Good Luck, Jim!

[Rich S.]

As one of your major contributors ($1) I'd like to extend my best wishes for
you in the vote today.

Rich S.

[Jim Weir]

And I will post a list of my major contributors ($1) tomorrow after the hoopla
has all died down.

I may not win, but I'm not going to lose, either. Both General Aviation and
California Education had a champion with a bully pulpit the last ten weeks. If
only ten percent of the people I had as an audience with radio and TV got the
message, it was worth every second and every penny of it.

Thank you all for coming along on the ride...and now I gotta go teach until ten
tonight.

Jim



"Rich S." >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->As one of your major contributors ($1) I'd like to extend my best wishes for
->you in the vote today.
->
->Rich S.
->

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[John Ousterhout]

As another major contributor, I am shocked and bitterly disappointed
that you didn't win. OTOH Jay Leno, David Letterman, Conan O'Brien
and John Stewart are probably thrilled that Arnold is going to be
Governor.

I wonder how long before the CA citizens realize what they 've done to
themselves and start another recall?

- J.O.-


On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 13:47:31 -0700, Jim Weir > wrote:

>And I will post a list of my major contributors ($1) tomorrow after the hoopla
>has all died down.
>
>I may not win, but I'm not going to lose, either. Both General Aviation and
>California Education had a champion with a bully pulpit the last ten weeks. If
>only ten percent of the people I had as an audience with radio and TV got the
>message, it was worth every second and every penny of it.
>
>Thank you all for coming along on the ride...and now I gotta go teach until ten
>tonight.
>
>Jim
>
>
>
>"Rich S." >
>shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
>
>->As one of your major contributors ($1) I'd like to extend my best wishes for
>->you in the vote today.
>->
>->Rich S.
>->
>
>Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
>VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
>http://www.rst-engr.com

[Richard Riley]

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 20:27:09 -0700, John Ousterhout
> wrote:

:As another major contributor, I am shocked and bitterly disappointed
:that you didn't win. OTOH Jay Leno, David Letterman, Conan O'Brien
:and John Stewart are probably thrilled that Arnold is going to be
:Governor.
:
:I wonder how long before the CA citizens realize what they 've done to
:themselves and start another recall?

According to Bob Mulholland and Terry McAuliffe, they have $3 million
and will start gathering signatures tomorrow.

I doubt it's going to work. The laws been on the books since 1910 or
so, and there have been something like 60 attempts to recall gov's
that haven't gotten enough votes to get an election. Between Arnold
and McClintock, Republicans got 60% of the votes. Davis was the
perfect recallable candidate - he was widely hated by the office
holders in his own party, had no personal charm at all, was a complete
failure as a leader, was widely thought of as corrupt, and didn't rise
to the occasion of any problems the state faced.

At the very least, Arnold is likeable and isn't corrupt.

The REAL fun starts tomorrow, when Davis starts signing emergency
legislation. Any guess as to how big a pension he's going to give
himself and the current legislators?

[Juan Jimenez]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
>
> Between Arnold and McClintock, Republicans got 60% of the votes.

Bad idea to assume that this was a vote for republicans. First of all,
Arnold is anything but a typical republican. Second, the whole issue was
about trying to do something about business as usual, not about putting a
republican in the governor's office.

The real fun won't start tomorrow with Davis doing anything. The real fun
starts with the criminal cases generated by the sexual harassment and
assault cases. You think those 15 women are going to let the issue drop?
Don't think so.

I'm also surprised that the media didn't seem to take note that along with
the accusations of admiring Hitler there was a little known fact that didn't
get much media attention: Arnold's father was a brownshirt Nazi during WWII,
and he wasn't forced to wear the uniform.

[Mark Hickey]

John Ousterhout
> wrote:

>As another major contributor, I am shocked and bitterly disappointed
>that you didn't win. OTOH Jay Leno, David Letterman, Conan O'Brien
>and John Stewart are probably thrilled that Arnold is going to be
>Governor.
>
>I wonder how long before the CA citizens realize what they 've done to
>themselves and start another recall?

How can anyone make it worse? At least there will be some
entertainment value involved now - kind of like Jesse Ventura with a
brain.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Jerry Springer]

Juan Jimenez wrote:
> "Richard Riley" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Between Arnold and McClintock, Republicans got 60% of the votes.
>
>
> Bad idea to assume that this was a vote for republicans. First of all,
> Arnold is anything but a typical republican. Second, the whole issue was
> about trying to do something about business as usual, not about putting a
> republican in the governor's office.
>
> The real fun won't start tomorrow with Davis doing anything. The real fun
> starts with the criminal cases generated by the sexual harassment and
> assault cases. You think those 15 women are going to let the issue drop?
> Don't think so.
>
> I'm also surprised that the media didn't seem to take note that along with
> the accusations of admiring Hitler there was a little known fact that didn't
> get much media attention: Arnold's father was a brownshirt Nazi during WWII,
> and he wasn't forced to wear the uniform.
>
>
>
Where have you been during this whole campaign? It was brought up everyday.

Jerry

[Juan Jimenez]

"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Where have you been during this whole campaign? It was brought up
everyday.

Far away from the zoo.

[Owe Rudbeck]

"Juan Jimenez" > skrev i meddelandet
news:AoOgb.63094$%h1.45568@sccrnsc02...
>
> "Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > Where have you been during this whole campaign? It was brought up
> everyday.
>
> Far away from the zoo.
>
>
Really, have not been home lately then?

Owe with very low thoughts about Zoom & his followers.

[Juan Jimenez]

Keep your day job. The comeback kid you're not. BTW, do you pay your bills
on time? :)

"Owe Rudbeck" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Juan Jimenez" > skrev i meddelandet
> news:AoOgb.63094$%h1.45568@sccrnsc02...
> >
> > "Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > Where have you been during this whole campaign? It was brought up
> > everyday.
> >
> > Far away from the zoo.
> >
> >
> Really, have not been home lately then?
>
> Owe with very low thoughts about Zoom & his followers.

[Corrie]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message news:<FdNgb.518822$Oz4.377326@rwcrnsc54>...
> "Richard Riley" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Between Arnold and McClintock, Republicans got 60% of the votes.
>
> Bad idea to assume that this was a vote for republicans. First of all,
> Arnold is anything but a typical republican.

McClintock WAS a typical Republican, though. Factor in the folks who
wanted to vote for him but voted for Arnold as more electable, the
large turnout, and you might possibly be seeing a sea change in CA
politics. The Democratic party is imploding. Their 2004 strategy -
tax increases - was just repudiated.

> Second, the whole issue was
> about trying to do something about business as usual, not about putting a
> republican in the governor's office.

If that's the case, why did Arianna and the porn star fare so poorly?

> The real fun won't start tomorrow with Davis doing anything. The real fun
> starts with the criminal cases generated by the sexual harassment and
> assault cases. You think those 15 women are going to let the issue drop?
> Don't think so.

Sure, the Dems are gonna backroll them all the way to court, just to
try to keep the new governor distracted. Of course, the judge will
throw them out one by one. Even Davis' "emergency" appointees will
have to do that when there's no credible evidence.

> I'm also surprised that the media didn't seem to take note that
along with
> the accusations of admiring Hitler there was a little known fact that didn't
> get much media attention: Arnold's father was a brownshirt Nazi during WWII,
> and he wasn't forced to wear the uniform.

And your point would be...? What did YOUR father do in the war? Does
that define who you are? B. F. D.


----

Jim -

Thanks for being a voice for GA!

[Jim Weir]

My pleasure. I'd do it again tomorrow in a heartbeat.

Jim



(Corrie)
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->
->Jim -
->
->Thanks for being a voice for GA!





Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Juan Jimenez]

"Corrie" > wrote in message
om...
>
> McClintock WAS a typical Republican, though.

And look how far he got. Nuff said.

> If that's the case, why did Arianna and the porn star fare so poorly?

I'll leave that to your overactive imagination.

> Sure, the Dems are gonna backroll them all the way to court...

They'll gravitate there on their own. Or do you assume that all women are
dems?

> And your point would be...? What did YOUR father do in the war? Does
> that define who you are? B. F. D.

It does when it turns out you were in agreement with his moral values.

Juan

[Juan Jimenez]

I am impressed with what you did and how you came out in the results.
Congratulations.

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
> My pleasure. I'd do it again tomorrow in a heartbeat.
>
> Jim

[Bernie the Bunion]

> Jim Weir > wrote:

> My pleasure. I'd do it again tomorrow in a heartbeat.

Well Jim..... I'm sure it was quite the experience for you to
go through something like that, and I'm sure there are
a few people here who would be interested in your comments
as to what it was like.

I know all the ballots might not be counted, but out of
curiousity how many votes did you get.

Are you considering running for one of the state offices
in the next election.

LAST NITE...... On one of the talk shows a young man in his late
teens was being interviewed. He had run for some civic office
(mayor perhaps) and won the election ( I do believe ).

When asked how HE DID IT.... His response was that he
went door to door.

If you declared yourself as an candidate for a certain office in
the next election and spent some time working the phones,
doors, streets, etc., and kept in touch with your media contacts
that you have made, you just might be surprised at how often
you are contacted by the media on slow news days.

Locally, you have the advantage of having your feet wet,
coupled with some first hand knowledge of how the system works.

Don't be afraid to capitalize on that experience.

Up here in Canada I have had the interesting experience of being
a campaign manager on four federal elections over the years and
I can't stress the importance of declaring yourself early and
getting out and knocking on doors.

You don't need a platform, just be in a listening mode, asking your
future constituents what's on their minds.

Show serious interest now and you might be surprised at how many people
will remember you favourably as the person at their doors years, and
months before the election was called.

In any event, for you it was the exerience of a lifetime, something to
brag to the grandkids about.

But if you do want to get elected locally the best advice I could ever
give you is to buy a comfortable pair of walking shoes, go door to
door,
make media contacts and stay in touch with them.

I do believe that when Hillary Clinton was elected her first comments
were to remark on how many pantsuits and shoes she had worn out.

Nobody gave her a chance when she started the race and look where
she is today.

[Fitzair4]

Well, Jim, Give you great credit for trying, Its easy to talk about it.
Going ahead and doing it takes a lots more personal will power.

How about running at the next election, for the President of the EAA!!!!!!!!!

Larry Fitzgerald

[Larry Smith]

"Fitzair4" > wrote in message
...
> Well, Jim, Give you great credit for trying, Its easy to talk about it.
> Going ahead and doing it takes a lots more personal will power.
>
> How about running at the next election, for the President of the
EAA!!!!!!!!!
>
> Larry Fitzgerald

I could have sworn I saw his campaign material at Oshkosh at some time in
the past. I'd vote for him.

[Barnyard BOb --]

"Larry Smith"wrote:

>> How about running at the next election, for the President of the
>EAA!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Larry Fitzgerald
>
>I could have sworn I saw his campaign material at Oshkosh at some time in
>the past. I'd vote for him.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The ultimate kiss of death? <g>


Barnyard BOb --

[Corrie]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message >...
> "Corrie" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > McClintock WAS a typical Republican, though.
>
> And look how far he got. Nuff said.


A real conservative with a real conservative agenda got more votes
than an incumbent Democrat. Nuff said indeed.


> > If that's the case, why did Arianna and the porn star fare so poorly?
>
> I'll leave that to your overactive imagination.

IOW, your argument (that this was only about changing
business-as-usual) is bogus, and you know it.


> > Sure, the Dems are gonna backroll them all the way to court...
> They'll gravitate there on their own. Or do you assume that all women are
> dems?

No, of course not. The really smart women are Republicans, because
they know that a conservative agenda is truly pro-woman. But it'll be
interesting to see whether these anonymous, 11th-hour smearmeisters
continue. Funny how you excoriate Arnold but excuse Slick Willy.

> > And your point would be...? What did YOUR father do in the war? Does
> > that define who you are? B. F. D.
>
> It does when it turns out you were in agreement with his moral values.

Got proof? Or are you willing to be sued for LIBEL? Because that
statement is libelous, pure and simple. Put up or shut up, pendejo.

[Larry Smith]

"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Larry Smith"wrote:
>
> >> How about running at the next election, for the President of the
> >EAA!!!!!!!!!
> >>
> >> Larry Fitzgerald
> >
> >I could have sworn I saw his campaign material at Oshkosh at some time in
> >the past. I'd vote for him.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> The ultimate kiss of death? <g>
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --

Ah, yes, reminds me of GHW Bush's ambivalence when Klanster David Duke
endorsed him for prez.

OK, so I won't support him. I repudiate him. Does that help?

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Jim Weir says...
>
>My pleasure. I'd do it again tomorrow in a heartbeat.
>
>Jim


Good show Jim now I can say I personally know somwone who ran for Gov.
:-)Actually considering the number of people who split the votes, 31'st is a
pretty respectful showing. Congrats

See ya

Chuck S

[Juan Jimenez]

"Corrie" > wrote in message
om...
>
> A real conservative with a real conservative agenda got more votes
> than an incumbent Democrat. Nuff said indeed.

What planet are you talking about?

No to the recall (YES to Davis): 3,559,436
Bustamante: 2,432,463
McClintock: 1,026,492

Put on your glasses the next time.

> IOW, your argument (that this was only about changing
> business-as-usual) is bogus, and you know it.

Sure, you go on believing that. Have fun, enjoy. :)

> No, of course not. The really smart women are Republicans, because
> they know that a conservative agenda is truly pro-woman.

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

> But it'll be interesting to see whether these anonymous, 11th-hour
smearmeisters
> continue. Funny how you excoriate Arnold but excuse Slick Willy.

ROFLMAO! POT. KETTLE. BLACK. Wasn't the #1 excuse the repukeblicans used
that Gray had turned a surplus into a huge deficit? And of course, the Shrub
has managed to retain the surplus Clinton left on the books on inauguration
day, right?

Look, if you're going to want to try to engage in a battle of wits, have the
good sense to at least come armed.

> Got proof? Or are you willing to be sued for LIBEL? Because that
> statement is libelous, pure and simple. Put up or shut up, pendejo.

The proof has already been published worldwide, you pitiful prepubescent
putz. Esto es ejemplo clásico del problema más grande que tienen comemierdas
enanos como tu; te crees mojón cuando todavía no has llegado ni a peo.
Siéntate en ese en lo que te preparo otro, mamabicho.

[Jim Weir]

Ain't been around long, have you sonny? I've run for the EAA board of directors
twice in the last 15 years. At least in California, you know the odds and can
plan your campaign strategy honestly and on a level playing field. The EAA is
HARDLY a level playing field.

EAA is totally controlled by the Oshkosh Mafia. Please, don't misunderstand me.
I didn't much care for Paul, but I truly believe that Tom has the membership'
interest at the bottom of his heart. But, to be an outspoken critic of some of
the policies and procedures of the EAA is to be relegated to some little
pipsqueak that is crushed by the "proxy" system. You don't smile and say, "yes,
massa", you be on the scrapheap.

This proxy system is probably challengeable in court, but my suspicion is that
the EAA has enough lawpower on staff to have written the provisions so that the
Wisconsin judicial system will look with favor on the home team as opposed to
some outside flakes trying to make the good guys look bad.

Hey, the first rule of politics is to understand the system and who has the
inside track. I ain't no fool. I went up against it twice and was thoroughly
whipped. Don't take a rocket scientist to figure that an unpaid seat on a
toothless board where your future is dependent on going along with the status
quo isn't where an honest rebel with an ounce of dignity wants to serve. Just
LOOK at the geldings on that board and read their resume some day to see what I
say is the truth.

Jim





(Fitzair4)
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->How about running at the next election, for the President of the EAA!!!!!!!!!

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Jim Weir]

Bertie...

Thanks for all your good ideas and wishes...but

This is my 13th campaign in 20 years, and I've only lost four of them...two EAA,
one County, and the Governor's thing yesterday. I **think** I know how to play
this game.

While I appreciate all your insights as to how to run a campaign, I daresay I've
been there, done that, got the t-shirt, and I'm negotiating the movie rights.

Wanna see how hard I campaigned?
http://www.candidatecamera.com/candidate/candidate.php?candidateNum=131
Look ESPECIALLY at the soles of the shoes.

As to my comments as what it was like, take a gander through the rest of the
shots in my album.

Jim



Bernie the Bunion >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->> Jim Weir > wrote:
->
->> My pleasure. I'd do it again tomorrow in a heartbeat.
->
->Well Jim..... I'm sure it was quite the experience for you to
->go through something like that, and I'm sure there are
->a few people here who would be interested in your comments
->as to what it was like.
Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Corrie says...

Well Corrie
It would appear by jauns statement that he agrees with everything zoom has done
because he sure has the same moral values as his hero. Sheesh that guy sure has
a warped way of twisting logic and the truth . But what can you expect after all
he's a li'l moozer :-)

See ya
Chuck



>> > And your point would be...? What did YOUR father do in the war? Does
>> > that define who you are? B. F. D.
>>
>> It does when it turns out you were in agreement with his moral values.

[Eric Miller]

"Jim Weir" > wrote
> But, to be an outspoken critic of some of
> the policies and procedures of the EAA is to be relegated to some little
> pipsqueak that is crushed by the "proxy" system.

How *does* EAA's proxy system work?

The "normal" method is for members to vote and if they choose not to vote
then their votes are decided for them by proxy.
Seems like EAA forgot about members being allowed to choose their own votes
(if the minutes from the annual meeting are indicative).

Eric

[Juan Jimenez]

Ah yes, the moral values of the one who never brings anything he owns and
can't afford to lose to SNF. Hmm. What else can you expect from Mr. Pot K.
Black himself? :)

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Corrie
says...
>
> Well Corrie
> It would appear by jauns statement that he agrees with everything zoom has
done
> because he sure has the same moral values as his hero. Sheesh that guy
sure has
> a warped way of twisting logic and the truth . But what can you expect
after all
> he's a li'l moozer :-)
>
> See ya
> Chuck
>
>
>
> >> > And your point would be...? What did YOUR father do in the war?
Does
> >> > that define who you are? B. F. D.
> >>
> >> It does when it turns out you were in agreement with his moral values.
>

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article <R_Ahb.81398$%h1.85990@sccrnsc02>, Juan Jimenez says...
>
>Ah yes, the moral values of the one who never brings anything he owns and
>can't afford to lose to SNF. Hmm. What else can you expect from Mr. Pot K.
>Black himself? :)
>

Yawn.....


Chuck RAH-15/1 ret

"Credibility it all about credibility"......chuck s

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:20:01 GMT, "Juan Jimenez"
> wrote:

>Ah yes, the moral values of the one who never brings anything he owns and
>can't afford to lose to SNF.

I've heard he only wears six of his ten Rolexes to SnF. But that's to make
his hands faster when he steals chicken.... :-)

Ron "Mine says 'Sports Illustrated'" Wanttaja

[Juan Jimenez]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article <R_Ahb.81398$%h1.85990@sccrnsc02>, Juan Jimenez says...
> >
> >Ah yes, the moral values of the one who never brings anything he owns and
> >can't afford to lose to SNF. Hmm. What else can you expect from Mr. Pot
K.
> >Black himself? :)
> >
>
> Yawn.....

Precisely. <chuckle>

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Ron Wanttaja says...
>
>On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:20:01 GMT, "Juan Jimenez"
>>Ah yes, the moral values of the one who never brings anything he owns and
>>can't afford to lose to SNF.
>
>I've heard he only wears six of his ten Rolexes to SnF. But that's to make
>his hands faster when he steals chicken.... :-)

Ron all I can say is that poor jaun is so uninformed. Lets see I brought my new
Dodge Ram truck to SnF in 1998 ,1999 and my next new one in 2000 ,2001
2002 and 2003 .I just bought another new one that I'll be bringing to SnF in
2004. Credibility, it's still about credibility and "mini zoom" doesn't have any
more credibility then his hero.

By the way I just got a letter from Garfield Hts. Municipal court which stated
that "after review of plaintiff (G.Conn) and defendant's (Chuck S/CGS Aviation)
Brief's, Defendant's motion to quash debtor's exam of defendant Charles
Slusarczyk is granted." Case # is CUH0300308 the judgement was issued
10/09/03. It seems to say as I have been saying all along that I personally
didn't owe Conn any money. More details later after I talk to my attorney. I can
see Tony smiling right now and I can hear him saying now you can go after zoom
and Conn for all the money they cost you. Hmmmmm

Actually Ron I like to wear my deer hunting watch with the light up dial so's I
can tell time in the dark :-)

See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

"credibility it was always about credibility" chuck s

[John Ammeter]

On 12 Oct 2003 19:37:45 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk
> wrote:

>In article >, Ron Wanttaja says...
>>
>>On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:20:01 GMT, "Juan Jimenez"
>>>Ah yes, the moral values of the one who never brings anything he owns and
>>>can't afford to lose to SNF.
>>
>>I've heard he only wears six of his ten Rolexes to SnF. But that's to make
>>his hands faster when he steals chicken.... :-)
>
>Ron all I can say is that poor jaun is so uninformed. Lets see I brought my new
>Dodge Ram truck to SnF in 1998 ,1999 and my next new one in 2000 ,2001
>2002 and 2003 .I just bought another new one that I'll be bringing to SnF in
>2004. Credibility, it's still about credibility and "mini zoom" doesn't have any
>more credibility then his hero.
>
>By the way I just got a letter from Garfield Hts. Municipal court which stated
>that "after review of plaintiff (G.Conn) and defendant's (Chuck S/CGS Aviation)
>Brief's, Defendant's motion to quash debtor's exam of defendant Charles
>Slusarczyk is granted." Case # is CUH0300308 the judgement was issued
>10/09/03. It seems to say as I have been saying all along that I personally
>didn't owe Conn any money. More details later after I talk to my attorney. I can
>see Tony smiling right now and I can hear him saying now you can go after zoom
>and Conn for all the money they cost you. Hmmmmm
>
>Actually Ron I like to wear my deer hunting watch with the light up dial so's I
>can tell time in the dark :-)
>
>See ya
>
>Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret
>
>"credibility it was always about credibility" chuck s

Go for it, Chuck!!!

I doubt Zoom will have any assets to attach but it would be
nice to see him nailed for his actions.

John

[Juan Jimenez]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ron all I can say is that poor jaun is so uninformed. Lets see I brought
my new
> Dodge Ram truck to SnF in 1998 ,1999 and my next new one in 2000 ,2001
> 2002 and 2003

No. I'm not. Care to show whose name is on the title? Heck, you already
mentioned the name of the person responsible for forcing you to keep your
property out of SNF. You know, the one with the judgement? :)

Credibility, indeed. Toldya not to run at the mouth again, 'cause you'd get
your tongue stomped. Oh, and make sure you post what your lawyer tells you
when he explains what a debtor's exam is, and why denying the motion doesn't
prove anything about whether or not you owe Mr. Conn the sum of the
judgement.

Have a nice day.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article <L6sib.747566$YN5.703313@sccrnsc01>, Juan Jimenez says...

>No. I'm not. Care to show whose name is on the title?

How about putting some money where your mouth is ? I'm saying I have a new 2003
Dodge Ram 1500 pick up and my name is on the title. I'm willing to put up $500,
or you pick the amount since your saying my name isn't on the title and I'll
scan the title and post it here. I'll back up what I say with proof not just
make unsubstantiated statements like you and zoomy.

>Heck, you already
>mentioned the name of the person responsible for forcing you to keep your
>property out of SNF. You know, the one with the judgement? :)

Sure the one with the judgment is George Conn I never made it a secret and you
must know who the judgement is against yet you playing the zoom game of
innuendo.When did I say he was the person responsible for forcing me to keep my
property out of Sun n Fun. Listening to zoom again?


>Credibility, indeed. Toldya not to run at the mouth again, 'cause you'd get
>your tongue stomped.

That statement makes no sense except maybe in your own mind.


> Oh, and make sure you post what your lawyer tells you
>when he explains what a debtor's exam is, and why denying the motion doesn't
>prove anything about whether or not you owe Mr. Conn the sum of the >judgement.

It has everything to do with it .Conn's judgement is against an old corporation
called CGS Aviation Inc. of which I was one of many "stockholders". Conn with
zooms help tried to transfer the debt of the old corporation to me and my new
company .The purpose of the hearing was to determine if my new company was an
extension of the old company or a totally different one . If I was deemed to be
the old CGS as you ,zoom and conn keep implying then I would in fact be the
debtor and be subject to a debtors exam. If the old CGS doesn't exist anymore
and I am not responsible for the debts of the old corporation then there is no
one to exam. Maybe you should have talked to Kevin O'Brien about this ,he saw
the paperwork you and zoom never saw. Your sure an example of zoom style
reporting ,it's no wonder you don't write for any legitimate aviation
publications. Credibility it's about credibility.


>Have a nice day.

I just did.

chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

"once a toady always a toady" Froggie the Gremlin

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, John Ammeter says...

>Go for it, Chuck!!!
>
>I doubt Zoom will have any assets to attach but it would be
>nice to see him nailed for his actions.
>
>John

I'm seriously considering that venue, zoom has cost me a lot and I feel he
should be held accountable for things he has done not only to me but to a lot of
people. I'm getting my ducks in order and believe it or not I 'm following an
outline that Tony gave me as to the course of an action against zoom and conn.
He felt I had a solid case against both of them and the only way to deal with
them was a court action. I'll see.

See ya

Chuck RAH-15/1 ret

"evil didn't prosper because good men spoke and evil is still nuts" anon

[Juan_Jimenez]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article <L6sib.747566$YN5.703313@sccrnsc01>, Juan Jimenez says...
>
> How about putting some money where your mouth is ?

No need to put money anywhere. Just post the entire title, and proof that
it's been to SNF. :)

> Sure the one with the judgment is George Conn I never made it a secret...

....and nobody's ever sued you successfully. Unhuh. :)

> When did I say he was the person responsible for forcing me to keep my
> property out of Sun n Fun. Listening to zoom again?

Oh, so you do admit that what I said was true. :) Gotcha.

> It has everything to do with it .

No, it does not. A denial of a motion for a debtor's exam is not a dismissal
of a judgement. Compare each of the four words if you have any doubts about
that. :)

Juan

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Juan_Jimenez
says...

>> How about putting some money where your mouth is ?
>
>No need to put money anywhere. Just post the entire title, and proof that
>it's been to SNF. :)

I guess you lack the courage of your convictions to put up or shut up.What's the
problem ? If what you say is true you should be willing to put up $1000 or more
it shouldn't matter ...if your right. Or is it maybe your the one who just put
your foot in your mouth? .It's all about credibility and here's your chance to
show who's credible you or me...Since I'm sure zooms the one who's feeding you
your info maybe he should ante up the money for the bet. Maybe you'll learn a
little about zooms credibility in the process.


>> Sure the one with the judgment is George Conn I never made it a secret...
>
>...and nobody's ever sued you successfully. Unhuh. :)


Oh so we're back to word games again.Ok tell me what "succesfully sued " means
to you and I can answer.


>> When did I say he was the person responsible for forcing me to keep my
>> property out of Sun n Fun. Listening to zoom again?
>
>Oh, so you do admit that what I said was true. :) Gotcha.

You got nothing..I never said conn or anyone else was forcing me to keep my
property out of SnF, your the one making that claim.

>
>> It has everything to do with it .
>
>No, it does not. A denial of a motion for a debtor's exam is not a dismissal
>of a judgement.

Your not paying attention again. The Judgment against CGS Aviation "INC" ,the
OLD company, the defunct Company ,the non existent since 1986 company is the
company that has the judgment against it. Not me ...not CLM Marketing Inc or the
current CGS Aviation.I never said it was dismissed your saying it, the judgment
against CGS Aviation INC still stands and that's who conn should be after not
me. He was trying to make me personally responsible for the debt of a defunct
out of business corporation. Even you should be able to tell the difference...
Well probably not.

Just for the record are you saying I personally owe conn money? Are you also
saying that I gypped conn out of his deposit he paid to a dealer? Put some
definitive statements out here in public,no beating around the bush or vague
generalities.


Still having a nice day

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

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

[John Ammeter]

Chuck,

Juan is merely a troll. He gets his rocks off from
irritating posts. Every post he makes that someone responds
to is just another stroke for him.

Personally, I'd recommend you simply ignore him and spend
your time nailing Campbell in court.

John


On 13 Oct 2003 20:11:13 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk
> wrote:

>In article >, Juan_Jimenez
>says...
>
>>> How about putting some money where your mouth is ?
>>
>>No need to put money anywhere. Just post the entire title, and proof that
>>it's been to SNF. :)
>
>I guess you lack the courage of your convictions to put up or shut up.What's the
>problem ? If what you say is true you should be willing to put up $1000 or more
>it shouldn't matter ...if your right. Or is it maybe your the one who just put
>your foot in your mouth? .It's all about credibility and here's your chance to
>show who's credible you or me...Since I'm sure zooms the one who's feeding you
>your info maybe he should ante up the money for the bet. Maybe you'll learn a
>little about zooms credibility in the process.
>
>
>>> Sure the one with the judgment is George Conn I never made it a secret...
>>
>>...and nobody's ever sued you successfully. Unhuh. :)
>
>
>Oh so we're back to word games again.Ok tell me what "succesfully sued " means
>to you and I can answer.
>
>
>>> When did I say he was the person responsible for forcing me to keep my
>>> property out of Sun n Fun. Listening to zoom again?
>>
>>Oh, so you do admit that what I said was true. :) Gotcha.
>
>You got nothing..I never said conn or anyone else was forcing me to keep my
>property out of SnF, your the one making that claim.
>
>>
>>> It has everything to do with it .
>>
>>No, it does not. A denial of a motion for a debtor's exam is not a dismissal
>>of a judgement.
>
>Your not paying attention again. The Judgment against CGS Aviation "INC" ,the
>OLD company, the defunct Company ,the non existent since 1986 company is the
>company that has the judgment against it. Not me ...not CLM Marketing Inc or the
>current CGS Aviation.I never said it was dismissed your saying it, the judgment
>against CGS Aviation INC still stands and that's who conn should be after not
>me. He was trying to make me personally responsible for the debt of a defunct
>out of business corporation. Even you should be able to tell the difference...
>Well probably not.
>
>Just for the record are you saying I personally owe conn money? Are you also
>saying that I gypped conn out of his deposit he paid to a dealer? Put some
>definitive statements out here in public,no beating around the bush or vague
>generalities.
>
>
>Still having a nice day
>
>Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret
>
>"evil didn't prosper because good men spoke and evil was nuts" anon

[Barnyard BOb --]

John Ammeter wrote:

>Chuck,
>
>Juan is merely a troll. He gets his rocks off from
>irritating posts. Every post he makes that someone responds
>to is just another stroke for him.
>
>Personally, I'd recommend you simply ignore him and spend
>your time nailing Campbell in court.
>
>John
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

How do you nail somebody that
has a net worth not worth nailing?


Barnyard BOb --

[John Stricker]

From what I've seen over the last couple of years, he has no "rocks" to get
off.

Must be some other motivation.

John Stricker

"John Ammeter" > wrote in message
...
> Chuck,
>
> Juan is merely a troll. He gets his rocks off from
> irritating posts. Every post he makes that someone responds
> to is just another stroke for him.
>
> Personally, I'd recommend you simply ignore him and spend
> your time nailing Campbell in court.
>
> John
>
>
> On 13 Oct 2003 20:11:13 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
Juan_Jimenez
> >says...
> >
> >>> How about putting some money where your mouth is ?
> >>
> >>No need to put money anywhere. Just post the entire title, and proof
that
> >>it's been to SNF. :)
> >
> >I guess you lack the courage of your convictions to put up or shut
up.What's the
> >problem ? If what you say is true you should be willing to put up $1000
or more
> >it shouldn't matter ...if your right. Or is it maybe your the one who
just put
> >your foot in your mouth? .It's all about credibility and here's your
chance to
> >show who's credible you or me...Since I'm sure zooms the one who's
feeding you
> >your info maybe he should ante up the money for the bet. Maybe you'll
learn a
> >little about zooms credibility in the process.
> >
> >
> >>> Sure the one with the judgment is George Conn I never made it a
secret...
> >>
> >>...and nobody's ever sued you successfully. Unhuh. :)
> >
> >
> >Oh so we're back to word games again.Ok tell me what "succesfully sued "
means
> >to you and I can answer.
> >
> >
> >>> When did I say he was the person responsible for forcing me to keep
my
> >>> property out of Sun n Fun. Listening to zoom again?
> >>
> >>Oh, so you do admit that what I said was true. :) Gotcha.
> >
> >You got nothing..I never said conn or anyone else was forcing me to keep
my
> >property out of SnF, your the one making that claim.
> >
> >>
> >>> It has everything to do with it .
> >>
> >>No, it does not. A denial of a motion for a debtor's exam is not a
dismissal
> >>of a judgement.
> >
> >Your not paying attention again. The Judgment against CGS Aviation "INC"
,the
> >OLD company, the defunct Company ,the non existent since 1986 company is
the
> >company that has the judgment against it. Not me ...not CLM Marketing Inc
or the
> >current CGS Aviation.I never said it was dismissed your saying it, the
judgment
> >against CGS Aviation INC still stands and that's who conn should be after
not
> >me. He was trying to make me personally responsible for the debt of a
defunct
> >out of business corporation. Even you should be able to tell the
difference...
> >Well probably not.
> >
> >Just for the record are you saying I personally owe conn money? Are you
also
> >saying that I gypped conn out of his deposit he paid to a dealer? Put
some
> >definitive statements out here in public,no beating around the bush or
vague
> >generalities.
> >
> >
> >Still having a nice day
> >
> >Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret
> >
> >"evil didn't prosper because good men spoke and evil was nuts" anon
>

[Del Rawlins]

On 13 Oct 2003 08:42 PM, John Stricker posted the following:
> From what I've seen over the last couple of years, he has no "rocks"
> to get off.
>
> Must be some other motivation.
>
> John Stricker

John, it's good to have you posting here again. I am becoming more
convinced daily that Jaun is one of those people who is still alive only
because it is against the law to kill him. What with all of the people
he's managed to annoy here, a sane person would eventually take a look
in the mirror and realize where the problem lies.

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

[Frank Hitlaw]

"John Stricker" > wrote in message >...
> From what I've seen over the last couple of years, he has no "rocks" to get
> off.
>
> Must be some other motivation.
>
> John Stricker
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
John;
Yeeeooow! that one hurt all the way over here in Jakarta.It answers
two questions,first why he hides behind the mooz and second why he
won't fly his BD5J.Nuts yes,balls no.
Frank M.Hitlaw Asst.Commander SnF chicken thieves

> "John Ammeter" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Chuck,
> >
> > Juan is merely a troll. He gets his rocks off from
> > irritating posts. Every post he makes that someone responds
> > to is just another stroke for him.
> >
> > Personally, I'd recommend you simply ignore him and spend
> > your time nailing Campbell in court.
> >
> > John

[red12049]

Juan,

I have no horse in this race, I am just an interested reader. Have followed
this group for several years now. I am not impugning your manhood, nor the
BD-5, nor your military service. Nor am I a "putz" , which seems to be your
favorite slur. I have just one question: Whenever ANYONE asks a direct
question of you that you can no longer avoid, or twist, you simply
dissappear. Why? Can you not answer a direct question? You even did it to
me a bit ago. BTW, as an aside, I did a Google search on your name and
found that you use similar tactics, and meet similar results, on virtually
all the newsgroups that you post to. Enquiring minds want to know.....


"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
Juan_Jimenez
> says...
>
> >> How about putting some money where your mouth is ?
> >
> >No need to put money anywhere. Just post the entire title, and proof that
> >it's been to SNF. :)
>
> I guess you lack the courage of your convictions to put up or shut
up.What's the
> problem ? If what you say is true you should be willing to put up $1000 or
more
> it shouldn't matter ...if your right. Or is it maybe your the one who just
put
> your foot in your mouth? .It's all about credibility and here's your
chance to
> show who's credible you or me...Since I'm sure zooms the one who's feeding
you
> your info maybe he should ante up the money for the bet. Maybe you'll
learn a
> little about zooms credibility in the process.
>
>
> >> Sure the one with the judgment is George Conn I never made it a
secret...
> >
> >...and nobody's ever sued you successfully. Unhuh. :)
>
>
> Oh so we're back to word games again.Ok tell me what "succesfully sued "
means
> to you and I can answer.
>
>
> >> When did I say he was the person responsible for forcing me to keep my
> >> property out of Sun n Fun. Listening to zoom again?
> >
> >Oh, so you do admit that what I said was true. :) Gotcha.
>
> You got nothing..I never said conn or anyone else was forcing me to keep
my
> property out of SnF, your the one making that claim.
>
> >
> >> It has everything to do with it .
> >
> >No, it does not. A denial of a motion for a debtor's exam is not a
dismissal
> >of a judgement.
>
> Your not paying attention again. The Judgment against CGS Aviation "INC"
,the
> OLD company, the defunct Company ,the non existent since 1986 company is
the
> company that has the judgment against it. Not me ...not CLM Marketing Inc
or the
> current CGS Aviation.I never said it was dismissed your saying it, the
judgment
> against CGS Aviation INC still stands and that's who conn should be after
not
> me. He was trying to make me personally responsible for the debt of a
defunct
> out of business corporation. Even you should be able to tell the
difference...
> Well probably not.
>
> Just for the record are you saying I personally owe conn money? Are you
also
> saying that I gypped conn out of his deposit he paid to a dealer? Put some
> definitive statements out here in public,no beating around the bush or
vague
> generalities.
>
>
> Still having a nice day
>
> Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret
>
> "evil didn't prosper because good men spoke and evil was nuts" anon
>

In article >,
Barnyard BOb -- > wrote:
>
>
>
> John Ammeter wrote:
>
>>Chuck,
>>
>>Juan is merely a troll. He gets his rocks off from
>>irritating posts. Every post he makes that someone responds
>>to is just another stroke for him.
>>
>>Personally, I'd recommend you simply ignore him and spend
>>your time nailing Campbell in court.
>>
>>John
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>How do you nail somebody that
>has a net worth not worth nailing?
>
>
>Barnyard BOb --

with a ha'-penny nail, of course. <grin>

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, John Ammeter says...

Your right John he certainly is a Troll AND a toady for zoom. I'd like to get
him to say something actionable so he can join conn and zoom when the time
comes. He might be playing a fool's game but I'm as serious as a heart attack.

Still getting my Ducks in a row :-)

See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret


>Chuck,
>
>Juan is merely a troll. He gets his rocks off from
>irritating posts. Every post he makes that someone responds
>to is just another stroke for him.
>
>Personally, I'd recommend you simply ignore him and spend
>your time nailing Campbell in court.
>
>John

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Barnyard BOb -- says...

>How do you nail somebody that
>has a net worth not worth nailing?

Well Unka Bob I know that it's gonna be a waste of money and that's what zooms
counted on for a long time ,that no one will sue him for what he did because
he's always broke. But in my mind there are other things then money that have
value for example me having a Judgment or Lien on his butt for the rest of his
life. Or knowing that he'll finally be held accountable for all he's done not
only to me but to a lot of us.

To me he's like a guy that rapes someone's wife and everyone knows about it but
he gets out on a technicality.He still did it but he acts like it never happened
and can't understand why the husband is still ****ed off. Some will say forget
it it's "old news" but not to the husband. Others will say he's OK he never
raped "my" wife, that's an insult to the husband and wife.

Maybe I'm the crazy one and maybe to some they feel I'm obsessed with this but
I'm not. Tony used to tell me he was impressed on how I handled it mostly with
humor. But zooms like a hemmoroid and at some point it must be dealt with.

Someday we'll all do a Muzzle Loader toast to Truth,Credibility and the American
Justice System :-) Just a small one tho'.

See ya Unk

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

"never ,never argue with someone that rose from the dead" chuck s (I was
there)

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 06:18:35 -0400, "red12049" >
wrote:

>Juan,
>
>I have no horse in this race, I am just an interested reader. Have followed
>this group for several years now. I am not impugning your manhood, nor the
>BD-5, nor your military service. Nor am I a "putz" , which seems to be your
>favorite slur. I have just one question: Whenever ANYONE asks a direct
>question of you that you can no longer avoid, or twist, you simply
>dissappear. Why? Can you not answer a direct question? You even did it to
>me a bit ago. BTW, as an aside, I did a Google search on your name and
>found that you use similar tactics, and meet similar results, on virtually
>all the newsgroups that you post to. Enquiring minds want to know.....

Red, I'm no shrink but it appears to me that the answer is obvious: he
likes it.

At some level, it gives him satisfaction to twist words and be pseudo
clever. At this point, I'd guess that he cannot admit that Zoom and
therefore he, could be wrong about so much. He's invested too much
and has too much pride to admit that for literally years, he's been
snowed by Zoom. On the other hand you never know, perhaps (again, at
some level) Juan knows exactly what he's doing and simply likes the
chaos he creates.

Corky Scott

[RobertR237]

In article >, "red12049" >
writes:

>
>Juan,
>
>I have no horse in this race, I am just an interested reader. Have followed
>this group for several years now. I am not impugning your manhood, nor the
>BD-5, nor your military service. Nor am I a "putz" , which seems to be your
>favorite slur. I have just one question: Whenever ANYONE asks a direct
>question of you that you can no longer avoid, or twist, you simply
>dissappear. Why? Can you not answer a direct question? You even did it to
>me a bit ago. BTW, as an aside, I did a Google search on your name and
>found that you use similar tactics, and meet similar results, on virtually
>all the newsgroups that you post to. Enquiring minds want to know.....
>
>

A neglected child in search of attention.


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

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

[RobertR237]

In article >, ChuckSlusarczyk
> writes:

>
>Well Unka Bob I know that it's gonna be a waste of money and that's what
>zooms
>counted on for a long time ,that no one will sue him for what he did because
>he's always broke. But in my mind there are other things then money that have
>value for example me having a Judgment or Lien on his butt for the rest of
>his
>life. Or knowing that he'll finally be held accountable for all he's done not
>only to me but to a lot of us.
>
>To me he's like a guy that rapes someone's wife and everyone knows about it
>but
>he gets out on a technicality.He still did it but he acts like it never
>happened
>and can't understand why the husband is still ****ed off. Some will say
>forget
>it it's "old news" but not to the husband. Others will say he's OK he never
>raped "my" wife, that's an insult to the husband and wife.
>
>Maybe I'm the crazy one and maybe to some they feel I'm obsessed with this
>but
>I'm not. Tony used to tell me he was impressed on how I handled it mostly
>with
>humor. But zooms like a hemmoroid and at some point it must be dealt with.
>
>Someday we'll all do a Muzzle Loader toast to Truth,Credibility and the
>American
>Justice System :-) Just a small one tho'.
>
>See ya Unk
>
>Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret
>
>"never ,never argue with someone that rose from the dead" chuck s (I was
>there)
>

By all means, go for it. Its past time that justice was brought on Zoom and if
Jaun gets in the way, take him down too. It shouldn't take too much and both
will run for their rat holes.



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

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

[RobertR237]

In article >, Barnyard BOb --
> writes:

>
>How do you nail somebody that
>has a net worth not worth nailing?
>
>
>Barnyard BOb --
>
>

Good point. ;-)


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

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

[RobertR237]

In article >, John Ammeter
> writes:

>
>Chuck,
>
>Juan is merely a troll. He gets his rocks off from
>irritating posts. Every post he makes that someone responds
>to is just another stroke for him.
>
>Personally, I'd recommend you simply ignore him and spend
>your time nailing Campbell in court.
>
>John
>
>

Just filter the idiot out, I have and it sure has improved the odor around
here.


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

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

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Corky Scott says...

>Red, I'm no shrink but it appears to me that the answer is obvious: he
>likes it.

Corky I think your right it's a safe way to feel important but in the final
analysis homebuilt wise he hasn't done much .He brags about his BD-5 but lacks
the courage of his convictions to fly it. Like zoom he's a Walter Mitty.

>
>At some level, it gives him satisfaction to twist words and be pseudo
>clever. At this point, I'd guess that he cannot admit that Zoom and
>therefore he, could be wrong about so much. He's invested too much
>and has too much pride to admit that for literally years, he's been
>snowed by Zoom.

I agree on the pride issue as well,seems he'd rather be considered an Idiot by
everyone then admit he was wrong ...it's his choice. I can tell you that those
in the aviation writers circles that know of him hold him in the same regard as
they do zoom.


> On the other hand you never know, perhaps (again, at
>some level) Juan knows exactly what he's doing and simply likes the
>chaos he creates.

I can agree with that as well as it would seem that chaos is the only real
success in aviation he can point to. He's dug his own hole and I hope he doesn't
plans on writing for other aviation publications because he won't.You'd be
surprised who lurks on this group.

See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

[Juan Jimenez]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
Juan_Jimenez
> says...
>
> >> How about putting some money where your mouth is ?
> >
> >No need to put money anywhere. Just post the entire title, and proof that
> >it's been to SNF. :)
>
> I guess you lack the courage of your convictions to put up or shut up...

I'm not interested in your BS. Title, proof that it was at SNF. Two simple
pieces of information. Don't beat around the bush. Either you are a liar, or
you are not.

> Oh so we're back to word games again.

Nope, simple facts, the ones you don't like to own up to.

> >> When did I say he was the person responsible for forcing me to keep my
> >> property out of Sun n Fun. Listening to zoom again?
> >
> >Oh, so you do admit that what I said was true. :) Gotcha.
>
> You got nothing..I never said conn or anyone else was forcing me to keep
my
> property out of SnF, your the one making that claim.

Nope. What you typed gave you away. Again. <chuckle>

> Your not paying attention again. The Judgment against CGS Aviation "INC"
....

If that's true you wouldn't be avoiding bringing property that is truly in
your name when you come to SNF.

The judgement speaks for itself.

[Juan Jimenez]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, John Ammeter
says...
>
> Your right John he certainly is a Troll AND a toady for zoom. I'd like to
get
> him to say something actionable so he can join conn and zoom when the time
> comes. He might be playing a fool's game but I'm as serious as a heart
attack.

ROFLMAO! :)

You know _exactly_ where to find me at OSH or SNF. Come by and look me up if
you have a problem with me. That is, of course, assuming that you have the
ability to remove that huge yellow streak on your back. You're just like all
the other RAH Gaggle. All bark, no bite, real big on the Internet, real
small in person. Putz.

[Juan Jimenez]

"red12049" > wrote in message
...
> Juan,
>
> I have no horse in this race, I am just an interested reader. Have
followed
> this group for several years now. I am not impugning your manhood, nor
the
> BD-5, nor your military service. Nor am I a "putz" , which seems to be
your
> favorite slur. I have just one question: Whenever ANYONE asks a direct
> question of you that you can no longer avoid, or twist, you simply
> dissappear. Why? Can you not answer a direct question? You even did it
to
> me a bit ago. BTW, as an aside, I did a Google search on your name and
> found that you use similar tactics, and meet similar results, on virtually
> all the newsgroups that you post to. Enquiring minds want to know.....

You will find that I did answer the question you quoted in your message, as
well as all the other ones. Unlike most of the RAH gaggle, I have work to do
and ocassionally travel to teach and perform consulting gigs.

Notice that when I asked a simple question, ChuckS tried to avoid the matter
by offering a bet as a diversion. It would have been much easier for him to
put up, instead of trying to avoid the issue. All he had to do was post the
title of the vehicle in question, and proof that it was at SNF. As you can
see, he didn't. You will also see that this particular thread started when
Chuck decided to excrete comments about my moral values in response to a
message that was not directed at him and did not contain a word about him. I
have decided that every time he does that, I will stomp on him. When he
stops, I'll stop. Simple as that.

And if you did in fact look at Google, you will find that I didn't start
this, Slusarczyk did. He already admitted that he started it when he decided
to attack and insult me out of the blue, with no provocation, merely because
I posted that I was writing for Jim Campbell. He now denies it, but the
evidence is right there, in black and white on Google. You may consider
ChuckS to be worthy of respect. In my opinion, he's nothing but a greasy
slimeball worthy of nothing but disdain.

Juan

P.S. Watch what happens now. First, all of his groupies and brownnosers will
jump into this thread and attack me with prepubescent insults. Then ChuckS
will make a pompous entry denying everything. Then the groupies will all
howl at the moon and agree with their illustrious slimeball. And you'll find
that this pattern is MUCH more common than any pattern you'll find in Google
related to my postings. It happens with anyone who disagrees with the
gaggle.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article <EG6jb.561855$Oz4.523000@rwcrnsc54>, Juan Jimenez says...

>I'm not interested in your BS. Title, proof that it was at SNF. Two simple
>pieces of information. Don't beat around the bush. Either you are a liar, or
>you are not.

You've just twisted the facts again .Your the one that said I didn't bring any
personal property to SnF, your the one who doubted the Truck was in my name. Now
your trying to make it sound as if I was the one making a claim that was either
a lie or not. Either you have the courage of your convictions to put up or shut
up simple as that. Since you can't afford to bet $500 let's put up $100. A brave
macho guy like you that says either I'm the liar or not and acts like he knows
the answer to the question, surely isn't afraid to put up some $ to back up his
contention. I'm not the one that's afraid to show the title your the one that's
afraid to lay a few bucks on the line. If your so right why be afraid?



>
>> Oh so we're back to word games again.
>
>Nope, simple facts, the ones you don't like to own up to.

Not a good answer just answer the question.


>Nope. What you typed gave you away. Again. <chuckle>

Once again you avoided answering the question.

>
>> Your not paying attention again. The Judgment against CGS Aviation "INC"
>...
>
>If that's true you wouldn't be avoiding bringing property that is truly in
>your name when you come to SNF.

Who said I was avoiding bringing property to SnF your making things up again.
Credibility

>The judgement speaks for itself.

It certainly does it says the Judgement is against a defunct since 1986 company
not me. Once again you've proven you lack reading and comprehension skills.


Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret


"credibility it was always about credibility" chuck s

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article <gQ6jb.564960$cF.242562@rwcrnsc53>, Juan Jimenez says...

>ROFLMAO! :)
>
>You know _exactly_ where to find me at OSH or SNF. Come by and look me up if
>you have a problem with me. That is, of course, assuming that you have the
>ability to remove that huge yellow streak on your back. You're just like all
>the other RAH Gaggle. All bark, no bite, real big on the Internet, real
>small in person. Putz.

Don't give yourself that much credit, your as much a problem to me as an itch.
You might think I have a yellow streak but I test flew every airplane ,hang
glider,and tow kite I ever built or designed which is more then you can say. As
Sister Mary Hand Grenade used to say "Empty cans make the most noise" actions
speak louder then words and you and zoom are all sizzle and no bacon.. Face it
your a wanna be just like zoom. You know where to find me as well.

Have a

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

"credibility it was always about credibility"...chuck s

[red12049]

Juan,

People are jumping down your throat not because of Chuck or Jim, but because
of YOUR tactics. You have NOT answered any questions, you have used classic
evasive techniques. I only hope that your son does not do as well as you do
in evasion, else you are in for a really rough ride as a father.


"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "red12049" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Juan,
> >
> > I have no horse in this race, I am just an interested reader. Have
> followed
> > this group for several years now. I am not impugning your manhood, nor
> the
> > BD-5, nor your military service. Nor am I a "putz" , which seems to be
> your
> > favorite slur. I have just one question: Whenever ANYONE asks a direct
> > question of you that you can no longer avoid, or twist, you simply
> > dissappear. Why? Can you not answer a direct question? You even did
it
> to
> > me a bit ago. BTW, as an aside, I did a Google search on your name and
> > found that you use similar tactics, and meet similar results, on
virtually
> > all the newsgroups that you post to. Enquiring minds want to know.....
>
> You will find that I did answer the question you quoted in your message,
as
> well as all the other ones. Unlike most of the RAH gaggle, I have work to
do
> and ocassionally travel to teach and perform consulting gigs.
>
> Notice that when I asked a simple question, ChuckS tried to avoid the
matter
> by offering a bet as a diversion. It would have been much easier for him
to
> put up, instead of trying to avoid the issue. All he had to do was post
the
> title of the vehicle in question, and proof that it was at SNF. As you can
> see, he didn't. You will also see that this particular thread started when
> Chuck decided to excrete comments about my moral values in response to a
> message that was not directed at him and did not contain a word about him.
I
> have decided that every time he does that, I will stomp on him. When he
> stops, I'll stop. Simple as that.
>
> And if you did in fact look at Google, you will find that I didn't start
> this, Slusarczyk did. He already admitted that he started it when he
decided
> to attack and insult me out of the blue, with no provocation, merely
because
> I posted that I was writing for Jim Campbell. He now denies it, but the
> evidence is right there, in black and white on Google. You may consider
> ChuckS to be worthy of respect. In my opinion, he's nothing but a greasy
> slimeball worthy of nothing but disdain.
>
> Juan
>
> P.S. Watch what happens now. First, all of his groupies and brownnosers
will
> jump into this thread and attack me with prepubescent insults. Then ChuckS
> will make a pompous entry denying everything. Then the groupies will all
> howl at the moon and agree with their illustrious slimeball. And you'll
find
> that this pattern is MUCH more common than any pattern you'll find in
Google
> related to my postings. It happens with anyone who disagrees with the
> gaggle.
>
>

[Barnyard BOb --]

"red12049" wrote:

>Juan,
>
>People are jumping down your throat not because of Chuck or Jim, but because
>of YOUR tactics. You have NOT answered any questions, you have used classic
>evasive techniques. I only hope that your son does not do as well as you do
>in evasion, else you are in for a really rough ride as a father.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

More than all that...

Let's not forget he repeatedly sold, rather than test fly
what he has dabbled with... all the while accusing
others of "yellow streaks". Add rampant hypocrisy?

Also --
Juan reminds me of chicken****s that dare you to punch their
lights out for miscreant, pugnacious and goading behavior...
then would sue anyone that so much as even breathed on them.

Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

[Juan Jimenez]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article <EG6jb.561855$Oz4.523000@rwcrnsc54>, Juan Jimenez says...
>
> >I'm not interested in your BS. Title, proof that it was at SNF. Two
simple
> >pieces of information. Don't beat around the bush. Either you are a liar,
or
> >you are not.
>
> You've just twisted the facts again .Your the one that said I didn't bring
any...

For the third time, title and proof it was at SNF. Very simple. No title? No
proof? You're a liar.

It's about credibility. The kind you don't have, as you backpedal and try to
squirm out of the hole you dug for yourself.

Juan

[Juan Jimenez]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article <gQ6jb.564960$cF.242562@rwcrnsc53>, Juan Jimenez says...
>
> >ROFLMAO! :)
> >
> >You know _exactly_ where to find me at OSH or SNF. Come by and look me up
if
> >you have a problem with me. That is, of course, assuming that you have
the
> >ability to remove that huge yellow streak on your back. You're just like
all
> >the other RAH Gaggle. All bark, no bite, real big on the Internet, real
> >small in person. Putz.
>
> Don't give yourself that much credit, your as much a problem to me as an
itch.

That you can't scratch, 'cause you can't reach that yellow streak.

It's all about the credibility you don't have.

[Juan Jimenez]

"red12049" > wrote in message
...
> Juan,
>
> People are jumping down your throat not because of Chuck or Jim, but
because
> of YOUR tactics. You have NOT answered any questions, you have used
classic
> evasive techniques. I only hope that your son does not do as well as you
do
> in evasion, else you are in for a really rough ride as a father.

Sorry, kiddo, but you are completely mistaken. You may have done a search on
Google, but you didn't read the messages, nor have you followed the threads
here. I suggest you keep your day job, 'cause you're not very good at what
you're trying to do here.

As to my son, you have no idea how far removed your comments are from
reality. Why don't you ask the people from RAH who had the backbone to meet
me at OSH about my son, who was there with me. That is, if you are
interested in facts, not your bumbling brand of clownish speculation.

<chuckle>

[Juan Jimenez]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Barnyard BOb --" >
>
> More than all that...
>
> Let's not forget he repeatedly sold, rather than test fly
> what he has dabbled with... all the while accusing
> others of "yellow streaks". Add rampant hypocrisy?
>
> Also --
> Juan reminds me of chicken****s that dare you to punch their
> lights out for miscreant, pugnacious and goading behavior...
> then would sue anyone that so much as even breathed on them.
>
> Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

Sez the folding wing airplane clown who knows he will never be able to fly,
own or even fit into a BD-5J, not even in another 50 years of putt-putting
around the sky like a good bus driver, looking for a calculator to help you
do basic math. <chuckle> Gawd, you are such a pitiful chicken**** pinhead.
I'd have plonked you ages ago if you weren't such a bad comedian, but you
know what they say, barnyard animals make for cheap entertainment. :)

Tell you what, milquetoast, come to the next OSH, look me up and I'll give
you a chance to "punch my lights out" as you so colorfully put it. With one
hand tied behind my back and a patch over one eye, in front of an audience.
Just make sure your Medicare is paid up, 'cause I don't have lawyers take
care of personal problems, I do that myself. <chuckle> You're just like the
rest of the gaggle, all bark, no bite. Here boy, here boy, have a bone.
ROFL!

[red12049]

As I said Juan, your tactics. Please go back and read my post, my choice
of words, the tone of my post, and then read yours and compare. All about
your tactics.


"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
news:owfjb.776657$YN5.760393@sccrnsc01...
>
> "red12049" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Juan,
> >
> > People are jumping down your throat not because of Chuck or Jim, but
> because
> > of YOUR tactics. You have NOT answered any questions, you have used
> classic
> > evasive techniques. I only hope that your son does not do as well as
you
> do
> > in evasion, else you are in for a really rough ride as a father.
>
> Sorry, kiddo, but you are completely mistaken. You may have done a search
on
> Google, but you didn't read the messages, nor have you followed the
threads
> here. I suggest you keep your day job, 'cause you're not very good at what
> you're trying to do here.
>
> As to my son, you have no idea how far removed your comments are from
> reality. Why don't you ask the people from RAH who had the backbone to
meet
> me at OSH about my son, who was there with me. That is, if you are
> interested in facts, not your bumbling brand of clownish speculation.
>
> <chuckle>
>
>

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article <8tfjb.779692$Ho3.207335@sccrnsc03>, Juan Jimenez says...
>> Don't give yourself that much credit, your as much a problem to me as an
>itch.
>
>That you can't scratch, 'cause you can't reach that yellow streak.
>
>It's all about the credibility you don't have.


I guess I'm credible enough to be in the EAA Hall of Fame,a recipient of the
John Moody Award,a recipient of the LAMA award and credible enough to have
authored many articles in various legitimate aviation publications. I love it
when envy rears it's ugly head. Trying to get my goat must make you feel like a
man especially since your to cowardly to fly what you build . What a phony just
like your master.

Still having a nice day

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

"once a toady always a toady" anon I think

[John Ammeter]

On 15 Oct 2003 18:38:29 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk
> wrote:

>In article <8tfjb.779692$Ho3.207335@sccrnsc03>, Juan Jimenez says...
>>> Don't give yourself that much credit, your as much a problem to me as an
>>itch.
>>
>>That you can't scratch, 'cause you can't reach that yellow streak.
>>
>>It's all about the credibility you don't have.
>
>
>I guess I'm credible enough to be in the EAA Hall of Fame,a recipient of the
>John Moody Award,a recipient of the LAMA award and credible enough to have
>authored many articles in various legitimate aviation publications. I love it
>when envy rears it's ugly head. Trying to get my goat must make you feel like a
>man especially since your to cowardly to fly what you build . What a phony just
>like your master.
>
>Still having a nice day
>
>Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret
>
>"once a toady always a toady" anon I think

So true....

I find it hard to understand why and how Juan can be so
blind to the real world.

John

[Mark Hickey]

ChuckSlusarczyk > wrote:

>In article <8tfjb.779692$Ho3.207335@sccrnsc03>, Juan Jimenez says...
>>> Don't give yourself that much credit, your as much a problem to me as an
>>itch.
>>
>>That you can't scratch, 'cause you can't reach that yellow streak.
>>
>>It's all about the credibility you don't have.
>
>I guess I'm credible enough to be in the EAA Hall of Fame,a recipient of the
>John Moody Award,a recipient of the LAMA award and credible enough to have
>authored many articles in various legitimate aviation publications. I love it
>when envy rears it's ugly head. Trying to get my goat must make you feel like a
>man especially since your to cowardly to fly what you build . What a phony just
>like your master.
>
>Still having a nice day
>
>Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret
>
>"once a toady always a toady" anon I think

Game, set and match to Chuck.

I've got no dog in this hunt, but as an impartial observer, I'd say
that so far the best Juan has done is an interesting mental picture
(stomping someone's tongue), but it's been his getting all the
footprints so far.

It would be a little more fun to read if there was any substance on
Juan's side - or at least he had the 'nads to put up $100 on the bet
he's trying to ignore. Heck, I'll even hold the wagers for y'all. No
charge, even...

Mark Hickey

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 04:28:50 GMT, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>It would be a little more fun to read if there was any substance on
>Juan's side - or at least he had the 'nads to put up $100 on the bet
>he's trying to ignore. Heck, I'll even hold the wagers for y'all. No
>charge, even...

Tch. Oh ye of little imagination:

"The scan of that title looks like it has been digitally altered. I win."

"The truck photo doesn't show both the license plate and a recognizable SnF
feature. I win."

"Somebody told me that photo was really taken at Oshkosh. I win."

"There's no proof that photo is of Chuck's truck. I win."

"That truck looks like it was pasted into a SnF photo. I win."

"The title says the truck is green, and the photo looks like it's
blueish-green. I win."

"The last digit on the plate is obscured. I win."

"That's obviously not Tom Poberezny, Chuck Yeager, and Bob Hoover sitting
on the tailgate, slapping Chuck on the back in front of the SnF 2002 entry
sign while Chuck holds the clearly-visible title up to the camera. I win."


Ron Wanttaja

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article <owfjb.776657$YN5.760393@sccrnsc01>, Juan Jimenez says...
>
>As to my son, you have no idea how far removed your comments are from
>reality. Why don't you ask the people from RAH who had the backbone to meet
>me at OSH about my son, who was there with me. That is, if you are
>interested in facts, not your bumbling brand of clownish speculation.

I seem to recall that they said you were a timid well behaved mild mannered
perfect gentleman and not one smart remark passed your lips .Seems you save that
stuff for the net where you can hide behind your keyboard. Or was it that you
didn't want your son to see the real you? Does he read English and do you let
him read what you post? No bumbling clownish speculation just the facts do you
let you son read what you post.?

Chuck S RAH -15/1 ret

"Sorry I have only one persona"

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Juan Jimenez
says...
>Notice that when I asked a simple question, ChuckS tried to avoid the matter
>by offering a bet as a diversion. It would have been much easier for him to
>put up, instead of trying to avoid the issue. All he had to do was post the
>title of the vehicle in question, and proof that it was at SNF.

Here we go again twisting the facts and changing the rules . I posted that since
1999 I had 2 different trucks at SnF and that I had just bought a new one and
was going to bring it to SnF. You said whos's name is on the title?
I said mine, you said prove it. I said I would, but lets see if you got the
courage of your convictions to put up or shut up and put some money on your
courage. Should be no problem since you think your right. You twisted it and
said I was avoiding it.No,no, no it's you that's avoiding being proven a liar.

Now you want proof that my new truck was at SnF as well as seeing the title.You
know damn well I couldn't have proof it was there because it hasn't been there
yet. I had it only 2 weeks but rest assured it will be at SnF this April. The
titles for my last 2 trucks went with the trucks when I traded them in. With
your logic it's no wonder you write for zoom.

Here's the deal, the titles in my name for the new truck, you want to see it put
up or shut up or show me the title to your house or your vehicle .I got as much
right to ask you as you do me. That way it won't cost you anything to prove the
courage of your convictions because money seems to be a factor in determining
your bravery.

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Mark Hickey says...
>Game, set and match to Chuck.
>
>I've got no dog in this hunt, but as an impartial observer, I'd say
>that so far the best Juan has done is an interesting mental picture
>(stomping someone's tongue), but it's been his getting all the
>footprints so far.


Hi Mark I don't know ya but I appreciate your input and I get the same mental
image and it's a hoot :-)

>
>It would be a little more fun to read if there was any substance on
>Juan's side - or at least he had the 'nads to put up $100 on the bet
>he's trying to ignore. Heck, I'll even hold the wagers for y'all. No
>charge, even...

That's proof that all he is a loud mouth without values. Had he had any values
he would have bet me just to show he was sincere in his beliefs and would take
the opportunity to show he was more then a windbag. But he fears that the title
"just" might be in my name and he's not man enough to risk it. So he goes off on
tangents trying to avoid the initial challenge.Same with his piloting when it
comes time to put it on the line and make the first flight in his plane he
chickens out and sells the project. The biggest joke is that then he calls
people who have actually built and flown their airplanes "yellow" or "cowards"
and he wants to resort to fist fighting to prove his manhood . Sad.

By the way I'd be willing to have you hold the money and even be the Judge LOL!!

See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

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

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Ron Wanttaja says...
Gees Ron I almost blew coffee all over the keyboard LOL!!
Your exactly right ,I was thinking to myself how could he possibly twist the
title senario and you showed me how. I just read where he added proof that the
truck was at SnF. I posted that I just got the truck and it would be there this
coming SnF. So I guess he could say:

"See...the new truck you just bought wasn't at SnF last year " I win

I guess this year I'll take pictures of all my stuff with proof I was there.
:-)
I got some shots of me standing next to Paul Poberezney while he was giving a
little talk at the Hawk Owners party last year does that count?

See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret




>Tch. Oh ye of little imagination:
>
>"The scan of that title looks like it has been digitally altered. I win."
>
>"The truck photo doesn't show both the license plate and a recognizable SnF
>feature. I win."
>
>"Somebody told me that photo was really taken at Oshkosh. I win."
>
>"There's no proof that photo is of Chuck's truck. I win."
>
>"That truck looks like it was pasted into a SnF photo. I win."
>
>"The title says the truck is green, and the photo looks like it's
>blueish-green. I win."
>
>"The last digit on the plate is obscured. I win."
>
>"That's obviously not Tom Poberezny, Chuck Yeager, and Bob Hoover sitting
>on the tailgate, slapping Chuck on the back in front of the SnF 2002 entry
>sign while Chuck holds the clearly-visible title up to the camera. I win."
>
>
>Ron Wanttaja

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, ChuckSlusarczyk says...

>I got some shots of me standing next to Paul Poberezney while he was giving a
>little talk at the Hawk Owners party last year does that count?

Opps I misspelled Pauls name .I committed a grave error especially with Eastern
Europeon names I "added" a VOWEL. Yipes I of all people should have known
better. But I'll blame it on the early hour ,lack of sleep looking for my truck
title,the hic cups etc. It should have been Poberezny :-)

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

mea cupa ,mea cupa, mea maxima cupa....

[RobertR237]

In article >, Ron Wanttaja
> writes:

>On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 04:28:50 GMT, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>>It would be a little more fun to read if there was any substance on
>>Juan's side - or at least he had the 'nads to put up $100 on the bet
>>he's trying to ignore. Heck, I'll even hold the wagers for y'all. No
>>charge, even...
>
>Tch. Oh ye of little imagination:
>
>"The scan of that title looks like it has been digitally altered. I win."
>
>"The truck photo doesn't show both the license plate and a recognizable SnF
>feature. I win."
>
>"Somebody told me that photo was really taken at Oshkosh. I win."
>
>"There's no proof that photo is of Chuck's truck. I win."
>
>"That truck looks like it was pasted into a SnF photo. I win."
>
>"The title says the truck is green, and the photo looks like it's
>blueish-green. I win."
>
>"The last digit on the plate is obscured. I win."
>
>"That's obviously not Tom Poberezny, Chuck Yeager, and Bob Hoover sitting
>on the tailgate, slapping Chuck on the back in front of the SnF 2002 entry
>sign while Chuck holds the clearly-visible title up to the camera. I win."
>
>
>Ron Wanttaja
>
>

Yep, Its the old "Did you beat your wife and kids again today?" gambit.

There is no way to prove anything to yawn, he will always claim that it wasn't
real or that "he didn't see it" or whatever. Just like his avoiding looking
into the documentation that Chuck has repeatedly offered regarding the Conn
crap. He doesn't want to see facts, they would just get in the way of his
conclusions. The idiot doesn't deserve anyones attention and that is what he
craves most.


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

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

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 16 Oct 2003 04:13:47 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk
> wrote:

>In article >, Ron Wanttaja says...
>Gees Ron I almost blew coffee all over the keyboard LOL!!
>Your exactly right ,I was thinking to myself how could he possibly twist the
>title senario and you showed me how. I just read where he added proof that the
>truck was at SnF. I posted that I just got the truck and it would be there this
>coming SnF.

There's also the hit-or-miss nature of pictures in non-binary newsgroups
like RAH. Some ISPs and gateways strip off any attachments. For many
folks, a posting saying "Here's my title" would apparently be empty, thus
giving Juan more ammunition.

Better to pick a web-site location and post the URL.

Ron Wanttaja

[Jim Weir]

There is a term for this in baseball

....it's called having an alligator mouth and a hummingbird ass.

Jim


ChuckSlusarczyk >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->In article >, Mark Hickey says...
->>Game, set and match to Chuck.
->>
->>I've got no dog in this hunt, but as an impartial observer, I'd say
->>that so far the best Juan has done is an interesting mental picture
->>(stomping someone's tongue), but it's been his getting all the
->>footprints so far.
->
->
->Hi Mark I don't know ya but I appreciate your input and I get the same mental
->image and it's a hoot :-)
Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Jim Weir]

....culpa...

Jim

ChuckSlusarczyk >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->
->mea cupa ,mea cupa, mea maxima cupa....





Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:39:30 -0700, Jim Weir > wrote:

:
:...culpa...
:

No, he's saying he had a maxima cuppa muzzleloader, and that made him
blow Paul's name.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Jim Weir says...
>
>
>...culpa...

Oh no !!!your right ,it's been so long since I was an Altar Boy that I dropped
out the L . The longer I looked at it the more something didn't seem right.I
couldn't find the proper spelling in my English to Finnish dictionary. First I
add a vowel and then I leave off a consonant.

Thanks

See ya

Chuck (I kin spel reel good )S

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, says...
>
>:...culpa...
>:
>
>No, he's saying he had a maxima cuppa muzzleloader, and that made him
>blow Paul's name.
Yeah ! Yeah that's what it was ...I was aaah gonna have a glass of aa Kool Aid
, yeah yeah that's what it was Kool Aid and then somebody .....ah ..switched
glasses on me ..yeah that's it and then I got
maxima loaded er I mean somebody got me maxima loaded ....I can't hardly spell
unloaded and I really can't spell when loaded........But it wasn't my fault.

it was non culpa (I think) LOL!!

Chuck (Dominus vobiscum ) S

[Ron Natalie]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message ...

>
> Chuck (Dominus vobiscum ) S
>
et cum spiritu tuo.

But if you were an alter boy you should be able to do better than

Introibo ad altare Deit
Ad deum qui laetificat juventutem meam.
Ajutorum + nostrum in Nomine Domini
Qui fecit caelum et terram.

or is it...

Credo in, at most, unum deum;
Caveat nabisco, mausoleum;
Coitus interuptus bonus meum
Kimo sabe watchem what you sayem;

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Ron Natalie says...
>
>But if you were an alter boy you should be able to do better than
>
>Introibo ad altare Deit
>Ad deum qui laetificat juventutem meam.
>Ajutorum + nostrum in Nomine Domini
>Qui fecit caelum et terram.
>
>or is it...
>
>Credo in, at most, unum deum;
>Caveat nabisco, mausoleum;
>Coitus interuptus bonus meum
>Kimo sabe watchem what you sayem;

Never heard that one LOL!! but the introibo ad altare Dei was right at the
beginning of Mass...I was always waiting for "Deo Gratias" at the end :-)

Ah yes 7 years of Altar Boy hoodness and I was never looked upon with lust by Fr
Duda , Fr Golembiewski Fr Czach ,Fr Kuchmarski or Fr Osowski .Seems Priests were
different then they seemed more manly and would really push ya around if you
needed it.

Never snuck a drink of the altar wine but we would chew the "genuine" beeswax
meltings from the candles .

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

[Snowbird]

Jim Weir > wrote in message >...
> There is a term for this in baseball
>
> ...it's called having an alligator mouth and a hummingbird ass.

Never heard that one.

Back in the days when CB radio was usable the truckers
used to talk about an "Alligator Station" -- someone with
great big Mouth and little teeny ears.

S

[wmbjk]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote <about Bob>

> looking for a calculator to
help you do basic math. <chuckle>

Usenet quote from Juan, June 25/2002 - > 102 is 7'6

Word to the wise - Anytime you get a confidential email advertising
high-quality calculators from Nigeria, you should check with the BBB
before sending the eleventy bucks.

Wayne

In article >,
ChuckSlusarczyk > wrote:
>
>
>In article >, Jim Weir says...
>>
>>
>>...culpa...
>
>Oh no !!!your right ,it's been so long since I was an Altar Boy that I dropped
>out the L . The longer I looked at it the more something didn't seem right.I
>couldn't find the proper spelling in my English to Finnish dictionary. First I
>add a vowel and then I leave off a consonant.

Sounds like you just qualified as a statistician!

on the _average_, you were perfect!

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article et>,
( says...

>>First I
>>add a vowel and then I leave off a consonant.
>
>Sounds like you just qualified as a statistician!
>
>on the _average_, you were perfect!

Just as long as I stop now ,one more mistake and my average drops :-)

See ya

Chuck S

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article et>,
( says...

>>First I
>>add a vowel and then I leave off a consonant.
>
>Sounds like you just qualified as a statistician!
>
>on the _average_, you were perfect!

Just as long as I stop now ,one more mistake and my average drops :-)

See ya

Chuck S

[Juan.Jimenez]

<yawn> Pot, Kettle, Black.

"red12049" > wrote in message
...
> As I said Juan, your tactics. Please go back and read my post, my choice
> of words, the tone of my post, and then read yours and compare. All about
> your tactics.
>
>
> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
> news:owfjb.776657$YN5.760393@sccrnsc01...
> >
> > "red12049" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Juan,
> > >
> > > People are jumping down your throat not because of Chuck or Jim, but
> > because
> > > of YOUR tactics. You have NOT answered any questions, you have used
> > classic
> > > evasive techniques. I only hope that your son does not do as well as
> you
> > do
> > > in evasion, else you are in for a really rough ride as a father.
> >
> > Sorry, kiddo, but you are completely mistaken. You may have done a
search
> on
> > Google, but you didn't read the messages, nor have you followed the
> threads
> > here. I suggest you keep your day job, 'cause you're not very good at
what
> > you're trying to do here.
> >
> > As to my son, you have no idea how far removed your comments are from
> > reality. Why don't you ask the people from RAH who had the backbone to
> meet
> > me at OSH about my son, who was there with me. That is, if you are
> > interested in facts, not your bumbling brand of clownish speculation.
> >
> > <chuckle>
> >
> >
>
>

[Juan.Jimenez]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
> I guess I'm credible enough to be in the EAA Hall of Fame,a recipient of
the
> John Moody Award,a recipient of the LAMA award and credible enough to have
> authored many articles in various legitimate aviation publications.

Ah yes, as credible as that man who'd spent years in another aviation hall
of fame but had spent years flying illegally with no medical.

It's all about the credibility you don't have.

[Juan.Jimenez]

<chuckle> Your imagination, not mine. Chuck will never post proof because he
doesn't have it.

It's about the credibility he doesn't have.

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 04:28:50 GMT, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> >It would be a little more fun to read if there was any substance on
> >Juan's side - or at least he had the 'nads to put up $100 on the bet
> >he's trying to ignore. Heck, I'll even hold the wagers for y'all. No
> >charge, even...
>
> Tch. Oh ye of little imagination:
>
> "The scan of that title looks like it has been digitally altered. I win."
>
> "The truck photo doesn't show both the license plate and a recognizable
SnF
> feature. I win."
>
> "Somebody told me that photo was really taken at Oshkosh. I win."
>
> "There's no proof that photo is of Chuck's truck. I win."
>
> "That truck looks like it was pasted into a SnF photo. I win."
>
> "The title says the truck is green, and the photo looks like it's
> blueish-green. I win."
>
> "The last digit on the plate is obscured. I win."
>
> "That's obviously not Tom Poberezny, Chuck Yeager, and Bob Hoover sitting
> on the tailgate, slapping Chuck on the back in front of the SnF 2002 entry
> sign while Chuck holds the clearly-visible title up to the camera. I
win."
>
>
> Ron Wanttaja

[Juan.Jimenez]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
> "See...the new truck you just bought wasn't at SnF last year " I win

Precisely. It's all about the credibility you don't have. Nothing but a
liar.

[Juan.Jimenez]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
> I seem to recall that they said you were a timid well behaved mild
mannered
> perfect gentleman and not one smart remark passed your lips .

Timid? ROFLMAO! Ask Ousterhout what he got when he suggested that on this
newsgroup.

It's all about the credibility you don't have.

By the way, while you're talking about children, who are Dana, Violette and
Kathleen Slusarczyk?

[Juan.Jimenez]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
> Here we go again twisting the facts and changing the rules . I posted that
since
> 1999 I had 2 different trucks at SnF and that I had just bought a new one
and
> was going to bring it to SnF.

You're lying again. How pathetic to watch a grown man lying and squirming
like a little kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Does your
therapist know about this behaviour of yours?

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bmd35p03p%40drn.newsguy.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

> Ron all I can say is that poor jaun is so uninformed. Lets see I brought
my new
> Dodge Ram truck to SnF in 1998 ,1999 and my next new one in 2000 ,2001
> 2002 and 2003 .I just bought another new one that I'll be bringing to SnF
in
> 2004.

It's all about the credibility you don't have, liar.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article <Fhnlb.607790$cF.276700@rwcrnsc53>, Juan.Jimenez says...
>
>
>"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I guess I'm credible enough to be in the EAA Hall of Fame,a recipient of
>the
>> John Moody Award,a recipient of the LAMA award and credible enough to have
>> authored many articles in various legitimate aviation publications.
>
>Ah yes, as credible as that man who'd spent years in another aviation hall
>of fame but had spent years flying illegally with no medical.
>
>It's all about the credibility you don't have.

Don't have a clue as to who your talking about ,name the guy who spent years in
which hall of fame and flew illegally with no medical.

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

"empty cans make the most noise" Sister Mary Pontius Pilot

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Juan.Jimenez
says...
>
><chuckle> Your imagination, not mine. Chuck will never post proof because he
>doesn't have it.
>
>It's about the credibility he doesn't have.

I'm ready to go got your money or your courage of your statements?


Chuck S RAH-15/1

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Juan.Jimenez
says...

>By the way, while you're talking about children, who are Dana, Violette and
>Kathleen Slusarczyk?

No Clue,I have all sons, by the way who are Jose,Pancho and Pucho Jimenez?

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Juan.Jimenez
says...

>"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Here we go again twisting the facts and changing the rules . I posted that
>since
>> 1999 I had 2 different trucks at SnF and that I had just bought a new one
>and
>> was going to bring it to SnF.
>
>You're lying again. How pathetic to watch a grown man lying and squirming
>like a little kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Does your
>therapist know about this behaviour of yours?

OK please explain what the lie is make it better then what you've said so far.


Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

[sleepy6]

In article >,
says...
>
><chuckle> Your imagination, not mine. Chuck will never post proof beca
>use he
>doesn't have it.
>
>It's about the credibility he doesn't have.
>
>"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 04:28:50 GMT, Mark Hickey > w
>rote:
>> >It would be a little more fun to read if there was any substance on
>> >Juan's side - or at least he had the 'nads to put up $100 on the be
>t
>> >he's trying to ignore. Heck, I'll even hold the wagers for y'all.
> No
>> >charge, even...
>>
>> Tch. Oh ye of little imagination:
>>
>> "The scan of that title looks like it has been digitally altered. I
> win."
>>
>> "The truck photo doesn't show both the license plate and a recogniza
>ble
>SnF
>> feature. I win."
>>
>> "Somebody told me that photo was really taken at Oshkosh. I win."
>>
>> "There's no proof that photo is of Chuck's truck. I win."
>>
>> "That truck looks like it was pasted into a SnF photo. I win."
>>
>> "The title says the truck is green, and the photo looks like it's
>> blueish-green. I win."
>>
>> "The last digit on the plate is obscured. I win."
>>
>> "That's obviously not Tom Poberezny, Chuck Yeager, and Bob Hoover si
>tting
>> on the tailgate, slapping Chuck on the back in front of the SnF 2002
> entry
>> sign while Chuck holds the clearly-visible title up to the camera.
>I
>win."
>>
>>
>> Ron Wanttaja


Juan.....From your recent string of posts, it looks like you hide from
this group until you get some backbone out of bottle before you post.

It's real simple. Get sober then post proof of your foolish claims
agianst Chuck. Chuck doesn't have to post anything. You are making
accusations so it's up to you to post proof of them or you wind up just
a fool crying wolf.

If you ever expect to be taken seriously, stick to one issue until that
issue is resolved. You pop up and make a wild accusation then start
insults, evasion and BS when proof is requested. When Chuck fights
back you run and hide. Stand up on your hind legs and face the man for
a change or crawl back in your hole.

Pick the one situation that you think has the most proof and lay out
that proof for all to see. Let Chuck post his side and then debate
that issue. Stick to that issue like a man instead your usual
childish tatics. Show us what ya got for balls this time.

[Juan.Jimenez]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
Juan.Jimenez
> says...
> >
> ><chuckle> Your imagination, not mine. Chuck will never post proof because
he
> >doesn't have it.
> >
> >It's about the credibility he doesn't have.
>
> I'm ready to go got your money or your courage of your statements?

It's not about money, boy. It's about credibility, the one you don't have.

[Juan.Jimenez]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
Juan.Jimenez
> says...
>
> >By the way, while you're talking about children, who are Dana, Violette
and
> >Kathleen Slusarczyk?
>
> No Clue,I have all sons, by the way who are Jose,Pancho and Pucho Jimenez?

Don't have a clue either, but I can assure you I don't have children who
have had to be dealt with by the Juvenile Court System. In fact, no one in
my family has ever had a runin with the law. Funny that these people happen
to be from Cleveland. What a coincidence, eh?

[Juan.Jimenez]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
Juan.Jimenez
> says...
>
> >"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> Here we go again twisting the facts and changing the rules . I posted
that
> >since
> >> 1999 I had 2 different trucks at SnF and that I had just bought a new
one
> >and
> >> was going to bring it to SnF.
> >
> >You're lying again. How pathetic to watch a grown man lying and squirming
> >like a little kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Does your
> >therapist know about this behaviour of yours?
>
> OK please explain what the lie is make it better then what you've said so
far.
>
>
> Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

How convenient, he snips the quote then claims ignorance. Or is it
stupidity?

It's all about the credibility you don't have.

[Juan.Jimenez]

"sleepy6" > wrote in message
...
>
> Juan.....From your recent string of posts, it looks like you hide from
> this group until you get some backbone out of bottle before you post.

Everybody's entitled to his or her opinion. I'm sorry to hear that you think
people should drink before posting. I don't subscribe to your posting
policy.

What I would suggest is that you learn to follow threads.

Slusarczyk has been told what he needs to do to prove that he has
credibility. So far his only response is to squirm, lie, backpedal and
mumble something about hundred dollar bills.

It's very simple, two items, that's it... title in his name and proof that
the vehicle was at SNF.

Only problem is, he's lying, so he can't provide those two simple items, and
all he can do is squirm, lie, backpedal and continue mumbling something
about hundred dollar bills.

It's all about credibility, the kind he doesn't have. Simple as that.

[red12049]

Juan

If you have proof that those children are Chuck's, please post it or provide
a link. If you do not, then this question is not germane to this thread,
and is a Zoom tactic at its' finest. Journalism? I think not.
McCarthyism? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...... As I said in
another post, all about your tactics.

NB One entry found for McCarthyism.


Main Entry: Mc·Car·thy·ism
Pronunciation: m&-'kär-thE-"i-z&m also -'kär-tE-
Function: noun
Etymology: Joseph R. McCarthy
Date: 1950
: a mid-20th century political attitude characterized chiefly by opposition
to elements held to be subversive and by the use of tactics involving
personal attacks on individuals by means of widely publicized indiscriminate
allegations especially on the basis of unsubstantiated charges


"Juan.Jimenez" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I seem to recall that they said you were a timid well behaved mild
> mannered
> > perfect gentleman and not one smart remark passed your lips .
>
> Timid? ROFLMAO! Ask Ousterhout what he got when he suggested that on this
> newsgroup.
>
> It's all about the credibility you don't have.
>
> By the way, while you're talking about children, who are Dana, Violette
and
> Kathleen Slusarczyk?
>
>

[red12049]

Juan,

I like to think that I am of at least average intelligence. I read the
quoted post, and I still do not understand the point you are trying to make.
For the sake of those that might be in the same position, please explain
your accusations in detail so that we may follow along.


"Juan.Jimenez" > wrote in message
news:nWplb.608303$cF.279405@rwcrnsc53...
>
> "ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> Juan.Jimenez
> > says...
> >
> > >"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>
> > >> Here we go again twisting the facts and changing the rules . I posted
> that
> > >since
> > >> 1999 I had 2 different trucks at SnF and that I had just bought a new
> one
> > >and
> > >> was going to bring it to SnF.
> > >
> > >You're lying again. How pathetic to watch a grown man lying and
squirming
> > >like a little kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Does your
> > >therapist know about this behaviour of yours?
> >
> > OK please explain what the lie is make it better then what you've said
so
> far.
> >
> >
> > Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret
>
> How convenient, he snips the quote then claims ignorance. Or is it
> stupidity?
>
> It's all about the credibility you don't have.
>
>

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Juan.Jimenez
says...

>Don't have a clue either, but I can assure you I don't have children who
>have had to be dealt with by the Juvenile Court System. In fact, no one in
>my family has ever had a runin with the law. Funny that these people happen
>to be from Cleveland. What a coincidence, eh?

I can assure you that I don't have any children who had to be dealt with in the
Juvenile Court system ,so what's your point?. Boy your reaching now but keep it
up. Just to help you my sons names are Chuck Jr, Dave ,Ted and Don. I can't
believe how much like zoom you are that your capable of sinking to that
level.But it shouldn't surprise me coming from a guy with no moral values or
honesty. There's lots of people around here with our same last name even a few
with the same first names not are not relatives or known to me.Better sort your
people out before you start making claims you can't prove.

Do you know how many jiminizes are in Cleveland I bet there's one or more who
had run ins with the law.That's quite a coincidence as well ,don't you think.

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article <nWplb.608303$cF.279405@rwcrnsc53>, Juan.Jimenez says...
>
>How convenient, he snips the quote then claims ignorance. Or is it
>stupidity?
>
>It's all about the credibility you don't have.

ROFL boy when it comes to stupidity you've just spent 2 weeks proving that your
the Grand Master of acting stupid.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article <Q0qlb.608327$cF.279323@rwcrnsc53>, Juan.Jimenez says...

>It's very simple, two items, that's it... title in his name and proof that
>the vehicle was at SNF.

I can't believe that your that dense, I have the title but even I can't produce
proof of something that didn't happen yet. The truck is new and hasn't been to
SnF yet. Secondly how does one produce a title for a vehicle he no longer owns ?
Tell ya what my new truck is a 2003 silver Dodge Ram 1500 and it will be the
one with not only a "zoom free zone" sign in it but an "ANN free zone" sign as
well.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Juan.Jimenez
says...
>
>
>"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I seem to recall that they said you were a timid well behaved mild
>mannered
>> perfect gentleman and not one smart remark passed your lips .
>
>Timid? ROFLMAO! Ask Ousterhout what he got when he suggested that on this
>newsgroup.

Ousterhout got??? Somehow you don't seem the type to strike fear into the hearts
of anyone let alone Ousterhout.

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, red12049 says...
>
>Juan

>If you have proof that those children are Chuck's, please post it or provide
>a link. If you do not, then this question is not germane to this thread,
>and is a Zoom tactic at its' finest. Journalism? I think not.
>McCarthyism? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...... As I said in
>another post, all about your tactics.
>
>NB One entry found for McCarthyism.

>: a mid-20th century political attitude characterized chiefly by opposition
>to elements held to be subversive and by the use of tactics involving
>personal attacks on individuals by means of widely publicized indiscriminate
>allegations especially on the basis of unsubstantiated charges

Boy that fits jaun and zoom to a T .Wonder how he'd react if I pulled that
tactic on him? I'd like to but I find it difficult to lower myself to that level
but I guess some people are more at home in the gutter then others.

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

[sean trost]

hey Chuck,
Suggestion, Hows about you just continue to build airplanes and let the
Zoom crew dig thier own hole in the ground. When you collect enough
"stuff" to ram down thier throughts in court do so. Dont waste your time
debating the master debater. We know and He knows that he has no
argument and is just looking for anything to use against ya.
all the best
Sean Trost

PS juan bringing so called family into the debate is low. you have no
honor. you are yellow. Go build somthing. Better yet fly it. But most of
all have a nice cuppa o SHUT THE HELL UP !

all the best
Sean Trost

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
> In article <nWplb.608303$cF.279405@rwcrnsc53>, Juan.Jimenez says...
>
>>How convenient, he snips the quote then claims ignorance. Or is it
>>stupidity?
>>
>>It's all about the credibility you don't have.
>
>
> ROFL boy when it comes to stupidity you've just spent 2 weeks proving that your
> the Grand Master of acting stupid.
>

[Model Flyer]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in
message ...
> In article <nWplb.608303$cF.279405@rwcrnsc53>, Juan.Jimenez says...
> >
> >How convenient, he snips the quote then claims ignorance. Or is it
> >stupidity?
> >
> >It's all about the credibility you don't have.
>
> ROFL boy when it comes to stupidity you've just spent 2 weeks
proving that your
> the Grand Master of acting stupid.
>

Chuck, I think that you've been arguing with a computer program that
produces random auto answers from a prepared text list. None of the
answers relate in any way to what you have been saying, this would
appear to support my theory. Or Juan's english is so bad that he is
only able to use a few pre prepared quotes from the "Fools Guide to
English", this is a manual I did not write. He'll most likely call me
a liar for denying any association with that foolish manual.:-(
--

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

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, sean trost says...

Hi Sean
Nice to hear from you.
> When you collect enough
>"stuff" to ram down thier throughts in court do so.

Funny you should say that but that's just what I'm doing. jaun laid a big egg by
they way by attributing some none existent family members to me and his
reference to Juvenile court. He's been very careful up to now but he crossed the
line.

>Dont waste your time
>debating the master debater.

I realize it's a waste of time but I only allow him a few minutes a day where as
he's busily wasting time searching computer records for any dirt he can find
on me. :-) I think I gave him enough rope and I'm gonna post my truck title just
for grins.

>We know and He knows that he has no
>argument and is just looking for anything to use against ya.

What really ****es him and zoom off is that they really can't find anything
,hard as they try.So he has to resort to trying to tie me to some people who
might have the same last name . Sounds like I got the makings for a new blues
song to play at SnF :-)

>all the best
>Sean Trost

Thank you very much and the same to you.

See ya

Chuck
>
>PS juan bringing so called family into the debate is low. you have no
>honor. you are yellow. Go build somthing. Better yet fly it. But most of
>all have a nice cuppa o SHUT THE HELL UP !
>
>all the best
>Sean Trost

[wmbjk]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
> I can't believe that your that dense, I have the title but even I
can't produce
> proof of something that didn't happen yet. The truck is new and hasn't
been to
> SnF yet. Secondly how does one produce a title for a vehicle he no
longer owns ?
> Tell ya what my new truck is a 2003 silver Dodge Ram 1500 and it will
be the
> one with not only a "zoom free zone" sign in it but an "ANN free zone"
sign as
> well.

Hey Chuck, I suggest you offer to make the following bet - you and Juan
both put up a grand.... if your truck and title are at the next SnF then
you get the dough. Juan won't put up a nickel of course, but he'll waste
$1000 of his time pretending that it's *your* credibility at issue. You
might also post a photo of yourself holding up the title at Snf while
wearing a "juere's juan" T shirt.

Wayne

[RobertR237]

In article >, ChuckSlusarczyk
> writes:

>>> I seem to recall that they said you were a timid well behaved mild
>>mannered
>>> perfect gentleman and not one smart remark passed your lips .
>>
>>Timid? ROFLMAO! Ask Ousterhout what he got when he suggested that on this
>>newsgroup.
>
>Ousterhout got??? Somehow you don't seem the type to strike fear into the
>hearts
>of anyone let alone Ousterhout.
>
>Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret
>
>

I doubt that Jaun has ever faced down anyone bigger than a child but to imply
that he faced down Ousterhout is the joke of the ages. When I read that, I
thought I would be sick from laughing so damn hard.

I think it is past time to ignore this little **** head, he is just not worth
the effort to even type a reply to.


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

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

[RobertR237]

In article >, "red12049" >
writes:

>Juan,
>
>I like to think that I am of at least average intelligence. I read the
>quoted post, and I still do not understand the point you are trying to make.
>For the sake of those that might be in the same position, please explain
>your accusations in detail so that we may follow along.
>
>

He doesn't have any facts or proof of any kind, never has had any and ignores
all proof which is contrary to his already reached conclusions.

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

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

[Frank Hitlaw]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message news:<%rfjb.776639$YN5.759800@sccrnsc01>...
> "ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <EG6jb.561855$Oz4.523000@rwcrnsc54>, Juan Jimenez says...
> >
> > >I'm not interested in your BS. Title, proof that it was at SNF. Two
> simple
> > >pieces of information. Don't beat around the bush. Either you are a liar,
> or
> > >you are not.
> >
> > You've just twisted the facts again .Your the one that said I didn't bring
> any...
>
> For the third time, title and proof it was at SNF. Very simple. No title? No
> proof? You're a liar.
>
> It's about credibility. The kind you don't have, as you backpedal and try to
> squirm out of the hole you dug for yourself.
>
> Juan
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

jaun;
What kind of idiot are you,just answer the f@#king question stop the
B.S.and post an answer.What about the Hawk that Chuck had at his
display wasn't this his personal property,I rode in the Maroon Dodge
PU to the Home Depot to buy stuff for his display a year ago at
SnF.How bout the CGS trailer,what about the set of floats he had for
sale.Either be a man and put up or pick up your skirt and beat feet
like your dip**** pal.Nuts yes balls no;
Frank M. Hitlaw

[RobertR237]

In article >,
(Frank Hitlaw) writes:

>+++++++++++
>
> jaun;
> What kind of idiot are you,just answer the f@#king question stop the
>B.S.and post an answer.What about the Hawk that Chuck had at his
>display wasn't this his personal property,I rode in the Maroon Dodge
>PU to the Home Depot to buy stuff for his display a year ago at
>SnF.How bout the CGS trailer,what about the set of floats he had for
>sale.Either be a man and put up or pick up your skirt and beat feet
>like your dip**** pal.Nuts yes balls no;
> Frank M. Hitlaw
>
>

Don't confuse the idiot with logical facts, it is too much for his pea brain.


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

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

[andy asberry]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:20:50 GMT, "Juan.Jimenez"
> wrote:


>
>You're lying again. How pathetic to watch a grown man lying and squirming
>like a little kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Does your
>therapist know about this behaviour of yours?
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bmd35p03p%40drn.newsguy.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
>

One Juan Jimenez, a self-proclaimed aviation writer, has publicly
stated that the proprietor of an airplane manufacturing company has
lied AGAIN. That indicates at least two lies. A pattern, a habitual
liar.

As a consumer who is contemplating the purchase of an airplane of the
type manufactured by the said proprietor, I certainly don't want to
get involved with a habitual liar. Therefore, I won't consider buying
from him.

Of course, if Mr. Jimenez is wrong or has lied himself, I would think
the manufacturer would be entitled to compensation for lost revenue
and damaged reputation.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, andy asberry says...
>
>One Juan Jimenez, a self-proclaimed aviation writer, has publicly
>stated that the proprietor of an airplane manufacturing company has
>lied AGAIN. That indicates at least two lies. A pattern, a habitual
>liar.
>
>As a consumer who is contemplating the purchase of an airplane of the
>type manufactured by the said proprietor, I certainly don't want to
>get involved with a habitual liar. Therefore, I won't consider buying
>from him.
>
>Of course, if Mr. Jimenez is wrong or has lied himself, I would think
>the manufacturer would be entitled to compensation for lost revenue
>and damaged reputation.

I couldn't agree more...Still getting ducks in a row :-)

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

[sleepy6]

In article <Q0qlb.608327$cF.279323@rwcrnsc53>,
says...
>
>
>"sleepy6" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Juan.....From your recent string of posts, it looks like you hide fr
>om
>> this group until you get some backbone out of bottle before you post
>.
>
>Everybody's entitled to his or her opinion. I'm sorry to hear that you
> think
>people should drink before posting. I don't subscribe to your posting
>policy.
>
>What I would suggest is that you learn to follow threads.
>
>Slusarczyk has been told what he needs to do to prove that he has
>credibility. So far his only response is to squirm, lie, backpedal and
>mumble something about hundred dollar bills.
>
>It's very simple, two items, that's it... title in his name and proof
>that
>the vehicle was at SNF.
>
>Only problem is, he's lying, so he can't provide those two simple item
>s, and
>all he can do is squirm, lie, backpedal and continue mumbling somethin
>g
>about hundred dollar bills.
>
>It's all about credibility, the kind he doesn't have. Simple as that.


You forget....If you make an accusation, you have the
responsibility of proving it. You offered no proof orginially and no
proof in this post. Put up or shut up. So far you're just a ball less
wonder spouting garbage.

Looks like Chuck explained it pretty well in his post even though he
had no obligation to explain anything. The current truck was bought
after the latest Sun N Fun. Titles to previous trucks went with the
trucks when they were sold. Others have posted that Chucks trucks were
there along with the CGS trailer and Chucks personal plane. I have
also seen all three items there so it's not hard for me to figure out
the truth.

You're correct about one thing, It's all about credibility and so far
you have none at all.

Care to discuss another of your wild accusations? Lets take them all
one at a time until you run out. Every time you fail to produce proof
of these wild accusations it shows the world what a fool you really
are. Bring it on and don't forget the proof:)

[Juan.Jimenez]

"red12049" > wrote in message
...
> Juan
>
> If you have proof that those children are Chuck's, please post it or
provide
> a link.

Did I say they are Chuck's children? <chuckle>

> If you do not, then this question is not germane to this thread, and is a
Zoom tactic at its' finest.

ROFL! Let me clue you in on a little secret: I don't give a flying
intercourse what you think is germane or not, sonny. Shoo.

[Juan.Jimenez]

Truth 101. First it was one truck, then it was two, first he said he took
it, now he says he will.

It's called "squirming, lying and backpedalling."

Class dismissed.

"red12049" > wrote in message
...
> Juan,
>
> I like to think that I am of at least average intelligence. I read the
> quoted post, and I still do not understand the point you are trying to
make.
> For the sake of those that might be in the same position, please explain
> your accusations in detail so that we may follow along.

[Juan.Jimenez]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
> I can assure you that I don't have any children who had to be dealt with
in the
> Juvenile Court system ,so what's your point?

You sure about that? :)

> Just to help you my sons names are Chuck Jr, Dave ,Ted and Don.

I don't care what you named your sons. Dana is a female :)

> I can't believe how much like zoom you are that your capable of sinking to
that
> level.

You shouldn't have a problem with that, seeing as you're such a lowlife you
couldn't help but talk about my kid in the thread. What's wrong, boy, don't
like being forcefed your own bull****? <chuckle>

It's all about credibility, the kind you don't have.

[Juan.Jimenez]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
> ROFL boy when it comes to stupidity you've just spent 2 weeks proving that
your
> the Grand Master of acting stupid.

Better than proving that you are the Pathological Liar of Cleveland.

It's all about the credibility you don't have.

[Juan.Jimenez]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
> Funny you should say that but that's just what I'm doing. jaun laid a big
egg by
> they way by attributing some none existent family members to me and his
> reference to Juvenile court. He's been very careful up to now but he
crossed the
> line.

What line, the court line? ROFL!

> What really ****es him and zoom off is that they really can't find
anything
> ,hard as they try.

We don't have to, you do a good job of leading everyone to the facts. All I
have to do is follow the reek of lies.

It's all about the credibility you don't have.

[Juan.Jimenez]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
> I can't believe that your that dense, I have the title but even I can't
produce
> proof of something that didn't happen yet.

You said you've taken your truck(s) to SnF since 1999. Squirming and
backpedalling will not get you out of this one.

It's all about the credibility you don't have. :)

[Juan.Jimenez]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ousterhout got??? Somehow you don't seem the type to strike fear into the
hearts
> of anyone let alone Ousterhout.

So check Google. There was no response from him after I set him straight.

It's all about the credibility you don't have.

[Juan.Jimenez]

"andy asberry" > wrote in message
...
>
> One Juan Jimenez, a self-proclaimed aviation writer, has publicly
> stated that the proprietor of an airplane manufacturing company has
> lied AGAIN. That indicates at least two lies. A pattern, a habitual
> liar.
>
> As a consumer who is contemplating the purchase of an airplane of the
> type manufactured by the said proprietor, I certainly don't want to
> get involved with a habitual liar. Therefore, I won't consider buying
> from him.
>
> Of course, if Mr. Jimenez is wrong or has lied himself, I would think
> the manufacturer would be entitled to compensation for lost revenue
> and damaged reputation.

If you have any doubts as to whether or not I am an aviation writer, go to
http://www.aero-news.net/SearchForm.cfm and type "jimenez" in the first
field on the form, then click Search and read. It's that simple. What you
will see covers only part of 2002 and 2003.

All Chuck has to do is post the evidence he has that answers my simple
question, and which he implied he has when he challenged me to a "bet". Or
he can admit he lied about that too and doesn't have any evidence. It's that
simple. Remember as well that that little boy scout pocket knife you're
suggesting Chuck should wave around cuts both ways. :)

Juan

[red12049]

Juan,

First off, I give you the courtesy of addressing you by the name you go by
here. Please afford me that same courtesy.

Next, no, you did not SAY that they were Chucks, but the IMPLICATION was
certainly there... go back and read the definition of McCarthyism. I have a
good friend who is an attorney that I showed this whole thread to.
According to him, if this mess were in a print media, there would be great
grounds for a suit against you, and he would take that case in a blink. He
also stated that if it could be shown that these emails were on the
originating computer, that there might also be grounds for a suit, but that
electronic law was out of his area of expertise.

Finally, again, please afford me the courtesy I have afforded you. I have
as much right here as anyone else. Tell someone else to "shoo".

As I said in an earlier post, all about your tactics....

Red
"Juan.Jimenez" > wrote in message
news:KeHlb.3241$Tr4.21142@attbi_s03...
>
> "red12049" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Juan
> >
> > If you have proof that those children are Chuck's, please post it or
> provide
> > a link.
>
> Did I say they are Chuck's children? <chuckle>
>
> > If you do not, then this question is not germane to this thread, and is
a
> Zoom tactic at its' finest.
>
> ROFL! Let me clue you in on a little secret: I don't give a flying
> intercourse what you think is germane or not, sonny. Shoo.
>
>

[Juan.Jimenez]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
> I couldn't agree more...Still getting ducks in a row :-)

Don't need quacks. All you need is a simple title and a simple piece of
proof.

It's all about the credibility you don't have.

<my stepmother-in-law has a great recipe for roast duck> <chuckle>

[Juan.Jimenez]

"sleepy6" > wrote in message
...
>
> You forget....If you make an accusation, you have the
> responsibility of proving it.

I did. I told him what he has to do to prove me wrong. That was... what...
2-3 weeks ago? :)

For the record, I've never had a truck at SnF. =8)

> Looks like Chuck explained it pretty well in his post even though he
> had no obligation to explain anything. The current truck was bought
> after the latest Sun N Fun. Titles to previous trucks went with the
> trucks when they were sold.

Oh, of course, how could I forget that private parties and corporations
don't keep records of vehicles they used to own? <chuckle> If you believe
that you're more gullible than the rest of the RAH gaggle combined.

> Others have posted that Chucks trucks were there along with the CGS
trailer and Chucks personal plane.

No, others have posted that they saw those things, not one of them knows who
owns them.

All he has to do is post a simple title (copy of which I'm sure he has on
file or can obtain in a few minutes with one phone call) and evidence that
the vehicle was at SnF. It's not your job. It's his, so I'll be saying so
long to this little sideshow thread of yours...

Juan

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article <liHlb.3725$e01.10447@attbi_s02>, Juan.Jimenez says...
>Better than proving that you are the Pathological Liar of Cleveland.


Wrong again jaun I don't live in Cleveland haven't for about 33 years .Boy your
just a font of wrong info.

[red12049]

Juan,

Excuse me, but where I come from, if you make the accusations, you have to
supply the proof.....

Red

"Juan.Jimenez" > wrote in message
news:ICHlb.2908$Fm2.5495@attbi_s04...
>
> "sleepy6" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > You forget....If you make an accusation, you have the
> > responsibility of proving it.
>
> I did. I told him what he has to do to prove me wrong. That was... what...
> 2-3 weeks ago? :)
>
> For the record, I've never had a truck at SnF. =8)
>
> > Looks like Chuck explained it pretty well in his post even though he
> > had no obligation to explain anything. The current truck was bought
> > after the latest Sun N Fun. Titles to previous trucks went with the
> > trucks when they were sold.
>
> Oh, of course, how could I forget that private parties and corporations
> don't keep records of vehicles they used to own? <chuckle> If you believe
> that you're more gullible than the rest of the RAH gaggle combined.
>
> > Others have posted that Chucks trucks were there along with the CGS
> trailer and Chucks personal plane.
>
> No, others have posted that they saw those things, not one of them knows
who
> owns them.
>
> All he has to do is post a simple title (copy of which I'm sure he has on
> file or can obtain in a few minutes with one phone call) and evidence that
> the vehicle was at SnF. It's not your job. It's his, so I'll be saying so
> long to this little sideshow thread of yours...
>
> Juan
>
>

[B2431]

>From: "Juan.Jimenez"
>Date: 10/22/2003 9:48 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <CjHlb.3733$e01.11248@attbi_s02>
>
>
>"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Funny you should say that but that's just what I'm doing. jaun laid a big
>egg by
>> they way by attributing some none existent family members to me and his
>> reference to Juvenile court. He's been very careful up to now but he
>crossed the
>> line.
>
>What line, the court line? ROFL!

Juan, I have no dog in this fight, but bringing up family members, real or
imagionary, in such a manner as to imply negative things about them is
immature, unfair and is usually resorted to by someone who can't prove his
case. At the very least it is demeaning to you and everyone else concerned. I
suggest an apology is in order.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: ChuckSlusarczyk
>Date: 10/22/2003 8:02 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >, sean trost says...
>
>Hi Sean
>Nice to hear from you.
>> When you collect enough
>>"stuff" to ram down thier throughts in court do so.
>
>Funny you should say that but that's just what I'm doing.

Please post the court date and location when you get them. I may just go enjoy
the show.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[John Ousterhout]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 02:50:06 GMT, "Juan.Jimenez"
> wrote:

>
>"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Ousterhout got??? Somehow you don't seem the type to strike fear into the
>hearts of anyone let alone Ousterhout.
>
>So check Google. There was no response from him after I set him straight.

Juan, my lack of response means only that I'm not responding to you --
a tactic which I believe eveyone should use.

- J.O.-

[RobertR237]

In article >, John Ousterhout
> writes:

>>>
>>> Ousterhout got??? Somehow you don't seem the type to strike fear into the
>>hearts of anyone let alone Ousterhout.
>>
>>So check Google. There was no response from him after I set him straight.
>
>Juan, my lack of response means only that I'm not responding to you --
>a tactic which I believe eveyone should use.
>
>- J.O.-
>
>

John,

I am SHOCKED! I just knew you were hiding in the closet somewhere shaking in
fear of Jaun!

Gawd, what a funny picture! (Not of you in a closet, you kicking Jaun's ass!)


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

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

[RobertR237]

In article >, andy asberry
> writes:

>
>>
>>You're lying again. How pathetic to watch a grown man lying and squirming
>>like a little kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Does your
>>therapist know about this behaviour of yours?
>>
>
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bmd35p03p%40drn.newsguy.com&oe=UTF-
8&output=gplain
>>
>
>One Juan Jimenez, a self-proclaimed aviation writer, has publicly
>stated that the proprietor of an airplane manufacturing company has
>lied AGAIN. That indicates at least two lies. A pattern, a habitual
>liar.
>
>As a consumer who is contemplating the purchase of an airplane of the
>type manufactured by the said proprietor, I certainly don't want to
>get involved with a habitual liar. Therefore, I won't consider buying
>from him.
>
>Of course, if Mr. Jimenez is wrong or has lied himself, I would think
>the manufacturer would be entitled to compensation for lost revenue
>and damaged reputation.
>
>

But Jaun's lawyer would argue that since Jaun is a total idiot and the only one
who believes that he is a writer of any kind, how could anyone be damaged by
something he said. Think about it...anyone stupid enough to believe anything
that Jaun would say is really way too stupid to be flying anything.




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

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

[sleepy6]

>"sleepy6" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> You forget....If you make an accusation, you have the
>> responsibility of proving it.
>
>I did. I told him what he has to do to prove me wrong. That was... wha
>t...
>2-3 weeks ago? :)

Lets see if I understand this....You accuse Chuck of not bringing his
truck or other items that he owns to Sun N Fun because someone might
make a legal attempt to grab it. Lots of folks see Chuck there with
his truck, trailer and airplane so now you claim Chuck doesn't own
them? Hey Chuck, who is this friend that keeps loaning you stuff for
years at a time? Will he loan me a Hawk like yours? I'll settle for
the use of a new truck for a couple of years:)


>For the record, I've never had a truck at SnF. =8)

An attempt at humor or are you just confused agian?


>> Looks like Chuck explained it pretty well in his post even though he
>> had no obligation to explain anything. The current truck was bought
>> after the latest Sun N Fun. Titles to previous trucks went with the
>> trucks when they were sold.
>
>Oh, of course, how could I forget that private parties and corporation
>s
>don't keep records of vehicles they used to own? <chuckle> If you bel
>ieve
>that you're more gullible than the rest of the RAH gaggle combined.

Well lets see, I privately have owned numerous vehicles over the
last 45 years and I have no proof at all of any but the ones I
currently drive. When I traded the others in I had to give up the
titles, nobody gave me any paperwork that proved I once owned them and
nothing requires me to keep any such proof.

My company currently has 4 trucks but over the years we have owned a
bunch. They show up on the old inventories and the old depreciation
sheets for tax purposes but the titles went with the trucks when the
trucks left.

What state lets you keep the title for a vehicle that you sold and why
would you keep that title if you could? Have you ever sold or traded
in a vehicle?


>> Others have posted that Chucks trucks were there along with the CGS
>trailer and Chucks personal plane.
>
>No, others have posted that they saw those things, not one of them kno
>ws who
>owns them.

He either owns the stuff or he has great friends that loan him stuff
for years at a time:) Your job would be to prove that he doesn't own
them to prove your accusation. If you could furnish that proof and
then people might take you serious.


>All he has to do is post a simple title (copy of which I'm sure he has
> on
>file or can obtain in a few minutes with one phone call) and evidence
>that
>the vehicle was at SnF. It's not your job. It's his, so I'll be saying
> so
>long to this little sideshow thread of yours...
>
>Juan

Thats where you are confused. It's your job to prove what you claim
and once agian all you do is spout the same nonsense and no proof. I
am giving you the perfect chance to prove your accusation and really
embarass Chuck. All you have to do is post proof that Chuck has a
reason to avoid taking his stuff to Sun N Fun. Looks to me like Chuck
makes the trip every year with his stuff and nothing has stopped him
from taking it back home.

BTW The inuendos about some females (who apparently exist only in your
imagination since you never posted anything to prove otherwise) are
entirely out of place.

It appears like you have no proof of any of your wild claims so you
just resort to insults and even wilder inuendos about his family. This
certainly did not give you any credibility so your credibility still
stands at zero. Right now it looks like you are a pathetic little worm
who is jealous of Chucks success. BS doesn't cut it. Show us
something to back up your accusations or crawl back in your hole.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >,
sleepy6 says...

>Well lets see, I privately have owned numerous vehicles over the
>last 45 years and I have no proof at all of any but the ones I
>currently drive. When I traded the others in I had to give up the
>titles, nobody gave me any paperwork that proved I once owned them and
>nothing requires me to keep any such proof.
>
>My company currently has 4 trucks but over the years we have owned a
>bunch. They show up on the old inventories and the old depreciation
>sheets for tax purposes but the titles went with the trucks when the
>trucks left.

Hey Bob he knows that,that's why he says what he does. He wants me to prove the
impossible .I have no titles any more for my red Dodge Ram or my Blue one which
I traded in a couple weeks ago.So he bravely states he wants to see the titles
from the trucks I took to SnF.

>
>What state lets you keep the title for a vehicle that you sold and why
>would you keep that title if you could? Have you ever sold or traded
>in a vehicle?

From the sound of it if he can't afford to put a few bucks down to prove he's
right I doubt he ever bought a new truck let alone 3 in 6 years .If he had he be
aware of how titles work.


>He either owns the stuff or he has great friends that loan him stuff
>for years at a time:) Your job would be to prove that he doesn't own
>them to prove your accusation. If you could furnish that proof and
>then people might take you serious.

Hey Bob I got a lot of great friends but I ain't got any that will loan me a new
truck every few years no questions asked LOL!! Let alone an airplane or a 30 '
trailer etc. Wonder if I could get those friends to pay for my booth at SnF this
year :-)


>
>Thats where you are confused. It's your job to prove what you claim
>and once agian all you do is spout the same nonsense and no proof. I
>am giving you the perfect chance to prove your accusation and really
>embarass Chuck. All you have to do is post proof that Chuck has a
>reason to avoid taking his stuff to Sun N Fun. Looks to me like Chuck
>makes the trip every year with his stuff and nothing has stopped him
>from taking it back home.

....and I'll be there again next year and guess who won't be ? zoom won't be
there again. LOL!!!

>
>BTW The inuendos about some females (who apparently exist only in your
>imagination since you never posted anything to prove otherwise) are
>entirely out of place.

I suppose if I did a criminal record search of all the jiminezes I'd probably
come up with a ton of names and I would also bet a lot of them are named jaun as
well. So I if I were use jauns logic against him as he does me I could say
what's the criminal charges your hiding? He's a real joke.


>It appears like you have no proof of any of your wild claims so you
>just resort to insults and even wilder inuendos about his family. This
>certainly did not give you any credibility so your credibility still
>stands at zero. Right now it looks like you are a pathetic little worm
>who is jealous of Chucks success. BS doesn't cut it. Show us
>something to back up your accusations or crawl back in your hole.

Your right I think envy is at the bottom of most of this .It would seem both
jaun and zoom have never got any bonified recognition for any achievements in
aviation so they try to ride on the coat tails of those who have. Either by
sucking up to them or attacking them. It gives meaning to their otherwise lack
luster lives.

See ya

Chuck




>

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, ChuckSlusarczyk says...

>From the sound of it if he can't afford to put a few bucks down to prove he's
>right I doubt he ever bought a new truck let alone 3 in 6 years .

Before I get called a liar by jaun I must correct what I said It should have
been "3 in 7 years".I had a Red 1997 ,then a Blue 2000 and now a silver 2003
Dodge Ram . I needed to correct that before jaun started saying see he's a liar
it was 7 years not 6 LOL!!!

See ya

Chuck

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:18:25 -0400, "red12049" >
wrote:

>Juan,
>
>Excuse me, but where I come from, if you make the accusations, you have to
>supply the proof.....
>
>Red

I don't think that's what Juan wants. I've been thinking about this
as I read the many seemingly insane responses from him and I believe
Juan is playing a role.

He dodges and twists out of what nearly anyone would consider to be a
normal response to a direct question, nearly every time. Now, why
would he do that? Why juke so fiercely in so public a forum?

To me, it's because he has an agenda when it comes to Chuck. Think
about it. Chuck has always offered the evidence, which he has in
physical documents, to anyone who would want to confirm that what
Chuck is claiming is the literal truth: That Jim Campbell is mistaken
about Con and his case against Chuck. Neither Juan, nor his
"employer" Zoomer have chosen to view the evidence. Why not? If they
are jounalists seeking the "truth" as they often claim (especially
Campbell), why wouldn't they want to get to the bottom of this once
and for all?

The answer, to me, lies in the (diagnosed) neurosis afflicting
Cambell, and the mindset and water under the bridge for Juan.
Campbell cannot view the documents because it would expose him as
someone who has pursued a valse vendetta literally for years. His
whole psyche has been wrapped around being the one who exposes
falsehood and treachery. He cannot look at Chuck's evidence, it would
turn his world upside down. And, if he admits that he was mistaken,
it might very well lay him open to a harrasement lawsuit. So that's
not going to happen.

And Juan, Juan has been carrying Jim's spear for years now. He has
been close to Jim and has been jabbing Chuck all this time as Jim's
unholy paladin. Juan also cannot look at the evidence because what if
it proves Chuck right? All the past goads, the taunting, the
accusations would be exposed as the workings of a monumentally
misguided person. How can he risk that? He **KNOWS** the evidence
probably does exonerate Chuck because one of his collegues, who also
worked for Jim and also had jabbed at Chuck actually did sit down with
Chuck to view the papers. Once he saw the evidence, he was man enough
to admit that Jim was apparently mistaken, and said so publically here
in this group.

Juan can't do that. He has to do what he does best, ignor the
evidence sitting in front of his face and twist out of the way of
questions, like Neo dodging bullets in "The Matrix."

Corky Scott

[Larry Smith]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:18:25 -0400, "red12049" >
> wrote:
>
> >Juan,
> >
> >Excuse me, but where I come from, if you make the accusations, you have
to
> >supply the proof.....
> >
> >Red
>
> I don't think that's what Juan wants. I've been thinking about this
> as I read the many seemingly insane responses from him and I believe
> Juan is playing a role.
>
> He dodges and twists out of what nearly anyone would consider to be a
> normal response to a direct question, nearly every time. Now, why
> would he do that? Why juke so fiercely in so public a forum?
>
> To me, it's because he has an agenda when it comes to Chuck. Think
> about it. Chuck has always offered the evidence, which he has in
> physical documents, to anyone who would want to confirm that what
> Chuck is claiming is the literal truth: That Jim Campbell is mistaken
> about Con and his case against Chuck. Neither Juan, nor his
> "employer" Zoomer have chosen to view the evidence. Why not? If they
> are jounalists seeking the "truth" as they often claim (especially
> Campbell), why wouldn't they want to get to the bottom of this once
> and for all?
>
> The answer, to me, lies in the (diagnosed) neurosis afflicting
> Cambell, and the mindset and water under the bridge for Juan.
> Campbell cannot view the documents because it would expose him as
> someone who has pursued a valse vendetta literally for years. His
> whole psyche has been wrapped around being the one who exposes
> falsehood and treachery. He cannot look at Chuck's evidence, it would
> turn his world upside down. And, if he admits that he was mistaken,
> it might very well lay him open to a harrasement lawsuit. So that's
> not going to happen.
>
> And Juan, Juan has been carrying Jim's spear for years now. He has
> been close to Jim and has been jabbing Chuck all this time as Jim's
> unholy paladin. Juan also cannot look at the evidence because what if
> it proves Chuck right? All the past goads, the taunting, the
> accusations would be exposed as the workings of a monumentally
> misguided person. How can he risk that? He **KNOWS** the evidence
> probably does exonerate Chuck because one of his collegues, who also
> worked for Jim and also had jabbed at Chuck actually did sit down with
> Chuck to view the papers. Once he saw the evidence, he was man enough
> to admit that Jim was apparently mistaken, and said so publically here
> in this group.
>
> Juan can't do that. He has to do what he does best, ignor the
> evidence sitting in front of his face and twist out of the way of
> questions, like Neo dodging bullets in "The Matrix."
>
> Corky Scott

Well then. If this is so the controversy will rage on forever until
settled in a court of law, not for harassment but on a civil complaint for
libel and damage to Chuck's business relations.

In the meantime quality time for building is wasted and I'm wondering if the
unmoderated forums won't wither and die because of constant assaults by the
trolls like Jaun and Granolawicz.

[RobertR237]

In article >, "Larry Smith"
> writes:

>
>Well then. If this is so the controversy will rage on forever until
>settled in a court of law, not for harassment but on a civil complaint for
>libel and damage to Chuck's business relations.
>
>In the meantime quality time for building is wasted and I'm wondering if the
>unmoderated forums won't wither and die because of constant assaults by the
>trolls like Jaun and Granolawicz.
>
>

You forgot to add one of the worst offenders here...Latchless Larry Smith!


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

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

[RobertR237]

In article >,
(Corky Scott) writes:

>
>I don't think that's what Juan wants. I've been thinking about this
>as I read the many seemingly insane responses from him and I believe
>Juan is playing a role.
>

Yep, he is playing the role of a fool and is so good at it that one wonders if
he is playing or not. The more he posts, the easier it is to believe that it
is not a role but the real Zoom...I mean Jaun.

>He dodges and twists out of what nearly anyone would consider to be a
>normal response to a direct question, nearly every time. Now, why
>would he do that? Why juke so fiercely in so public a forum?
>

The child wants your attention and even bad attention is better than no
attention at all. His mommy must have taken his pacifier away from him too
soon.

>To me, it's because he has an agenda when it comes to Chuck. Think
>about it. Chuck has always offered the evidence, which he has in
>physical documents, to anyone who would want to confirm that what
>Chuck is claiming is the literal truth: That Jim Campbell is mistaken
>about Con and his case against Chuck. Neither Juan, nor his
>"employer" Zoomer have chosen to view the evidence. Why not? If they
>are jounalists seeking the "truth" as they often claim (especially
>Campbell), why wouldn't they want to get to the bottom of this once
>and for all?
>

His agenda against Chuck is rooted in one simple fact which should by now be
clear to everyone. He wants the approval of Zoom and to get his pathetic
attempts at writing published in ANN. The continued attacks on Chuck are
passed along to Zoom, who is too chicken **** to show his face on RAH, and they
both pat themselves on the back for their efforts. Its all about attention and
approval. Hell, look at his website shrine to Jim Bede and the fan club he
setup for him.

>The answer, to me, lies in the (diagnosed) neurosis afflicting
>Cambell, and the mindset and water under the bridge for Juan.
>Campbell cannot view the documents because it would expose him as
>someone who has pursued a valse vendetta literally for years. His
>whole psyche has been wrapped around being the one who exposes
>falsehood and treachery. He cannot look at Chuck's evidence, it would
>turn his world upside down. And, if he admits that he was mistaken,
>it might very well lay him open to a harrasement lawsuit. So that's
>not going to happen.
>

You are right on, they both have the same problems. Birds of a feather and all
that.

>And Juan, Juan has been carrying Jim's spear for years now. He has
>been close to Jim and has been jabbing Chuck all this time as Jim's
>unholy paladin. Juan also cannot look at the evidence because what if
>it proves Chuck right? All the past goads, the taunting, the
>accusations would be exposed as the workings of a monumentally
>misguided person. How can he risk that? He **KNOWS** the evidence
>probably does exonerate Chuck because one of his collegues, who also
>worked for Jim and also had jabbed at Chuck actually did sit down with
>Chuck to view the papers. Once he saw the evidence, he was man enough
>to admit that Jim was apparently mistaken, and said so publically here
>in this group.
>

Look at Juan's history, not just with Chuck and Zoom but with Jim Bede as well.
You are right, Jaun will never examine any evidence that would be contrary to
what he wants to believe.

>Juan can't do that. He has to do what he does best, ignor the
>evidence sitting in front of his face and twist out of the way of
>questions, like Neo dodging bullets in "The Matrix."
>
>Corky Scott

The only thing that will work with Jaun is to shun him totally. He needs the
attention and the controversy to maintain his status, without it he would just
fade away to what he really is...nothing.


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

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

[andy asberry]

On 23 Oct 2003 05:28:52 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk
> wrote:


>
>I suppose if I did a criminal record search of all the jiminezes I'd probably
>come up with a ton of names and I would also bet a lot of them are named jaun as
>well. So I if I were use jauns logic against him as he does me I could say
>what's the criminal charges your hiding? He's a real joke.
>

>See ya
>
>Chuck
>
>
I just did a count on the Juan Jimenezs with criminal records in
Texas. 549 just in Texas. I could have saved some time though. There
were only 15 Juanitas.

By the way, anyone know what state Juan is in?

[Ron Natalie]

> By the way, anyone know what state Juan is in?

I thought he went back to PR which was his way of weaseling out of actually flying
the BD-5, since you can't get anywhere from PR on the 5's range.

[cj]

"andy asberry" > wrote in message
...
>
> By the way, anyone know what state Juan is in?
>

Check out the "dfw.general" newsgroup. I'd say he's in Texas.

-cj

[Model Flyer]

> >unmoderated forums won't wither and die because of constant
assaults by the
> >trolls like Jaun and Granolawicz.
> >
> >
>
> You forgot to add one of the worst offenders here...Latchless Larry
Smith!
>

Jual and Larry are both in my kill file, eventuall I got fed up with
all the bickering over what who said what. Because you lot still
reply to their moronic meanderings I have to suffer their wanton
prose. Please, Please can we leave this pair of twits where they
belong and get on with the persuit of that unfortunate who used a V-8
in his Sea Bee.:-)
--

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


>
> Bob Reed
> www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
> KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....
>
> "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
> pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
> (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)
>

[Dave Hyde]

andy asberry wrote:

> By the way, anyone know what state Juan is in?

Either confusion or denial.

Dave 'futility' Hyde

....who thinks this has gotten a little out of hand.

[Jerry Springer]

Larry Smith wrote:
> "Corky Scott" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:18:25 -0400, "red12049" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Juan,
>>>
>>>Excuse me, but where I come from, if you make the accusations, you have
>
> to
>
>>>supply the proof.....
>>>
>>>Red
>>
>>I don't think that's what Juan wants. I've been thinking about this
>>as I read the many seemingly insane responses from him and I believe
>>Juan is playing a role.
>>
>>He dodges and twists out of what nearly anyone would consider to be a
>>normal response to a direct question, nearly every time. Now, why
>>would he do that? Why juke so fiercely in so public a forum?
>>
>>To me, it's because he has an agenda when it comes to Chuck. Think
>>about it. Chuck has always offered the evidence, which he has in
>>physical documents, to anyone who would want to confirm that what
>>Chuck is claiming is the literal truth: That Jim Campbell is mistaken
>>about Con and his case against Chuck. Neither Juan, nor his
>>"employer" Zoomer have chosen to view the evidence. Why not? If they
>>are jounalists seeking the "truth" as they often claim (especially
>>Campbell), why wouldn't they want to get to the bottom of this once
>>and for all?
>>
>>The answer, to me, lies in the (diagnosed) neurosis afflicting
>>Cambell, and the mindset and water under the bridge for Juan.
>>Campbell cannot view the documents because it would expose him as
>>someone who has pursued a valse vendetta literally for years. His
>>whole psyche has been wrapped around being the one who exposes
>>falsehood and treachery. He cannot look at Chuck's evidence, it would
>>turn his world upside down. And, if he admits that he was mistaken,
>>it might very well lay him open to a harrasement lawsuit. So that's
>>not going to happen.
>>
>>And Juan, Juan has been carrying Jim's spear for years now. He has
>>been close to Jim and has been jabbing Chuck all this time as Jim's
>>unholy paladin. Juan also cannot look at the evidence because what if
>>it proves Chuck right? All the past goads, the taunting, the
>>accusations would be exposed as the workings of a monumentally
>>misguided person. How can he risk that? He **KNOWS** the evidence
>>probably does exonerate Chuck because one of his collegues, who also
>>worked for Jim and also had jabbed at Chuck actually did sit down with
>>Chuck to view the papers. Once he saw the evidence, he was man enough
>>to admit that Jim was apparently mistaken, and said so publically here
>>in this group.
>>
>>Juan can't do that. He has to do what he does best, ignor the
>>evidence sitting in front of his face and twist out of the way of
>>questions, like Neo dodging bullets in "The Matrix."
>>
>>Corky Scott
>
>
> Well then. If this is so the controversy will rage on forever until
> settled in a court of law, not for harassment but on a civil complaint for
> libel and damage to Chuck's business relations.
>
> In the meantime quality time for building is wasted and I'm wondering if the
> unmoderated forums won't wither and die because of constant assaults by the
> trolls like Jaun and Granolawicz.
>
>
>
Are you kidding Larry? This has been going on for years. This place is
entertainment for many with a few tidbits of information stuck in once
in a while for good measure. Luckily my airplane is finished so I am not
taking time from building reading this stuff. :-)

Jerry

[Big John]

Model Flyer

Just blew my HD with your e-mail address. Can you just send me a blank
e-mail so I can gat again and I'll put it in my paper address book :o)

Big John


On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:11:03 +0100, "Model Flyer" >
wrote:

>> >unmoderated forums won't wither and die because of constant
>assaults by the
>> >trolls like Jaun and Granolawicz.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> You forgot to add one of the worst offenders here...Latchless Larry
>Smith!
>>
>
>Jual and Larry are both in my kill file, eventuall I got fed up with
>all the bickering over what who said what. Because you lot still
>reply to their moronic meanderings I have to suffer their wanton
>prose. Please, Please can we leave this pair of twits where they
>belong and get on with the persuit of that unfortunate who used a V-8
>in his Sea Bee.:-)
>--
>
>.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Corky Scott says...
>
>On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:18:25 -0400, "red12049" >
>
>I don't think that's what Juan wants. I've been thinking about this
>as I read the many seemingly insane responses from him and I believe
>Juan is playing a role.

Snip lots of good stuff...

> All the past goads, the taunting, the
>accusations would be exposed as the workings of a monumentally
>misguided person. How can he risk that? He **KNOWS** the evidence
>probably does exonerate Chuck because one of his collegues, who also
>worked for Jim and also had jabbed at Chuck actually did sit down with
>Chuck to view the papers. Once he saw the evidence, he was man enough
>to admit that Jim was apparently mistaken, and said so publically here
>in this group.

Does anyone know if Kevin still writes for zoom? I seem to remember that he
kinda disappeared from ANN not long after he started questioning zoom about what
he saw.

>
>Juan can't do that. He has to do what he does best, ignor the
>evidence sitting in front of his face and twist out of the way of
>questions, like Neo dodging bullets in "The Matrix."

I can't for the life of me figure out why a guy would be so willing to make
such a fool of himself in a public forum ,especially one that will have what he
wrote stored for later access. If I were jaun I would be ashamed to have my
children read the things I wrote at some later date and have them question me as
to why I was so rotten. But that's his reputation and he'll have to deal with
it. As for me I don't write anything I'd be ashamed to have my kids read.

You had a very good possible explanation for some of jauns and zooms actions.In
that light it makes some sense.

See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 23 Oct 2003 20:44:46 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk
> wrote:

>Does anyone know if Kevin still writes for zoom? I seem to remember that he
>kinda disappeared from ANN not long after he started questioning zoom about what
>he saw.

I believe Kevin has been busy on active military service for the past
several years. He's posted here occasionally, though.

Ron Wanttaja

[John Stricker]

A State of Delusion.

John Stricker

"andy asberry" > wrote in message
...
> On 23 Oct 2003 05:28:52 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk
> > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I suppose if I did a criminal record search of all the jiminezes I'd
probably
> >come up with a ton of names and I would also bet a lot of them are named
jaun as
> >well. So I if I were use jauns logic against him as he does me I could
say
> >what's the criminal charges your hiding? He's a real joke.
> >
>
> >See ya
> >
> >Chuck
> >
> >
> I just did a count on the Juan Jimenezs with criminal records in
> Texas. 549 just in Texas. I could have saved some time though. There
> were only 15 Juanitas.
>
> By the way, anyone know what state Juan is in?
>

[[email protected]]

In article <ICHlb.2908$Fm2.5495@attbi_s04>,
Juan.Jimenez > wrote:
>
>
>
>"sleepy6" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> You forget....If you make an accusation, you have the
>> responsibility of proving it.
>
>I did. I told him what he has to do to prove me wrong. That was... what...
>2-3 weeks ago? :)
>

OK. Same deal for you. *Exactly* the same. I hereby claim you're a liar
and a fraud.

All you have to do to prove _me_ wrong is provide any _proof_ of *YOUR*
claim that he did _not_ have his truck there.

Go ahead and *PROVE*ME*WRONG*. IF you can't do it, you _are_ admitting
you're a liar and a fraud.

I'm waiting.

And I'll post reminder notices *every*week* until you do.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >,
says...

>>I did. I told him what he has to do to prove me wrong. That was... what...
>>2-3 weeks ago? :)
>>
>
>OK. Same deal for you. *Exactly* the same. I hereby claim you're a liar
>and a fraud.
>
>All you have to do to prove _me_ wrong is provide any _proof_ of *YOUR*
>claim that he did _not_ have his truck there.
>
>Go ahead and *PROVE*ME*WRONG*. IF you can't do it, you _are_ admitting
>you're a liar and a fraud.
>
>I'm waiting.
>
>And I'll post reminder notices *every*week* until you do.


ROFLMAO!! That was a great post!! You've just proven jaun to be a liar and a
fraud using his own tactic. Let's wait for his answer :-)

see ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret
>

[Barnyard BOb --]

>Go ahead and *PROVE*ME*WRONG*. IF you can't do it, you _are_ admitting
>you're a liar and a fraud.
>
>I'm waiting.
>
>And I'll post reminder notices *every*week* until you do.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You're beating a dead horse.
Shunning is the only EFFECTIVE option.


Barnyard Bob --
The more people I meet,
the more I love my dog...
and George Carlin humor.

[Russell Kent]

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

> You're beating a dead horse.
> Shunning is the only EFFECTIVE option.

Oh I dunno 'bout that. I'd wager that firearms would be effective if
properly utilized. I'm not advocating that course of action, merely being
pedantic for (hopefully) humorous effect. :-)

Russell Kent

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:16:53 -0500, Russell Kent >
wrote:

:Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
:
:> You're beating a dead horse.
:> Shunning is the only EFFECTIVE option.
:
:Oh I dunno 'bout that. I'd wager that firearms would be effective if
:properly utilized. I'm not advocating that course of action, merely being
:pedantic for (hopefully) humorous effect. :-)
:
:Russell Kent

You're right, there's a whole world of options that would be
effective.

Thalium poisoning
Submarine launched cruise missile
Dropping in an active volcano
Steam roller
High voltage
snakes

Feel free to add to the list, everyone

[sleepy6]

In article >,
says...
>
>In article <ICHlb.2908$Fm2.5495@attbi_s04>,
>Juan.Jimenez > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>"sleepy6" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> You forget....If you make an accusation, you have the
>>> responsibility of proving it.
>>
>>I did. I told him what he has to do to prove me wrong. That was... wh
>at...
>>2-3 weeks ago? :)
>>
>
>OK. Same deal for you. *Exactly* the same. I hereby claim you're a
>liar
>and a fraud.
>
>All you have to do to prove _me_ wrong is provide any _proof_ of *YOUR
>*
>claim that he did _not_ have his truck there.
>
>Go ahead and *PROVE*ME*WRONG*. IF you can't do it, you _are_ admitting
>you're a liar and a fraud.
>
>I'm waiting.
>
>And I'll post reminder notices *every*week* until you do.
>


I love it:) Maybe this is what it takes for him to see just how stupid
his logic has been.

[Model Flyer]

"Dave Hyde" > wrote in message
...
> andy asberry wrote:
>
> > By the way, anyone know what state Juan is in?
>
> Either confusion or denial.
>

Both I should imagine, he's denying that he's confused or he's
confused about what to deny. Also he would appear not to know that
this group is generally about ****ing off people about using auto
conversions or, buying latches for window glass in an airplane.
--

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


> Dave 'futility' Hyde
>
> ...who thinks this has gotten a little out of hand.

[Model Flyer]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Model Flyer
>
> Just blew my HD with your e-mail address. Can you just send me a
blank
> e-mail so I can gat again and I'll put it in my paper address book
:o)
>

How could an e-mail address blow your HD, or, are you the poor chap
that has the real null domain?
--

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

> Big John
>
>
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:11:03 +0100, "Model Flyer"
>
> wrote:
>
> >> >unmoderated forums won't wither and die because of constant
> >assaults by the
> >> >trolls like Jaun and Granolawicz.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> You forgot to add one of the worst offenders here...Latchless
Larry
> >Smith!
> >>
> >
> >Jual and Larry are both in my kill file, eventuall I got fed up
with
> >all the bickering over what who said what. Because you lot still
> >reply to their moronic meanderings I have to suffer their wanton
> >prose. Please, Please can we leave this pair of twits where they
> >belong and get on with the persuit of that unfortunate who used a
V-8
> >in his Sea Bee.:-)
> >--
> >
> >.
>

[Del Rawlins]

On 24 Oct 2003 07:26 AM, posted the following:
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:16:53 -0500, Russell Kent >
> wrote:
>
>:Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
>:
>:> You're beating a dead horse.
>:> Shunning is the only EFFECTIVE option.
>:
>:Oh I dunno 'bout that. I'd wager that firearms would be effective if
>:properly utilized. I'm not advocating that course of action, merely
>:being pedantic for (hopefully) humorous effect. :-) Russell Kent
>
> You're right, there's a whole world of options that would be
> effective.
>
> Thalium poisoning
> Submarine launched cruise missile
> Dropping in an active volcano
> Steam roller
> High voltage
> snakes
>
> Feel free to add to the list, everyone

Force him at gunpoint to fly his own BD-5.

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

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Del Rawlins says...

>> You're right, there's a whole world of options that would be
>> effective.
>>
>> Thalium poisoning
>> Submarine launched cruise missile
>> Dropping in an active volcano
>> Steam roller
>> High voltage
>> snakes
>>
>> Feel free to add to the list, everyone


>Force him at gunpoint to fly his own BD-5.

I vote for that one LOL!!! I was thinking of force feeding him Lute fish .

See ya

Chuck

[Barnyard BOb --]

>>:> You're beating a dead horse.
>>:> Shunning is the only EFFECTIVE option.
>>:
>>:Oh I dunno 'bout that. I'd wager that firearms would be effective if
>>:properly utilized. I'm not advocating that course of action, merely
>>:being pedantic for (hopefully) humorous effect. :-) Russell Kent
>>
>> You're right, there's a whole world of options that would be
>> effective.
>>
>> Thalium poisoning
>> Submarine launched cruise missile
>> Dropping in an active volcano
>> Steam roller
>> High voltage
>> snakes
>>
>> Feel free to add to the list, everyone
>
>Force him at gunpoint to fly his own BD-5.
>
>Del Rawlins-
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Too bad your not a babe, Del.
You deserve a huge smooch. <bfg>


Barnyard BOb --

In article >, Dave Hyde > wrote:
>andy asberry wrote:
>
>> By the way, anyone know what state Juan is in?
>
>Either confusion or denial.

*definitely* not D-nile.

One grade above that. C-nile. <snicker>

[Larry Smith]

"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Larry Smith"
> > writes:
>
> >
> >Well then. If this is so the controversy will rage on forever until
> >settled in a court of law, not for harassment but on a civil complaint
for
> >libel and damage to Chuck's business relations.
> >
> >In the meantime quality time for building is wasted and I'm wondering if
the
> >unmoderated forums won't wither and die because of constant assaults by
the
> >trolls like Jaun and Granolawicz.
> >
> >
>
> You forgot to add one of the worst offenders here...Latch

Hey, goofy, I'll sell you some latches for your groundpounder project, much
better ones than those slipshod shadetree latches from that "machinist" who
thinks you're an idiot.

Don't take checks from dumb Texans, though.

<snip dumb sig>

[RobertR237]

In article >, "Larry Smith"
> writes:

>>
>> You forgot to add one of the worst offenders here...Latch
>
>Hey, goofy, I'll sell you some latches for your groundpounder project, much
>better ones than those slipshod shadetree latches from that "machinist" who
>thinks you're an idiot.
>
>Don't take checks from dumb Texans, though.
>
><snip dumb sig>
>
>

Don't need them, I have a great pair of latches and didn't have to whine and
cry about them for months on end either. Now when are you going to show
something besides your stupidity and let everyone see the piece of **** you
claim to be building?


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

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

[RobertR237]

In article >, writes:

>
>You're right, there's a whole world of options that would be
>effective.
>
>Thalium poisoning
>Submarine launched cruise missile
>Dropping in an active volcano
>Steam roller
>High voltage
>snakes
>
>Feel free to add to the list, everyone
>
>

Flight Testing a BD5J

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

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

[[email protected]]

On 24 Oct 2003 13:33:33 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk
> wrote:

:In article >, Del Rawlins says...
:
:>> You're right, there's a whole world of options that would be
:>> effective.
:>>
:>> Thalium poisoning
:>> Submarine launched cruise missile
:>> Dropping in an active volcano
:>> Steam roller
:>> High voltage
:>> snakes
:>>
:>> Feel free to add to the list, everyone
:
:
:>Force him at gunpoint to fly his own BD-5.
:
:I vote for that one LOL!!! I was thinking of force feeding him Lute fish .

No, that'd be cruel and inhuman. Better to be torn apart by wild
dingoes.

[Big John]

Jonathan

E-mail didn't do it. I'll not expound here or some of the lurkers will
come out and rap my knuckles <G>

I backed into it so all is ok.

Where there is a will, there's a way :o)

Big John

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:53:05 +0100, "Model Flyer" >
wrote:

>
>"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>> Model Flyer
>>
>> Just blew my HD with your e-mail address. Can you just send me a
>blank
>> e-mail so I can gat again and I'll put it in my paper address book
>:o)
>>
>
>How could an e-mail address blow your HD, or, are you the poor chap
>that has the real null domain?
>--
>
>.

[Ron Wanttaja]

In article >, writes:
>
>You're right, there's a whole world of options that would be
>effective.
>
>Thalium poisoning
>Submarine launched cruise missile
>Dropping in an active volcano
>Steam roller
>High voltage
>snakes
>
>Feel free to add to the list, everyone

Hmmmm....with apologies to Paul Simon:

The problem is all across the net, he said to me
From alt.pix.puppies to rec.auto.datsun.z
I'd like to help you try to stop his awful tune
There must be fifty ways to whack a net-loon
....fifty ways to whack a net-loon.

I know you don't want to be violent or be crude
Even when the idiot net-loon picks a fight or just is being lewd
Or posts a JPEG of his pimple-studded moon,
There must be fifty ways to whack a net loon
....fifty ways to whack a net-loon

Just toast him like bread, Fred. Make it a jewel, Euell.
No need to be soft, Croft... just listen to me.
Make the idiot scream, Gene. Send his blood pressure up, Chuck
Just question his life, Dwight, it's a fake I.D.

He said it grieved him so, to see that tired old game
With the net-loon twisting all the quotes but misspelling his own name
Remember that when he posts, he's probably dressed-up like a dame
There must be fifty ways to whack a net-loon.
....fifty ways to whack a net loon

Just sign him up for spam, Dan. Killfile the snake, Jake.
Don't do anything small, Paul...really nail that S.O.B.
Give his ego a bruise, Bruce. Point out he's a jerk, Burke.
Just flame him online, Ryan...and get yourself free...

Ron Wanttaja

[B2431]

>From:
>Date: 10/24/2003 9:34 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 24 Oct 2003 13:33:33 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk
> wrote:
>
>:In article >, Del Rawlins says...
>:
>:>> You're right, there's a whole world of options that would be
>:>> effective.
>:>>
>:>> Thalium poisoning
>:>> Submarine launched cruise missile
>:>> Dropping in an active volcano
>:>> Steam roller
>:>> High voltage
>:>> snakes
>:>>
>:>> Feel free to add to the list, everyone
>:
>:
>:>Force him at gunpoint to fly his own BD-5.
>:
>:I vote for that one LOL!!! I was thinking of force feeding him Lute fish .
>
>No, that'd be cruel and inhuman. Better to be torn apart by wild
>dingoes.

Hey, that's cruel to the poor dingoes.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>Good Luck, Jim!ZZZZZ
>From: "Ron Natalie"

<snip>
>
>> By the way, anyone know what state Juan is in?
>
>I thought he went back to PR which was his way of weaseling out of actually
>flying the BD-5, since you can't get anywhere from PR on the 5's range.
>
Judging from juan's picture in the ANN website he probably wouldn't fit into a
BD-5. This could explain why he's never finished it.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[StellaStar]

>I was thinking of force feeding him Lute fish .

You fuel! (Nick Danger, Firesign Theatre)

It's lutefisk.
Jeez, Chuck, aren't you Norwegian?

Oh, I crack myself up sometimes.

[red12049]

Kinda funny actually.... Juan hasn't been seen in these parts since about
10/22. However a Google search shows him active in the dfw newsgroup. I
and a few others have commented that when someone attempts to pin him down
to specifics, he disappears for a period of time. After reading his posts
here and on the DFW newsgroup, I read some of his and Zooms' work on ANN. I
then turned to Flying, Kitplanes, Plane and Pilot, etc. for comparison, and
there just isn't any. The level of professionalism shown by him is only
exceeded by his caustic wit and journalistic ethics. (sarcasm mode off) I
would suggest that if (make that when) he shows up here again, we simply
ignore him (and that includes you too Chuck, as hard as that may be).
Shunning is the only thing he cannot twist, evade, turn around, or otherwise
bs his way through.

Red

"StellaStar" > wrote in message
...
> >I was thinking of force feeding him Lute fish .
>
> You fuel! (Nick Danger, Firesign Theatre)
>
> It's lutefisk.
> Jeez, Chuck, aren't you Norwegian?
>
> Oh, I crack myself up sometimes.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, StellaStar says...
>
>>I was thinking of force feeding him Lute fish .

>It's lutefisk.
>Jeez, Chuck, aren't you Norwegian?

Actually I was born in a Polish Ghetto in Skandortriskedernqvaskgewottern Norway
a small non discript village.Sven Koloczynski was one of my best friends :-) But
actually your right about the spelling ,I was just testing ya.
I rate Lutefisk right up there with kimche .

See ya

Chuck (bork de bork) S

[Big John]

Chuck

What's wrong with Kimche? It grows on you after a while like Martini's
<G> You must have gotten some that wasn't fully 'ripe'?

Big John


On 29 Oct 2003 05:24:21 -0800, ChuckSlusarczyk
> wrote:

>In article >, StellaStar says...
>>
>>>I was thinking of force feeding him Lute fish .
>
>>It's lutefisk.
>>Jeez, Chuck, aren't you Norwegian?
>
>Actually I was born in a Polish Ghetto in Skandortriskedernqvaskgewottern Norway
>a small non discript village.Sven Koloczynski was one of my best friends :-) But
>actually your right about the spelling ,I was just testing ya.
>I rate Lutefisk right up there with kimche .
>
>See ya
>
>Chuck (bork de bork) S

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, red12049 says...
>
>Kinda funny actually.... Juan hasn't been seen in these parts since about
>10/22. However a Google search shows him active in the dfw newsgroup. I
>and a few others have commented that when someone attempts to pin him down
>to specifics, he disappears for a period of time.

That's typical of him and zoom.

> After reading his posts
>here and on the DFW newsgroup, I read some of his and Zooms' work on ANN. I
>then turned to Flying, Kitplanes, Plane and Pilot, etc. for comparison, and
>there just isn't any. The level of professionalism shown by him is only
>exceeded by his caustic wit and journalistic ethics. (sarcasm mode off)

That's why he doesn't write for any legitimate aviation publications and after
he started spouting off on RAH ,which is read by many who write for them, jaun's
reputation is well known.

> I
>would suggest that if (make that when) he shows up here again, we simply
>ignore him (and that includes you too Chuck, as hard as that may be).
>Shunning is the only thing he cannot twist, evade, turn around, or otherwise
>bs his way through.


There's nothing I'd like better then to ignore both of them. However that's what
they want .They want people to forget what they said and did and then newbies
come along and think they are credible ,legitimate writers and that zoom was
really a test pilot and flew food missions in Africa and made 3 emergency
parachute jumps and pulled 9 g's negative and ,and ,and....

My problem is that zoom has cost me a lot of money and I still have to deal with
people who believe what he writes. He has tried to hurt my business ,my
reputation and my livlihood. So I'm forced to defend myself every so often just
so newbies know what they are dealing with when they read ANN and that I'm not
the SOB that jaun and zoom say I am. But the day is coming when that will all
stop as soon as I finish with the Conn matter then I'll probably deal with zoom
in court.Thanks for the civil discourse

See ya

Chuck


>Red
>
>"StellaStar" > wrote in message
...
>> >I was thinking of force feeding him Lute fish .
>>
>> You fuel! (Nick Danger, Firesign Theatre)
>>
>> It's lutefisk.
>> Jeez, Chuck, aren't you Norwegian?
>>
>> Oh, I crack myself up sometimes.
>
>

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Big John says...

My brother likes it but I think it should be re buried and allowed to rest in
peace :-)

See ya

Chuck


>
>Chuck
>
>What's wrong with Kimche? It grows on you after a while like Martini's
><G> You must have gotten some that wasn't fully 'ripe'?
>
>Big John

[B2431]

>Actually I was born in a Polish Ghetto in Skandortriskedernqvaskgewottern
>Norway
>a small non discript village.

Ok, 2 questions: how do you pronounce that and how long does it take to say?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, B2431 says...

Like a lot of words it's spelled one way and pronounced another it's spelled
Skandortriskedernqvaskgewottern but pronounced Cleveland :-)

See ya

Chuck



>>Actually I was born in a Polish Ghetto in Skandortriskedernqvaskgewottern
>>Norway
>>a small non discript village.
>
>Ok, 2 questions: how do you pronounce that and how long does it take to say?
>
>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Jimmy Galvin]

Ha Ha That was really good!
"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, B2431 says...
>
> Like a lot of words it's spelled one way and pronounced another it's
spelled
> Skandortriskedernqvaskgewottern but pronounced Cleveland :-)
>
> See ya
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> >>Actually I was born in a Polish Ghetto in
Skandortriskedernqvaskgewottern
> >>Norway
> >>a small non discript village.
> >
> >Ok, 2 questions: how do you pronounce that and how long does it take to
say?
> >
> >Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>

[Ben Sego]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

> Give his ego a bruise, Bruce. Point out he's a jerk, Burke.
> Just flame him online, Ryan...and get yourself free...
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Now, that's the sort of thing I really miss.

B.S.

[B2431]

>From: ChuckSlusarczyk

Interesting how language can be so confusing. Picture a man from China reading
the headline "Smith Pronounced President" in the Hew York Times.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

B2431 says...
>
>Like a lot of words it's spelled one way and pronounced another it's spelled
>Skandortriskedernqvaskgewottern but pronounced Cleveland :-)
>
>See ya
>
>Chuck
>
>
>
>>>Actually I was born in a Polish Ghetto in Skandortriskedernqvaskgewottern
>>>Norway
>>>a small non discript village.
>>
>>Ok, 2 questions: how do you pronounce that and how long does it take to say?
>>
>>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
>

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, B2431 says...
>
>>From: ChuckSlusarczyk
>
>Interesting how language can be so confusing. Picture a man from China reading
>the headline "Smith Pronounced President" in the Hew York Times.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Makes one wonder how many wars started because of miscommunications.Like saying
" Why do you want to fight?? or Why!! do you want to fight??
That's what a lot of my problems with zoom had to do with. He played with words
to create a perception that was different then the reality.

See ya

Chuck

[Ben Sego]

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:


He played with words
> to create a perception that was different then the reality.
>
> See ya
>
> Chuck
>

Or:
"He played with words to create a perception that was different. Then,
reality."

I like it better that way.

B.S.

[Juan.Jimenez]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article <liHlb.3725$e01.10447@attbi_s02>, Juan.Jimenez says...
> >Better than proving that you are the Pathological Liar of Cleveland.
>
>
> Wrong again jaun I don't live in Cleveland haven't for about 33 years .Boy
your
> just a font of wrong info.

It's all about the credibility you don't have.

[Juan.Jimenez]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>
> Juan, I have no dog in this fight, but bringing up family members, real or
> imagionary, in such a manner as to imply negative things about them is
> immature, unfair and is usually resorted to by someone who can't prove his
> case.

Tell that to Chuck and his RAH Gaggle of Numbnuts. They're the ones who
dragged my kid into this in the first place.

No apology will be forthcoming.

[Juan.Jimenez]

"John Ousterhout" >
wrote in message ...
>
> Juan, my lack of response means only that I'm not responding to you --

And it speaks for itself. I already answered your doubts about me re: the
way I acted towards you.

[Juan.Jimenez]

"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
> Gawd, what a funny picture! (Not of you in a closet, you kicking Jaun's
ass!)

Good hallucinations make for good pictures.

[Juan.Jimenez]

"red12049" > wrote in message
...
>
> Next, no, you did not SAY that they were Chucks, but the IMPLICATION was
> certainly there... go back and read the definition of McCarthyism.

I could care less about comparisons to McCarthyism. That's about as lame as
the way people throw charges of anti-semitism without giving the issue a
single thought. That's why calling someone an anti-semite is no longer
nearly as strong an accusation as it used to be. Kids, wolves and crying
about them once to often come to mind.

> According to him, if this mess were in a print media, there would be great
> grounds for a suit against you, and he would take that case in a blink.

So let him convince his lawyer to sue. He said he's getting his ducks in a
row. I told him I've got a BBQ fire going to cook them. I have never lost in
court, not once, specifically because I don't line up ducks, I line up
evidence. Chuck knows he started this. Chuck knows that if he's man enough
to what should be done, he can end it. Bashing me is only going to result in
his getting stomped, over and over again. <shrug>

Juan

[Juan.Jimenez]

You shouldn't speak about things you don't know about. Kevin was with us
this weekend at AOPA Expo. Unfortunately, it looks like he's going back to
Afghanistan soon. I wish him well, a safe trip there and back.

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
>
> I believe Kevin has been busy on active military service for the past
> several years. He's posted here occasionally, though.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

[Juan.Jimenez]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> > By the way, anyone know what state Juan is in?
>
> I thought he went back to PR which was his way of weaseling out of
actually flying
> the BD-5, since you can't get anywhere from PR on the 5's range.

Speaking out your ass again, Natalie? I'm in Texas, and still working on
the -5J. Just solved the ignition issue week before last. Any other dumb
questions?

[Juan.Jimenez]

> wrote in message
. net...
>
> OK. Same deal for you. *Exactly* the same. I hereby claim you're a liar
> and a fraud.

<g> Since I don't give a **** whether or not you think I'm a liar or a
fraud, <plonk!> :)

[Juan.Jimenez]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
> ROFLMAO!! That was a great post!! You've just proven jaun to be a liar and
a
> fraud using his own tactic. Let's wait for his answer :-)

Here it is: It's all about the credibility that you don't have, liar...

[B2431]

>From: "Juan.Jimenez"
>Date: 11/2/2003 11:30 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <uJlpb.90156$Fm2.76749@attbi_s04>
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Juan, I have no dog in this fight, but bringing up family members, real or
>> imagionary, in such a manner as to imply negative things about them is
>> immature, unfair and is usually resorted to by someone who can't prove his
>> case.
>
>Tell that to Chuck and his RAH Gaggle of Numbnuts. They're the ones who
>dragged my kid into this in the first place.
>
>No apology will be forthcoming.
>
I'm sorry, but the "he started it" excuse doesn't wash here. If what you say
about Chuck bringing your child into this first is true and you didn't like it
wouldn't you be the better man for NOT doing the same in return?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Russell Kent]

Chuck Slusarczyk wrote:

> He played with words to create a perception that was different then the
> reality.

Ben Sego replied:

> Or:
> "He played with words to create a perception that was different. Then,
> reality."
>
> I like it better that way.

Only one problem: what Chuck intended to write was: "He played with words
to create a perception that was different than the reality." Notice
"different than" rather than "different then." (BTW, this is *NOT* a
speeling flame. :-)

Russell Kent
P.S. I actually typed it that way accidently, but decided I liked the
serendipitous humor.

[[email protected]]

In article <SUlpb.90935$Tr4.252041@attbi_s03>,
Juan.Jimenez > wrote:
>
> wrote in message
. net...
>>
>> OK. Same deal for you. *Exactly* the same. I hereby claim you're a liar
>> and a fraud.
>>
>> All you have to do to prove _me_ wrong is provide any _proof_ of *YOUR*
>> claim that he did _not_ have his truck there.
>>
>> Go ahead and *PROVE*ME*WRONG*. IF you can't do it, you _are_ admitting
>> you're a liar and a fraud.
>>
>> I'm waiting.
>>
>> And I'll post reminder notices *every*week* until you do.
>>
>>
>>
>
><g> Since I don't give a **** whether or not you think I'm a liar or a
>fraud, <plonk!> :)

I am *so* glad you said that!

Cuz now I can repeat the original claim, as much as I want, with
impunity, and *ABSOLUTE*LEGAL*IMMUNITY*

You see, if you _ever_ object to my making that claim in the future, that
*proves* you did lie with the above statement.

[[email protected]]

In article <xIlpb.89614$HS4.785379@attbi_s01>,
Juan.Jimenez > wrote:
>
>
>
>"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>> In article <liHlb.3725$e01.10447@attbi_s02>, Juan.Jimenez says...
>> >Better than proving that you are the Pathological Liar of Cleveland.
>>
>>
>> Wrong again jaun I don't live in Cleveland haven't for about 33 years .Boy
>your
>> just a font of wrong info.
>
>It's all about the credibility you don't have.
>
>

*FUNNY* remark from a man who can't and/or won't deny being a laiar and
a faud, himself.

[Ben Sego]

Russell Kent wrote:
> Chuck Slusarczyk wrote:
>
>
>>He played with words to create a perception that was different then the
>>reality.
>
>
> Ben Sego replied:
>
>
>>Or:
>>"He played with words to create a perception that was different. Then,
>>reality."
>>
>>I like it better that way.
>
>
> Only one problem: what Chuck intended to write was: "He played with words
> to create a perception that was different than the reality." Notice
> "different than" rather than "different then." (BTW, this is *NOT* a
> speeling flame. :-)
>
> Russell Kent
> P.S. I actually typed it that way accidently, but decided I liked the
> serendipitous humor.
>

I was pretty sure of what Chuck meant. I just chose to interpret it as
a freudian slip, since it was funnier that way.

B.S.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, B2431 says...

Hi Dan
If memory serves me right I seem to remember that jaun was trying to imply I had
children that were involved in the Juvenile Justice system and even mentioned
names .Who, by the way were not my kids. He then says we dragged his kid into
it. Hmm he seems a little thin skinned .

Naah jauns not a better man he won't even fly what he works on. He calls us
Numbnuts but at least we have a pair....

See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

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


>>Tell that to Chuck and his RAH Gaggle of Numbnuts. They're the ones who
>>dragged my kid into this in the first place.
>>
>>No apology will be forthcoming.
>>
>I'm sorry, but the "he started it" excuse doesn't wash here. If what you say
>about Chuck bringing your child into this first is true and you didn't like it
>wouldn't you be the better man for NOT doing the same in return?
>
>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Russell Kent]

Ben Sego wrote:

> Russell Kent wrote:
> > Chuck Slusarczyk wrote:
> >
> >
> >>He played with words to create a perception that was different then the
> >>reality.
> >
> >
> > Ben Sego replied:
> >
> >
> >>Or:
> >>"He played with words to create a perception that was different. Then,
> >>reality."
> >>
> >>I like it better that way.
> >
> >
> > Only one problem: what Chuck intended to write was: "He played with words
> > to create a perception that was different than the reality." Notice
> > "different than" rather than "different then." (BTW, this is *NOT* a
> > speeling flame. :-)
> >
> > Russell Kent
> > P.S. I actually typed it that way accidently, but decided I liked the
> > serendipitous humor.
> >
>
> I was pretty sure of what Chuck meant. I just chose to interpret it as
> a freudian slip, since it was funnier that way.
>
> B.S.

*sigh* Internet humor is *so* hard. :-)
Apologies, Ben.

Russell Kent