Cessna's response to negative feedback on Skycatcher being builtin China

[Gig601XLBuilder]

http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/124.html

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Jan 4, 10:29*am, Gig601XLBuilder > wrote:
> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/124.html

I brownsed the gallery. That's got to be the ugilest Cessna ever.

As far as being built in China, I'm all for Globalization.

Wil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

William Hung > wrote in news:f410af67-3d69-42ec-b5ff-
:

> On Jan 4, 10:29*am, Gig601XLBuilder > wrote:
>> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/124.html
>
> I brownsed the gallery. That's got to be the ugilest Cessna ever.
>

I have to say, none of those new LSAs look very good at all. HAving said
that, I haven't flown one, so I really ought to see what one will do


Bertie

[Marco Leon[_4_]]

"Gig601XLBuilder" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/124.html

I wonder how many people who complain about the Skycatcher being built in
China are willing tp spend $200K on the same plane built in the US?

I even envision a company making certified aircraft having trouble making
ends meet (i.e. Piper) restarting their line by doing a similar move.
Imagine an Archer being offered for under $200K. In my opinion, that's the
only way an older airframe like that can compete against a Cirrus. I'm a
Piper guy and the last thing I'd want is to see the quality go down and thus
hurt their brand but I'd rather that than close down their line completely.

Marco

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2008-01-04 07:29:41 -0800, Gig601XLBuilder > said:

> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/124.html

I guess Cessna does not care about doing business with a country that
has threatened us with nuclear weapons, sells nuclear technology to
terrorist countries, uses slave labor, has an abysmal environmental
record, refuses to respect copyright and patent laws, sells child
pornography, has no respect for human rights or the rule of law, and
which would just as soon steal from Cessna as do business with them.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[BDS[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
> I have to say, none of those new LSAs look very good at all. HAving said
> that, I haven't flown one, so I really ought to see what one will do

I have flown two - the Allegro and the Sport Cruiser.

I didn't care much for the Allegro. The one I flew had a very stiff
rudder - so stiff that once you depressed a rudder pedal it stayed there
unless you pressed the opposite one to manually re-center the rudder.

The Sport Cruiser was very nice. It was quiet and relatively fast, and also
handled very well I thought. The interior was also roomy and comfortable.
If I was in the market for an LSA I would definitely consider the Sport
Cruiser. Right now though I'd rather have an RV-4...

BDS

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2008010408393216807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
>
> I guess Cessna does not care about doing business with a country that has
> threatened us with nuclear weapons, sells nuclear technology to terrorist
> countries, uses slave labor, has an abysmal environmental record, refuses
> to respect copyright and patent laws, sells child pornography, has no
> respect for human rights or the rule of law, and which would just as soon
> steal from Cessna as do business with them.
>

Why should Cessna care any more than the US government does?

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

> I guess Cessna does not care about doing business with a country that
> has threatened us with nuclear weapons, sells nuclear technology to
> terrorist countries, uses slave labor, has an abysmal environmental
> record, refuses to respect copyright and patent laws, sells child
> pornography, has no respect for human rights or the rule of law, and
> which would just as soon steal from Cessna as do business with them.
>

Ah, it must be nice to live in such a simple world.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"BDS" > wrote:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
> >
> > I have to say, none of those new LSAs look very good at all. HAving said
> > that, I haven't flown one, so I really ought to see what one will do
>
> I have flown two - the Allegro and the Sport Cruiser.
>
> I didn't care much for the Allegro. The one I flew had a very stiff
> rudder - so stiff that once you depressed a rudder pedal it stayed there
> unless you pressed the opposite one to manually re-center the rudder.

Rudder trim? We don't need no stinkin' rudder trim!

:-)

rg

[pittss1c]

Gig601XLBuilder wrote:
> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/124.html
I wonder if they will use lead paint.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

pittss1c > wrote in :

> Gig601XLBuilder wrote:
>> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/124.html
> I wonder if they will use lead paint.
>


He he.

Why, are you planning on chewing on one?



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

C J Campbell > wrote in
news:2008010408393216807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:

> On 2008-01-04 07:29:41 -0800, Gig601XLBuilder
> > said:
>
>> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/124.html
>
> I guess Cessna does not care about doing business with a country that
> has threatened us with nuclear weapons, sells nuclear technology to
> terrorist countries, uses slave labor, has an abysmal environmental
> record, refuses to respect copyright and patent laws, sells child
> pornography, has no respect for human rights or the rule of law, and
> which would just as soon steal from Cessna as do business with them.



They're going to set up a new facility in the US?


Bertie

[Marco Leon[_4_]]

"pittss1c" > wrote in message
...

> I wonder if they will use lead paint.

The next question would be--why is your 1 year old chewing on the outside of
your airplane?? ;)

Marco

[Jim Logajan]

Gig601XLBuilder > wrote:
> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/124.html

"... Cessna needs to deliver up to 700 SkyCatchers each year."

Interesting number - appears to be comparable to the number of RV-7 kits
that Van's Aircraft claims to ship per year (Van's magazine ads say "Two
RV-7 kits leave Van's aircraft every day to builders all over the world.")

Of course the specs for the RV-7 outclass the SkyCatcher by a wide margin.

[Mxsmanic]

William Hung writes:

> I brownsed the gallery. That's got to be the ugilest Cessna ever.

The nose of the aircraft has the unmistakeable look of someone with a big nose
and squinty eyes pouting. It looks comical. The rest isn't very attractive,
either.

[Mxsmanic]

Marco Leon writes:

> The next question would be--why is your 1 year old chewing on the outside of
> your airplane?? ;)

There are lots of ways to legally cut corners on quality.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 4, 8:49*am, "BDS" > wrote:

> > I have to say, none of those new LSAs look very good at all. HAving said
> > that, I haven't flown one, so I really ought to see what one will do
>
> I have flown two - the Allegro and the Sport Cruiser.
>
> I didn't care much for the Allegro. *The one I flew had a very stiff
> rudder - so stiff that once you depressed a rudder pedal it stayed there
> unless you pressed the opposite one to manually re-center the rudder.

Eh. Sounds as terrible as a Maule.

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> William Hung writes:
>
>> I brownsed the gallery. That's got to be the ugilest Cessna ever.
>
> The nose of the aircraft has the unmistakeable look of someone with a
> big nose and squinty eyes pouting. It looks comical. The rest isn't
> very attractive, either.
So, it's sort of an airborne version of you, then.


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Marco Leon writes:
>
>> The next question would be--why is your 1 year old chewing on the
>> outside of your airplane?? ;)
>
> There are lots of ways to legally cut corners on quality.
>

What, find some plating chips in your crushed cans of chef boy ar de
spagheti again?


Bertie

[NW_Pilot]

I cannot wait for the Chinese Clones like they did with Chevy Spark and is
clone the Chery QQ and now a few other vehicles and the all so popular
Harley Davidson.

Current Clones,
Sing SUV - Nissan X-Trail
Hongda - Honda
Shuanghuan Motors - Honda
GreatWall Motors - Toyota
Geely Merie - Toyota and Mercedes



"Gig601XLBuilder" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/124.html

[NW_Pilot]

http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/354/C7622/


"Gig601XLBuilder" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/124.html

[NW_Pilot]

We use slave labor in prisons also......Not just china....



"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2008010408393216807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2008-01-04 07:29:41 -0800, Gig601XLBuilder >
> said:
>
>> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/124.html
>
> I guess Cessna does not care about doing business with a country that has
> threatened us with nuclear weapons, sells nuclear technology to terrorist
> countries, uses slave labor, has an abysmal environmental record, refuses
> to respect copyright and patent laws, sells child pornography, has no
> respect for human rights or the rule of law, and which would just as soon
> steal from Cessna as do business with them.
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor
>

[Gig601XLBuilder]

NW_Pilot wrote:
> We use slave labor in prisons also......Not just china....
>

Wrong Wrong Wrong.

Prisoners in US are paid for their labor. In some cases paid pretty damn
well considering they are in there because they broke the law and are
supposed to be "paying their debt to society." Also, in most cases
USAian prisoners are not forced to work but opt to to earn credit/money
for use in the prison store, reduce or pay-off any fine/restitution they
were sentenced to pay, and to earn extra "good behavior" time.

I won't even get into the difference in why people are in prison in the
US as opposed to why they are in involuntary servitude in China but
the difference is significant.

For you to equate US prison labor programs to those of China shows you
no nothing about China or US prisons, are a knee-jerk anti-US idiot or
just a plain idiot.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig601XLBuilder writes:

> For you to equate US prison labor programs to those of China shows you
> no nothing about China or US prisons, are a knee-jerk anti-US idiot or
> just a plain idiot.

Or a resident of Texas.

[NW_Pilot]

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime
where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the
United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"




"Gig601XLBuilder" > wrote in message
...
> NW_Pilot wrote:
>> We use slave labor in prisons also......Not just china....
>>
>
> Wrong Wrong Wrong.
>
> Prisoners in US are paid for their labor. In some cases paid pretty damn
> well considering they are in there because they broke the law and are
> supposed to be "paying their debt to society." Also, in most cases USAian
> prisoners are not forced to work but opt to to earn credit/money for use
> in the prison store, reduce or pay-off any fine/restitution they were
> sentenced to pay, and to earn extra "good behavior" time.
>
> I won't even get into the difference in why people are in prison in the US
> as opposed to why they are in involuntary servitude in China but the
> difference is significant.
>
> For you to equate US prison labor programs to those of China shows you no
> nothing about China or US prisons, are a knee-jerk anti-US idiot or just a
> plain idiot.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Gig601XLBuilder" > wrote in message
...
> NW_Pilot wrote:
>> We use slave labor in prisons also......Not just china....
>
> Wrong Wrong Wrong.
>
> Prisoners in US are paid for their labor. In some cases paid pretty damn well
> considering they are in there because they broke the law and are supposed to be "paying
> their debt to society." Also, in most cases USAian prisoners are not forced to work but
> opt to to earn credit/money for use in the prison store, reduce or pay-off any
> fine/restitution they were sentenced to pay, and to earn extra "good behavior" time.
>
> I won't even get into the difference in why people are in prison in the US as opposed to
> why they are in involuntary servitude in China but the difference is significant.
>
> For you to equate US prison labor programs to those of China shows you no nothing about
> China or US prisons, are a knee-jerk anti-US idiot or just a plain idiot.

We also don't use our prisons as spare parts farms for organ transplants.

[NW_Pilot]

Advert's like this!!!

"Are you experiencing high employee turnover? Worried about the costs of
employee benefits? Unhappy with out-of-state or offshore suppliers? Getting
hit by overseas competition? Having trouble motivating your workforce?
Thinking about expansion space? Then Washington State Department of
Corrections Private Sector Partnerships is for you."

http://www.washingtonci.com/_content/about_ci/ci_overview.aspx

Prisoners get no health care, substandard working conditions, pennies an
hour.... also look up Unicor and do some reading... here is what i found on
wage!

Unicor currently starts out at about $37.00 per month for 160-200 hours per
month.

That's 24 cents or less an hour sounds like a sweat shop wage to me.....

Slavery is legal and taking place in this country.... Most prisons are
privately owned and operated by corporations to make a profit. There are
more prisons then schools being built in this country. In today's America,
the prison/industrial complex has become the new plantation and the warden
has become the new overseer. This is Slavery!!!!

The 13th Amendment authorizes it, "Neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have
been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place
subject to their jurisdiction." The key word here is except!! and being
convicted of a crime "even a minor crime" in the United States is that
exception.

Prisons should be run by government not by private enterprise!!







"Gig601XLBuilder" > wrote in message
...
> NW_Pilot wrote:
>> We use slave labor in prisons also......Not just china....
>>
>
> Wrong Wrong Wrong.
>
> Prisoners in US are paid for their labor. In some cases paid pretty damn
> well considering they are in there because they broke the law and are
> supposed to be "paying their debt to society." Also, in most cases USAian
> prisoners are not forced to work but opt to to earn credit/money for use
> in the prison store, reduce or pay-off any fine/restitution they were
> sentenced to pay, and to earn extra "good behavior" time.
>
> I won't even get into the difference in why people are in prison in the US
> as opposed to why they are in involuntary servitude in China but the
> difference is significant.
>
> For you to equate US prison labor programs to those of China shows you no
> nothing about China or US prisons, are a knee-jerk anti-US idiot or just a
> plain idiot.

[Morgans[_2_]]

> I didn't care much for the Allegro. The one I flew had a very stiff
> rudder - so stiff that once you depressed a rudder pedal it stayed there
> unless you pressed the opposite one to manually re-center the rudder.

Eh. Sounds as terrible as a Maule.

I wonder if it has ball bearing pulleys, and if there are any other places
that the friction could be reduced?

It seems like it could be, and needs to be improved, surely.
--
Jim in NC

[Gig601XLBuilder]

NW_Pilot wrote:
> Advert's like this!!!
>
> "Are you experiencing high employee turnover? Worried about the costs of
> employee benefits? Unhappy with out-of-state or offshore suppliers? Getting
> hit by overseas competition? Having trouble motivating your workforce?
> Thinking about expansion space? Then Washington State Department of
> Corrections Private Sector Partnerships is for you."
>
> http://www.washingtonci.com/_content/about_ci/ci_overview.aspx
>
> Prisoners get no health care, substandard working conditions, pennies an
> hour.... also look up Unicor and do some reading... here is what i found on
> wage!
>
> Unicor currently starts out at about $37.00 per month for 160-200 hours per
> month.
>
> That's 24 cents or less an hour sounds like a sweat shop wage to me.....
>
> Slavery is legal and taking place in this country.... Most prisons are
> privately owned and operated by corporations to make a profit. There are
> more prisons then schools being built in this country. In today's America,
> the prison/industrial complex has become the new plantation and the warden
> has become the new overseer. This is Slavery!!!!
>
> The 13th Amendment authorizes it, "Neither slavery nor involuntary
> servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have
> been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place
> subject to their jurisdiction." The key word here is except!! and being
> convicted of a crime "even a minor crime" in the United States is that
> exception.
>
> Prisons should be run by government not by private enterprise!!
>
>

Slavery is legal in US prisons and it is in the 13th amendment BUT that
doesn't mean it is being used. If you would actually read the website
you posted you will see that the prisoners are paid and even how their
earnings are allocated under the Washington state program.

I love your comment about now health care for prisoners though. They get
that even if they DON'T work. Along with food, shelter and clothing.

[NW_Pilot]

You may want to look "research" again there are a handfull of private
prisons that require an inmate to be an Organ Donor. Not legal in
state/federal run facilities only prtivate in a select few states that allow
it. Go google it....

Also look here!!! wonder how much the prison/industrial complex would
gain....

http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=47680

>
> We also don't use our prisons as spare parts farms for organ transplants.
>
>
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"NW_Pilot" > wrote
>
> Prisons should be run by government not by private enterprise!!

What does it matter where they are put, if they were not convicted by
private enterprise.

Prisoners have it way too easy, as it is. Punishment for crime is losing
the freedom that other citizens have. That is the way it is supposed to
work.

If you were in jail, would you rather sit in your cell, bored out of your
skull, or do something like work, even for free, even if you had to pay to
work?

I know my answer would be to work. The day passes much more quickly when
you are occupied.

Sorry, but you are way off base on this one. Prisoners in the US are there
for good reason, and most all are multiple offenders, or else major felony
offenders. That is not the case in China. Far, far from it.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"NW_Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>I cannot wait for the Chinese Clones like they did with Chevy Spark and is
>clone the Chery QQ and now a few other vehicles and the all so popular
>Harley Davidson.
>
> Current Clones,
> Sing SUV - Nissan X-Trail
> Hongda - Honda
> Shuanghuan Motors - Honda
> GreatWall Motors - Toyota
> Geely Merie - Toyota and Mercedes

How any company with a product they want to keep their product can look
past that, I don't understand.

It is the only thing you can count on coming out of China. Clones.

Cessna would have done much better getting it built in Mexico, or about
anywhere else. Nobody has the lack of moral and legal convictions against
copying intellectual material that China has. Nobody even comes close.
--
Jim in NC

[Thomas Borchert]

Gig601XLBuilder,

> I won't even get into the difference in why people are in prison in the
> US as opposed to why they are in involuntary servitude in China but
> the difference is significant.
>

Except when you count Gitmo.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gig601XLBuilder]

NW_Pilot wrote:
> You may want to look "research" again there are a handfull of private
> prisons that require an inmate to be an Organ Donor. Not legal in
> state/federal run facilities only prtivate in a select few states that allow
> it. Go google it....


No you Google it and post the result. If you make the claim it's up to
you to back it up.

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Gig601XLBuilder,
>
>> I won't even get into the difference in why people are in prison in the
>> US as opposed to why they are in involuntary servitude in China but
>> the difference is significant.
>>
>
> Except when you count Gitmo.
>

Gitmo isn't a US prison. It is a holding are for illegal enemy combatants.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"NW_Pilot" > wrote in message
. ..
> You may want to look "research" again there are a handfull of private prisons that
> require an inmate to be an Organ Donor. Not legal in state/federal run facilities only
> prtivate in a select few states that allow it. Go google it....

I did. Didn't see anything about forced organ donations by prisoners in the U.S. Got a
URL to document forced organ donation here? After all the revelations about prisoner
abuses in the past such as the drug experiments and that syphillus study, it's hard to
imagine that organ donations (involuntary or otherwise) would go totally unnoted in the
media and the Internet.

> Also look here!!! wonder how much the prison/industrial complex would gain....
>
> http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=47680

1. It's a bill to allow voluntary donations, not forced ones.

2. It's only in SC.

3. There's absolutely nothing there about "how much the prison/industrial complex would
gain".

4. The bill is so controversial and repugnant (not to mention in violation of federal
law) that it was stripped from a larger bill offering other considerations to prisoners,
and is bottled up in committee. My guess is that it will die there.

The key word here is "forced". Prisoners in China usually (or more likely, always) don't
have a choice. And we certainly don't have an ongoing cottage industry of organ farming
in our prisons the way they do in China.

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote:

>Gig601XLBuilder > wrote:
>> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/124.html
>
>"... Cessna needs to deliver up to 700 SkyCatchers each year."
>
>Interesting number - appears to be comparable to the number of RV-7 kits
>that Van's Aircraft claims to ship per year (Van's magazine ads say "Two
>RV-7 kits leave Van's aircraft every day to builders all over the world.")
>
>Of course the specs for the RV-7 outclass the SkyCatcher by a wide margin.
And you need to add in RV-4, RV-8, RV-9, RV-10 and maybe even -12
kits.

Only the 12 may be comparable to the Skycatcher.

Ron Lee

[NW_Pilot]

"Gig601XLBuilder" > wrote in message
...
> NW_Pilot wrote:
>> You may want to look "research" again there are a handfull of private
>> prisons that require an inmate to be an Organ Donor. Not legal in
>> state/federal run facilities only prtivate in a select few states that
>> allow it. Go google it....
>
>
> No you Google it and post the result. If you make the claim it's up to you
> to back it up.

Yea, its's under "presumed/Implied Consent" organ donation laws for
Prisoners and Detainees! where you must opt-out!!!

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> Sorry, but you are way off base on this one. Prisoners in the US are there
> for good reason, and most all are multiple offenders, or else major felony
> offenders.

Or due to police or prosecutorial misconduct. Or in knee-jerk response
to personal habits which other civilized nations find perfectly acceptable.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"NW_Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig601XLBuilder" > wrote in message
> ...
>> NW_Pilot wrote:
>>> You may want to look "research" again there are a handfull of private prisons that
>>> require an inmate to be an Organ Donor. Not legal in state/federal run facilities only
>>> prtivate in a select few states that allow it. Go google it....
>>
>> No you Google it and post the result. If you make the claim it's up to you to back it
>> up.
>
> Yea, its's under "presumed/Implied Consent" organ donation laws for Prisoners and
> Detainees! where you must opt-out!!!

That's for donating organs from the recently deceased, as opposed to live people.

The issue at hand is forcibly harvesting organs from prisoners. They do that in China.
They don't do it here.

[B A R R Y]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 12:08:32 -0800, "NW_Pilot"
> wrote:

>I cannot wait for the Chinese Clones like they did with Chevy Spark and is
>clone the Chery QQ and now a few other vehicles and the all so popular
>Harley Davidson.

Have you ever seen how many new "Genuine Harley" parts are made in
China?

They don't have to clone it, they build much of the real thing! <G>

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> Prisoners in the US are there
> for good reason, and most all are multiple offenders, or else major felony
> offenders.

Eighty percent of U.S. prisoners are in prison on drug charges.

[Matt Whiting]

William Hung wrote:
> On Jan 4, 10:29 am, Gig601XLBuilder > wrote:
>> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/124.html
>
> I brownsed the gallery. That's got to be the ugilest Cessna ever.

I agree. Ugly inside and out. Then again, the other LSAs such as
Tecnam and Remos are all pretty ugly as well. Sort of look like bugs.

Matt

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans writes:
>
>> Prisoners in the US are there
>> for good reason, and most all are multiple offenders, or else major felony
>> offenders.
>
> Eighty percent of U.S. prisoners are in prison on drug charges.

An outstanding example of Anthony's work. That one didn't even make the needle twitch on
the Relevance-O-Meter.

[James Sleeman]

On Jan 5, 11:04*am, Gig601XLBuilder > wrote:
> Gitmo isn't a US prison. It is a holding are for illegal enemy combatants.

I would usually avoid participating in such off topic discussion.
But, your statement is so stupid it's not even funny.

Gitmo is for all intents and purposes a prison, inhabitants are not
free to leave, they are being held prisoner.

Gitmo is for all intents and purposes part of the US, even if it is an
occupied territory in Cuba, the US isn't about to give it up, the US
isn't about to let Cuba have anything to do with Guantanamo Bay again,
ever, the US asserts all control over that piece of land and
facilities on it, the US makes the rules in Guantanamo Bay, not any
other nation. It's a US territory.

Therefore, Gitmo most certainly IS a US Prison, it's a place holding
prisoners in a territory of the US, a US Prison.

As for the prisoners being "enemy combatants" I might well remind you
that there has been no fair and open trial accorded the majority of
the prisoners, and more so, a number of prisoners have been released,
free to go, innocent of implied crime, sometimes after YEARS of being
held prisoner at Gitmo.

Gitmo is a disgrace to the US. To try and justify it by any means is
ludicrous.

[buttman]

On Jan 4, 8:29 am, Gig601XLBuilder > wrote:
> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/124.html

I don't understand why everyone is getting their panties all in a
twist over this. Is there any facts that prove that the Chinese
company that Cessna has chosen, has had problems manufacturing planes
in the past? It says in the article that this company has been
manufacturing planes for other IAI, Boeing, and other plane makers. Do
those planes fly safely? It seems for such emotional opinions to
exist, there surely must be equally power facts to back them up?

[M[_1_]]

On Jan 4, 9:38 am, pittss1c > wrote:
>
> I wonder if they will use lead paint.


It's funny people complains about lead paint here where defending the
use of leaded fuel. Don't forget that tetraethyl lead hasn't been
made in U.S. in years and China might be the only supplier of TEL in
our fuel :-)

http://buy.ecplaza.net/search/1s1nf20sell/tetraethyl_lead_tetra_ethyl_lead.html

[Thomas Borchert]

Gig601XLBuilder,

> Gitmo isn't a US prison.
>

Sure. Being in Cuba and all, I think Castro runs it, doesn't he? And of
course the people in there are free to leave, right? So it can't be a
prison, right?

You can be as right-wing as you want to be, but you can't possibly
defend Gitmo. It's everything the US never ever wanted to be (at least
that's what I still hope).

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

M writes:

> It's funny people complains about lead paint here where defending the
> use of leaded fuel.

I don't know if funny is the word I'd use. Until the advent of unleaded
fuels, the greatest environmental exposure to lead in developed nations was
the lead in fuel. In vivo lead levels have declined considerably since
unleaded fuels became widespread, but aviation fuels for piston engines still
contain lead, so it's entirely plausible that aviators are still being exposed
to lead regularly via this route.

[Andreus]

As big an embarrasment as Gitmo may be to you and many more Americans, I
don't thnk it reflects on your nation. It is simply an artifact of an
outrageous administration. Even many staunch republicans get a little antzy
at the questionable activities and actions of Bush's minions. He hasn't
substantianally changed your country and I'm confident the next
administration will be a little more civil. The bigger war is saving the
middle class, and I don't think Shrubs bunch has any clue how to do it. When
the working guy has no money to fly, how will the EAA fare then? How will
Cessna fare?


"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Gig601XLBuilder,
>
>> Gitmo isn't a US prison.
>>
>
> Sure. Being in Cuba and all, I think Castro runs it, doesn't he? And of
> course the people in there are free to leave, right? So it can't be a
> prison, right?
>
> You can be as right-wing as you want to be, but you can't possibly
> defend Gitmo. It's everything the US never ever wanted to be (at least
> that's what I still hope).
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"James Sleeman" > wrote

Gitmo is a disgrace to the US. To try and justify it by any means is
ludicrous.

So during a war, you advocate returning prisoners of war?

I don't remember that happening during WW II or Vietnam, do you?

If you think that we are not at war, or that they are not enemy soldiers,
then you are ludicrous.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

Andreus writes:

> As big an embarrasment as Gitmo may be to you and many more Americans, I
> don't thnk it reflects on your nation. It is simply an artifact of an
> outrageous administration.

But that administration was freely elected, so that means that at least half
the population is at least partially responsible.

[Andreus]

One of the great things about freedom is that you may hold and express that
opinion and nobody has to agree with you. I do not think that very many
people agree with all the things the Shrub administration is doing. I think
that anyone who looks at waterboarding and some of the other receational
activities offered at these secret gov't run spas will come to a very
different opinion about whether it is torture than the Bush camp has.

The admin will change drastically when the election is held, regardless of
who wins. IMO any change will be for the better, but they better pay some
attention to the middle class or the classic notion of what the country
offers is no more.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Andreus writes:
>
>> As big an embarrasment as Gitmo may be to you and many more Americans, I
>> don't thnk it reflects on your nation. It is simply an artifact of an
>> outrageous administration.
>
> But that administration was freely elected, so that means that at least
> half
> the population is at least partially responsible.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Andreus writes:
>
>> As big an embarrasment as Gitmo may be to you and many more
>> Americans, I don't thnk it reflects on your nation. It is simply an
>> artifact of an outrageous administration.
>
> But that administration was freely elected, so that means that at
> least half the population is at least partially responsible.
>

Nope.

Bertie

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, the United States uses the electoral college to determine the
> presidency, not the popular vote. Also, the winning candidate does not
> need more than half of the votes, but simply needs to win all delegates at
> the electoral college.
>
> You are wrong again.

The winning candidate must receive a majority of the electoral vote.

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Jan 4, 10:58*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> William Hung > wrote in news:f410af67-3d69-42ec-b5ff-
> :
>
> > On Jan 4, 10:29*am, Gig601XLBuilder > wrote:
> >>http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/124.html
>
> > I brownsed the gallery. *That's got to be the ugilest Cessna ever.
>
> I have to say, none of those new LSAs look very good at all. HAving said
> that, I haven't flown one, so I really ought to see what one will do
>
> Bertie

Not that what I think matters, but I think that the 150/2s are great
looking, even better looking than the 172s. Doesn't the 150/2s
qualify for LSA status? I would sonner buy them over the new one and
just use the balance to fully pimp it out(zero time engine, new prop,
new interior and paintjob, new toys for the panel...etc.), but that's
just me.

Wil

[Morgans[_2_]]

"William Hung" > wrote

Not that what I think matters, but I think that the 150/2s are great
looking, even better looking than the 172s. Doesn't the 150/2s
qualify for LSA status? I would sonner buy them over the new one and
just use the balance to fully pimp it out(zero time engine, new prop,
new interior and paintjob, new toys for the panel...etc.), but that's
just me.

Nope. Too heavy.

That was one of my major complaints about the new (was new) LSA rule. IMO,
the rule should have had a high enough weight limit that the 152 was light
enough to qualify.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

William Hung > wrote in news:aee7c0b2-0f20-46cb-aa53-
:

> On Jan 4, 10:58*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> William Hung > wrote in news:f410af67-3d69-42ec-
b5ff-
>> :
>>
>> > On Jan 4, 10:29*am, Gig601XLBuilder >
wrote:
>
>> >>http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/124.html
>>
>> > I brownsed the gallery. *That's got to be the ugilest Cessna ever.
>>
>> I have to say, none of those new LSAs look very good at all. HAving
said
>> that, I haven't flown one, so I really ought to see what one will do
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Not that what I think matters, but I think that the 150/2s are great
> looking, even better looking than the 172s. Doesn't the 150/2s
> qualify for LSA status?


Nah, way too heavy. I thnk LSA max is 1320 lbs.
I like the look of the older razorback 150s, but the rear window ones
are a little, uh, dumpy looking.
They do the job, though.


I would sonner buy them over the new one and
> just use the balance to fully pimp it out(zero time engine, new prop,
> new interior and paintjob, new toys for the panel...etc.), but that's
> just me.

About the only previsouly certified airplanes that qualify are things
like Chiefs, Luscombe 8A (the 8E is too heavy) and stuff like that. The
150 grosses around 1500, maybe a bit more.


Bertie

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Jan 5, 4:03*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> William Hung > wrote in news:aee7c0b2-0f20-46cb-aa53-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 10:58*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> William Hung > wrote in news:f410af67-3d69-42ec-
> b5ff-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Jan 4, 10:29*am, Gig601XLBuilder >
> wrote:
>
> >> >>http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/124.html
>
> >> > I brownsed the gallery. *That's got to be the ugilest Cessna ever.
>
> >> I have to say, none of those new LSAs look very good at all. HAving
> said
> >> that, I haven't flown one, so I really ought to see what one will do
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Not that what I think matters, but I think that the 150/2s are great
> > looking, even better looking than the 172s. *Doesn't the 150/2s
> > qualify for LSA status? *
>
> Nah, way too heavy. I thnk LSA max is 1320 lbs.
> I like the look of the older razorback 150s, but the rear window ones
> are a little, uh, dumpy looking.
> They do the job, though.
>
> I would sonner buy them over the new one and
>
> > just use the balance to fully pimp it out(zero time engine, new prop,
> > new interior and paintjob, new toys for the panel...etc.), but that's
> > just me.
>
> About the only previsouly certified airplanes that qualify are things
> like Chiefs, Luscombe 8A (the 8E is too heavy) and stuff like that. The
> 150 grosses around 1500, maybe a bit more.
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You got a plane Bertie? Love to see pics if you do. My email is
good.

Wil

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Jan 5, 3:59*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "William Hung" > wrote
>
> Not that what I think matters, but I think that the 150/2s are great
> looking, even better looking than the 172s. *Doesn't the 150/2s
> qualify for LSA status? *I would sonner buy them over the new one and
> just use the balance to fully pimp it out(zero time engine, new prop,
> new interior and paintjob, new toys for the panel...etc.), but that's
> just me.
>
> Nope. *Too heavy.
>
> That was one of my major complaints about the new (was new) LSA rule. *IMO,
> the rule should have had a high enough weight limit that the 152 was light
> enough to qualify.
> --
> Jim in NC

Shame that. I really like the C150/2s. I'll still try to save up for
one anyways.

Wil

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Jan 5, 4:08*pm, William Hung > wrote:
> On Jan 5, 3:59*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "William Hung" > wrote
>
> > Not that what I think matters, but I think that the 150/2s are great
> > looking, even better looking than the 172s. *Doesn't the 150/2s
> > qualify for LSA status? *I would sonner buy them over the new one and
> > just use the balance to fully pimp it out(zero time engine, new prop,
> > new interior and paintjob, new toys for the panel...etc.), but that's
> > just me.
>
> > Nope. *Too heavy.
>
> > That was one of my major complaints about the new (was new) LSA rule. *IMO,
> > the rule should have had a high enough weight limit that the 152 was light
> > enough to qualify.
> > --
> > Jim in NC
>
> Shame that. *I really like the C150/2s. *I'll still try to save up for
> one anyways.
>
> Wil- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Oh yeah, if I can get a hanger space or a tiedown nearby.

Wil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

William Hung > wrote in news:a93bdf26-8724-4930-9edc-
:

> On Jan 5, 4:03*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> William Hung > wrote in news:aee7c0b2-0f20-46cb-
aa53-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 4, 10:58*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> William Hung > wrote in news:f410af67-3d69-42ec-
>> b5ff-
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > On Jan 4, 10:29*am, Gig601XLBuilder >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/124.html
>>
>> >> > I brownsed the gallery. *That's got to be the ugilest Cessna
ever.
>>
>> >> I have to say, none of those new LSAs look very good at all.
HAving
>> said
>> >> that, I haven't flown one, so I really ought to see what one will
do
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Not that what I think matters, but I think that the 150/2s are
great
>> > looking, even better looking than the 172s. *Doesn't the 150/2s
>> > qualify for LSA status? *
>>
>> Nah, way too heavy. I thnk LSA max is 1320 lbs.
>> I like the look of the older razorback 150s, but the rear window ones
>> are a little, uh, dumpy looking.
>> They do the job, though.
>>
>> I would sonner buy them over the new one and
>>
>> > just use the balance to fully pimp it out(zero time engine, new
prop,
>> > new interior and paintjob, new toys for the panel...etc.), but
that's
>> > just me.
>>
>> About the only previsouly certified airplanes that qualify are things
>> like Chiefs, Luscombe 8A (the 8E is too heavy) and stuff like that.
The
>> 150 grosses around 1500, maybe a bit more.
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You got a plane Bertie? Love to see pics if you do. My email is
> good.
>

Yeah, but I don't post pics of it ordinarily.
I sold one iu had for years a while back, but just bought a Citabria (
also not qualified for LSA)
I had a Luscombe, but I don;t think I'd have bothered with LSA
certification even if I had kept it. Not aq lot of advantage for me. I
did most of the maintenance myself anyway so it would have saved me
nothing. >

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Jan 5, 4:15*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> William Hung > wrote in news:a93bdf26-8724-4930-9edc-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 5, 4:03*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> William Hung > wrote in news:aee7c0b2-0f20-46cb-
> aa53-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Jan 4, 10:58*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> William Hung > wrote in news:f410af67-3d69-42ec-
> >> b5ff-
> >> >> :
>
> >> >> > On Jan 4, 10:29*am, Gig601XLBuilder >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >>http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/124.html
>
> >> >> > I brownsed the gallery. *That's got to be the ugilest Cessna
> ever.
>
> >> >> I have to say, none of those new LSAs look very good at all.
> HAving
> >> said
> >> >> that, I haven't flown one, so I really ought to see what one will
> do
>
> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> > Not that what I think matters, but I think that the 150/2s are
> great
> >> > looking, even better looking than the 172s. *Doesn't the 150/2s
> >> > qualify for LSA status? *
>
> >> Nah, way too heavy. I thnk LSA max is 1320 lbs.
> >> I like the look of the older razorback 150s, but the rear window ones
> >> are a little, uh, dumpy looking.
> >> They do the job, though.
>
> >> I would sonner buy them over the new one and
>
> >> > just use the balance to fully pimp it out(zero time engine, new
> prop,
> >> > new interior and paintjob, new toys for the panel...etc.), but
> that's
> >> > just me.
>
> >> About the only previsouly certified airplanes that qualify are things
> >> like Chiefs, Luscombe 8A (the 8E is too heavy) and stuff like that.
> The
> >> 150 grosses around 1500, maybe a bit more.
>
> >> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > You got a plane Bertie? *Love to see pics if you do. *My email is
> > good.
>
> Yeah, but I don't post pics of it ordinarily.
> I sold one iu had for years a while back, but just bought a Citabria (
> also not qualified for LSA)
> I had a Luscombe, but I don;t think I'd have bothered with LSA
> certification even if I had kept it. Not aq lot of advantage for me. I
> did most of the maintenance myself anyway so it would have saved me
> nothing. >- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No problem about posting the pic. I can understand why. Anyways, the
Citabria sounds awesome. Would love to get some time in one. One of
these days. Haven't tried aerobatics yet still kind of green.

Wil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

William Hung > wrote in news:08908750-98ee-42ff-849f-
:

> On Jan 5, 4:15*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> William Hung > wrote in news:a93bdf26-8724-4930-9edc-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>
> No problem about posting the pic. I can understand why. Anyways, the
> Citabria sounds awesome. Would love to get some time in one. One of
> these days. Haven't tried aerobatics yet still kind of green.

they're lots of fun. I haven't done them for a while except for some very
minor manuevers, so I'm looking forward to doing it again. The citabria is
a real easy airplane to fly.
150s are good airplanes. Just spend a few bucks getting it checked out
before you buy. They;re all real old. You could buy what looks like a good
one for 15 grand and spend that much again on it just getting it up to
scratch.

Bertie

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-01-05, William Hung > wrote:
> Doesn't the 150/2s qualify for LSA status?

No. Certificated max gross weight is too high (>1320 pounds). If it did
qualify, I'd go buy one, instead of looking at new LSAs.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Viperdoc]

Yes, I meant the majority of the electoral vote, but not 51% of the popular
vote, which of course happened in the last election.

[Mxsmanic]

Airbus writes:

> What "route" would that be?

Inhaling lead-containing fuel additives, such as tetraethyl lead.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Airbus writes:
>
>> What "route" would that be?
>
> Inhaling lead-containing fuel additives, such as tetraethyl lead.


Using leaded fuel in your rice cooker?

I's al starting to make sense now.

Bertie

[James Sleeman]

On Jan 6, 2:47*am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "James Sleeman" > wrote
>
> Gitmo is a disgrace to the US. *To try and justify it by any means is
> ludicrous.
>
> So during a war, you advocate returning prisoners of war?


The US Government has consistently proclaimed that these are not
Prisoners of War. If they would do so, it wouldn't be half the
problem it is for the US now, except of course, they wouldn't be able
to torture the prisoners any more.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"James Sleeman" > wrote

>The US Government has consistently proclaimed that these are not
>Prisoners of War.

Right. They are fighting in a war that is being fought by an arm without
the support a government. They are our enemies, all the same, and they
were fighting, thus they are called enemy combatants.

>If they would do so, it wouldn't be half the problem it is for the US now,
>except of course, they wouldn't >be able to torture the prisoners any more.

Not true. Since they are not in an army supported by a country that signed
the Geneva Convention, they have no protection.

The way the cowards continue to blow up our soldiers and civilian support
people with suicide bombs, they deserve no protection, either. The fact
that they are still kept alive is more than they deserve.
--
Jim in NC

[Andreus]

While I have no desire to get in between you and the flight sim guy, here is
why lead was removed from auto fuel.

https://courses.washington.edu/uconj540/Readings/needleman_2000.pdf

I remains in aviation fuel because of the requirements of safety, especially
in turbocharged piston aviation engines, and the slow rate of the approval
process for replacement fuels. The corn growers association says they have
the answer, and I'm sure they wouldn't try to gloss over any shortcomiongs
just to make money.

http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/pdfs/2006/AVGAS%207.28.06.pdf

We do come into contact with fuel so it is possible to meet up with a little
TEL, I'll worry when the high time pilots start showing symptoms.

"Airbus" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>>
>>Airbus writes:
>>
>>> What "route" would that be?
>>
>>Inhaling lead-containing fuel additives, such as tetraethyl lead.
>
> When and how do we inhale significant amounts of these?
> Why are these additives in the fuel in the first place?
>
>
> I would like you to explain to us what was the impetus for removing lead
> from automotive fuels, and why it has remained in aviation fuel. Please
> be specific - inquiring minds are starved for your precious information,
> assuming this is one of the many subjects you have "already studied". . .
>

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> The way the cowards continue to blow up our soldiers and civilian support
> people with suicide bombs, they deserve no protection, either. The fact
> that they are still kept alive is more than they deserve.

Conveniently forgetting how many prisoners have been found innocent and
eligible for release but are still being held there, of course...

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>M writes:
>
>> It's funny people complains about lead paint here where defending the
>> use of leaded fuel.
>
>I don't know if funny is the word I'd use. Until the advent of unleaded
>fuels, the greatest environmental exposure to lead in developed nations was
>the lead in fuel. In vivo lead levels have declined considerably since
>unleaded fuels became widespread, but aviation fuels for piston engines still
>contain lead, so it's entirely plausible that aviators are still being exposed
>to lead regularly via this route.


What "route" would that be?

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Airbus writes:
>
>> What "route" would that be?
>
>Inhaling lead-containing fuel additives, such as tetraethyl lead.

When and how do we inhale significant amounts of these?
Why are these additives in the fuel in the first place?


I would like you to explain to us what was the impetus for removing lead
from automotive fuels, and why it has remained in aviation fuel. Please
be specific - inquiring minds are starved for your precious information,
assuming this is one of the many subjects you have "already studied". . .

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Morgans schrieb:
> "James Sleeman" > wrote
>
>> The US Government has consistently proclaimed that these are not
>> Prisoners of War.
>
> Right. They are fighting in a war that is being fought by an arm without
> the support a government. They are our enemies, all the same, and they
> were fighting, thus they are called enemy combatants.

In which cave have you lived that you have missed all the reports about
innocent people there (and all other disgusting stuff)?

>> If they would do so, it wouldn't be half the problem it is for the US now,
>> except of course, they wouldn't >be able to torture the prisoners any more.
>
> Not true. Since they are not in an army supported by a country that signed
> the Geneva Convention, they have no protection.

come on! don't come with international treaties! not you as an American.
The USA must accept authority of the international court first - then,
only then you *might* have a say.

> The way the cowards continue to blow up our soldiers and civilian support

What would you do if some foreign troops (without declaring war or
anything else international recognised) comes to your place and demand
that they have every say and that you are nothing but a ****ing
nonbeliever (and worser things)? Can you seriously come up with some
arguments what YOU would do?

> people with suicide bombs, they deserve no protection, either. The fact
> that they are still kept alive is more than they deserve.

No wonder they love you so much.

#m

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> The way the cowards continue to blow up our soldiers and civilian support
> people with suicide bombs, they deserve no protection, either. The fact
> that they are still kept alive is more than they deserve.

How do you know that they are guilty of anything? They haven't even been
charged.

[Mxsmanic]

Airbus writes:

> When and how do we inhale significant amounts of these?

They are exhausted into the air by engines that use leaded fuel. We then
inhale the air and the lead it contains.

> Why are these additives in the fuel in the first place?

To prevent detonation (knocking).

> I would like you to explain to us what was the impetus for removing lead
> from automotive fuels, and why it has remained in aviation fuel.

Lead was removed from automotive fuels because it is toxic. I presume that it
remains in aviation fuels because the difficulty of eliminating it entirely
and ensuring that the resulting fuels and engines would remain safe is thought
to be greater than the risk from lead in the fuel.

[Mxsmanic]

Andreus writes:

> We do come into contact with fuel so it is possible to meet up with a little
> TEL, I'll worry when the high time pilots start showing symptoms.

In the case of heavy-metal poisoning, when symptoms appear it may be too late.
This is most true with very young victims, as the poisoning may cause
permanent neurological damage including mental retardation, blindness, etc.

Among adults, clinical manifestations of lead poisoning due to lead in fuel
have not been observed in the general population, as far as I know, but higher
lead levels in vivo for this population have been documented. The effects of
these higher but still low levels is indeterminate. What is known is that
young people are much more sensitive to this type of poisoning, and even if
adults are not significantly affected by it, children might be.

Thus, getting rid of the lead is a good idea. It will come to aviation in
time as well.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Morgans writes:
>
>> The way the cowards continue to blow up our soldiers and civilian
>> support people with suicide bombs, they deserve no protection,
>> either. The fact that they are still kept alive is more than they
>> deserve.
>
> How do you know that they are guilty of anything? They haven't even
> been charged.
>

Waht do you care?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Airbus writes:
>
>> When and how do we inhale significant amounts of these?
>
> They are exhausted into the air by engines that use leaded fuel. We
> then inhale the air and the lead it contains.


Nope.

>
>> Why are these additives in the fuel in the first place?
>
> To prevent detonation (knocking).
>
>> I would like you to explain to us what was the impetus for removing
>> lead from automotive fuels, and why it has remained in aviation fuel.
>
> Lead was removed from automotive fuels because it is toxic.


Nope


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Andreus writes:
>
>> We do come into contact with fuel so it is possible to meet up with a
>> little TEL, I'll worry when the high time pilots start showing
>> symptoms.
>
> In the case of heavy-metal poisoning, when symptoms appear it may be
> too late. This is most true with very young victims, as the poisoning
> may cause permanent neurological damage including mental retardation,
> blindness, etc.
>
> Among adults, clinical manifestations of lead poisoning due to lead in
> fuel have not been observed in the general population, as far as I
> know, but higher lead levels in vivo for this population have been
> documented. The effects of these higher but still low levels is
> indeterminate. What is known is that young people are much more
> sensitive to this type of poisoning, and even if adults are not
> significantly affected by it, children might be.
>
> Thus, getting rid of the lead is a good idea. It will come to
> aviation in time as well.
>

You have no idea of whence you speak

As usual.



Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote
>
> No wonder they love you so much.

You, with your stand on various things over the years have NO right to
lecture me, on ANYTHING.

RE-plonked.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote
>
> In which cave have you lived that you have missed all the reports about
> innocent people there (and all other disgusting stuff)?

Jails are alwayas full of innocent people. What rock did you just crawl out
from under?


> What would you do if some foreign troops (without declaring war or
> anything else international recognised) comes to your place and demand
> that they have every say and that you are nothing but a ****ing
> nonbeliever (and worser things)? Can you seriously come up with some
> arguments what YOU would do?
Most of the people in Iraq want us there. Have you not been following the
news of towns turning against the insurgents? Yep, sounds like they really
hate us.

It is not too much of a stretch to say that a majority of the insurgents are
from other countries than Iraq.
Have you missed that, too?

If you believe all that you read from the liberal press, you need to open
your ears to the other news. You know, all the good stuff that happens,
that does not make the mainstream news.

You don't need to reply. I won't be reading your vile.
--
Jim in NC

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Martin Hotze" > wrote
>> No wonder they love you so much.
>
> You, with your stand on various things over the years have NO right to
> lecture me, on ANYTHING.
>
> RE-plonked.

In other words, you can't answer his arguments.

[Andreus]

No problem, here is a link that explains how and why TEL was originally
added.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000320/kitman/5

It's also somewhat one sided. but does explain the benefits. I agree that
lead was removed because it was incompatible with the catalytic converter,
not because the lead levels were found to be harmful. Although there seems
to some revisionist history going on, I can't say definitively that the
levels of lead at the time were proving harmful. I work in a industry where
I was exposed to solder fumes for hours every day, and likely picked up a
lot of lead from my hands working in that area, I have been checked for lead
and the levels were elevated but not considered harmful. That exposure has
to be many times what one would collect from Avgas. I don't believe that the
lead from avgas poses anywhere near the health risk that the replacement
compounds do. On the other hand I also believe that except for the pesky
problem of poor economics and heat for weight issues alchohol is a much
better fuel.

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

>
> Thanks for pointing to this interesting article.
> Though strongly one-sided, the article is well prepared, and a good basis
> for
> discussion - exactly the opposite of any response the flight-sim guy would
> have
> given.

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Morgans schrieb:
> "Martin Hotze" > wrote
>> No wonder they love you so much.
>
> You, with your stand on various things over the years have NO right to
> lecture me, on ANYTHING.

u-uhh, arguments. *HAHA*

> RE-plonked.

*wow* maybe you should go to Iraq and plonk all the people there that
don't love you, too. Else you might bring them to Gitmo, and on the way
make a stopover in Syria for some torture.

ROTFL, #m

[Andreus]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...


> *wow* maybe you should go to Iraq and plonk all the people there that
> don't love you, too. Else you might bring them to Gitmo, and on the way
> make a stopover in Syria for some torture.
>

You're getting Bush's wars confused. The "guests" in Spa Gitmo are from
Afghanistan for the most part, I understand some are Arabs. The
waterboarding team from Iraq are being hosted at Abu Greab where sports like
naked piling, box standing, corpse posing and poo painting were being
developed by Lynndie England without the knowledge of her boss Sgt Schultz.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Andreus writes:

> > We do come into contact with fuel so it is possible to meet up with a little
> > TEL, I'll worry when the high time pilots start showing symptoms.

> In the case of heavy-metal poisoning, when symptoms appear it may be too late.
> This is most true with very young victims, as the poisoning may cause
> permanent neurological damage including mental retardation, blindness, etc.

> Among adults, clinical manifestations of lead poisoning due to lead in fuel
> have not been observed in the general population, as far as I know, but higher
> lead levels in vivo for this population have been documented. The effects of
> these higher but still low levels is indeterminate. What is known is that
> young people are much more sensitive to this type of poisoning, and even if
> adults are not significantly affected by it, children might be.

> Thus, getting rid of the lead is a good idea. It will come to aviation in
> time as well.

The two major, and just about only, sources of lead exposure for normal
people was white lead paint, long ago banned in the US, being injested
by infants and Mexican folk medicine.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Airbus writes:

> > When and how do we inhale significant amounts of these?

> They are exhausted into the air by engines that use leaded fuel. We then
> inhale the air and the lead it contains.

Along with a huge number of other toxic substances, all of which are at
too low a level to cause harm.

> > Why are these additives in the fuel in the first place?

> To prevent detonation (knocking).

You get half credit on that one; knocking wasn't the only reason.

> > I would like you to explain to us what was the impetus for removing lead
> > from automotive fuels, and why it has remained in aviation fuel.

> Lead was removed from automotive fuels because it is toxic. I presume that it
> remains in aviation fuels because the difficulty of eliminating it entirely
> and ensuring that the resulting fuels and engines would remain safe is thought
> to be greater than the risk from lead in the fuel.

Totally wrong.

Lead was phased out because it ruined catalytic converters and replaced
with something even more toxic.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Phil J]

On Jan 5, 3:15*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> William Hung > wrote in news:a93bdf26-8724-4930-9edc-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 5, 4:03*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> William Hung > wrote in news:aee7c0b2-0f20-46cb-
> aa53-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Jan 4, 10:58*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> William Hung > wrote in news:f410af67-3d69-42ec-
> >> b5ff-
> >> >> :
>
> >> >> > On Jan 4, 10:29*am, Gig601XLBuilder >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >>http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/124.html
>
> >> >> > I brownsed the gallery. *That's got to be the ugilest Cessna
> ever.
>
> >> >> I have to say, none of those new LSAs look very good at all.
> HAving
> >> said
> >> >> that, I haven't flown one, so I really ought to see what one will
> do
>
> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> > Not that what I think matters, but I think that the 150/2s are
> great
> >> > looking, even better looking than the 172s. *Doesn't the 150/2s
> >> > qualify for LSA status? *
>
> >> Nah, way too heavy. I thnk LSA max is 1320 lbs.
> >> I like the look of the older razorback 150s, but the rear window ones
> >> are a little, uh, dumpy looking.
> >> They do the job, though.
>
> >> I would sonner buy them over the new one and
>
> >> > just use the balance to fully pimp it out(zero time engine, new
> prop,
> >> > new interior and paintjob, new toys for the panel...etc.), but
> that's
> >> > just me.
>
> >> About the only previsouly certified airplanes that qualify are things
> >> like Chiefs, Luscombe 8A (the 8E is too heavy) and stuff like that.
> The
> >> 150 grosses around 1500, maybe a bit more.
>
> >> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > You got a plane Bertie? *Love to see pics if you do. *My email is
> > good.
>
> Yeah, but I don't post pics of it ordinarily.
> I sold one iu had for years a while back, but just bought a Citabria (
> also not qualified for LSA)
> I had a Luscombe, but I don;t think I'd have bothered with LSA
> certification even if I had kept it. Not aq lot of advantage for me. I
> did most of the maintenance myself anyway so it would have saved me
> nothing. >- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I took an aerobatic ride in a Citabria once years ago. It was a
blast. I'll never forget at the top of the loop looking through the
ceiling window at the ground. That is a fun airplane.

It really sucks that they set the LSA gross weight limit so low. One
of the goals of the LSA category was to encourage more people to learn
to fly, and make it less expensive.. By setting the weight limit so
low that there are hardly any older certified airplanes that qualify,
they seriously diminished the effect of the regulation. I wish they
had just limited the category to two-place, non-retractable, fixed-
pitch propeller aircraft. I don't see why they even needed to include
weight in the reg.

Phil

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-01-06, Phil J > wrote:
> It really sucks that they set the LSA gross weight limit so low. One
> of the goals of the LSA category was to encourage more people to learn
> to fly, and make it less expensive.. By setting the weight limit so
> low that there are hardly any older certified airplanes that qualify,
> they seriously diminished the effect of the regulation. I wish they
> had just limited the category to two-place, non-retractable, fixed-
> pitch propeller aircraft. I don't see why they even needed to include
> weight in the reg.

Well, they had to draw the line of "light" somewhere. Should a Stearman with
an STCd 600 HP engine qualify?

Yeah, it sucks that damned few certificated aircraft qualify. I'm going to
wind up spending six figures on a new airplane because of it.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Phil J > wrote in news:50ae7f36-3275-4224-a8fd-
:
>
> I took an aerobatic ride in a Citabria once years ago. It was a
> blast. I'll never forget at the top of the loop looking through the
> ceiling window at the ground. That is a fun airplane.
>
> It really sucks that they set the LSA gross weight limit so low. One
> of the goals of the LSA category was to encourage more people to learn
> to fly, and make it less expensive.. By setting the weight limit so
> low that there are hardly any older certified airplanes that qualify,
> they seriously diminished the effect of the regulation. I wish they
> had just limited the category to two-place, non-retractable, fixed-
> pitch propeller aircraft. I don't see why they even needed to include
> weight in the reg.

Don't know why they made the reg at all myself!

I didn't see much wrong with the old ones.

I think there are some ultralights that ae aerobatic. Duane Cole flew a
Cappela after he retired" and I think the Rans Shekira might be aerobatic.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Martin Hotze" > wrote
>>
>> In which cave have you lived that you have missed all the reports
>> about innocent people there (and all other disgusting stuff)?
>
> Jails are alwayas full of innocent people. What rock did you just
> crawl out from under?
>
>
>> What would you do if some foreign troops (without declaring war or
>> anything else international recognised) comes to your place and
>> demand that they have every say and that you are nothing but a
>> ****ing nonbeliever (and worser things)? Can you seriously come up
>> with some arguments what YOU would do?
> Most of the people in Iraq want us there. Have you not been
> following the
> news of towns turning against the insurgents? Yep, sounds like they
> really hate us.
>
> It is not too much of a stretch to say that a majority of the
> insurgents are from other countries than Iraq.


And they weren't there before the invasion...

> Have you missed that, too?
>
> If you believe all that you read from the liberal press, you need to
> open your ears to the other news. You know, all the good stuff that
> happens, that does not make the mainstream news.
>
> You don't need to reply. I won't be reading your vile.


Now there's an open mind.

Bertie

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>While I have no desire to get in between you and the flight sim guy, here is
>why lead was removed from auto fuel.
>
>https://courses.washington.edu/uconj540/Readings/needleman_2000.pdf
>


Thanks for pointing to this interesting article.
Though strongly one-sided, the article is well prepared, and a good basis for
discussion - exactly the opposite of any response the flight-sim guy would have
given.

The article does not explain (nor does it purport to explain) why TEL was added
to fuels, and why it remains in aviation fuel - which goes beyond its value as
an anti-knock agent.

More significantly, the article does not clearly elucidate the main impetus for
removal of TEL from fuels - not because of concerns over atmospheric lead, for
which many believe the author has wildly overstated the case - but because of
its incompatibility with the catalytic converters mandated by the Clean Air
Act, a far more significant step in the reduction of air pollution from
automobiles.

Indeed, the case was never clearly made for widespread, low-level toxicity from
what Needleman refers to as "silent" levels of airborne lead. He correctly
points out however, the difficulty in controlling lead exposure in industrial
settings where workers handle the substance (fuel refineries, battery
manufacturers etc). In these cases, airborne exposure is only a small part of
the story - some of the worst cases involving children whose parents worked in
these settings, and who brought lead home on their clothes, their personal
articles and themselves, leading to ingestion by the children, whose brains are
far more sensitive to it.

Similarly, for someone involved in aviation today, it would be difficult to
make a realistic case for any significant danger from inhalation of airborne
lead. The concentrations, length of exposure, number of aircraft (imagine the
Los Angeles freeways in pre-catalytic converter days!!) are just not there. A
more plausible scenario would be a careless Airframe and Powerplant mechanic,
in physical contact with fuel and engine parts all day, not exercising proper
hygiene techniques and bringing the lead home to be ingested by his children
through food etc. In this day and age, I would suspect that A&P mechanics are
fully sensitized to the issue, and aware of methods to reduce exposure, though
I would not be surprised to learn that some shops lack the washroom and
lead-lockout changing rooms required to fully control the risk of exporting the
substance.

[Phil J]

On Jan 6, 12:43*pm, Jay Maynard >
wrote:
> On 2008-01-06, Phil J > wrote:
>
> > It really sucks that they set the LSA gross weight limit so low. *One
> > of the goals of the LSA category was to encourage more people to learn
> > to fly, and make it less expensive.. *By setting the weight limit so
> > low that there are hardly any older certified airplanes that qualify,
> > they seriously diminished the effect of the regulation. *I wish they
> > had just limited the category to two-place, non-retractable, fixed-
> > pitch propeller aircraft. *I don't see why they even needed to include
> > weight in the reg.
>
> Well, they had to draw the line of "light" somewhere. Should a Stearman with
> an STCd 600 HP engine qualify?
>
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC * * * * * * * * *http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com* * *http://www.tronguy.nethttp://www..hercules-390.org* * * * * * * (Yes, that's me!)

My first gut reaction to this question was to think "Well, no, a plane
like that shouldn't be allowed'. But then I wondered, well why
exactly shouldn't that plane be allowed as an LSA? If it is flown
under the LSA flight restrictions, why not? What is the harm?

Phil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Phil J > wrote in
:

> On Jan 6, 12:43*pm, Jay Maynard >
> wrote:
>> On 2008-01-06, Phil J > wrote:
>>
>> > It really sucks that they set the LSA gross weight limit so low.
>> > *One of the goals of the LSA category was to encourage more people
>> > to learn to fly, and make it less expensive.. *By setting the
>> > weight limit so low that there are hardly any older certified
>> > airplanes that qualify, they seriously diminished the effect of the
>> > regulation. *I wish they had just limited the category to
>> > two-place, non-retractable, fixed- pitch propeller aircraft. *I
>> > don't see why they even needed to include
>
>> > weight in the reg.
>>
>> Well, they had to draw the line of "light" somewhere. Should a
>> Stearman wi
> th
>> an STCd 600 HP engine qualify?
>>
>> Jay Maynard, K5ZC * * * * * * * * *http://www.conmicro.c
> omhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com* *
> *http://www.tronguy.nethttp://www.hercules-390.org* * * * * * * (Yes,
> that's me!)
>
> My first gut reaction to this question was to think "Well, no, a plane
> like that shouldn't be allowed'. But then I wondered, well why
> exactly shouldn't that plane be allowed as an LSA? If it is flown
> under the LSA flight restrictions, why not? What is the harm?
>

Because more would crash if it was an LSA.



Bertie

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Martin Hotze" > wrote
>> In which cave have you lived that you have missed all the reports about
>> innocent people there (and all other disgusting stuff)?
>
> Jails are alwayas full of innocent people. What rock did you just crawl out
> from under?

As of last spring, the Pentagon was reporting that more than 20 percent
of the prisoners at Guantanamo had been cleared by military review
panels for release but they were still being held prisoner, some for
more than four years. But don't let the facts get in the way of your
jingoism.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in
et:

> Morgans wrote:
>> "Martin Hotze" > wrote
>>> In which cave have you lived that you have missed all the reports
>>> about innocent people there (and all other disgusting stuff)?
>>
>> Jails are alwayas full of innocent people. What rock did you just
>> crawl out from under?
>
> As of last spring, the Pentagon was reporting that more than 20
> percent of the prisoners at Guantanamo had been cleared by military
> review panels for release but they were still being held prisoner,
> some for more than four years. But don't let the facts get in the way
> of your jingoism.
>

PLONK!

Bertie

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Rich Ahrens > wrote in
> et:
>
>> Morgans wrote:
>>> "Martin Hotze" > wrote
>>>> In which cave have you lived that you have missed all the reports
>>>> about innocent people there (and all other disgusting stuff)?
>>> Jails are alwayas full of innocent people. What rock did you just
>>> crawl out from under?
>> As of last spring, the Pentagon was reporting that more than 20
>> percent of the prisoners at Guantanamo had been cleared by military
>> review panels for release but they were still being held prisoner,
>> some for more than four years. But don't let the facts get in the way
>> of your jingoism.
>>
>
> PLONK!

I don't think that works by proxy.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:47816ba9$0$1110
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Rich Ahrens > wrote in
>> et:
>>
>>> Morgans wrote:
>>>> "Martin Hotze" > wrote
>>>>> In which cave have you lived that you have missed all the reports
>>>>> about innocent people there (and all other disgusting stuff)?
>>>> Jails are alwayas full of innocent people. What rock did you just
>>>> crawl out from under?
>>> As of last spring, the Pentagon was reporting that more than 20
>>> percent of the prisoners at Guantanamo had been cleared by military
>>> review panels for release but they were still being held prisoner,
>>> some for more than four years. But don't let the facts get in the
way
>>> of your jingoism.
>>>
>>
>> PLONK!
>
> I don't think that works by proxy.
>

It doesn;t work for some people at all!


THE CONCISE USENET LAMER GLOSSARY

Troll: Anyone who disagrees with me

PLONK!: You're a poopie head who disagrees with me so I'm going to
pretend to ignore you

Any one of a million gay lames: "I'm so far back in the closet I'm in
****ing Narnia"

I'm going to report you to Google groups: I'm going to **** and whine
like the impotent idiot I am until I turn blue in the face or am finally
laughed out of the froup.

Feel free to add your own.




Bertie

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Yeah, it sucks that damned few certificated aircraft qualify. I'm going to
> wind up spending six figures on a new airplane because of it.

There are several "Legacy LSA's" available for far less. They include:

- Aeronca 7AC $20 - $25K
- Piper J3 Cub $25 - $55K
- Taylorcraft BC12D $17 - $27K
- Ercoupe 415C $20K - $28K

(Source: Aviation Consumer magazine, January 2008.)

There is no need to spend a lot of money to fly LSAs.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The two major, and just about only, sources of lead exposure for normal
> people was white lead paint, long ago banned in the US, being injested
> by infants and Mexican folk medicine.

The most significant source for the average person prior to the elimination of
leaded gasoline was leaded gasoline. Body burdens of lead have significantly
declined since it was eliminated.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-01-07, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> Yeah, it sucks that damned few certificated aircraft qualify. I'm going to
>> wind up spending six figures on a new airplane because of it.
> There are several "Legacy LSA's" available for far less. They include:
> - Aeronca 7AC $20 - $25K
> - Piper J3 Cub $25 - $55K
> - Taylorcraft BC12D $17 - $27K
> - Ercoupe 415C $20K - $28K

Unfortunately, all of these have serious issues with longevity, and those
that don't are both desirable and scarce. I'm also looking for an aircraft
that I can fly IFR if the medical issues get resolved, and none of those
qualify.

> There is no need to spend a lot of money to fly LSAs.

Perhaps not, but I'm not just looking to fly *something*. I'm looking to fly
something I can keep for a long time.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Maynard > wrote in
:

> On 2008-01-07, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>> Yeah, it sucks that damned few certificated aircraft qualify. I'm
>>> going to wind up spending six figures on a new airplane because of
>>> it.
>> There are several "Legacy LSA's" available for far less. They
>> include: - Aeronca 7AC $20 - $25K
>> - Piper J3 Cub $25 - $55K
>> - Taylorcraft BC12D $17 - $27K
>> - Ercoupe 415C $20K - $28K
>
> Unfortunately, all of these have serious issues with longevity,

Uh, no they dont.



Bertie

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-01-07, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Jay Maynard > wrote in
> :
>> On 2008-01-07, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>>> Yeah, it sucks that damned few certificated aircraft qualify. I'm
>>>> going to wind up spending six figures on a new airplane because of
>>>> it.
>>> There are several "Legacy LSA's" available for far less. They
>>> include: - Aeronca 7AC $20 - $25K
>>> - Piper J3 Cub $25 - $55K
>>> - Taylorcraft BC12D $17 - $27K
>>> - Ercoupe 415C $20K - $28K
>> Unfortunately, all of these have serious issues with longevity,
> Uh, no they dont.

Let's look:

Ercoupe: Extruded aluminum spars. They were fine in the 1940s, but 50 years
on, they've got corrosion problems. A friend helped someone fix an Ercoupe
with a busted wing, and they looked at and rejected 18 wings before finding
a usable one.

Aeronca: Lots of these get treated like Citabrias, but aren't. Loose nails
and ribs held in place entirely by the fabric are all too common.

J3: Corrosion and wing wood rotting are quite common, too.

I don't know about the Taylorcraft, but being built in the same era and with
the same techniques, are likely to have the same problems.

Sure, if you look carefully, you can find good aircraft. A prepurchase
inspection is something always to be done before buying. OTOH, how many
aircraft will I have to look at before finding a good one?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Unfortunately, all of these have serious issues with longevity, and those
> that don't are both desirable and scarce. I'm also looking for an aircraft
> that I can fly IFR if the medical issues get resolved, and none of those
> qualify.

Ah, gotcha.

That last prerequisite is gonna make your LSA much more pricey than most.

Have you flown a CT? That little plane was just a gas to fly -- quick,
nimble, and modern.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Maynard > wrote in
:

> On 2008-01-07, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Jay Maynard > wrote in
>> :
>>> On 2008-01-07, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>>>> Yeah, it sucks that damned few certificated aircraft qualify. I'm
>>>>> going to wind up spending six figures on a new airplane because of
>>>>> it.
>>>> There are several "Legacy LSA's" available for far less. They
>>>> include: - Aeronca 7AC $20 - $25K
>>>> - Piper J3 Cub $25 - $55K
>>>> - Taylorcraft BC12D $17 - $27K
>>>> - Ercoupe 415C $20K - $28K
>>> Unfortunately, all of these have serious issues with longevity,
>> Uh, no they dont.
>
> Let's look:
>
> Ercoupe: Extruded aluminum spars. They were fine in the 1940s, but 50
> years on, they've got corrosion problems. A friend helped someone fix
> an Ercoupe with a busted wing, and they looked at and rejected 18
> wings before finding a usable one.

They deserve to die anyway.

>
> Aeronca: Lots of these get treated like Citabrias, but aren't. Loose
> nails and ribs held in place entirely by the fabric are all too
> common.


So? Fix them.
>
> J3: Corrosion and wing wood rotting are quite common, too.

Again, so what? anyone can learn to repair them. Tubing can be patched,
replaced or a whole new fuselage built.
Spars are easily replaced at recover and most cubs have had their spars
replaced nyway.
most cubs flying today have no wood in their wings anyway.

>
> I don't know about the Taylorcraft, but being built in the same era
> and with the same techniques, are likely to have the same problems.
>
> Sure, if you look carefully, you can find good aircraft. A prepurchase
> inspection is something always to be done before buying. OTOH, how
> many aircraft will I have to look at before finding a good one?

One if it;s the first one.


I've owned a lot of these airplanes and just bought another.

And BTW, Citabria wings are, for all intents and purposes, the same as
Aeronca wings.


The Luscombe has corrosion issues as well. All parts are available to
repair them. I know. I have.


All of these airplanes will outlive any plastic airplane being built
today as long as they are loved.

Therfore, their longevity is assured. Hell, just about anyone could
build one from scratch and plenty of people do. there just isn't
anything on them that can;'t be fixed,

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:aKfgj.24499$Ux2.1981@attbi_s22:

>> Unfortunately, all of these have serious issues with longevity, and
>> those that don't are both desirable and scarce. I'm also looking for
>> an aircraft that I can fly IFR if the medical issues get resolved,
>> and none of those qualify.
>
> Ah, gotcha.
>

No, you don't


Bertie

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Jan 5, 5:42*pm, Jay Maynard > wrote:
> On 2008-01-05, William Hung > wrote:
>
> > Doesn't the 150/2s qualify for LSA status?
>
> No. Certificated max gross weight is too high (>1320 pounds). If it did
> qualify, I'd go buy one, instead of looking at new LSAs.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC * * * * * * * * *http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com* * *http://www.tronguy.nethttp://www..hercules-390.org* * * * * * * (Yes, that's me!)
> Buy Hercules stuff athttp://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

So I've been told. I still might get one.

Wil

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>> The way the cowards continue to blow up our soldiers and civilian support
>> people with suicide bombs, they deserve no protection, either. The fact
>> that they are still kept alive is more than they deserve.
>
> How do you know that they are guilty of anything? They haven't even been
> charged.

POWs are rarely charged with crimes. They are merely held until the war is
over.

In this case, that could be a life sentence.

But don't worry. In another year we'll have a whole new set of attorneys
arguing the case.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:1Yfgj.24515$Ux2.16795@attbi_s22:

>>> The way the cowards continue to blow up our soldiers and civilian
>>> support people with suicide bombs, they deserve no protection,
>>> either. The fact that they are still kept alive is more than they
>>> deserve.
>>
>> How do you know that they are guilty of anything? They haven't even
>> been charged.
>
> POWs are rarely charged with crimes. They are merely held until the
> war is over.

>
> In this case, that could be a life sentence.
>
> But don't worry. In another year we'll have a whole new set of
> attorneys arguing the case.

Yep, and you'll stil be in Iraq.



Bertie

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-01-07, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> Unfortunately, all of these have serious issues with longevity, and those
>> that don't are both desirable and scarce. I'm also looking for an aircraft
>> that I can fly IFR if the medical issues get resolved, and none of those
>> qualify.
> That last prerequisite is gonna make your LSA much more pricey than most.

Yup. OTOH, it'll also hold its value better, too.

> Have you flown a CT? That little plane was just a gas to fly -- quick,
> nimble, and modern.

Looks nice, but would it be legal for IFR?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Phil J]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Phil J > wrote in
> :
>
> > On Jan 6, 12:43�pm, Jay Maynard >
> > wrote:
> >> On 2008-01-06, Phil J > wrote:
> >>
> >> > It really sucks that they set the LSA gross weight limit so low.
> >> > �One of the goals of the LSA category was to encourage more people
> >> > to learn to fly, and make it less expensive.. �By setting the
> >> > weight limit so low that there are hardly any older certified
> >> > airplanes that qualify, they seriously diminished the effect of the
> >> > regulation. �I wish they had just limited the category to
> >> > two-place, non-retractable, fixed- pitch propeller aircraft. �I
> >> > don't see why they even needed to include
> >
> >> > weight in the reg.
> >>
> >> Well, they had to draw the line of "light" somewhere. Should a
> >> Stearman wi
> > th
> >> an STCd 600 HP engine qualify?
> >>
> >> Jay Maynard, K5ZC � � � � � � � � �http://www.conmicro.c
> > omhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com� �
> > �http://www.tronguy.nethttp://www.hercules-390.org� � � � � � � (Yes,
> > that's me!)
> >
> > My first gut reaction to this question was to think "Well, no, a plane
> > like that shouldn't be allowed'. But then I wondered, well why
> > exactly shouldn't that plane be allowed as an LSA? If it is flown
> > under the LSA flight restrictions, why not? What is the harm?
> >
>
> Because more would crash if it was an LSA.
>
>
>
> Bertie

I suppose this airplane would require a high-performance endorsement
even for a PPL. OK, I can see the restriction on engine horsepower.
But I've never understood why they added such a restrictive weight
limit, which eliminated airplanes like the Cessna 150/152. That just
seems like it should be an LSA-allowed airplane. I think the goal of
getting more people into aviation would be better served if they
broadened the scope a little to allow those thousands of slightly
heavier certified airplanes as LSAs. As it is, there aren't very many
places you can take lessons for a Sport Pilot license right now, and
LSA rentals are equally scarce. But if the field were opened up to
planes like the 150/152, there would be a lot more possibilities, and
probably more people signing up for lessons. And that was supposed to
be the whole point of the LSA category.

Phil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Phil J > wrote in news:85ec11e3-604f-4aff-b623-
:

>
>
>
> I suppose this airplane would require a high-performance endorsement
> even for a PPL. OK, I can see the restriction on engine horsepower.
> But I've never understood why they added such a restrictive weight
> limit, which eliminated airplanes like the Cessna 150/152. That just
> seems like it should be an LSA-allowed airplane.


Mm, yeah, i agree. Thee's more skill involved in flying a Luscombe or Chief
than a 150, that's certain.

I think the goal of
> getting more people into aviation would be better served if they
> broadened the scope a little to allow those thousands of slightly
> heavier certified airplanes as LSAs. As it is, there aren't very many
> places you can take lessons for a Sport Pilot license right now, and
> LSA rentals are equally scarce. But if the field were opened up to
> planes like the 150/152, there would be a lot more possibilities, and
> probably more people signing up for lessons. And that was supposed to
> be the whole point of the LSA category.

Yeah. I suppose. I'm not sure how they came up with the limit, but in my
heart of hearts, I'm not real entusiastic about a system that lowers
standards in the first place. Having said that, I hope it works..


Bertie

[[email protected]]

Phil J > wrote:

> I suppose this airplane would require a high-performance endorsement
> even for a PPL. OK, I can see the restriction on engine horsepower.
> But I've never understood why they added such a restrictive weight
> limit, which eliminated airplanes like the Cessna 150/152. That just
> seems like it should be an LSA-allowed airplane. I think the goal of
> getting more people into aviation would be better served if they
> broadened the scope a little to allow those thousands of slightly
> heavier certified airplanes as LSAs. As it is, there aren't very many
> places you can take lessons for a Sport Pilot license right now, and
> LSA rentals are equally scarce. But if the field were opened up to
> planes like the 150/152, there would be a lot more possibilities, and
> probably more people signing up for lessons. And that was supposed to
> be the whole point of the LSA category.

One would think a realistic definition would be for a two place aircraft
capable of carrying two of today's average people (which sure as hell
isn't 170 to 190 lbs) with at least a couple of hours fuel, fixed gear,
fixed prop, and a reasonable HP limit like 160 HP.

I don't see why there would need to be a gross weight limit at all as
the other restrictions would pretty much take care of things.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > The two major, and just about only, sources of lead exposure for normal
> > people was white lead paint, long ago banned in the US, being injested
> > by infants and Mexican folk medicine.

> The most significant source for the average person prior to the elimination of
> leaded gasoline was leaded gasoline. Body burdens of lead have significantly
> declined since it was eliminated.

Nonsense.

As for being "significant", kids in the southwest routinely show signs
of execess lead, i.e. enough to cause physical problems. It always gets
traced back to Mexican folk medicine.

That is now spreading across the US as the illegals spread.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Gig601XLBuilder]

NW_Pilot wrote:
> "Gig601XLBuilder" > wrote in message
> ...
>> NW_Pilot wrote:
>>> You may want to look "research" again there are a handfull of private
>>> prisons that require an inmate to be an Organ Donor. Not legal in
>>> state/federal run facilities only prtivate in a select few states that
>>> allow it. Go google it....
>>
>> No you Google it and post the result. If you make the claim it's up to you
>> to back it up.
>
> Yea, its's under "presumed/Implied Consent" organ donation laws for
> Prisoners and Detainees! where you must opt-out!!!
>
>

Great. I wish they would do the same with everyone in and out of prison.

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Rich Ahrens wrote:
> Morgans wrote:
>> Sorry, but you are way off base on this one. Prisoners in the US are
>> there for good reason, and most all are multiple offenders, or else
>> major felony offenders.
>
> Or due to police or prosecutorial misconduct. Or in knee-jerk response
> to personal habits which other civilized nations find perfectly acceptable.
>

Those personal habits, and I'm well aware you are talking about drugs,
have been deemed illegal here as well as most other nations.

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Morgans writes:
>
>> Prisoners in the US are there
>> for good reason, and most all are multiple offenders, or else major felony
>> offenders.
>
> Eighty percent of U.S. prisoners are in prison on drug charges.

That 80% number while technically either true or close to true also
include a metric-butt load of people that the drug offense was secondary
to another offense non-drug related offense. Which pretty much proves
the point that that drugs cause crime in general.

[Gig601XLBuilder]

James Sleeman wrote:
> On Jan 5, 11:04 am, Gig601XLBuilder > wrote:
>> Gitmo isn't a US prison. It is a holding are for illegal enemy combatants.
>
> I would usually avoid participating in such off topic discussion.
> But, your statement is so stupid it's not even funny.
>
> Gitmo is for all intents and purposes a prison, inhabitants are not
> free to leave, they are being held prisoner.
>
> Gitmo is for all intents and purposes part of the US, even if it is an
> occupied territory in Cuba, the US isn't about to give it up, the US
> isn't about to let Cuba have anything to do with Guantanamo Bay again,
> ever, the US asserts all control over that piece of land and
> facilities on it, the US makes the rules in Guantanamo Bay, not any
> other nation. It's a US territory.
>
> Therefore, Gitmo most certainly IS a US Prison, it's a place holding
> prisoners in a territory of the US, a US Prison.
>
> As for the prisoners being "enemy combatants" I might well remind you
> that there has been no fair and open trial accorded the majority of
> the prisoners, and more so, a number of prisoners have been released,
> free to go, innocent of implied crime, sometimes after YEARS of being
> held prisoner at Gitmo.
>
> Gitmo is a disgrace to the US. To try and justify it by any means is
> ludicrous.
>


How else do you expect us to deal with non-uniformed combatants in a
combat zone? Under the Geneva Convention those people should be
considered spies and you can feel free to look up the options are for
dealing with spies.

[Gig601XLBuilder]

M wrote:
> On Jan 4, 9:38 am, pittss1c > wrote:
>> I wonder if they will use lead paint.
>
>
> It's funny people complains about lead paint here where defending the
> use of leaded fuel. Don't forget that tetraethyl lead hasn't been
> made in U.S. in years and China might be the only supplier of TEL in
> our fuel :-)
>
> http://buy.ecplaza.net/search/1s1nf20sell/tetraethyl_lead_tetra_ethyl_lead.html

But we don't generally coat our children's toys with 100LL.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Gig601XLBuilder > wrote in
:

> M wrote:
>> On Jan 4, 9:38 am, pittss1c > wrote:
>>> I wonder if they will use lead paint.
>>
>>
>> It's funny people complains about lead paint here where defending the
>> use of leaded fuel. Don't forget that tetraethyl lead hasn't been
>> made in U.S. in years and China might be the only supplier of TEL in
>> our fuel :-)
>>
>> http://buy.ecplaza.net/search/1s1nf20sell/tetraethyl_lead_tetra_ethyl_
>> lead.html
>
> But we don't generally coat our children's toys with 100LL.
>

Used to do.


Bertie

[Thomas Borchert]

Gig601XLBuilder,

> How else do you expect us to deal with non-uniformed combatants in a
> combat zone?
>

That's not what is done at Gitmo. Come on now, nobody can follow the
news and be that naive.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gig601XLBuilder]

William Hung wrote:
> On Jan 4, 10:58 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> William Hung > wrote in news:f410af67-3d69-42ec-b5ff-
>> :
>>
>>> On Jan 4, 10:29 am, Gig601XLBuilder > wrote:
>>>> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/124.html
>>> I brownsed the gallery. That's got to be the ugilest Cessna ever.
>> I have to say, none of those new LSAs look very good at all. HAving said
>> that, I haven't flown one, so I really ought to see what one will do
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Not that what I think matters, but I think that the 150/2s are great
> looking, even better looking than the 172s. Doesn't the 150/2s
> qualify for LSA status? I would sonner buy them over the new one and
> just use the balance to fully pimp it out(zero time engine, new prop,
> new interior and paintjob, new toys for the panel...etc.), but that's
> just me.
>
> Wil


No unfortunately it doesn't Max Gross Weight for LSA is 1320 lbs. I
think this was the single biggest error in the creation of the LSA rules.

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>
> Yeah, but I don't post pics of it ordinarily.
> I sold one iu had for years a while back, but just bought a Citabria (
> also not qualified for LSA)
> I had a Luscombe, but I don;t think I'd have bothered with LSA
> certification even if I had kept it. Not aq lot of advantage for me. I
> did most of the maintenance myself anyway so it would have saved me
> nothing. >
>

On the Luscombe you wouldn't have had to bother with any additional
certification issues and still wouldn't. Just don't fail a medical and
keep your BFR and drivers license up to date. Fly till you can't fly
anymore.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Gig601XLBuilder wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Morgans writes:
>>
>>> Prisoners in the US are there for good reason, and most all are
>>> multiple offenders, or else major felony offenders.
>>
>> Eighty percent of U.S. prisoners are in prison on drug charges.
>
> That 80% number while technically either true or close to true also
> include a metric-butt load of people that the drug offense was secondary
> to another offense non-drug related offense. Which pretty much proves
> the point that that drugs cause crime in general.

Hardly. Keep repeating this mantra: correlation does not prove causation.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Gig601XLBuilder,
>
>> How else do you expect us to deal with non-uniformed combatants in a
>> combat zone?
>>
>
> That's not what is done at Gitmo. Come on now, nobody can follow the
> news and be that naive.
>

You've not seen fox news then?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Gig601XLBuilder > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>
>> Yeah, but I don't post pics of it ordinarily.
>> I sold one iu had for years a while back, but just bought a Citabria
(
>> also not qualified for LSA)
>> I had a Luscombe, but I don;t think I'd have bothered with LSA
>> certification even if I had kept it. Not aq lot of advantage for me.
I
>> did most of the maintenance myself anyway so it would have saved me
>> nothing. >
>>
>
> On the Luscombe you wouldn't have had to bother with any additional
> certification issues and still wouldn't. Just don't fail a medical and
> keep your BFR and drivers license up to date. Fly till you can't fly
> anymore.
>


Well, I kinda need my medical anyway, so that isn't an issue either. I
see the benifits, but I'm a bit worried about the probable abuses.
I might be talking apples and oranges here,but a few years ago I was
visiting someone who had a two place ultralight. Sort of a Breezy type
thing. Parasol, open in front. Rotax 582 pusher. Can;'t remember the
type. Anyhow, we went out to see this thing and it was parked outside
for one thing. harldy flown at all. It had amphib floats and it had to
be waaaay overweight. It was corroded and had been tied down with a rope
halfway up the strut and the wind had bent the strut slightly. Needless
to say I wouldn't fly it ( actually I don;t fly lawn furniture anyway,
so probably wouldn't have even if it was perfect) Iasked them why they
had gotten involvd in this thing in the first place. Why hadn't they
bought a cub? Well, the reasons they gave me were "nah, you gotta get a
licence for that, you gotta have it inspected every year, all that happy
horse****, so we got this" Now, at the time, a Cub was cheaper to buy
anyway, so I siad, "right, you want me to go up in an airplane that has
had no maintenance and is in rag order in any case, and is flown by a
guy who couldn't be bothered to learn to fly properly. Right".
Still haven't been up in one of those things.
I fear that having seen this and also having seen all sorts of abuses(
some by me!) in "traditional" light aviation the potential for abuse in
LSA is large..
Having said that.there are some ultralights and LSAs I would love to
try.

Bertie

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Rich Ahrens wrote:
> Gig601XLBuilder wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> Morgans writes:
>>>
>>>> Prisoners in the US are there for good reason, and most all are
>>>> multiple offenders, or else major felony offenders.
>>>
>>> Eighty percent of U.S. prisoners are in prison on drug charges.
>>
>> That 80% number while technically either true or close to true also
>> include a metric-butt load of people that the drug offense was
>> secondary to another offense non-drug related offense. Which pretty
>> much proves the point that that drugs cause crime in general.
>
> Hardly. Keep repeating this mantra: correlation does not prove causation.

But it doesn't disprove it either.

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Gig601XLBuilder,
>
>> How else do you expect us to deal with non-uniformed combatants in a
>> combat zone?
>>
>
> That's not what is done at Gitmo. Come on now, nobody can follow the
> news and be that naive.
>

That is exactly who is at Gitmo. Unless you are one of those nit-wits
that think they are sending people there after grabbing people off the
streets for holding up and anti-Bush poster.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Gig601XLBuilder > wrote in
:

> Rich Ahrens wrote:
>> Gig601XLBuilder wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>> Morgans writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Prisoners in the US are there for good reason, and most all are
>>>>> multiple offenders, or else major felony offenders.
>>>>
>>>> Eighty percent of U.S. prisoners are in prison on drug charges.
>>>
>>> That 80% number while technically either true or close to true also
>>> include a metric-butt load of people that the drug offense was
>>> secondary to another offense non-drug related offense. Which pretty
>>> much proves the point that that drugs cause crime in general.
>>
>> Hardly. Keep repeating this mantra: correlation does not prove
>> causation.
>
> But it doesn't disprove it either.
>

You can't disprove that there isn't a giant walnut shell full of aliens who
all look like Barney Fife circling the earth with an eye towards conquest
either.
They couldn't do a worse job than Bush, BTW.

Bertie

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Gig601XLBuilder > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, but I don't post pics of it ordinarily.
>>> I sold one iu had for years a while back, but just bought a Citabria
> (
>>> also not qualified for LSA)
>>> I had a Luscombe, but I don;t think I'd have bothered with LSA
>>> certification even if I had kept it. Not aq lot of advantage for me.
> I
>>> did most of the maintenance myself anyway so it would have saved me
>>> nothing. >
>>>
>> On the Luscombe you wouldn't have had to bother with any additional
>> certification issues and still wouldn't. Just don't fail a medical and
>> keep your BFR and drivers license up to date. Fly till you can't fly
>> anymore.
>>
>
>
> Well, I kinda need my medical anyway, so that isn't an issue either. I
> see the benifits, but I'm a bit worried about the probable abuses.
> I might be talking apples and oranges here,but a few years ago I was
> visiting someone who had a two place ultralight. Sort of a Breezy type
> thing. Parasol, open in front. Rotax 582 pusher. Can;'t remember the
> type. Anyhow, we went out to see this thing and it was parked outside
> for one thing. harldy flown at all. It had amphib floats and it had to
> be waaaay overweight. It was corroded and had been tied down with a rope
> halfway up the strut and the wind had bent the strut slightly. Needless
> to say I wouldn't fly it ( actually I don;t fly lawn furniture anyway,
> so probably wouldn't have even if it was perfect) Iasked them why they
> had gotten involvd in this thing in the first place. Why hadn't they
> bought a cub? Well, the reasons they gave me were "nah, you gotta get a
> licence for that, you gotta have it inspected every year, all that happy
> horse****, so we got this" Now, at the time, a Cub was cheaper to buy
> anyway, so I siad, "right, you want me to go up in an airplane that has
> had no maintenance and is in rag order in any case, and is flown by a
> guy who couldn't be bothered to learn to fly properly. Right".
> Still haven't been up in one of those things.
> I fear that having seen this and also having seen all sorts of abuses(
> some by me!) in "traditional" light aviation the potential for abuse in
> LSA is large..
> Having said that.there are some ultralights and LSAs I would love to
> try.
>
> Bertie
>
>

One of the good things about LSA is that it will move aircraft exactly
like the one you mentioned into a more regulated environment. If it was
a two seater it was illegal except for training. I always thought the
FAA dropped the ball on regulating those. Hopefully LSA regs will fix
the problem.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Gig601XLBuilder > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Gig601XLBuilder > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, but I don't post pics of it ordinarily.
>>>> I sold one iu had for years a while back, but just bought a
>>>> Citabria
>> (
>>>> also not qualified for LSA)
>>>> I had a Luscombe, but I don;t think I'd have bothered with LSA
>>>> certification even if I had kept it. Not aq lot of advantage for
>>>> me.
>> I
>>>> did most of the maintenance myself anyway so it would have saved me
>>>> nothing. >
>>>>
>>> On the Luscombe you wouldn't have had to bother with any additional
>>> certification issues and still wouldn't. Just don't fail a medical
>>> and keep your BFR and drivers license up to date. Fly till you can't
>>> fly anymore.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, I kinda need my medical anyway, so that isn't an issue either.
>> I see the benifits, but I'm a bit worried about the probable abuses.
>> I might be talking apples and oranges here,but a few years ago I was
>> visiting someone who had a two place ultralight. Sort of a Breezy
>> type thing. Parasol, open in front. Rotax 582 pusher. Can;'t remember
>> the type. Anyhow, we went out to see this thing and it was parked
>> outside for one thing. harldy flown at all. It had amphib floats and
>> it had to be waaaay overweight. It was corroded and had been tied
>> down with a rope halfway up the strut and the wind had bent the strut
>> slightly. Needless to say I wouldn't fly it ( actually I don;t fly
>> lawn furniture anyway, so probably wouldn't have even if it was
>> perfect) Iasked them why they had gotten involvd in this thing in the
>> first place. Why hadn't they bought a cub? Well, the reasons they
>> gave me were "nah, you gotta get a licence for that, you gotta have
>> it inspected every year, all that happy horse****, so we got this"
>> Now, at the time, a Cub was cheaper to buy anyway, so I siad, "right,
>> you want me to go up in an airplane that has had no maintenance and
>> is in rag order in any case, and is flown by a guy who couldn't be
>> bothered to learn to fly properly. Right". Still haven't been up in
>> one of those things. I fear that having seen this and also having
>> seen all sorts of abuses( some by me!) in "traditional" light
>> aviation the potential for abuse in LSA is large..
>> Having said that.there are some ultralights and LSAs I would love to
>> try.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>
> One of the good things about LSA is that it will move aircraft exactly
> like the one you mentioned into a more regulated environment.

Good point.

If it
> was a two seater it was illegal except for training. I always thought
> the FAA dropped the ball on regulating those. Hopefully LSA regs will
> fix the problem.
>

Hmm, true, I hadn't thought of it like that. This thing was illegal in
so many ways it was ridiculous. I'm sure they could get around the two
seat thing by claiming it was being used for training at any given
moment.

They sold it after my lecture, anyway!

Bertie

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
use.com...
> Gig601XLBuilder wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> Morgans writes:
>>>
>>>> Prisoners in the US are there for good reason, and most all are multiple offenders,
>>>> or else major felony offenders.
>>>
>>> Eighty percent of U.S. prisoners are in prison on drug charges.
>>
>> That 80% number while technically either true or close to true also include a
>> metric-butt load of people that the drug offense was secondary to another offense
>> non-drug related offense. Which pretty much proves the point that that drugs cause
>> crime in general.
>
> Hardly. Keep repeating this mantra: correlation does not prove causation.

A significant portion of the drug offenders who got prison time were the result of the
"tough on crime and drugs" movement of the 1980s and the ensuing mandatory sentencing
laws. Addicts whose only crime was possession (and maybe a count of petty larceny) got
the book thrown at them, as if that would help them or scare drug abusers into stopping.
We're wasting millions by incarcerating people who neither deserve such harsh sentences
nor will benefit from them. Meanwhile, many prisons are bulging beyond capacity which in
turn means that they don't have the resources to provide internal security against crime,
clamp down on criminal gangs, or provide meaningful rehabilitation. They've become
warehouses keeping their inmates in cesspool conditions, much like the "insane asylums" of
the past. This in turn opened the door for private enterprise prisons because the goal no
longer is justice and rehabilitation, but warehousing all those perps at the lowest unit
cost.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Gig601XLBuilder wrote:
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Gig601XLBuilder,
>>
>>> How else do you expect us to deal with non-uniformed combatants in a
>>> combat zone?
>>>
>>
>> That's not what is done at Gitmo. Come on now, nobody can follow the
>> news and be that naive.
>>
>
> That is exactly who is at Gitmo. Unless you are one of those nit-wits
> that think they are sending people there after grabbing people off the
> streets for holding up and anti-Bush poster.

Once again ignoring the fact the Pentagon itself acknowledged that more
than 20 percent of them were innocent of charges and should be released.
But still held onto them.

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Jay Honeck schrieb:

> POWs are rarely charged with crimes. They are merely held until the war is
> over.

War? What war? The "war on terror" war? Or has there been another war
declared (formally, you know ... according to all the rules [don't play
unfair only because others play unfair])

> In this case, that could be a life sentence.
>
> But don't worry. In another year we'll have a whole new set of attorneys
> arguing the case.

case? what case?

#m

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Once again ignoring the fact the Pentagon itself acknowledged that more
> than 20 percent of them were innocent of charges and should be released.
> But still held onto them.

Cite?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Once again ignoring the fact the Pentagon itself acknowledged that
>> more than 20 percent of them were innocent of charges and should be
>> released. But still held onto them.
>
> Cite?

You can find articles from last spring (as I said) with five seconds of
effort on Google. Wikipedia quotes one:

"More than a fifth of the approximately 385 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, have been cleared for release but may have to wait months or years
for their freedom because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly
difficult to line up places to send them..." (Source: 82 Inmates Cleared
but Still Held at Guantanamo, by Craig Whitlock, Washington Post, April
29, 2007.)

[Ash Wyllie]

Martin Hotze opined

>Jay Honeck schrieb:

>> POWs are rarely charged with crimes. They are merely held until the war
>> is over.

>War? What war? The "war on terror" war? Or has there been another war
>declared (formally, you know ... according to all the rules [don't play
>unfair only because others play unfair])

You know the one, the one UBL declared.

>> In this case, that could be a life sentence.
>>
>> But don't worry. In another year we'll have a whole new set of attorneys
>> arguing the case.

>case? what case?

>#m


-ash
Cthulhu in 2008!
Vote the greater evil.

[news.verizon.net[_2_]]

and in those same articles it mentions that some of the prisoners don't want
to go back to their country of origin due to fear for their lives and some
of the countries don't want them back either. but I guess that does not fit
with your argument so you ignore those facts.
"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
ouse.com...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> Once again ignoring the fact the Pentagon itself acknowledged that more
>>> than 20 percent of them were innocent of charges and should be released.
>>> But still held onto them.
>>
>> Cite?
>
> You can find articles from last spring (as I said) with five seconds of
> effort on Google. Wikipedia quotes one:
>
> "More than a fifth of the approximately 385 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay,
> Cuba, have been cleared for release but may have to wait months or years
> for their freedom because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly
> difficult to line up places to send them..." (Source: 82 Inmates Cleared
> but Still Held at Guantanamo, by Craig Whitlock, Washington Post, April
> 29, 2007.)

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

news.verizon.net wrote:
> and in those same articles it mentions that some of the prisoners don't
> want to go back to their country of origin due to fear for their lives
> and some of the countries don't want them back either. but I guess that
> does not fit with your argument so you ignore those facts.

The argument, since you clearly have the attention span of a gnat with
ADD, is over the claim that every single person imprisoned at Guantanamo
is a terrorist or guilty of some sort of violent action against the U.S.
Those articles clearly refute that, as do the actions of the Pentagon in
offering them release whether or not they have some place to go. Several
years late, mind you...

By the way, are you now taking up the cause of China in calling the 22
Uighur secessionists terrorists?

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
ouse.com...
> news.verizon.net wrote:
>> and in those same articles it mentions that some of the prisoners don't
>> want to go back to their country of origin due to fear for their lives
>> and some of the countries don't want them back either. but I guess that
>> does not fit with your argument so you ignore those facts.
>
> The argument, since you clearly have the attention span of a gnat with
> ADD, is over the claim that every single person imprisoned at Guantanamo
> is a terrorist or guilty of some sort of violent action against the U.S.
> Those articles clearly refute that, as do the actions of the Pentagon in
> offering them release whether or not they have some place to go. Several
> years late, mind you...

You better check your own attention span since you're conflating "cleared
for release" with the circumstances of theri capture.

In case you haven't heard, several sent back from Gitmo have been captured
again or killed in attacks against us.

>
> By the way, are you now taking up the cause of China in calling the 22
> Uighur secessionists terrorists?

Head out of ass, please.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>>> Once again ignoring the fact the Pentagon itself acknowledged that more
>>> than 20 percent of them were innocent of charges and should be released.
>>> But still held onto them.
>>
>> Cite?
>
> You can find articles from last spring (as I said) with five seconds of
> effort on Google. Wikipedia quotes one:
>
> "More than a fifth of the approximately 385 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay,
> Cuba, have been cleared for release but may have to wait months or years
> for their freedom because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly
> difficult to line up places to send them..." (Source: 82 Inmates Cleared
> but Still Held at Guantanamo, by Craig Whitlock, Washington Post, April
> 29, 2007.)

That's a nice Washington Post cite, but I asked for one that shows that the
Pentagon has admitted that it's holding innocent men at Gitmo.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> "More than a fifth of the approximately 385 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay,
>> Cuba, have been cleared for release but may have to wait months or years
>> for their freedom because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly
>> difficult to line up places to send them..." (Source: 82 Inmates Cleared
>> but Still Held at Guantanamo, by Craig Whitlock, Washington Post, April
>> 29, 2007.)

Oh, source is the Washington Post.

THERE is a bastion of honestly.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:M6Dgj.26101$Ux2.19647@attbi_s22:

>>>> Once again ignoring the fact the Pentagon itself acknowledged that
>>>> more than 20 percent of them were innocent of charges and should be
>>>> released. But still held onto them.
>>>
>>> Cite?
>>
>> You can find articles from last spring (as I said) with five seconds
>> of effort on Google. Wikipedia quotes one:
>>
>> "More than a fifth of the approximately 385 prisoners at Guantanamo
>> Bay, Cuba, have been cleared for release but may have to wait months
>> or years for their freedom because U.S. officials are finding it
>> increasingly difficult to line up places to send them..." (Source: 82
>> Inmates Cleared but Still Held at Guantanamo, by Craig Whitlock,
>> Washington Post, April 29, 2007.)
>
> That's a nice Washington Post cite, but I asked for one that shows
> that the Pentagon has admitted that it's holding innocent men at
> Gitmo.

Why, you gonna offer them a few rooms at your flea pit?

Bertie

[Ricky]

>On Jan 4, 2:13*pm, "NW_Pilot" > wrote:

> We use slave labor in prisons also......Not just china....

American prisoners are not inhumanely tortured to the point of death
for crimes such as being a Christian, dude.

Ricky

[Ricky]

On Jan 4, 2:46*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Or a resident of Texas.

O.K. come on you stupid, non-flying, unwelcome idiot, what did you
mean by that?

Ricky

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Ricky > wrote in news:7fe7eae4-2bdc-4ae0-a324-
:

>>On Jan 4, 2:13*pm, "NW_Pilot" > wrote
>:
>
>> We use slave labor in prisons also......Not just china....
>
> American prisoners are not inhumanely tortured to the point of death
> for crimes such as being a Christian, dude.
>


Give them time and there will be torture for not being christian.


Bertie

[dVaridel]

"John Mazor" wrote
>Addicts whose only crime was possession (and maybe a count of petty
>larceny) got the book thrown at them,

If it was my house they robbed to feed their habit you're darn tootin the
book should be thrown at them!


> as if that would help them

While locked up they would not be able to rob my place. Eventually they'd
get the idea that stealing is a bad idea.

Too simplistic?


David

--
It doesn't matter what temperature a room is; it's *always* room
temperature.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
>>> "More than a fifth of the approximately 385 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay,
>>> Cuba, have been cleared for release but may have to wait months or years
>>> for their freedom because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly
>>> difficult to line up places to send them..." (Source: 82 Inmates Cleared
>>> but Still Held at Guantanamo, by Craig Whitlock, Washington Post, April
>>> 29, 2007.)
>
> Oh, source is the Washington Post.
>
> THERE is a bastion of honestly.

I knew that was going to come. No, the source is ultimately the Defense
Department.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> ouse.com...
>> news.verizon.net wrote:
>>> and in those same articles it mentions that some of the prisoners don't
>>> want to go back to their country of origin due to fear for their lives
>>> and some of the countries don't want them back either. but I guess that
>>> does not fit with your argument so you ignore those facts.
>> The argument, since you clearly have the attention span of a gnat with
>> ADD, is over the claim that every single person imprisoned at Guantanamo
>> is a terrorist or guilty of some sort of violent action against the U.S.
>> Those articles clearly refute that, as do the actions of the Pentagon in
>> offering them release whether or not they have some place to go. Several
>> years late, mind you...
>
> You better check your own attention span since you're conflating "cleared
> for release" with the circumstances of theri capture.

Oh, so now you're saying the Pentagon is irresponsibly releasing
clearing them for release?

> In case you haven't heard, several sent back from Gitmo have been captured
> again or killed in attacks against us.

Cites, please. And even if true, might it not be the case that being
held for years under the conditions imposed would be even to **** anyone
off enough to take up arms?

>> By the way, are you now taking up the cause of China in calling the 22
>> Uighur secessionists terrorists?
>
> Head out of ass, please.

You first.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>> Once again ignoring the fact the Pentagon itself acknowledged that
>>>> more than 20 percent of them were innocent of charges and should be
>>>> released. But still held onto them.
>>>
>>> Cite?
>>
>> You can find articles from last spring (as I said) with five seconds
>> of effort on Google. Wikipedia quotes one:
>>
>> "More than a fifth of the approximately 385 prisoners at Guantanamo
>> Bay, Cuba, have been cleared for release but may have to wait months
>> or years for their freedom because U.S. officials are finding it
>> increasingly difficult to line up places to send them..." (Source: 82
>> Inmates Cleared but Still Held at Guantanamo, by Craig Whitlock,
>> Washington Post, April 29, 2007.)
>
> That's a nice Washington Post cite, but I asked for one that shows that
> the Pentagon has admitted that it's holding innocent men at Gitmo.

RTFA. While I realize you don't believe anything that didn't come
straight from the asses of Faux News, I'm not going to do your research
for you.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Ricky > wrote in news:7fe7eae4-2bdc-4ae0-a324-
> :
>
>>> On Jan 4, 2:13 pm, "NW_Pilot" > wrote
>> :
>>
>>> We use slave labor in prisons also......Not just china....
>> American prisoners are not inhumanely tortured to the point of death
>> for crimes such as being a Christian, dude.
>>
>
>
> Give them time and there will be torture for not being christian.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in
. net:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Ricky > wrote in
>> news:7fe7eae4-2bdc-4ae0-a324-
>> :
>>
>>>> On Jan 4, 2:13 pm, "NW_Pilot" >
>>>> wrote
>>> :
>>>
>>>> We use slave labor in prisons also......Not just china....
>>> American prisoners are not inhumanely tortured to the point of death
>>> for crimes such as being a Christian, dude.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Give them time and there will be torture for not being christian.
>
> Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition...
>

Amongst our weaponry are a loon mallet...

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"dVaridel" > wrote in
u:

> "John Mazor" wrote
>>Addicts whose only crime was possession (and maybe a count of petty
>>larceny) got the book thrown at them,
>
> If it was my house they robbed to feed their habit you're darn tootin
> the book should be thrown at them!
>
>
>> as if that would help them
>
> While locked up they would not be able to rob my place. Eventually
> they'd get the idea that stealing is a bad idea.
>
> Too simplistic?
>

Well, the first is true, the second is pretty unlikely..


Bertie

[Thomas Borchert]

Rich,

> Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition...
>

And now for something completely different...

Wonderful Spam!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Rich,
>
>> Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition...
>>
>
> And now for something completely different...
>
> Wonderful Spam!
>

Don;'t mention the war.


Bertie

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Rich Ahrens wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>>> Once again ignoring the fact the Pentagon itself acknowledged that
>>>>> more than 20 percent of them were innocent of charges and should be
>>>>> released. But still held onto them.
>>>>
>>>> Cite?
>>>
>>> You can find articles from last spring (as I said) with five seconds
>>> of effort on Google. Wikipedia quotes one:
>>>
>>> "More than a fifth of the approximately 385 prisoners at Guantanamo
>>> Bay, Cuba, have been cleared for release but may have to wait months
>>> or years for their freedom because U.S. officials are finding it
>>> increasingly difficult to line up places to send them..." (Source: 82
>>> Inmates Cleared but Still Held at Guantanamo, by Craig Whitlock,
>>> Washington Post, April 29, 2007.)
>>
>> That's a nice Washington Post cite, but I asked for one that shows
>> that the Pentagon has admitted that it's holding innocent men at Gitmo.
>
> RTFA. While I realize you don't believe anything that didn't come
> straight from the asses of Faux News, I'm not going to do your research
> for you.

There's no country that will take them. What do you expect the pentagon
to do. Dump them in the Atlantic. If they did that then you'd really bitch.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Gig601XLBuilder > wrote in
:

> Rich Ahrens wrote:
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>>>> Once again ignoring the fact the Pentagon itself acknowledged
>>>>>> that more than 20 percent of them were innocent of charges and
>>>>>> should be released. But still held onto them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cite?
>>>>
>>>> You can find articles from last spring (as I said) with five
>>>> seconds of effort on Google. Wikipedia quotes one:
>>>>
>>>> "More than a fifth of the approximately 385 prisoners at Guantanamo
>>>> Bay, Cuba, have been cleared for release but may have to wait
>>>> months or years for their freedom because U.S. officials are
>>>> finding it increasingly difficult to line up places to send
>>>> them..." (Source: 82 Inmates Cleared but Still Held at Guantanamo,
>>>> by Craig Whitlock, Washington Post, April 29, 2007.)
>>>
>>> That's a nice Washington Post cite, but I asked for one that shows
>>> that the Pentagon has admitted that it's holding innocent men at
>>> Gitmo.
>>
>> RTFA. While I realize you don't believe anything that didn't come
>> straight from the asses of Faux News, I'm not going to do your
>> research for you.
>
> There's no country that will take them. What do you expect the
> pentagon to do. Dump them in the Atlantic. If they did that then you'd
> really bitch.
>

As should anyone this side of attila the hun.



Bertie

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> While locked up they would not be able to rob my place. Eventually they'd
> get the idea that stealing is a bad idea.
>
> Too simplistic?

Makes sense to me -- but I'd take it further. How's this for criminal
justice?:

Can we all agree that anyone convicted of four (4) felony crimes isn't
getting the message? Or maybe three? Perhaps five? I don't really care
where the threshold is set -- but it needs to be set.

Sentences double after each felony. Thus, if you're dumb enough to commit
the same crime twice, your 5 year sentence becomes 10 years. Third time?
It's 20.

Do it again? Anyone convicted of four felonies is executed. Call it four
strikes and you're out.

Recidivism is a terrible problem in our society. The majority of criminals
in federal prisons aren't there for the first time. Studies have shown
that the majority of serious crimes are being committed by repeat offenders.

We can quibble about the details, but I think this simple set of rules would
make our streets a lot safer, and solve prison over-crowding at the same
time.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:gKQgj.26990$Ux2.711@attbi_s22:

>> While locked up they would not be able to rob my place. Eventually
>> they'd get the idea that stealing is a bad idea.
>>
>> Too simplistic?
>
> Makes sense to me -- but I'd take it further. How's this for criminal
> justice?:
>
> Can we all agree that anyone convicted of four (4) felony crimes isn't
> getting the message? Or maybe three? Perhaps five? I don't really
> care where the threshold is set -- but it needs to be set.


To extend this argument, how many times do you have to be told that your
off topic posting is hypocritical when you whine about others doing it?


3? 4? 5? 6? 7? 8?


I propose a UDP for anyone dumb enough not to get this.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

John Smith > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> > Ricky > wrote in
>> > news:7fe7eae4-2bdc-4ae0-a324-
>> > :
>> >
>> >>> On Jan 4, 2:13 pm, "NW_Pilot"
>> >>> > wrote
>> >> :
>> >>
>> >>> We use slave labor in prisons also......Not just china....
>> >> American prisoners are not inhumanely tortured to the point of
>> >> death for crimes such as being a Christian, dude.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Give them time and there will be torture for not being christian.
>>
>> Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition...
>
> I beleive the correct line is, "No one escapes the Spanish
> Inquisition!"
>

Nope, he had it right!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZQI0Xm29To

Bertie

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
. net...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
>> ouse.com...
>>> news.verizon.net wrote:
>>>> and in those same articles it mentions that some of the prisoners don't
>>>> want to go back to their country of origin due to fear for their lives
>>>> and some of the countries don't want them back either. but I guess
>>>> that does not fit with your argument so you ignore those facts.
>>> The argument, since you clearly have the attention span of a gnat with
>>> ADD, is over the claim that every single person imprisoned at Guantanamo
>>> is a terrorist or guilty of some sort of violent action against the U.S.
>>> Those articles clearly refute that, as do the actions of the Pentagon in
>>> offering them release whether or not they have some place to go. Several
>>> years late, mind you...
>>
>> You better check your own attention span since you're conflating "cleared
>> for release" with the circumstances of theri capture.
>
> Oh, so now you're saying the Pentagon is irresponsibly releasing clearing
> them for release?
>
>> In case you haven't heard, several sent back from Gitmo have been
>> captured again or killed in attacks against us.
>
> Cites, please. And even if true, might it not be the case that being held
> for years under the conditions imposed would be even to **** anyone off
> enough to take up arms?

When I do, will you admit error and ignorance, or will you just keep
spouting lefitst/losertarian bull****?

>
>>> By the way, are you now taking up the cause of China in calling the 22
>>> Uighur secessionists terrorists?
>>
>> Head out of ass, please.
>
> You first.

We'll see!

Get your surgical gloves on.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:M6Dgj.26101$Ux2.19647@attbi_s22...
>>>> Once again ignoring the fact the Pentagon itself acknowledged that more
>>>> than 20 percent of them were innocent of charges and should be
>>>> released. But still held onto them.
>>>
>>> Cite?
>>
>> You can find articles from last spring (as I said) with five seconds of
>> effort on Google. Wikipedia quotes one:
>>
>> "More than a fifth of the approximately 385 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay,
>> Cuba, have been cleared for release but may have to wait months or years
>> for their freedom because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly
>> difficult to line up places to send them..." (Source: 82 Inmates Cleared
>> but Still Held at Guantanamo, by Craig Whitlock, Washington Post, April
>> 29, 2007.)
>
> That's a nice Washington Post cite, but I asked for one that shows that
> the Pentagon has admitted that it's holding innocent men at Gitmo.

Don't hold your breath - Ahrens is still in a fog about those released
detainees that wound up back in Iraq.

I call it "Memory of Convenience" -- others call it just plain "dishonesty".

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
. net...
> Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>
>>> "More than a fifth of the approximately 385 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay,
>>> Cuba, have been cleared for release but may have to wait months or years
>>> for their freedom because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly
>>> difficult to line up places to send them..." (Source: 82 Inmates Cleared
>>> but Still Held at Guantanamo, by Craig Whitlock, Washington Post, April
>>> 29, 2007.)
>>
>> That's a nice Washington Post cite, but I asked for one that shows that
>> the Pentagon has admitted that it's holding innocent men at Gitmo.
>
> RTFA. While I realize you don't believe anything that didn't come straight
> from the asses of Faux News, I'm not going to do your research for you.

Nice evasion, ****head.

(About what I expected from Ahrens.)

{plonk}

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Gig601XLBuilder" > wrote in message
...
> Rich Ahrens wrote:
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>>>> Once again ignoring the fact the Pentagon itself acknowledged that
>>>>>> more than 20 percent of them were innocent of charges and should be
>>>>>> released. But still held onto them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cite?
>>>>
>>>> You can find articles from last spring (as I said) with five seconds of
>>>> effort on Google. Wikipedia quotes one:
>>>>
>>>> "More than a fifth of the approximately 385 prisoners at Guantanamo
>>>> Bay, Cuba, have been cleared for release but may have to wait months or
>>>> years for their freedom because U.S. officials are finding it
>>>> increasingly difficult to line up places to send them..." (Source: 82
>>>> Inmates Cleared but Still Held at Guantanamo, by Craig Whitlock,
>>>> Washington Post, April 29, 2007.)
>>>
>>> That's a nice Washington Post cite, but I asked for one that shows that
>>> the Pentagon has admitted that it's holding innocent men at Gitmo.
>>
>> RTFA. While I realize you don't believe anything that didn't come
>> straight from the asses of Faux News, I'm not going to do your research
>> for you.
>
> There's no country that will take them. What do you expect the pentagon to
> do. Dump them in the Atlantic. If they did that then you'd really bitch.

That's his only output.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:

>
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> "More than a fifth of the approximately 385 prisoners at Guantanamo
>>>> Bay, Cuba, have been cleared for release but may have to wait
>>>> months or years for their freedom because U.S. officials are
>>>> finding it increasingly difficult to line up places to send
>>>> them..." (Source: 82 Inmates Cleared but Still Held at Guantanamo,
>>>> by Craig Whitlock, Washington Post, April 29, 2007.)
>>>
>>> That's a nice Washington Post cite, but I asked for one that shows
>>> that the Pentagon has admitted that it's holding innocent men at
>>> Gitmo.
>>
>> RTFA. While I realize you don't believe anything that didn't come
>> straight from the asses of Faux News, I'm not going to do your
>> research for you.
>
> Nice evasion, ****head.


No, it wasn;'t actually.

bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:

>
> "Gig601XLBuilder" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Rich Ahrens wrote:
>>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>>>>> Once again ignoring the fact the Pentagon itself acknowledged
>>>>>>> that more than 20 percent of them were innocent of charges and
>>>>>>> should be released. But still held onto them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>
>>>>> You can find articles from last spring (as I said) with five
>>>>> seconds of effort on Google. Wikipedia quotes one:
>>>>>
>>>>> "More than a fifth of the approximately 385 prisoners at
>>>>> Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have been cleared for release but may have
>>>>> to wait months or years for their freedom because U.S. officials
>>>>> are finding it increasingly difficult to line up places to send
>>>>> them..." (Source: 82 Inmates Cleared but Still Held at Guantanamo,
>>>>> by Craig Whitlock, Washington Post, April 29, 2007.)
>>>>
>>>> That's a nice Washington Post cite, but I asked for one that shows
>>>> that the Pentagon has admitted that it's holding innocent men at
>>>> Gitmo.
>>>
>>> RTFA. While I realize you don't believe anything that didn't come
>>> straight from the asses of Faux News, I'm not going to do your
>>> research for you.
>>
>> There's no country that will take them. What do you expect the
>> pentagon to do. Dump them in the Atlantic. If they did that then
>> you'd really bitch.
>
> That's his only output.

I was thnking somethng else, actually.


Bertie
>
>
>

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
>>> ouse.com...
>>>> news.verizon.net wrote:
>>>>> and in those same articles it mentions that some of the prisoners don't
>>>>> want to go back to their country of origin due to fear for their lives
>>>>> and some of the countries don't want them back either. but I guess
>>>>> that does not fit with your argument so you ignore those facts.
>>>> The argument, since you clearly have the attention span of a gnat with
>>>> ADD, is over the claim that every single person imprisoned at Guantanamo
>>>> is a terrorist or guilty of some sort of violent action against the U.S.
>>>> Those articles clearly refute that, as do the actions of the Pentagon in
>>>> offering them release whether or not they have some place to go. Several
>>>> years late, mind you...
>>> You better check your own attention span since you're conflating "cleared
>>> for release" with the circumstances of theri capture.
>> Oh, so now you're saying the Pentagon is irresponsibly releasing clearing
>> them for release?
>>
>>> In case you haven't heard, several sent back from Gitmo have been
>>> captured again or killed in attacks against us.
>> Cites, please. And even if true, might it not be the case that being held
>> for years under the conditions imposed would be even to **** anyone off
>> enough to take up arms?
>
> When I do, will you admit error and ignorance, or will you just keep
> spouting lefitst/losertarian bull****?

Boy, you've not only drunk the koolaid, it looks like you've had a full
enema with it.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Gig601XLBuilder wrote:
> Rich Ahrens wrote:
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>>>> Once again ignoring the fact the Pentagon itself acknowledged that
>>>>>> more than 20 percent of them were innocent of charges and should
>>>>>> be released. But still held onto them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cite?
>>>>
>>>> You can find articles from last spring (as I said) with five seconds
>>>> of effort on Google. Wikipedia quotes one:
>>>>
>>>> "More than a fifth of the approximately 385 prisoners at Guantanamo
>>>> Bay, Cuba, have been cleared for release but may have to wait months
>>>> or years for their freedom because U.S. officials are finding it
>>>> increasingly difficult to line up places to send them..." (Source:
>>>> 82 Inmates Cleared but Still Held at Guantanamo, by Craig Whitlock,
>>>> Washington Post, April 29, 2007.)
>>>
>>> That's a nice Washington Post cite, but I asked for one that shows
>>> that the Pentagon has admitted that it's holding innocent men at Gitmo.
>>
>> RTFA. While I realize you don't believe anything that didn't come
>> straight from the asses of Faux News, I'm not going to do your
>> research for you.
>
> There's no country that will take them. What do you expect the pentagon
> to do. Dump them in the Atlantic. If they did that then you'd really bitch.

Accept them as refugees and defuse the anger. Of course, that would
effectively admit to having made a mistake in the first place, something
this administration is genetically incapable of.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>>> "More than a fifth of the approximately 385 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay,
>>>> Cuba, have been cleared for release but may have to wait months or years
>>>> for their freedom because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly
>>>> difficult to line up places to send them..." (Source: 82 Inmates Cleared
>>>> but Still Held at Guantanamo, by Craig Whitlock, Washington Post, April
>>>> 29, 2007.)
>>> That's a nice Washington Post cite, but I asked for one that shows that
>>> the Pentagon has admitted that it's holding innocent men at Gitmo.
>> RTFA. While I realize you don't believe anything that didn't come straight
>> from the asses of Faux News, I'm not going to do your research for you.
>
> Nice evasion, ****head.
>
> (About what I expected from Ahrens.)
>
> {plonk}

I bet you mean that about as well as everyone else who claims to have
done it to anyone else. Not at all, in other words.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:M6Dgj.26101$Ux2.19647@attbi_s22...
>>>>> Once again ignoring the fact the Pentagon itself acknowledged that more
>>>>> than 20 percent of them were innocent of charges and should be
>>>>> released. But still held onto them.
>>>> Cite?
>>> You can find articles from last spring (as I said) with five seconds of
>>> effort on Google. Wikipedia quotes one:
>>>
>>> "More than a fifth of the approximately 385 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay,
>>> Cuba, have been cleared for release but may have to wait months or years
>>> for their freedom because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly
>>> difficult to line up places to send them..." (Source: 82 Inmates Cleared
>>> but Still Held at Guantanamo, by Craig Whitlock, Washington Post, April
>>> 29, 2007.)
>> That's a nice Washington Post cite, but I asked for one that shows that
>> the Pentagon has admitted that it's holding innocent men at Gitmo.
>
> Don't hold your breath - Ahrens is still in a fog about those released
> detainees that wound up back in Iraq.
>
> I call it "Memory of Convenience" -- others call it just plain "dishonesty".

Two attributes you have a lifetime of practice at, I'm sure.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

John Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Ricky > wrote in news:7fe7eae4-2bdc-4ae0-a324-
>>> :
>>>
>>>>> On Jan 4, 2:13 pm, "NW_Pilot" > wrote
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> We use slave labor in prisons also......Not just china....
>>>> American prisoners are not inhumanely tortured to the point of death
>>>> for crimes such as being a Christian, dude.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Give them time and there will be torture for not being christian.
>> Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition...
>
> I beleive the correct line is, "No one escapes the Spanish Inquisition!"

You really want to argue with me about Monty Python???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spanish_Inquisition_(Monty_Python)

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Rich Ahrens wrote:

>>
>> There's no country that will take them. What do you expect the
>> pentagon to do. Dump them in the Atlantic. If they did that then you'd
>> really bitch.
>
> Accept them as refugees and defuse the anger. Of course, that would
> effectively admit to having made a mistake in the first place, something
> this administration is genetically incapable of.

I read this three times with the hope of finding the <sarcasm> tag.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Rich Ahrens wrote:
>
>>>
>>> There's no country that will take them. What do you expect the
>>> pentagon to do. Dump them in the Atlantic. If they did that then
>>> you'd really bitch.
>>
>> Accept them as refugees and defuse the anger. Of course, that would
>> effectively admit to having made a mistake in the first place,
>> something this administration is genetically incapable of.
>
> I read this three times with the hope of finding the <sarcasm> tag.

It's beyond you, of course.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2008-01-04 09:03:49 -0800, Thomas Borchert
> said:

> C,
>
>> I guess Cessna does not care about doing business with a country that
>> has threatened us with nuclear weapons, sells nuclear technology to
>> terrorist countries, uses slave labor, has an abysmal environmental
>> record, refuses to respect copyright and patent laws, sells child
>> pornography, has no respect for human rights or the rule of law, and
>> which would just as soon steal from Cessna as do business with them.
>>
>
> Ah, it must be nice to live in such a simple world.

No more simple than the idiotic belief that there is no difference
between the US and China.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor