If I said things that were not true, it was not intentional.


Sorry, but that's just plain ridiculous. Just two quotes:


It is not ridiculous, and I stand by it. You are confusing Hyperbole with
falsehood.


My only agenda is safety, and frankly, Cirrus has a poor rating. You
can make excuses all day, but the facts are the facts. They have
killed ...


Hyperbole yes, false, no. These are not the facts in question. The only
fact that is in question is whether the single lever operation of the TCM
engine which regulates it to 2500 or 2700 rpm only, combined with the plane
being a challenge to slow down, is causing engine problems.

This was explained to me as being a problem identified by COPA members, and
was one of the reasons the pilot who told it to me decided against the
plane. If he was in error, then I have passed on some bad poop, but
frankly, I don't see any reason why he would make this up.

I hope you are paying attention to all your fellow owners who are dying
..


That kind of hyberloe wasn't intentional? Yeah, right.


As I stated, I was angered by the other gentleman's statements, and I have
pointed out and admitted the hyperbole myself. That does not make my
statements false, it just means that I exagerated for the sake of impact.

Let's get this all quite straight. The argument is not over whether the
record is good or bad, it is over whether the record accurately reflects the
safety of the plane. One can state that there is not enough data, or that
the data is skewed, but I disagree. No one is taking me to task on that at
all. My response is that a million fleet hours is enough, and that the data
is not skewed because it is reflective of the rest of the GA fleet.

You can argue ad hominem, you can argue motive, and you can knock down some
of my supportive data; however, can you make a case for the other side? How
many hours do you want to see? How many fatalaties is too many? What
statistic or basis would you like to use?