to step forward and educate the uneducated
>> as to what type of person Bill really is....????????????????
>
>The difference is that it is generally pretty easy to tell what type of
>person Bill is just from reading a few of his posts. Zoom, on the other
>hand, is holding himself out as an unbiased source of information, and
>because he is a talented liar, he gets away with it. Many of his
>detractors began by supporting him, and only became aware of the truth
>over time.
>
>

Way too many of us I am ashamed to say!


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)

[Juan E Jimenez]

"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
>
> Funny, I have seen the signs and do not recalling Jim Campbell's name on
any of
> those signs.

Poor naive Bob, doesn't have a clue what the signs were about, and thinks
everyone else thinks the same.

Not.

[Juan E Jimenez]

"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
...
>
> You will convince Jaun of nothing of
> which he is not already convinced.

Pot. Kettle. Black. <chuckle>

[Juan E Jimenez]

Chuck will not be further embarassed if he chooses not to make any more
derogatory comments about me and imply that I lie about him. And I don't
even have to surmise that it might be worth a try...

"Cy Galley" > wrote in message
news:76H6b.379889$YN5.252939@sccrnsc01...
> As a school teacher I always recommended that the teasing would stop if
the
> person being teased ignored the teaser. They just like the attention that
> your response brings. Likewise Juan and Jim. Might be worth a try.

[Juan E Jimenez]

"Eric Miller" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> Not taking sides, but there's generally no admission of wrong-doing when a
> settlement is reached.

You still lose. Doesn't matter if admit it or not. You know that as well as
I do.

> Something else to consider in regards to the "big" settlement is that they
> had liability insurance, therefore the insurance company was named as
> co-defendant, and they might have driven the decision to settle.

<shrug> Doesn't change the end result.

> Better a known figure now which you can write off, than an unknown amount
> (for both defense and outcome) in the future.

On a simple case of determining why an ultralight crashed? The plaintiff
claims it was negligence in design and construction. The defense claims it
was a stall just prior to landing. There were witnesses to the event, and
expert witnesses are lined up to argue the plaintiff's evidence. A week
before the pre-trial conf, the defense settles, in six figures. You can look
at it in umpteenthousand ways. The conclusion is still the same.

> So it could be just as fair to say that the suit was successfully
defended.

No, it could be _rationalized_ that way. Quite a difference.

> As a disinterested third party, I also found Chuck to be very forthcoming
> about his past and current litigation, which is a far cry from catching
him
> in a lie.

Unhuh. It is pointed out that he's been successfully sued, and his comeback
is to ask what that means. Forthcoming indeed.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Juan E Jimenez" > wrote in message
news:3ZS6b.386081$o%2.174316@sccrnsc02...
>
> "RobertR237" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > No Jaun, the Steel Cojones Award was not missed by anyone but, anyone
with
> half
> > a brain also knows that it doesn't represent a compliment either. It
was
> taken
> > as a slam on Adam Aircraft which is obviously, in light of the
editorial,
> the
> > way it was intended.
>
> You're entitled to your own rationalizations. Unless you ask Jim himself,
> you don't have a damn clue what you're talking about.

I've tried asking Jim... The typical result is a nasty response including
the threat of legal action and a demand that I not e-mail ANN again. Kind
of odd, given that I respond to articles in numerous publications maybe a
half dozen times a year, and other than ANN I've never been threatened or
instructed not to write back.

KB

[Juan E Jimenez]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
et...
>
> I've tried asking Jim... The typical result is a nasty response including
> the threat of legal action and a demand that I not e-mail ANN again. Kind
> of odd, given that I respond to articles in numerous publications maybe a
> half dozen times a year, and other than ANN I've never been threatened or
> instructed not to write back.
>
> KB

I've seen the responses that Jim typically makes to email queries sent to
him by readers (when I receive fwd's of reader inquiries about my articles,
or about issues that ANN considers of interest to me), and I've never seen
any threats of legal action. What was the content of your email (not your
recollection, the actual text) and the content of the response (again,
actual text, not your recollection)?

Juan

[C.D. Damron]

"Juan E Jimenez" > wrote in message
news:w5T6b.385999$Ho3.58776@sccrnsc03...
>
> On a simple case of determining why an ultralight crashed? The plaintiff
> claims it was negligence in design and construction. The defense claims it
> was a stall just prior to landing. There were witnesses to the event, and
> expert witnesses are lined up to argue the plaintiff's evidence. A week
> before the pre-trial conf, the defense settles, in six figures. You can
look
> at it in umpteenthousand ways. The conclusion is still the same.

Juan,

If you think that every out-of-court settlement is an admission of
negligence or responsibility, you are an idiot. Maybe, your stupid peasant
mentality can't comprehend how an individual or company could agree to a
tremendous settlement.

Screw it, I think that Juan is a helpless case. For the rest of you...

For any of you that might have found logic in Juan's analysis that
settlements imply guilt or responsibility, I'll share a personal story. I
don't know enough about Chuck's settlements to offer a comparison, but I
would dare to say that there are parallels to my story.

In many, if not most cases, out-of-court settlements are acts of
preservation. I'm not just talking self-preservation - I'm talking about
preserving things that you value more than shallow moral victories - like
your ability to support your family and the families of those you employ,
people that have supported a company through their hard work and sacrifices
made over their careers.

Sometimes, you can't afford to take a chance. The risks are too great.

In the not so distant past, a company owned by a relative of mine settled a
case, out of court, for a tremendous sum of money, based on the advice of
both their insurance company and lawyers.

In this case, a truck driver lost control of his truck and attempted to jump
out of the truck before it ran off the road into a rather steep ravine. The
driver was killed in his foolish attempt to avoid injury or death, as the
truck rolled over him. Had the driver been wearing his seatbelt, it is
likely that he would have walked away without serious injury, as the cabin
was undamaged.

Before the same truck was driven off the crash site (after being put back on
its wheels), the truck was inspected by both the DOT and Mine Safety
inspectors. According to the DOT inspectors, the only things that would
have kept the truck from passing an inspection to legal road-service were
the crushed lights.

Despite the overwhelming evidence that my relative's company was not at
fault, the insurance company was not prepared to let a jury decide the case
and settled the case for what almost any of us on this board would consider
a tremendous amount of money. In the geographic area involved in this case,
no insurance company had ever won a wrongful death suit. The evidence
didn't matter.

Nearing retirement, my relative could have risked the company and its assets
by fighting the "good fight". His personal wealth would not have been
impacted greatly by the company's bankruptcy or insolvency that a negative
jury decision could have yielded.

He took a bitter pill and along with the insurance company, settled the
suit. Almost ten years later, twenty people still have their jobs, their
homes, and their security.

Chuck, don't let the *******s get you down.

[Eric Miller]

"Juan E Jimenez" > wrote in message
news:w5T6b.385999$Ho3.58776@sccrnsc03...
>
> "Eric Miller" > wrote in message
> . net...
> >
> > Not taking sides, but there's generally no admission of wrong-doing when
a
> > settlement is reached.
>
> You still lose. Doesn't matter if admit it or not. You know that as well
as
> I do.
>
> > Something else to consider in regards to the "big" settlement is that
they
> > had liability insurance, therefore the insurance company was named as
> > co-defendant, and they might have driven the decision to settle.
>
> <shrug> Doesn't change the end result.
>
> > Better a known figure now which you can write off, than an unknown
amount
> > (for both defense and outcome) in the future.
>
> On a simple case of determining why an ultralight crashed? The plaintiff
> claims it was negligence in design and construction. The defense claims it
> was a stall just prior to landing. There were witnesses to the event, and
> expert witnesses are lined up to argue the plaintiff's evidence. A week
> before the pre-trial conf, the defense settles, in six figures. You can
look
> at it in umpteenthousand ways. The conclusion is still the same.
>
> > So it could be just as fair to say that the suit was successfully
> defended.
>
> No, it could be _rationalized_ that way. Quite a difference.
>
> > As a disinterested third party, I also found Chuck to be very
forthcoming
> > about his past and current litigation, which is a far cry from catching
> him
> > in a lie.
>
> Unhuh. It is pointed out that he's been successfully sued, and his
comeback
> is to ask what that means. Forthcoming indeed.
>
>
>

[Jerry Springer]

Juan E Jimenez wrote:
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> et...
>
>>I've tried asking Jim... The typical result is a nasty response including
>>the threat of legal action and a demand that I not e-mail ANN again. Kind
>>of odd, given that I respond to articles in numerous publications maybe a
>>half dozen times a year, and other than ANN I've never been threatened or
>>instructed not to write back.
>>
>>KB
>
>
> I've seen the responses that Jim typically makes to email queries sent to
> him by readers (when I receive fwd's of reader inquiries about my articles,
> or about issues that ANN considers of interest to me), and I've never seen
> any threats of legal action. What was the content of your email (not your
> recollection, the actual text) and the content of the response (again,
> actual text, not your recollection)?
>
> Juan
>
>

Why do you guys keep bothering with Juan? If you do it for the fun of it
fine. If you do it to try to get him to be reasonable you are wasting
time. He is to stupid to see that the things he says about Chuck
can also be applied to the moron zoomy. At least Chuck has what it takes
to talk about the problem he had, Zoomy has never responded to the
outrageous things he has said in print. Apparently Juan has not been
around long enough to remember when zoom threats were posted right here
for all to see. When you read the reports from SnF about Zoomy you have
to wonder how anyone can read anything he says and think it is credible.

Jerry

[Eric Miller]

"Juan E Jimenez" > wrote in message
news:w5T6b.385999$Ho3.58776@sccrnsc03...
>
> "Eric Miller" > wrote in message
> . net...
> >
> > Not taking sides, but there's generally no admission of wrong-doing when
a
> > settlement is reached.
>
> You still lose. Doesn't matter if admit it or not. You know that as well
as I do.

Just what exactly do you lose (besides the time the litigation takes)?
If you have liability insurance, you probably don't even pay an extra dime.

> > Something else to consider in regards to the "big" settlement is that
they
> > had liability insurance, therefore the insurance company was named as
> > co-defendant, and they might have driven the decision to settle.
>
> <shrug> Doesn't change the end result.

It doesn't change the fact that money changed hands, but it changes the
reason WHY.
As I said before, just because money was exchanged doesn't mean anything
about the merits of the suit.

> On a simple case of determining why an ultralight crashed? The plaintiff
> claims it was negligence in design and construction. The defense claims it
> was a stall just prior to landing.

I'm sure that since the plaintiff built the UL he did NOT claim the
construction was negligent.
That would reek of personal responsibility, which is strictly verboten in
this country.
On the other hand, he was claiming brain damage, so who knows...

> > So it could be just as fair to say that the suit was successfully
defended.
>
> No, it could be _rationalized_ that way. Quite a difference.

Using exactly the same amount of rationalization used to say it was
successfully won.

> Unhuh. It is pointed out that he's been successfully sued, and his
comeback
> is to ask what that means. Forthcoming indeed.

As I read it, he listed his past and current litigation to show he WASN'T
successfully sued.

Eric

[Eric Miller]

We definitely need some kind of tort reform.
Americans have a lottery mentality regarding civil suits, both as plaintiffs
and jurors... and the jackpots keep getting bigger and bigger.
I still think the loser of a lawsuit should pay all court and legal costs,
though I understand the downside of that too (from a recent post here).
At a bare minimum, plaintiffs should only be able to sue for actual damages.
If punitive damages must be awarded, do something useful with them. Apply
them to safety reform, quality assurance... or just pay down the national
debt.
As a last resort, BURN the money... whatever it takes to keep it out of the
hands of the lawyers and plaintffs.
Suits are for redressing wrongs, not a reward for either lack or personal
responsiblity or being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Eric "I'm too young to be this old"

[Juan E Jimenez]

"C.D. Damron" > wrote in message
news:FgU6b.285959$cF.88797@rwcrnsc53...
>
> If you think that every out-of-court settlement is an admission of
> negligence or responsibility, you are an idiot.

Now you're boring me, son. Go, play in the sandbox all you want. Enjoy. :)

Juan

[Juan E Jimenez]

I don't disagree that we need tort reform, but I do disagree that all
lawsuits that are settled out of court have no merit, or are settled solely
for economic reasons. Many times suits are settled because the defendant
realized that there's no way he/she can win. I think you know that as well
as I do.

"Eric Miller" > wrote in message
. net...
> We definitely need some kind of tort reform.
> Americans have a lottery mentality regarding civil suits, both as
plaintiffs
> and jurors... and the jackpots keep getting bigger and bigger.
> I still think the loser of a lawsuit should pay all court and legal costs,
> though I understand the downside of that too (from a recent post here).
> At a bare minimum, plaintiffs should only be able to sue for actual
damages.
> If punitive damages must be awarded, do something useful with them. Apply
> them to safety reform, quality assurance... or just pay down the national
> debt.
> As a last resort, BURN the money... whatever it takes to keep it out of
the
> hands of the lawyers and plaintffs.
> Suits are for redressing wrongs, not a reward for either lack or personal
> responsiblity or being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
>
> Eric "I'm too young to be this old"
>
>

[Juan E Jimenez]

"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Why do you guys keep bothering with Juan?

Was anyone talking to you? If you don't like to see people talking here with
people you don't like, don't read. Shoo.

Juan

[Juan E Jimenez]

"Eric Miller" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> Just what exactly do you lose (besides the time the litigation takes)?
> If you have liability insurance, you probably don't even pay an extra
dime.

Oh, I get it. The $750,000 came from thin air. :)

> It doesn't change the fact that money changed hands, but it changes the
> reason WHY.

No, it does not. A lawsuit was filed, and the defendant made the choice to
pay rather than having a judge telling him to do so.

> As I said before, just because money was exchanged doesn't mean anything
> about the merits of the suit.

Only if the only piece of information you look at is the delivery of the
check.

> I'm sure that since the plaintiff built the UL he did NOT claim the
> construction was negligent.

Ok, so you don't know the reason why the lawsuit was filed. Geez, Eric, you
could at least find out or ask. The plaintiff did not build the UL.

> As I read it, he listed his past and current litigation to show he WASN'T
> successfully sued.

<sigh> Read further back in the thread. If you're not going to read the
entire thread, you ought not be arguing points with which you haven't
bothered to familiarize yourself.

Juan

[Jerry Springer]

Juan E Jimenez wrote:
> "Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>Why do you guys keep bothering with Juan?
>
>
> Was anyone talking to you? If you don't like to see people talking here with
> people you don't like, don't read. Shoo.
>
> Juan
>
>
You said one time you were going back to PR so your kids could get a
better education than they can get here in this country. If you are the
product of the PR education system I feel sorry for your kids.
Now, don't let the door hit you in the ass as you leave this country.
Please hurry and go.

Jerry

[Michael Pilla]

"Juan E Jimenez" > wrote in message
. ..
> I don't disagree that we need tort reform, but I do disagree that all
> lawsuits that are settled out of court have no merit, or are settled
solely
> for economic reasons. Many times suits are settled because the defendant
> realized that there's no way he/she can win. I think you know that as well
> as I do.

SNIP

The problem is that only the folks on the side that settled know the real
reason and right now, that is Chuck since he was a principal party to the
reason for the settlement. He has indicated, to my satisfaction, that the
reason behind the settlement was similar to the "preservation" information
expressed by a previous poster. That clearly is not something that
reasonable people would argue constitutes a "lose" situation. One could
argue that the plaintiff also "lost" since they did not get the huge
settlement that they felt a jury might award. I guess the old adage that
there are no winners, only losers in court probably applies. (Yes, I know,
someone will argue that there are winners - the lawyers. However, I am
thinking only of the plaintiff and defendant.)

Everyone else remarking about the "reason" behind the settlement (summarized
as win/lose, or, perhaps not-lose/lose) is simply speculating about things
not directly knowable. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I
must take Chuck at his word. Enough folks have expressed similar
experiences that clearly demonstrate "preservation" is a very strong
motivator in settling, not fear of losing because the facts are against the
defendant.

Michael Pilla

[RobertR237]

In article <usV6b.289452$Oz4.79756@rwcrnsc54>, "Juan E Jimenez"
> writes:

>>
>> Why do you guys keep bothering with Juan?
>
>Was anyone talking to you? If you don't like to see people talking here with
>people you don't like, don't read. Shoo.
>
>Juan
>
>

And I don't think he was talking to YOU either. Take your own advice boy.

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)

[RobertR237]

In article >, "Juan E Jimenez"
> writes:

>>
>> If you think that every out-of-court settlement is an admission of
>> negligence or responsibility, you are an idiot.
>
>Now you're boring me, son. Go, play in the sandbox all you want. Enjoy. :)
>
>Juan
>
>

Good old Juan, snip out one sentence and make a stupid reply while ignoring all
the content and reasoning from the remainder of the post. Yes, you are
predictable and boring.

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)

[RobertR237]

In article <c_S6b.386093$o%2.173708@sccrnsc02>, "Juan E Jimenez"
> writes:

>>
>> Funny, I have seen the signs and do not recalling Jim Campbell's name on
>any of
>> those signs.
>
>Poor naive Bob, doesn't have a clue what the signs were about, and thinks
>everyone else thinks the same.
>
>Not.
>
>

As I mentioned earlier in another post, either quote me entirely or don't quote
me at all.

Nothing naive about it and if you had included the rest of my post it was quite
clear. So quit pulling this **** and YOU won't look like such a damn fool. I
know what the signs said and what they were about but also know that out of the
100's of thousands of attendants at Oskhosh this year not more than a few dozen
have any clue what-so-ever regarding those signs. Those few dozen are mostly
members of this newsgroup or some of the vendors that Jim has tried to screw
over the years.

Now pull you head out of Jim's ass long enough to smell something besides his
**** for a change.


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)

[RobertR237]

In article t>, Jerry
Springer > writes:

>> Was anyone talking to you? If you don't like to see people talking here
>with
>> people you don't like, don't read. Shoo.
>>
>> Juan
>>
>>
>You said one time you were going back to PR so your kids could get a
>better education than they can get here in this country. If you are the
>product of the PR education system I feel sorry for your kids.
>Now, don't let the door hit you in the ass as you leave this country.
>Please hurry and go.
>
>Jerry
>

AND TAKE JIM WITH YOU!


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)

[Warren & Nancy]

Kind of difficult when you don't use your real address for a response.

Juan E Jimenez wrote:

> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> et...
> >
> > I've tried asking Jim... The typical result is a nasty response including
> > the threat of legal action and a demand that I not e-mail ANN again. Kind
> > of odd, given that I respond to articles in numerous publications maybe a
> > half dozen times a year, and other than ANN I've never been threatened or
> > instructed not to write back.
> >
> > KB
>
> I've seen the responses that Jim typically makes to email queries sent to
> him by readers (when I receive fwd's of reader inquiries about my articles,
> or about issues that ANN considers of interest to me), and I've never seen
> any threats of legal action. What was the content of your email (not your
> recollection, the actual text) and the content of the response (again,
> actual text, not your recollection)?
>
> Juan

[Scott McQueen]

I have tried to killfile juan's postings but he has done
something to his headers that prevents my filter from
blocking his drivel.

The visible return address is listed in my killfile (five
different times) but that is not blocking anything.

Can anybody who knows someting about computers tell me what
to put into my killfile that will actually stop his trash?

Thanks,

Scott McQ

1¾
************************************************** *
The reply e-dress is a dead end.
If you want me to read your e-mail, send it to "dropbox" at the same ISP.

[Badwater Bill]

>
>Come on Bill, don't confuse the poor dumbass. If he has proof, he should
>produce it or shut up.
>
>This crap by Campbell has gone on way too long now and needs to be brought to
>an end. Jim Campbell's never ending vendetta against Chuck, even if the so
>call charges were true, is getting ridiculous. Nobody should have to put up
>with having their name and business trashed in any publication on an ongoing,
>never ending basis. This is especially true when the proof of the allegations
>has never been forthcoming. The whole issue used as the justification for the
>ongoing assault is more than 7 years old.
>
>
>Bob Reed

I'm not so sure that the publicity Chuck gets from some maniacal rant
is all harmful. I think most people who really know what's going on,
understand the rift and take it for what it's worth. As for those who
don't know beans about Zoom or Chuck, I really think that the press,
even though negative possibly helps Chuck because it keeps his
company's name in circulation.

Yes, I know this is a strange thing to say to some of you, but I have
friends who feel that any press, negative press included can be a
benefit.

I'm not trying to open a debate over this, I'm just speculating a bit,
and I'm not sure what the real outcome is. But, I'll guarantee you
one thing, everybody in the ultralight industry knows who Zoom is and
they all hold him and what he says in context. Having Zoom out to get
you is considered an product endorsement by many. In fact most of the
readers of this group are in that category!

Just some simple minded thinking out loud this morning.

Bill

[Badwater Bill]

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 15:54:09 GMT, "Juan E Jimenez"
> wrote:

>
>"Badwater Bill" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Settling out of court, pretrial, is not an admission of guilt.
>
>Civil lawsuits are not about guilt.


They can be.

Bill

[Model Flyer]

"Stu Fields" > wrote in message
...
> It is impossible to believe the amount of energy going into this
kind of
> thing!!! I could build a house with the time and energy spent in
flaming
> each other in this newsgroup. What does everyone get out of this
excercise?
> What is the purpose or goal behind it?? I'm really curious.

Basically they have run out of anything useful to write or say so
they have reviewed all that has been said in the past, now they are
just bitching about it. Being old their memory about what really
happened is fadeing a little.
--

..
--
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe
whatever at antispam dot net
No email address given because of spam.
Antispam trap in place



> Stu Fields
> "Juan E Jimenez" > wrote in message
> news:y_t6b.278017$cF.86657@rwcrnsc53...
> >
> > "Jez" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > 1) Chuck Slusarczyk seems to have consistently told the truth,
even when
> > it
> > > has been an admission that he has settled law suits for fairly
large
> sums
> > of
> > > money, which could reasonably be expected to cause a certain
amount of
> > > embarrassment. Despite many attempts to catch Chuck out in a
lie,
> no-one
> > > seems to have succeeded.
> >
> > You're entitled to your opinion. I disagree.
> >
> >
>
>

[B2431]

>From: "Juan E Jimenez"

>Chuck will not be further embarassed if he chooses not to make any more
>derogatory comments about me and imply that I lie about him. And I don't
>even have to surmise that it might be worth a try...
>

Juan, he implied nothing of the sort. He STATED you lied. No implication on his
part nor a need for you to infer.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "Juan E Jimenez"
>

>> Funny, I have seen the signs and do not recalling Jim Campbell's name on
>any of
>> those signs.
>
>Poor naive Bob, doesn't have a clue what the signs were about, and thinks
>everyone else thinks the same.
>
>Not.
>
Read it again, Juan, he didn't say he didn't know what the signs were about, he
simply said he doesn't recall seeing Jim Campbell's name on the signs.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>>
>> Why do you guys keep bothering with Juan?
>
>Was anyone talking to you? If you don't like to see people talking here with
>people you don't like, don't read. Shoo.
>
>Juan
>
Just as a matter of curiosity has anyone ever seen Tarver and Juan in the same
room? Their tactics are identical.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Eric Miller]

"Juan E Jimenez" > wrote in message
. ..
> I don't disagree that we need tort reform, but I do disagree that all
> lawsuits that are settled out of court have no merit, or are settled
solely
> for economic reasons. Many times suits are settled because the defendant
> realized that there's no way he/she can win. I think you know that as well
> as I do.

I didn't say ---> all cases settled out of court have no merit.
I did say ---> settling out of court says nothing about a case's merit.

Remember, cases get settled out of court because the plaintiff gets a
guaranteed payout instead of rolling the dice and possibly getting nothing.
The plaintiff settles because their case isn't so airtight that they're
assured of a win.
The defendant is more strongly motivated to settle because when juries are
involved because there is no upper bound to what might be awarded.

I'm in favor of capital punishment for stupid juries... summary judgments,
immediately enforced, no chance for appeals!

Eric (Of course, I feel the same way about parking tickets and jaywalking
:p)

[RobertR237]

In article >, "Juan E Jimenez"
> writes:

>>
>> Just what exactly do you lose (besides the time the litigation takes)?
>> If you have liability insurance, you probably don't even pay an extra
>dime.
>
>Oh, I get it. The $750,000 came from thin air. :)
>
>> It doesn't change the fact that money changed hands, but it changes the
>> reason WHY.
>
>No, it does not. A lawsuit was filed, and the defendant made the choice to
>pay rather than having a judge telling him to do so.
>

OR, the plaintiff decided to settle for something rather than nothing.


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)

[RobertR237]

In article >, "Eric Miller"
> writes:

>
>We definitely need some kind of tort reform.
>Americans have a lottery mentality regarding civil suits, both as plaintiffs
>and jurors... and the jackpots keep getting bigger and bigger.

I quite literally has become a legal lottery. File enough lawsuits against
enough companies and you will eventually hit a winner. The costs of filing are
next to nothing so there is no incentive to not go for it.

>I still think the loser of a lawsuit should pay all court and legal costs,
>though I understand the downside of that too (from a recent post here).

I agree completely. The loser and their lawyers should have to pay the court
costs and the costs for the opposition attorney and other expenses.

>At a bare minimum, plaintiffs should only be able to sue for actual damages.
>If punitive damages must be awarded, do something useful with them. Apply
>them to safety reform, quality assurance... or just pay down the national
>debt.

The lawyers will NEVER allow that idea to grow. They stand to make too much
off the current system to allow any major changes. We are trying to put a cap
on non-economic damages in lawsuits here in Texas right now and you should see
how much money the lawyers are pouring into defeating it.

>As a last resort, BURN the money... whatever it takes to keep it out of the
>hands of the lawyers and plaintffs.
>Suits are for redressing wrongs, not a reward for either lack or personal
>responsiblity or being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
>
>Eric "I'm too young to be this old"

Agree.



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)

[RobertR237]

In article >, "Eric Miller"
> writes:

>> I don't disagree that we need tort reform, but I do disagree that all
>> lawsuits that are settled out of court have no merit, or are settled
>solely
>> for economic reasons. Many times suits are settled because the defendant
>> realized that there's no way he/she can win. I think you know that as well
>> as I do.
>
>I didn't say ---> all cases settled out of court have no merit.
>I did say ---> settling out of court says nothing about a case's merit.
>
>Remember, cases get settled out of court because the plaintiff gets a
>guaranteed payout instead of rolling the dice and possibly getting nothing.
>The plaintiff settles because their case isn't so airtight that they're
>assured of a win.
>The defendant is more strongly motivated to settle because when juries are
>involved because there is no upper bound to what might be awarded.
>
>I'm in favor of capital punishment for stupid juries... summary judgments,
>immediately enforced, no chance for appeals!
>
>Eric (Of course, I feel the same way about parking tickets and jaywalking
>:p)
>
>

The problem with taking any civil lawsuit before a jury is knowing the mindset
of the jury. I sat on a civil case once where the plaintiff clearly had no
case but her daddy ran a law firm and needed to give some junior lawyers a
little court experience. I was totally ****ed that I had to waste a week of my
time and lose a weeks income to sit on the damn jury in the first place. Then
I almost puked when four of the lady jurists voted to give the bitch something
just because they felt sorry for her. When I questioned them about why, did
they beleive the defendent was at fault, their answer was no but what
difference did it make, the insurance would pay for it.

It is that very mindset that has led to so many out of court payoffs and the
legal lottery that now exists. Since most lawsuits involving personal injury
will be filed in the home community of the plaintiff, it becomes a real crap
shoot for the defendant as to rather a fair and impartial judgement can be
obtained. All it takes is a pathetic looking defendant, a smart lawyer, a
hometown jury, and the big bad corporation or insurance company to make for
some real bad judgements. Even when the defendants know they can win, the cost
of winning and the potiential for endless appeals can be enough to result in
settlements.

So even losing a lawsuit does not always imply any fault, just sympathy.


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)

[Juan E Jimenez]

"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> You said one time you were going back to PR so your kids could get a
> better education than they can get here in this country. If you are the
> product of the PR education system I feel sorry for your kids.

Sure, feel sorry that they're attending a school with 99% graduation rate,
95% post-graduate degree completions, 75% ivy league admissions, etc.

> Now, don't let the door hit you in the ass as you leave this country.
> Please hurry and go.

Leave the country? HAHAHAHAHAH! What school system are you a product of,
dork? The one that doesn't know that PR has been part of the US for more
than 100 years? ROFLMAO! :)

Juan

[Juan E Jimenez]

"Michael Pilla" > wrote in message
...
>
> The problem is that only the folks on the side that settled know the real
> reason and right now, that is Chuck since he was a principal party to the
> reason for the settlement.

So is the side receiving the settlement, Michael.

> He has indicated, to my satisfaction...

No, he has suggested it. He knows he can't prove it. But he knows he can
rationalize it. If you're satisfied with that, that's your prerogative. I'm
satisfied with the fact the I've proven that he's been succesfully sued,
contrary to what he's implied.

Juan

[Juan E Jimenez]

"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
>
> As I mentioned earlier in another post, either quote me entirely or don't
quote
> me at all.

To quote your own noises: "No." I decide what to quote, not you.

> Nothing naive about it and if you had included the rest of my post it was
quite
> clear.

Wrong again.

> So quit pulling this **** and YOU won't look like such a damn fool. I
> know what the signs said and what they were about but also know that out
of the
> 100's of thousands of attendants at Oskhosh this year not more than a few
dozen
> have any clue what-so-ever regarding those signs.

Unhuh. And you interviewed them all to see if they were in the hundreds of
thousands of hits that aero-news.net receives daily during the show.

The only fool here is you, son.

Juan

[Juan E Jimenez]

"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
>
> Its clear Juan, you see ONLY what you WANT to see.

As opposed to you, who only smells what you want to smell. Wipe your nose,
it's brown again. :)

Juan

[Juan E Jimenez]

"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
> AND TAKE JIM WITH YOU!

Another graduate of the RAH School of Idiotic Geography. :)

[Juan E Jimenez]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
>
> And let's not forget that the Bankruptcy trustee sued Jim Campbell for
> fraud and perjury. Campbell settled out of court. If Juan wants to
> believe that accepting an out-of-court settlement is a full admission of
> guilt, I ain't sure if I want to disabuse him. :-)

Ron, does Jim state or imply he's never been successfully sued? Simple
question. :)

[Juan E Jimenez]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Juan E Jimenez"
>
> >Chuck will not be further embarassed if he chooses not to make any more
> >derogatory comments about me and imply that I lie about him. And I don't
> >even have to surmise that it might be worth a try...
> >
>
> Juan, he implied nothing of the sort. He STATED you lied. No implication
on his
> part nor a need for you to infer.

And I have proven that I didn't lie. He did. Heck, I didn't even break out
all the evidence. All it took was a nudge and <bleaahhh!> it all came out in
one heave.

[Juan E Jimenez]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >
> Read it again, Juan, he didn't say he didn't know what the signs were
about, he
> simply said he doesn't recall seeing Jim Campbell's name on the signs.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Same thing.

[Juan E Jimenez]

"Eric Miller" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> I didn't say ---> all cases settled out of court have no merit.
> I did say ---> settling out of court says nothing about a case's merit.

And I'm saying that that is not correct. Settling out of court can VERY MUCH
say a LOT about a case's merit, depending on the circumstances.

> Remember, cases get settled out of court because the plaintiff gets a
> guaranteed payout instead of rolling the dice and possibly getting
nothing.

It is very naive to assume that that's the only reason why cases get settled
out of court. And don't tell me that that's not what you're saying. If you
want to rephrase, fine, but in this sentence you are saying that that is the
only reason why cases are settled, and that's an incorrect statement.

> I'm in favor of capital punishment for stupid juries... summary judgments,
> immediately enforced, no chance for appeals!
>
> Eric (Of course, I feel the same way about parking tickets and jaywalking
> :p)

<shrug> Let's hope you don't get stuck with jury duty and an immediate
sentence. :)

Juan

[Juan E Jimenez]

"Eric Miller" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> Not that it came from nowhere, but that it was covered by insurance
premiums
> which may or may not have gone up. Actually, there'd probably be a
deductible.

And pigs flew that night. <shrug>

> The plaintiff made the choice to accept a payment rather than having a
judge
> award them: nothing, less, the same, or more.

And the result is the same as if the judge had awarded the money.

> No need to be condescending.

It upsets me when people decide to argue points without bothering to read
the few messages in the thread. I'm sure it would upset you too.

> Still equates to American failure to accept personal responsibility in my
> book. If I slip and fall on the ice, I say "whoops, how clumsy of me", not
"who's
> fault is this? who can I sue?"

This wasn't a slip and fall. The allegation was that the design of the UL
was wrong, not that he slipped and fell from the sky.

> First, a good reason why kit builders shouldn't offer "ready to fly"
options
> unless they go the route of full certification (though I guess even that
> offers no protection).

So much for the Sport Pilot initiative...

> And lastly, as far as litigation goes... it's always cheaper to kill than
to maim :p

<chuckle>

Juan

[RobertR237]

In article <6z47b.393920$o%2.175789@sccrnsc02>, "Juan E Jimenez"
> writes:

>
>> And let's not forget that the Bankruptcy trustee sued Jim Campbell for
>> fraud and perjury. Campbell settled out of court. If Juan wants to
>> believe that accepting an out-of-court settlement is a full admission of
>> guilt, I ain't sure if I want to disabuse him. :-)
>
>Ron, does Jim state or imply he's never been successfully sued? Simple
>question. :)
>
>

Does he post it to Aero-News.Net for the world to see on a repeated basis?

Simple question for a simple mind.



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)

[RobertR237]

In article <Cw47b.394183$Ho3.59095@sccrnsc03>, "Juan E Jimenez"
> writes:

>>
>> As I mentioned earlier in another post, either quote me entirely or don't
>quote
>> me at all.
>
>To quote your own noises: "No." I decide what to quote, not you.
>

It figures, it might show just how lame and stupid your responses really are.

>> Nothing naive about it and if you had included the rest of my post it was
>quite
>> clear.
>
>Wrong again.
>

OH yes, I did forget, you don't know how to read worth a damn so it probably
wasn't too clear to you. Sorry, I gave you too much credit.

>> So quit pulling this **** and YOU won't look like such a damn fool. I
>> know what the signs said and what they were about but also know that out
>of the
>> 100's of thousands of attendants at Oskhosh this year not more than a few
>dozen
>> have any clue what-so-ever regarding those signs.
>
>Unhuh. And you interviewed them all to see if they were in the hundreds of
>thousands of hits that aero-news.net receives daily during the show.
>
>The only fool here is you, son.
>
>Juan
>
>

Once again you show how poorly you read and understand the english language.
Did I mention anywhere how many "hits" that aero-news.net receives daily? Did
anybody even mention it? NO! Try reading again and this time slowly one word
at a time or better yet, let one of you kids read it to you.

And by the way, are you really so stupid regarding web site statistics that you
don't know that "hits" are meaningless? The "hit" count has very little to do
with the number of people who actually visit a site and can be run up by the
way the site is structured. My own site averages over two thousand hits per
day but that only represents about a 100 actual individual visitors. That is
about a 20 to one ratio but I could easily make it a 2000 to one by some minor
changes to the setup. Now go back to school and see if you can do better on
your next try.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH




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)

[Juan E Jimenez]

"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
>
> Once again you show how poorly you read and understand the english
language.
> Did I mention anywhere how many "hits" that aero-news.net receives daily?

I did. Glad you're learning to read. You now have my permission to take it
back to your sandbox, putz. Your arguments are once again reverting to the
prepubescent level. How predictable. :)

Juan

[Juan E Jimenez]

"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Ron, does Jim state or imply he's never been successfully sued? Simple
> >question. :)
>
> Does he post it to Aero-News.Net for the world to see on a repeated basis?
>
> Simple question for a simple mind.

Hush. boy. Children should be heard, not seen. When the adults finish
talking we may give you a chance to join in. In the meanwhile, read the
question again. Maybe the second time you'll comprehend it.

[Warren & Nancy]

Juan E Jimenez wrote:

> "Eric Miller" > wrote in message
> . net...
> >
> > I didn't say ---> all cases settled out of court have no merit.
> > I did say ---> settling out of court says nothing about a case's merit.
>
> And I'm saying that that is not correct. Settling out of court can VERY MUCH
> say a LOT about a case's merit, depending on the circumstances.
>

The key word here is "can". Not "does". Sounds like a lot of double-speak.

[Juan E Jimenez]

Oh, I get it, you're following Clinton's Deposition Testimony Model.

"Warren & Nancy" > wrote in message
...
>
> Juan E Jimenez wrote:
>
> > "Eric Miller" > wrote in message
> > . net...
> > >
> > > I didn't say ---> all cases settled out of court have no merit.
> > > I did say ---> settling out of court says nothing about a case's
merit.
> >
> > And I'm saying that that is not correct. Settling out of court can VERY
MUCH
> > say a LOT about a case's merit, depending on the circumstances.
>
> The key word here is "can". Not "does". Sounds like a lot of
double-speak.

[Eric Miller]

"Juan E Jimenez" > wrote
> "Eric Miller" > wrote
> > Not that it came from nowhere, but that it was covered by insurance
> premiums
> > which may or may not have gone up. Actually, there'd probably be a
> deductible.
>
> And pigs flew that night. <shrug>

But were they licensed or self-certified? :-)

> > The plaintiff made the choice to accept a payment rather than having a
> judge
> > award them: nothing, less, the same, or more.
>
> And the result is the same as if the judge had awarded the money.

The money spends/cost the same, but since there was no judgment, there's no
ruling on the merits of the case.

As a previous post hinted, it's not a zero-sum game.
Even with a judges ruling, both sides can win and both sides can lose.
Of course, the lawyers always win.

> It upsets me when people decide to argue points without bothering to read
> the few messages in the thread. I'm sure it would upset you too.

I've read every line of every one of the 146 posts so far... and I don't get
upset that easily (however, I make up for it when I DO get upset :p)

> > Still equates to American failure to accept personal responsibility in
my
> > book. If I slip and fall on the ice, I say "whoops, how clumsy of me",
not
> "who's
> > fault is this? who can I sue?"
>
> This wasn't a slip and fall. The allegation was that the design of the UL
> was wrong, not that he slipped and fell from the sky.

*shrug* personal responsibility is personal responsibility.
I don't recall if the case identified the pilot's experience, both total and
in make&model.
That makes more difference than whether it was a "slip and fall" or whether
his leg was torn off and used to beat him over the head.

> > First, a good reason why kit builders shouldn't offer "ready to fly"
> options
> > unless they go the route of full certification (though I guess even that
> > offers no protection).
>
> So much for the Sport Pilot initiative...

More pilots and more planes are good.
More lawsuits are bad.
Fortunately, it's not my job to reconcile the two.

Eric

[Larry Smith]

"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Eric
Miller"
> > writes:
>
> >
> >We definitely need some kind of tort reform.
> >Americans have a lottery mentality regarding civil suits, both as
plaintiffs
> >and jurors... and the jackpots keep getting bigger and bigger.
>
> I quite literally has become a legal lottery.

You HAS?

So many lawyer wannabes, so little time to slap them around.

[RobertR237]

In article >, "Larry Smith"
> writes:

>>
>> I quite literally has become a legal lottery.
>
>You HAS?
>
>So many lawyer wannabes, so little time to slap them around.
>
>

I capt'n, I given it all she got and if'n I could learn to type on this damn
laptop i mightn of typed "It quite literally has..... :-)



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)

[Snowbird]

(RobertR237) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Corky Scott) writes:
> >By the way, didn't you at one point sit down with Chuck and view all
> >the material he had that proves he had nothing to do with Jim's
> >original complaint? My recollection is that you stated after that
> >meeting that it sure looked like Jim was a bit over the top on that
> >subject.

> I think you are talking about another poster here who did some work
> for Jim but has since moved on.

I believe you gentlemen may both be speaking of Kevin O'Brien

For example:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V307217D5
or for masl haters:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=chuck+group:rec.aviation.homebuilt+author :Kevin+author:O%27Brien&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=9m15rd02qb7%40drn.newsguy.com&rnum=1

Cheers,
Sydney

[Juan E Jimenez]

"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> You have to be the dumbest f*** of all time. Yes we own you but you are
> not one of the states. Speaking of yellow stripes when are you going to
> fly the BD?

<rofl!> No, Jerry, you have taken over that spot all for yourself. And
you're welcome to keep it as long as you want. The BD will fly when it's
ready, unlike you and your apparent desire to have no problem showing your
stupidity any time you feel like doing so. :)

[Juan E Jimenez]

"Eric Miller" > wrote in message
. net...
> >
> > So defendants should not accept personal responsibility when they screw
up
> > and damn near get someone killed? Or is personal responsibility
something
> > that applies only to plaintiffs?
>
> What I'm saying is that when you decide to use a product, you accept a
> certain amount of responsibility.
> How much? More than Joe Schmoe currently accepts, that's for sure!
> Where motorcycles and flying machines are concerned, that burden is even
> greater.

Make up your mind. Either there is personal responsibility for both sides,
or there isn't any. Can't pick and choose, because when you BUILD a problem,
you also accept a certain amount of responsibility.

> It didn't go to trial, so the defendent didn't make an issue of anything.

Sorry, but here you're wrong, period. You don't have to get to trial to make
an issue of something in the lawsuit.

> Remember, if reading the account according to the plaintiff's counsel,
> you're getting a definite slant.

In this case, that's rather unlikely. :)

Juan

[Eric Miller]

"Juan E Jimenez" > wrote
> "Eric Miller" > wrote in message
> . net...
> Make up your mind. Either there is personal responsibility for both sides,
> or there isn't any. Can't pick and choose, because when you BUILD a
problem,
> you also accept a certain amount of responsibility.

I didn't contradict myself.
Where motorcycles and flying machines are concerned the USER must accept
more responsibility.
That's why we preflight.

Besides, I'll bet the builder test flew the UL before declaring it ready to
fly.
That suggests plaintiff inexperience, either as a pilot in general, or in
make&model.

> > It didn't go to trial, so the defendent didn't make an issue of
anything.
>
> Sorry, but here you're wrong, period. You don't have to get to trial to
make
> an issue of something in the lawsuit.

You don't have to go to trial to make an issue of something, but you don't
have to raise all issus before the trial.
In other words, you can't claim to know the defendent's entire defense and
strategy.

> > Remember, if reading the account according to the plaintiff's counsel,
> > you're getting a definite slant.
>
> In this case, that's rather unlikely. :)

I'm suggesting that one side's account might be... (wait for it...)
one-sided.
Especially where the account is provided a) by a lawyer b) in support of
advertising services.


I see a pattern in this thread of confusing/blurring the distinction between
set and subset.
merit is a subset of settlement...
pre-trial issues are a subset of trial issues

Forget this case. I dont even care about it. All my spouting is meant in
general anyway.
Can you agree that settlements can happen without merit (which is different
from frivilous) and issues can be raised in trial that don't come up
pre-trial?
Say yes and I can stop posting!

Eric "I'll settle for just using the letters E, S and Y in any order :p"

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article <vC26b.367444$uu5.70843@sccrnsc04>, Juan E Jimenez says...
>
>Richmond, Virginia Circuit Court: Case # LK-989-3.
>
>Now, close your trap before another fly gets attracted to the odor. Your
>hero already admitted he lied.

I admitted no such thing your like your hero zoom playing word games and
twisting the factsand telling the lie so often that you believe it.

# LK-989-3 I believe that's the Morgan Case which I located today, after I read
it over to refresh my memory I'll comment on it here ,in public .I will also
comment on the Florida case you mentioned .But if you were as good at digging up
dirt as you think you are you should have known the George Conn subject has been
talked about quite a bit in this public forum. Ask Kevin O'Brien about the
paperwork I showed him concerning the George Conn situation.
Once again I got nothing to hide .

In fact Conn and I have a case pending right now and as soon as we get it over
with if anyone wants to know how it comes out I'll tell them .
As I said before I got nothing to hide unlike your hero zoom.

Chuck SRAH-15/1 ret

"credibility it was always about credibility" chuck s

[sleepy6]

In article >,
says...
>
>It is impossible to believe the amount of energy going into this kind
>of
>thing!!! I could build a house with the time and energy spent in flam
>ing
>each other in this newsgroup. What does everyone get out of this exce
>rcise?
>What is the purpose or goal behind it?? I'm really curious.
>Stu Fields


Justice, fair play, ethics and a host of other words along those lines
come to mind.

On one hand you have a businessman who has spent well over 20 years
building a reputation for honesty and integrity. Along the way he has
recieved numerous awards from the aviation community. He has earned
the respect of that community and the loyality of his customers. Of
course over the years he has had a few unhappy customers and law suits.
Any business will have a certain amount of that but Chuck has had far
fewer than most because he tries to do the right thing and he is
willing to publicly discuss them.

On the other hand you have an individual that has had severe mental,
financial and moral problems for a very long time. He has used the
power of his press to shamelessly extort money from some of his
advertisers. He published good articles about Chuck as long as Chuck
was an advertiser but turned on him when Chuck would not continue to
advertise ..... and Chuck is not the only one. The list of things Jim
has done reads like a bad soap opera. Take notice of the number of
people that quickly rise to defend Chuck and then look at his paid
lacky Juan posting half truths, evasions and wise cracks. Jim will not
even post himself because there are too many questions that he doesn't
want to answer. Check the Osterhaus site for some background.

This discussion belongs on this group since it is about a well known
aviation figure and a so called aviation magazine publisher. The truth
needs to come out here since it will never be published in ANN as long
as Zoom owns it.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Badwater Bill says...

>I'm not so sure that the publicity Chuck gets from some maniacal rant
>is all harmful. I think most people who really know what's going on,
>understand the rift and take it for what it's worth. As for those who
>don't know beans about Zoom or Chuck, I really think that the press,
>even though negative possibly helps Chuck because it keeps his
>company's name in circulation.

Frankly Bill if I had my druthers I would rather that 9 years ago zoom just
would have left me alone.I'm capable of generating my own press that isn't
harmful and have done enough legitimate things in this business to earn press
space. I've accomplished things that are verifiable and not embellished, unlike
most of zooms record.
Negative publicity might work for politicians and movie stars but it don't work
for guys like me I don't like it and it cost me plenty.But he dealt the cards
and I'm stuck with it.

>
>Yes, I know this is a strange thing to say to some of you, but I have
>friends who feel that any press, negative press included can be a
>benefit.

Maybe they're movie stars or politicians, they can have it.

>
>I'm not trying to open a debate over this, I'm just speculating a bit,
>and I'm not sure what the real outcome is.

I think the real outcome will come when zoom finally gets 2 nickles to rub
together and has something of value ,then I'll probably sue him for all this
crap and take it away . But at the rate he's going it will be a long time.That
may be the only way it will stop. Until then every time he lies or twists the
truth he will be exposed for doing it.

> But, I'll guarantee you
>one thing, everybody in the ultralight industry knows who Zoom is and
>they all hold him and what he says in context. Having Zoom out to get
>you is considered an product endorsement by many. In fact most of the
>readers of this group are in that category!

That is true enough but it only applies to those who are aware of the whole
story .To newbies it sounds like it's just a ****ing match between some people
who don't like each other.They think zoom is probably a legitimate guy and not
the phoney that he is.He tried passing off his phoney credientials to an English
magazine recently,which only proves that he's still trying to pass himself off
as legitimate and that people who are unaware of his background will accept him
at face value unless they have reason not to .

Sadly he could have been a legitimate player in this field but he chose for what
ever reason to try to make himself bigger then life and and the savior
of aviation. That attitude caused him to lose credibility and for many others
such as ex employees ,ex writers and manufacturers to have to deal with the
unnecessary grief he caused.

See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

"credibility it was always about credibility" chuck s

[Warren & Nancy]

And the insurance company probably said "let's settle this turkey and get on
with our lives".

Eric Miller wrote:

> "Juan E Jimenez" > wrote
> > "Eric Miller" > wrote in message
> > . net...
> > Make up your mind. Either there is personal responsibility for both sides,
> > or there isn't any. Can't pick and choose, because when you BUILD a
> problem,
> > you also accept a certain amount of responsibility.
>
> I didn't contradict myself.
> Where motorcycles and flying machines are concerned the USER must accept
> more responsibility.
> That's why we preflight.
>
> Besides, I'll bet the builder test flew the UL before declaring it ready to
> fly.
> That suggests plaintiff inexperience, either as a pilot in general, or in
> make&model.
>
> > > It didn't go to trial, so the defendent didn't make an issue of
> anything.
> >
> > Sorry, but here you're wrong, period. You don't have to get to trial to
> make
> > an issue of something in the lawsuit.
>
> You don't have to go to trial to make an issue of something, but you don't
> have to raise all issus before the trial.
> In other words, you can't claim to know the defendent's entire defense and
> strategy.
>
> > > Remember, if reading the account according to the plaintiff's counsel,
> > > you're getting a definite slant.
> >
> > In this case, that's rather unlikely. :)
>
> I'm suggesting that one side's account might be... (wait for it...)
> one-sided.
> Especially where the account is provided a) by a lawyer b) in support of
> advertising services.
>
> I see a pattern in this thread of confusing/blurring the distinction between
> set and subset.
> merit is a subset of settlement...
> pre-trial issues are a subset of trial issues
>
> Forget this case. I dont even care about it. All my spouting is meant in
> general anyway.
> Can you agree that settlements can happen without merit (which is different
> from frivilous) and issues can be raised in trial that don't come up
> pre-trial?
> Say yes and I can stop posting!
>
> Eric "I'll settle for just using the letters E, S and Y in any order :p"

[Warren & Nancy]

Oops, I should have read more of the thread before commenting.

Warren & Nancy wrote:

> And the insurance company probably said "let's settle this turkey and get on
> with our lives".
>
> Eric Miller wrote:
>
> > "Juan E Jimenez" > wrote
> > > "Eric Miller" > wrote in message
> > > . net...
> > > Make up your mind. Either there is personal responsibility for both sides,
> > > or there isn't any. Can't pick and choose, because when you BUILD a
> > problem,
> > > you also accept a certain amount of responsibility.
> >
> > I didn't contradict myself.
> > Where motorcycles and flying machines are concerned the USER must accept
> > more responsibility.
> > That's why we preflight.
> >
> > Besides, I'll bet the builder test flew the UL before declaring it ready to
> > fly.
> > That suggests plaintiff inexperience, either as a pilot in general, or in
> > make&model.
> >
> > > > It didn't go to trial, so the defendent didn't make an issue of
> > anything.
> > >
> > > Sorry, but here you're wrong, period. You don't have to get to trial to
> > make
> > > an issue of something in the lawsuit.
> >
> > You don't have to go to trial to make an issue of something, but you don't
> > have to raise all issus before the trial.
> > In other words, you can't claim to know the defendent's entire defense and
> > strategy.
> >
> > > > Remember, if reading the account according to the plaintiff's counsel,
> > > > you're getting a definite slant.
> > >
> > > In this case, that's rather unlikely. :)
> >
> > I'm suggesting that one side's account might be... (wait for it...)
> > one-sided.
> > Especially where the account is provided a) by a lawyer b) in support of
> > advertising services.
> >
> > I see a pattern in this thread of confusing/blurring the distinction between
> > set and subset.
> > merit is a subset of settlement...
> > pre-trial issues are a subset of trial issues
> >
> > Forget this case. I dont even care about it. All my spouting is meant in
> > general anyway.
> > Can you agree that settlements can happen without merit (which is different
> > from frivilous) and issues can be raised in trial that don't come up
> > pre-trial?
> > Say yes and I can stop posting!
> >
> > Eric "I'll settle for just using the letters E, S and Y in any order :p"

[RobertR237]

In article >, ChuckSlusarczyk
> writes:

>
>Hi Jeremy
>
>Actually the settlement wasn't an embarrassment it burned me up .The
>insurance
>company wanted to settle out of court I wanted to fight it. However I was
>told
>if I chose to fight and we lost they would cover only the amount they agreed
>to
>settle out with and I would have to pay the difference. So I said what if we
>win
>then could I have the $750,000 that your willing to give them? I was told
>NO!!
>so I had no real choice but to go along with the settlement.
>
>

Did they also happen to mention that even if you won, they could continue to
file endless expensive appeals to you and your insurance at almost NO cost to
them? That is the big flaw in the system which makes it advisable to settle.
A settlement is the only way to guarantee an end to the proceedings.


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)

[Larry Smith]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Badwater Bill
says...
>
> >I'm not so sure that the publicity Chuck gets from some maniacal rant
> >is all harmful. I think most people who really know what's going on,
> >understand the rift and take it for what it's worth. As for those who
> >don't know beans about Zoom or Chuck, I really think that the press,
> >even though negative possibly helps Chuck because it keeps his
> >company's name in circulation.
>
> Frankly Bill if I had my druthers I would rather that 9 years ago zoom
just
> would have left me alone.I'm capable of generating my own press that isn't
> harmful and have done enough legitimate things in this business to earn
press
> space. I've accomplished things that are verifiable and not embellished,
unlike
> most of zooms record.
> Negative publicity might work for politicians and movie stars but it don't
work
> for guys like me I don't like it and it cost me plenty.But he dealt the
cards
> and I'm stuck with it.
>
> >
> >Yes, I know this is a strange thing to say to some of you, but I have
> >friends who feel that any press, negative press included can be a
> >benefit.
>
> Maybe they're movie stars or politicians, they can have it.
>
> >
> >I'm not trying to open a debate over this, I'm just speculating a bit,
> >and I'm not sure what the real outcome is.
>
> I think the real outcome will come when zoom finally gets 2 nickles to rub
> together and has something of value ,then I'll probably sue him for all
this
> crap and take it away . But at the rate he's going it will be a long
time.That
> may be the only way it will stop. Until then every time he lies or twists
the
> truth he will be exposed for doing it.

Usually defamation (libel, slander) lawsuits have short statutes of
limitations, meaning you have to file your lawsuit shortly after the
defamation is published.

On a couple of other issues here, I don't agree with the proposition that
the only thing worse than bad publicity is no publicity at all. That is a
weasel statement made by a weasel who doesn't understand the agony or damage
caused by defamation, or that good name and reputation are the immediate
jewels of one's soul.

It is true too that most people in the homebuilder community know that
Campbell is a rather nasty little narcissist, but the young and
impressionable who come along fresh and naive must constantly be reminded
that while he may be articulate, he's also got big credibility problems.

On the other hand if he exposes REAL crooks, which sometimes he HAS done, he
contributes a service. So he has a history of blasting advertisers who
decline to renew their ads. You take him and his shills with a grain of
salz.

[Stu Fields]

BYB: I did a quick, I don't have a lot of time for this ZZZ thing, but all
but a couple of the posters are all saying pretty much the same thing.
Isn't this thread pretty much "preaching to the choir"?
If you want something to go away, there are a few ways to do it. 1. Ignore
and don't respond to it. Responding to an irritant gives it a certain
amount of acknowledgement. it seems that a lot of posters are reading ANN ,
whatever that is, and in fact giving implicit support to ZZZZ 2. Send in
the Marines and take it out. It worked, kinda, on Saddam. 3. Buy it out,
the US has been trying that one for years.

Stu Fields (I'm off to find something about airplanes)
"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
...
>
> >>What is the purpose or goal behind it?? I'm really curious.
> >>Stu Fields
> >
> >
> >Justice, fair play, ethics and a host of other words along those lines
> >come to mind.
> >
> >On one hand you have a businessman who has spent well over 20 years
> >building a reputation for honesty and integrity. Along the way he has
> >recieved numerous awards from the aviation community. He has earned
> >the respect of that community and the loyality of his customers. Of
> >course over the years he has had a few unhappy customers and law suits.
> > Any business will have a certain amount of that but Chuck has had far
> >fewer than most because he tries to do the right thing and he is
> >willing to publicly discuss them.
> >
> >On the other hand you have an individual that has had severe mental,
> >financial and moral problems for a very long time. He has used the
> >power of his press to shamelessly extort money from some of his
> >advertisers. He published good articles about Chuck as long as Chuck
> >was an advertiser but turned on him when Chuck would not continue to
> >advertise ..... and Chuck is not the only one. The list of things Jim
> >has done reads like a bad soap opera. Take notice of the number of
> >people that quickly rise to defend Chuck and then look at his paid
> >lacky Juan posting half truths, evasions and wise cracks. Jim will not
> >even post himself because there are too many questions that he doesn't
> >want to answer. Check the Osterhaus site for some background.
> >
> >This discussion belongs on this group since it is about a well known
> >aviation figure and a so called aviation magazine publisher. The truth
> >needs to come out here since it will never be published in ANN as long
> >as Zoom owns it.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Well stated.
>
>
> Banyard BOb --
>

[[email protected].]

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 10:13:08 -0400, "Larry Smith"
> wrote:

:On the other hand if he exposes REAL crooks, which sometimes he HAS done, he
:contributes a service.

Name one. Fetters doesn't count, Aviation Consumer was after him a
year before Campbell.

[RobertR237]

In article >, "Larry Smith"
> writes:

>
>Usually defamation (libel, slander) lawsuits have short statutes of
>limitations, meaning you have to file your lawsuit shortly after the
>defamation is published.
>

How about harrasment?

>On a couple of other issues here, I don't agree with the proposition that
>the only thing worse than bad publicity is no publicity at all. That is a
>weasel statement made by a weasel who doesn't understand the agony or damage
>caused by defamation, or that good name and reputation are the immediate
>jewels of one's soul.
>
>It is true too that most people in the homebuilder community know that
>Campbell is a rather nasty little narcissist, but the young and
>impressionable who come along fresh and naive must constantly be reminded
>that while he may be articulate, he's also got big credibility problems.
>
>On the other hand if he exposes REAL crooks, which sometimes he HAS done, he
>contributes a service. So he has a history of blasting advertisers who
>decline to renew their ads. You take him and his shills with a grain of
>salz.
>
>

How useful is a stopped clock? After all, it is "right" twice a day. The
issue then becomes how do you know when its right? If I can't tell by some
measure of trust in the one doing the reporting, it is worthless. ANN is
worthless because you can not trust the accuracy of anything you are reading.
You are never really sure if the story is accurate reporting or an enhancement
of Campbell's own doing in order to give his own warped slant to the story.







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)

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 07:58:51 -0700, "Stu Fields" >
wrote:

>BYB: I did a quick, I don't have a lot of time for this ZZZ thing, but all
>but a couple of the posters are all saying pretty much the same thing.
>Isn't this thread pretty much "preaching to the choir"?

Yes and no. While this would appear to be the usual catfight between
those who understand Campbell and the one person in this group who
chooses to fight his fights for him, this doesn't account for the many
people who read this group but do not post.

There's no way to know for sure how many people that is, but it's very
likely many times those who regularly post. In addition, as someone
else pointed out, there's new blood coming in all the time: people who
do not know of Jim, his history, his diagnosed narcisism and his
conflict with Chuck.

If the newcomers are to understand the intensity of the responses
here, they should know the whole story. It must be repeated again and
again so that the unaware are not taken in.

A case in point is the British aviation magazine that listed Campbell
and all his "accomplishments" as a contributer. Obviously they did
not know his history. When they were informed, they apparently
reduced the verbiage of his bio. Or so I have read.

So the seemingly constant, and often inflammatory dialog appears not
only necessary, but effective in terms of educating the unaware.

People for the most part aren't stupid, they can see Juan's tactics
and responses and judge for themselves. They may not be saying
anything, but they are observing and making up their minds.

I don't mean to sound a goody two-shoes about this but you really
can't constantly verbally vomit in public and expect people to buy
what you are selling.

This (newsgroups) may be a reletively anonymous method for
communicating, which seems to promote some rather over the top
language and scathing attacks from some people, but the aviation crowd
is fairly close knit. Someday, at some air show or fly-in, you may
meet the person who writes here. Would you smile and shake his/her
hand, or turn your back and run?

Corky Scott

[Warren & Nancy]

Corky Scott wrote:

>
>
> This (newsgroups) may be a reletively anonymous method for
> communicating, which seems to promote some rather over the top
> language and scathing attacks from some people, but the aviation crowd
> is fairly close knit. Someday, at some air show or fly-in, you may
> meet the person who writes here. Would you smile and shake his/her
> hand, or turn your back and run?

When I first met BWB, he handed me a beer right after I got out of my Mooney.
Didn't dare run 'cause I was thirsty. ;-))) And Pasture Dave even got it on
tape!

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 01:06:19 GMT, "C.D. Damron"
> wrote:

>One thing about Campbell is that his work, good and bad, appears to be
>driven by his own agenda and not some search for truth, justice, and the
>American way (I couldn't resist).
>
>I can see Campbell approaching Hoover and in a very solemn tone say, "the
>FAA grounded me, too!"

It's interesting to note that Dr. Barton Pakull, the FAA chief psychiatrist
involved in the Hoover case, also testified against Campbell in 1980. One
wonders how much Campbell's efforts in the Hoover case were due to the wish
to help right the wrongs against Hoover vs. the chance to get revenge
against the one of the men who destroyed Campbell's chance at an airline
career.

Here's an exchange between Campbell and Dr. Pakull, from the transcript of
when Campbell cross-examined Dr. Pakull during the NTSB hearing in 1980:
------------------------------------------------
Campbell: "Well, are you aware that several years, or many years, as the
case may be, in the competitive environment that is currently in the job
market in aviation, pretty much would put the end to a person's career in
that area especially if that would put someone near the 30-mark by the time
the situation like this would be resolved? And I mention this specifically
just to call your attention to the gravity of what is happening here."

Pakull: "I don't know what job market you are referring to. In my opinion,
your chances of being an airline pilot are zero...."
-------------------------------------------------

During the US AVIATOR years, Campbell accused Dr. Pakull of wrongdoing in
at least two separate cases. His own personal history with Pakull was
never mentioned...contrary to normal standards of journalistic ethics.

Many of you probably remember the case where somebody posted the threat
against President Clinton and tried to make it look like Tony Pucillo sent
it. The threat included a demand to that Dr. Barton Pakull be fired.

Ron Wanttaja

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Larry Smith says...
>>
>
>Well, I'd say Campbell is more bad than good but exposing Fetters was a
>contribution, nonetheless. And didn't Campbell take up Bob Hoover's cross?
>I say you've got to acknowledge him even if he is a *******. Course, I
>haven't been sued by Campbell so I guess I can't get as bitter at him as
>some of you. But, yeah, he's an ass.

Actually I've heard some accounts that zooms involvement in the Hoover issue was
actually a hinderence not a help. zooms diatribes against the FAA only hardened
their resolve. I heard Hoover didn't even endorse zooms book about the case. One
would think that if Hoover was so indebted to zoom for his help he would have
endorsed it.IMHO

See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

"a jerk and his master are still jerks" chuck s

[C.D. Damron]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 01:06:19 GMT, "C.D. Damron"
> > wrote:
> It's interesting to note that Dr. Barton Pakull, the FAA chief psychiatrist
> involved in the Hoover case, also testified against Campbell in 1980.

A very nice post, Ron.

Considering that this thread is reaching 200 posts, I have three more words to add:


GAME, SET, MATCH!

(we now return you to your regularly scheduled programming, in progress)

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Ron Wanttaja says...
>Oh, I don't know. There might be other reasons he refused to endorse it.
>
>A more telling situation is in Hoover's OWN book. In the chapter where he
>discusses his FAA problems, he thanks, by name, about two dozen people for
>their help in regaining his medical. He doesn't mention Jim Campbell.


Hmmmm I wonder why? could it be that Hoover didn't think zoom was as important
as zoom thinks he is? Credibility it's about credibility. When it comes down to
it zoom always falls short.

>
>Note Campbell's claim regarding Hoover's reaction when he got his medical
>back:
>
>http://makeashorterlink.com/?C27721AD5
>
>If Bob Hoover was so grateful for Campbell's help that he called Jim first,
>why did Hoover shun Zoom when he wrote his own book?

That's what a lot of us would like to know .Well not really because those of us
who know zoom didn't believe Hoover called zoom in the first place . So Hoover's
non acknowledgement of zoom is proof positive that zoom lied about the
importance of his involvement. Credibility it's about credibility.

zoom is a phony and those who believe him are fools or are being fooled. IMHO

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

'credibility it was always about credibility" chuck s

[Barnyard BOb --]

>On 09 Sep 2003 05:33 PM, Ron Wanttaja posted the following:

>> It's interesting to note that Dr. Barton Pakull, the FAA chief
>> psychiatrist involved in the Hoover case, also testified against
>> Campbell in 1980. One wonders how much Campbell's efforts in the
>> Hoover case were due to the wish to help right the wrongs against
>> Hoover vs. the chance to get revenge against the one of the men who
>> destroyed Campbell's chance at an airline career.
><snip>
>
>This just gets better and better.
>

>Del Rawlins-
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Wherre the hell is juan when you really need him? <g>


Barnyard BOb --

[Warren & Nancy]

Now you know that Juan will claim an "out" on that last serve, to
prolong the game!

"C.D. Damron" wrote:

> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
> ...> On Wed, 10 Sep
> 2003 01:06:19 GMT, "C.D. Damron"
> > > wrote:
> > It's interesting to note that Dr. Barton Pakull, the FAA chief
> psychiatrist
> > involved in the Hoover case, also testified against Campbell in
> 1980. A very nice post, Ron. Considering that this thread is
> reaching 200 posts, I have three more words to add:
> GAME, SET, MATCH!
>
> (we now return you to your regularly scheduled programming, in
> progress)
>

[Warren & Nancy]

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

> >On 09 Sep 2003 05:33 PM, Ron Wanttaja posted the following:
>
> >> It's interesting to note that Dr. Barton Pakull, the FAA chief
> >> psychiatrist involved in the Hoover case, also testified against
> >> Campbell in 1980. One wonders how much Campbell's efforts in the
> >> Hoover case were due to the wish to help right the wrongs against
> >> Hoover vs. the chance to get revenge against the one of the men who
> >> destroyed Campbell's chance at an airline career.
> ><snip>
> >
> >This just gets better and better.
> >
>
> >Del Rawlins-
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Wherre the hell is juan when you really need him? <g>
>
> Barnyard BOb --

Most likely gathering his rebuttal ammunition. You don't suppose he is
checking with his hero now do you? Nah, that would be too easy, and he
probably would become one of the zoomed if he did.

Warren

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Warren & Nancy says...
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Wherre the hell is juan when you really need him? <g>
>>
>> Barnyard BOb --
>
>Most likely gathering his rebuttal ammunition. You don't suppose he is
>checking with his hero now do you? Nah, that would be too easy, and he
>probably would become one of the zoomed if he did.

He ran as usual when the facts fly in his face. Probably zoomy told him to shut
up before I started posting all the "sucessfully sued" lawsuits in zooms past.
Boys and Girls club etc..... He's good for smart alec remarks but he's the kind
of guy that the girls in my old neighborood would beat up for being a sniviling
weasel.

See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

"credibility it was always about credibility" chuck s

[Juan E Jimenez]

"Eric Miller" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> I didn't contradict myself.
> Where motorcycles and flying machines are concerned the USER must accept
> more responsibility. That's why we preflight.

No, that's why -you- preflight. The fact that the designer and builder have
_equal_ responsibility is evidenced by the 18 years of liability that are
attached to anything they design and build.

> You don't have to go to trial to make an issue of something, but you don't
> have to raise all issus before the trial.

Round and round you go...

> Especially where the account is provided a) by a lawyer b) in support of
> advertising services.

Except the account provided by the defense is purely factual. The account
provided by the plaintiff relies purely on faith and a gaggle of
brownnosers.

> Can you agree that settlements can happen without merit (which is
different
> from frivilous) and issues can be raised in trial that don't come up
> pre-trial?
> Say yes and I can stop posting!

Sometimes. Doesn't look like it in this case. :)

Juan

[Juan E Jimenez]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
> I admitted no such thing your like your hero zoom playing word games and
> twisting the factsand telling the lie so often that you believe it.

If that's the case looks like you two must be twins separated at birth.

> # LK-989-3 I believe that's the Morgan Case which I located today, after I
read
> it over to refresh my memory I'll comment on it here ,in public .I will
also
> comment on the Florida case you mentioned .But if you were as good at
digging up
> dirt as you think you are you should have known the George Conn subject
has been
> talked about quite a bit in this public forum. Ask Kevin O'Brien about the
> paperwork I showed him concerning the George Conn situation.
> Once again I got nothing to hide .

Sure, now that I have proven that neither I nor Jim was lying, there is in
fact nothing to hide, is there. More to the point, there is nothing you can
hide now.

> In fact Conn and I have a case pending right now and as soon as we get it
over
> with if anyone wants to know how it comes out I'll tell them .
> As I said before I got nothing to hide unlike your hero zoom.

I already knew that. :)

Next time, think twice before posting messages implying I am lying about
you.

[Juan E Jimenez]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
> Frankly Bill if I had my druthers I would rather that 9 years ago zoom
just
> would have left me alone.

Perhaps you should have followed your own advice. You would have saved
yourself the problems.

[Frank Hitlaw]

ChuckSlusarczyk > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Larry Smith says...
> >>
> >
> >Well, I'd say Campbell is more bad than good but exposing Fetters was a
> >contribution, nonetheless. And didn't Campbell take up Bob Hoover's cross?
> >I say you've got to acknowledge him even if he is a *******. Course, I
> >haven't been sued by Campbell so I guess I can't get as bitter at him as
> >some of you. But, yeah, he's an ass.
>
> Actually I've heard some accounts that zooms involvement in the Hoover issue was
> actually a hinderence not a help. zooms diatribes against the FAA only hardened
> their resolve. I heard Hoover didn't even endorse zooms book about the case. One
> would think that if Hoover was so indebted to zoom for his help he would have> endorsed it.IMHO
>
> See ya
>
> Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret
>
> "a jerk and his master are still jerks" chuck s
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hey Chuck;

Remember when we conspired to steal zooms chicken, Hoover was hiding
between some vehicles behind the tent.Cause that's where we found
zoomy sucking up to Hoover when we wanted to thank him for the
chicken. Back then we thought Hoover was ashamed to be seen in public
with the mooz.I know that you haven't forgot about him wanting to have
you arrested for poultry pilfering.

Frank M.Hitlaw, Executive Assistant to El Pollo Loco (Far East
Division)

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article <DKS7b.412788$o%2.188319@sccrnsc02>, Juan E Jimenez says...

>Sure, now that I have proven that neither I nor Jim was lying, there is in
>fact nothing to hide, is there. More to the point, there is nothing you can
>hide now.

Twisting the truth again ,your making assumptions based on your own distortions.
Where did I say you were a liar? I just disputed the definition of "successfully
sued" and what was being implied. All that was proved was that your a flunky
for zoom and that your as capable as him in twisting the American language. I
never had anything to hide and you say zoom has nothing to hide? If that were
true why did he try to get this web site shut down?

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/ousterj/

And before you say it's because it's full of lies be prepared to tell what is
the lie. jaun ,jaun ,jaun you got a lot to learn ...you won't .but you sure do.

Post anything about me I don't care I got nothing to hide .Now how about you
asking zoom for his invisible sons name and does he exist or about the other
claims he made . For example when and where did he make 3 emergency parachute
jumps to save his life that he claims? Ask him that and publish his answer here
lets see if he's got nothing to hide.

I think it's you that lacks the testicular fortitude to ask him about any of his
claims because you need the few bucks you get writing for him. Either that or if
you don't need the money,you need what little prestige you get by claiming to be
a writer.

>
>Next time, think twice before posting messages implying I am lying about
>you.

Think twice about what?? Distorting the truth to create a perception that is
different then the reality has the same effect as a lie and therefore is a lie.


ChuckS RAH-15/1 ret

"some people still think the world is flat" chuck s

[Barnyard BOb --]

>>Next time, think twice before posting messages implying I am lying about
>>you.
>
>Think twice about what?? Distorting the truth to create a perception that is
>different then the reality has the same effect as a lie and therefore is a lie.
>
>
>ChuckS RAH-15/1 ret
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +

FWIW...

A woman has twins and gives them up for adoption. One of them goes
to a family in Egypt and is named "Ahmal." The other goes to a family
in Spain; they name him "Juan." Years later, Juan sends a picture of
himself to his birth mother. Upon receiving the picture, she tells her
husband and that she wishes she also had a picture of Ahmal. Her
husband responds, "They're twins! If you've seen Juan....
you've seen Ahmal." - author unknown to me

Barnyard BOb --

[Juan E Jimenez]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
> Twisting the truth again

No, Chuck, that's your job. You're much more qualified for that than I am.

I proved what I set out to prove. End of conversation.

[B2431]

>
>A woman has twins and gives them up for adoption. One of them goes
>to a family in Egypt and is named "Ahmal." The other goes to a family
>in Spain; they name him "Juan." Years later, Juan sends a picture of
>himself to his birth mother. Upon receiving the picture, she tells her
>husband and that she wishes she also had a picture of Ahmal. Her
>husband responds, "They're twins! If you've seen Juan....
>you've seen Ahmal." - author unknown to me
>
>Barnyard BOb --
>
Groan

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[ower]

"Juan E Jimenez" > skrev i meddelandet
news:xk18b.417762$Ho3.66236@sccrnsc03...
>
> "ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Twisting the truth again
>
> No, Chuck, that's your job. You're much more qualified for that than I am.
>
> I proved what I set out to prove. End of conversation.
>

Is that a promise, that you will stop infecting r.a.h.?

ower

[Barnyard BOb --]

>"Juan E Jimenez" barfed:

>> I proved what I set out to prove. End of conversation.

>Is that a promise, that you will stop infecting r.a.h.?
>
>ower
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yeah...
When a Puerto Rican barnyard pig flies a BD-5.


Barnyard BOb --

[Warren & Nancy]

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:

> In article <DKS7b.412788$o%2.188319@sccrnsc02>, Juan E Jimenez says...
>
> >Sure, now that I have proven that neither I nor Jim was lying, there is in
> >fact nothing to hide, is there. More to the point, there is nothing you can
> >hide now.
>
> Twisting the truth again ,your making assumptions based on your own distortions.
> Where did I say you were a liar? I just disputed the definition of "successfully
> sued" and what was being implied. All that was proved was that your a flunky
> for zoom and that your as capable as him in twisting the American language. I
> never had anything to hide and you say zoom has nothing to hide? If that were
> true why did he try to get this web site shut down?
>
> http://mywebpages.comcast.net/ousterj/
>
> And before you say it's because it's full of lies be prepared to tell what is
> the lie. jaun ,jaun ,jaun you got a lot to learn ...you won't .but you sure do.
>
> Post anything about me I don't care I got nothing to hide .Now how about you
> asking zoom for his invisible sons name and does he exist or about the other
> claims he made . For example when and where did he make 3 emergency parachute
> jumps to save his life that he claims? Ask him that and publish his answer here
> lets see if he's got nothing to hide.
>
> I think it's you that lacks the testicular fortitude to ask him about any of his
> claims because you need the few bucks you get writing for him. Either that or if
> you don't need the money,you need what little prestige you get by claiming to be
> a writer.
>
> >
> >Next time, think twice before posting messages implying I am lying about
> >you.
>
> Think twice about what?? Distorting the truth to create a perception that is
> different then the reality has the same effect as a lie and therefore is a lie.
>
> ChuckS RAH-15/1 ret
>
> "some people still think the world is flat" chuck s

There was a whole list of questions for zoom that was published here at one time.
Maybe it should be given to Juan as something to ask the zoomer when he next
communicates with him. You know, one of those "put up or shut up" kind of things.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article <xk18b.417762$Ho3.66236@sccrnsc03>, Juan E Jimenez says...
>
>
>"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Twisting the truth again
>
>No, Chuck, that's your job. You're much more qualified for that than I am.
>
>I proved what I set out to prove. End of conversation.

No you didn't, you wanted to talk lawsuits so lets talk about my and zooms
lawsuits specifically. Lets see, zoom was "sucessfully sued" in bankruptcy
court and by your definition he lost. He sued 15 of us here on RAH and he lost
on 14 of them and the fifteenth case is still open but he's not pushing it. He
sued Frank Hitlaw and lost, He sued Capella and took an out of court settlement,
Oh a settlement !! that means he lost ,then there's the Boys and Girls Club,
OH!! how about the printers he stiffed ,I got the names and amounts. Lets not
bail out when the going gets rough, nothing was proved except your a jerk and
you work for a phony .That much I'll give you....

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret
"credibility it was always about credibility" chuck s

[David Hill]

Jeeezzzuss H. Christ!

I got off r.a.h. four years ago because of all the wasted energy focused
on Zoom and his crap. I come back to see what's new and it's the same
old bs, only difference is now Zoom's doing it by proxy (unless Juan is
really Jim).

200 something posts in the past week, all useless? 1/3 of all posts
over that time period?

Well, I'll give r.a.h. another shot anyway. Looks like there's other
stuff out there worth reading.

I just can't believe that Zoomy is still at it.

David Hill

[Ed Sullivan]

John Ammeter > wrote in message >...
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 01:21:29 GMT, David Hill
> > wrote:
>
> >Jeeezzzuss H. Christ!
> >
> >I got off r.a.h. four years ago because of all the wasted energy focused
> >on Zoom and his crap. I come back to see what's new and it's the same
> >old bs, only difference is now Zoom's doing it by proxy (unless Juan is
> >really Jim).
> >
> >200 something posts in the past week, all useless? 1/3 of all posts
> >over that time period?
> >
> >Well, I'll give r.a.h. another shot anyway. Looks like there's other
> >stuff out there worth reading.
> >
> >I just can't believe that Zoomy is still at it.
> >
> >David Hill

>
> glad to have you back!! How about telling us about what
> you're building or do you have any advice for those that are
> building?
>
> John

Actually John, the Zoom thread is sort of unusual lately. Some
newcomer usually asks something about the Zoomer and then Juan and the
regular combatants rant for a little while. Billy was on for a while a
month or so ago and stirred the pot a little. Other than that it
usually concerns homebuilts, wonder of wonders. Glad to hear from you.

Ed Sullivan, the late

[Juan E Jimenez]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >I proved what I set out to prove. End of conversation.
>
> No you didnt, you wanted to talk lawsuits...

<thwap!>

Nope. Wrong again. The issue was your lying about your not being
successfully sued. Learn to read. The BS between you and Jim is your
problem, not mine.

You can have the last word if you like, boy. :)

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article <Nzrab.506666$o%2.223406@sccrnsc02>, Juan E Jimenez says...
>Nope. Wrong again. The issue was your lying about your not being
>successfully sued. Learn to read. The BS between you and Jim is your
>problem, not mine.
>
>You can have the last word if you like, boy. :)


Yawn!