Judge ignores, overrules NTSB

[Mxsmanic]

See

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Court_FAA_Judge_helicopter_Torrance_ruling_198565-1.html

I guess the judge knows better than the NTSB.

[Viperdoc[_5_]]

Hi all:

By now we know that Anthony simply posts to inflame others and get a
response that satisfies his pathetic need for attention.

How about we all take a pass on this one?

[Mxsmanic]

It looks like this award may be a follow-up to a case first reported in

>

in this newsgroup. I guess the $4.5 million award is the new development.

[[email protected]]

Viperdoc > wrote:
> Hi all:

> By now we know that Anthony simply posts to inflame others and get a
> response that satisfies his pathetic need for attention.

> How about we all take a pass on this one?

It would be pointless to "discuss" this with him as he is incapable
of understanding the subtlety that the NTSB decides an ultimate PROBABLE
cause while the court system decides the LEGAL causes of liability.

That doesn't mean the more rational can't discuss it.

This kind of thing happens all the time and not just in aviation.

Trivial example:

A drunk driver causes a wreck.

The police cite the driver as the ultimate cause of the wreck.

The courts hold the bartender that served the drunk as partially liable
for damages.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[buttman]

On Aug 11, 11:25*am, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> By now we know that Anthony simply posts to inflame others and get a
> response that satisfies his pathetic need for attention.
>
> How about we all take a pass on this one?

I think he does it to get a rise out of loons like Nomen, Bertie, and
even you. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Fun to watch though...

[Gene Seibel]

On Aug 11, 11:25*am, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> By now we know that Anthony simply posts to inflame others and get a
> response that satisfies his pathetic need for attention.
>
> How about we all take a pass on this one?

You didn't.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

I did not respond to him or engage him in the usual dialog, but yes, I did
respond to his post. The key is to not engage him in the usual worthless
discourse.

[JB]

On Aug 11, 2:16*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> It looks like this award may be a follow-up to a case first reported in
>
> >
>
> in this newsgroup. *I guess the $4.5 million award is the new development.

[George]

On Aug 11, 12:25*pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:

> Hi all:
>
> By now we know that Anthony simply posts to inflame others and get a
> response that satisfies his pathetic need for attention.
>
> How about we all take a pass on this one?

Something I have noticed is that Anthony really seems to have a large
group of ya'll wrapped around his finger, and it seems to be the ones
who keep posting advice to not respond to him!
It appears that he is talked about more recently than aviation!
Since I've learned about him I think I;ve responded to him once or
twice.
He will be ignored when his posts & replies stand alone, but judging
from my many years of Usenet experience I know that will not happen.

G

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> See
>
> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Court_FAA_Judge_helicopter_Torranc
> e_ruling_198565-1.html
>
> I guess the judge knows better than the NTSB.

You're an idiot.

Bertie

[Darkwing]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> Hi all:
>
> By now we know that Anthony simply posts to inflame others and get a
> response that satisfies his pathetic need for attention.
>
> How about we all take a pass on this one?
>
>
>

I did a search on our friend Anthony and it took me to this site -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douche_bag

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> See
>
> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Court_FAA_Judge_helicopter_Torrance_ruling_198565-1.html
>
> I guess the judge knows better than the NTSB.

Well thank God the DOT isn't the final word in US law.

[Mike[_22_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> See
>
> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Court_FAA_Judge_helicopter_Torrance_ruling_198565-1.html
>
> I guess the judge knows better than the NTSB.

The judge didn't "overrule" the NTSB. It was a civil suit which is decided
by either 6 or 12 jurors or a sole judge. Typically these people have less
knowledge about aviation than you do, if that is possible. It's simply a
reflection of the jackpot justice system in which we now live where
accidents are never the fault of idiots and must always be blamed on someone
else (who has deep pockets). These types of cases are routinely overturned
on appeal with nobody profiting except the lawyers, and are part of the
reason why aviation is so expensive.