ZZZooommm rant latest

Oops, I should have read more of the thread before commenting.

Warren & Nancy wrote:

And the insurance company probably said "let's settle this turkey and get on
with our lives".

Eric Miller wrote:

"Juan E Jimenez" wrote
"Eric Miller" wrote in message
. net...
Make up your mind. Either there is personal responsibility for both sides,
or there isn't any. Can't pick and choose, because when you BUILD a
problem,
you also accept a certain amount of responsibility.

I didn't contradict myself.
Where motorcycles and flying machines are concerned the USER must accept
more responsibility.
That's why we preflight.

Besides, I'll bet the builder test flew the UL before declaring it ready to
fly.
That suggests plaintiff inexperience, either as a pilot in general, or in
make&model.

It didn't go to trial, so the defendent didn't make an issue of
anything.

Sorry, but here you're wrong, period. You don't have to get to trial to
make
an issue of something in the lawsuit.

You don't have to go to trial to make an issue of something, but you don't
have to raise all issus before the trial.
In other words, you can't claim to know the defendent's entire defense and
strategy.

Remember, if reading the account according to the plaintiff's counsel,
you're getting a definite slant.

In this case, that's rather unlikely.

I'm suggesting that one side's account might be... (wait for it...)
one-sided.
Especially where the account is provided a) by a lawyer b) in support of
advertising services.

I see a pattern in this thread of confusing/blurring the distinction between
set and subset.
merit is a subset of settlement...
pre-trial issues are a subset of trial issues

Forget this case. I dont even care about it. All my spouting is meant in
general anyway.
Can you agree that settlements can happen without merit (which is different
from frivilous) and issues can be raised in trial that don't come up
pre-trial?
Say yes and I can stop posting!

Eric "I'll settle for just using the letters E, S and Y in any order "

In article , ChuckSlusarczyk
writes:


Hi Jeremy

Actually the settlement wasn't an embarrassment it burned me up .The
insurance
company wanted to settle out of court I wanted to fight it. However I was
told
if I chose to fight and we lost they would cover only the amount they agreed
to
settle out with and I would have to pay the difference. So I said what if we
win
then could I have the $750,000 that your willing to give them? I was told
NO!!
so I had no real choice but to go along with the settlement.



Did they also happen to mention that even if you won, they could continue to
file endless expensive appeals to you and your insurance at almost NO cost to
them? That is the big flaw in the system which makes it advisable to settle.
A settlement is the only way to guarantee an end to the proceedings.


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" wrote in message
...
In article , Badwater Bill
says...

I'm not so sure that the publicity Chuck gets from some maniacal rant
is all harmful. I think most people who really know what's going on,
understand the rift and take it for what it's worth. As for those who
don't know beans about Zoom or Chuck, I really think that the press,
even though negative possibly helps Chuck because it keeps his
company's name in circulation.

Frankly Bill if I had my druthers I would rather that 9 years ago zoom
just
would have left me alone.I'm capable of generating my own press that isn't
harmful and have done enough legitimate things in this business to earn
press
space. I've accomplished things that are verifiable and not embellished,
unlike
most of zooms record.
Negative publicity might work for politicians and movie stars but it don't
work
for guys like me I don't like it and it cost me plenty.But he dealt the
cards
and I'm stuck with it.


Yes, I know this is a strange thing to say to some of you, but I have
friends who feel that any press, negative press included can be a
benefit.

Maybe they're movie stars or politicians, they can have it.


I'm not trying to open a debate over this, I'm just speculating a bit,
and I'm not sure what the real outcome is.

I think the real outcome will come when zoom finally gets 2 nickles to rub
together and has something of value ,then I'll probably sue him for all
this
crap and take it away . But at the rate he's going it will be a long
time.That
may be the only way it will stop. Until then every time he lies or twists
the
truth he will be exposed for doing it.

Usually defamation (libel, slander) lawsuits have short statutes of
limitations, meaning you have to file your lawsuit shortly after the
defamation is published.

On a couple of other issues here, I don't agree with the proposition that
the only thing worse than bad publicity is no publicity at all. That is a
weasel statement made by a weasel who doesn't understand the agony or damage
caused by defamation, or that good name and reputation are the immediate
jewels of one's soul.

It is true too that most people in the homebuilder community know that
Campbell is a rather nasty little narcissist, but the young and
impressionable who come along fresh and naive must constantly be reminded
that while he may be articulate, he's also got big credibility problems.

On the other hand if he exposes REAL crooks, which sometimes he HAS done, he
contributes a service. So he has a history of blasting advertisers who
decline to renew their ads. You take him and his shills with a grain of
salz.

BYB: I did a quick, I don't have a lot of time for this ZZZ thing, but all
but a couple of the posters are all saying pretty much the same thing.
Isn't this thread pretty much "preaching to the choir"?
If you want something to go away, there are a few ways to do it. 1. Ignore
and don't respond to it. Responding to an irritant gives it a certain
amount of acknowledgement. it seems that a lot of posters are reading ANN ,
whatever that is, and in fact giving implicit support to ZZZZ 2. Send in
the Marines and take it out. It worked, kinda, on Saddam. 3. Buy it out,
the US has been trying that one for years.

Stu Fields (I'm off to find something about airplanes)
"Barnyard BOb --" wrote in message
...

What is the purpose or goal behind it?? I'm really curious.
Stu Fields


Justice, fair play, ethics and a host of other words along those lines
come to mind.

On one hand you have a businessman who has spent well over 20 years
building a reputation for honesty and integrity. Along the way he has
recieved numerous awards from the aviation community. He has earned
the respect of that community and the loyality of his customers. Of
course over the years he has had a few unhappy customers and law suits.
Any business will have a certain amount of that but Chuck has had far
fewer than most because he tries to do the right thing and he is
willing to publicly discuss them.

On the other hand you have an individual that has had severe mental,
financial and moral problems for a very long time. He has used the
power of his press to shamelessly extort money from some of his
advertisers. He published good articles about Chuck as long as Chuck
was an advertiser but turned on him when Chuck would not continue to
advertise ..... and Chuck is not the only one. The list of things Jim
has done reads like a bad soap opera. Take notice of the number of
people that quickly rise to defend Chuck and then look at his paid
lacky Juan posting half truths, evasions and wise cracks. Jim will not
even post himself because there are too many questions that he doesn't
want to answer. Check the Osterhaus site for some background.

This discussion belongs on this group since it is about a well known
aviation figure and a so called aviation magazine publisher. The truth
needs to come out here since it will never be published in ANN as long
as Zoom owns it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well stated.


Banyard BOb --

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 10:13:08 -0400, "Larry Smith"
wrote:

:On the other hand if he exposes REAL crooks, which sometimes he HAS done, he
:contributes a service.

Name one. Fetters doesn't count, Aviation Consumer was after him a
year before Campbell.

In article , "Larry Smith"
writes:


Usually defamation (libel, slander) lawsuits have short statutes of
limitations, meaning you have to file your lawsuit shortly after the
defamation is published.


How about harrasment?

On a couple of other issues here, I don't agree with the proposition that
the only thing worse than bad publicity is no publicity at all. That is a
weasel statement made by a weasel who doesn't understand the agony or damage
caused by defamation, or that good name and reputation are the immediate
jewels of one's soul.

It is true too that most people in the homebuilder community know that
Campbell is a rather nasty little narcissist, but the young and
impressionable who come along fresh and naive must constantly be reminded
that while he may be articulate, he's also got big credibility problems.

On the other hand if he exposes REAL crooks, which sometimes he HAS done, he
contributes a service. So he has a history of blasting advertisers who
decline to renew their ads. You take him and his shills with a grain of
salz.



How useful is a stopped clock? After all, it is "right" twice a day. The
issue then becomes how do you know when its right? If I can't tell by some
measure of trust in the one doing the reporting, it is worthless. ANN is
worthless because you can not trust the accuracy of anything you are reading.
You are never really sure if the story is accurate reporting or an enhancement
of Campbell's own doing in order to give his own warped slant to the story.







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)

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 07:58:51 -0700, "Stu Fields"
wrote:

BYB: I did a quick, I don't have a lot of time for this ZZZ thing, but all
but a couple of the posters are all saying pretty much the same thing.
Isn't this thread pretty much "preaching to the choir"?

Yes and no. While this would appear to be the usual catfight between
those who understand Campbell and the one person in this group who
chooses to fight his fights for him, this doesn't account for the many
people who read this group but do not post.

There's no way to know for sure how many people that is, but it's very
likely many times those who regularly post. In addition, as someone
else pointed out, there's new blood coming in all the time: people who
do not know of Jim, his history, his diagnosed narcisism and his
conflict with Chuck.

If the newcomers are to understand the intensity of the responses
here, they should know the whole story. It must be repeated again and
again so that the unaware are not taken in.

A case in point is the British aviation magazine that listed Campbell
and all his "accomplishments" as a contributer. Obviously they did
not know his history. When they were informed, they apparently
reduced the verbiage of his bio. Or so I have read.

So the seemingly constant, and often inflammatory dialog appears not
only necessary, but effective in terms of educating the unaware.

People for the most part aren't stupid, they can see Juan's tactics
and responses and judge for themselves. They may not be saying
anything, but they are observing and making up their minds.

I don't mean to sound a goody two-shoes about this but you really
can't constantly verbally vomit in public and expect people to buy
what you are selling.

This (newsgroups) may be a reletively anonymous method for
communicating, which seems to promote some rather over the top
language and scathing attacks from some people, but the aviation crowd
is fairly close knit. Someday, at some air show or fly-in, you may
meet the person who writes here. Would you smile and shake his/her
hand, or turn your back and run?

Corky Scott

Corky Scott wrote:



This (newsgroups) may be a reletively anonymous method for
communicating, which seems to promote some rather over the top
language and scathing attacks from some people, but the aviation crowd
is fairly close knit. Someday, at some air show or fly-in, you may
meet the person who writes here. Would you smile and shake his/her
hand, or turn your back and run?

When I first met BWB, he handed me a beer right after I got out of my Mooney.
Didn't dare run 'cause I was thirsty. ;-))) And Pasture Dave even got it on
tape!

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 01:06:19 GMT, "C.D. Damron"
wrote:

One thing about Campbell is that his work, good and bad, appears to be
driven by his own agenda and not some search for truth, justice, and the
American way (I couldn't resist).

I can see Campbell approaching Hoover and in a very solemn tone say, "the
FAA grounded me, too!"

It's interesting to note that Dr. Barton Pakull, the FAA chief psychiatrist
involved in the Hoover case, also testified against Campbell in 1980. One
wonders how much Campbell's efforts in the Hoover case were due to the wish
to help right the wrongs against Hoover vs. the chance to get revenge
against the one of the men who destroyed Campbell's chance at an airline
career.

Here's an exchange between Campbell and Dr. Pakull, from the transcript of
when Campbell cross-examined Dr. Pakull during the NTSB hearing in 1980:
------------------------------------------------
Campbell: "Well, are you aware that several years, or many years, as the
case may be, in the competitive environment that is currently in the job
market in aviation, pretty much would put the end to a person's career in
that area especially if that would put someone near the 30-mark by the time
the situation like this would be resolved? And I mention this specifically
just to call your attention to the gravity of what is happening here."

Pakull: "I don't know what job market you are referring to. In my opinion,
your chances of being an airline pilot are zero...."
-------------------------------------------------

During the US AVIATOR years, Campbell accused Dr. Pakull of wrongdoing in
at least two separate cases. His own personal history with Pakull was
never mentioned...contrary to normal standards of journalistic ethics.

Many of you probably remember the case where somebody posted the threat
against President Clinton and tried to make it look like Tony Pucillo sent
it. The threat included a demand to that Dr. Barton Pakull be fired.

Ron Wanttaja

In article , Larry Smith says...


Well, I'd say Campbell is more bad than good but exposing Fetters was a
contribution, nonetheless. And didn't Campbell take up Bob Hoover's cross?
I say you've got to acknowledge him even if he is a *******. Course, I
haven't been sued by Campbell so I guess I can't get as bitter at him as
some of you. But, yeah, he's an ass.

Actually I've heard some accounts that zooms involvement in the Hoover issue was
actually a hinderence not a help. zooms diatribes against the FAA only hardened
their resolve. I heard Hoover didn't even endorse zooms book about the case. One
would think that if Hoover was so indebted to zoom for his help he would have
endorsed it.IMHO

See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

"a jerk and his master are still jerks" chuck s