On 2008-04-03, BobR wrote:
All of this would be relevant if it was just Zoom. It's not just Zoom.
And nobody is arguing that point.

Then why are folks saying "Zoom first told the story, so it must be bogus"?

I also have to wonder why you are putting such effort into defending
Zoom's story when admittedly you have never even read the story. If
you don't know the tone and scope of his report and how he used it to
try and throw a shadow over a great flyin...why the defense? Is it
your contention that any publication can print anything they want as
long as there is some element of fact in the story?

No. I'm just trying to get people to look past the originator of the story
to the substance. Far too many folks are arguing that it must be BS because
Zoom reported it to try to slam SnF. That's simply not relevant. It became
irrelevant the moment AOPA reported it - unless you're arguing that,
somehow, Zoom led them and EAA down the garden path and they did no checking
on their own. In effect, the detractors are slamming AOPA and EAA's
credibility because of Zoom, and that's totally unwarranted.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)