ZZZooommm rant latest

In article et, Jerry
Springer writes:

Was anyone talking to you? If you don't like to see people talking here
with
people you don't like, don't read. Shoo.

Juan


You said one time you were going back to PR so your kids could get a
better education than they can get here in this country. If you are the
product of the PR education system I feel sorry for your kids.
Now, don't let the door hit you in the ass as you leave this country.
Please hurry and go.

Jerry


AND TAKE JIM WITH YOU!


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)

Kind of difficult when you don't use your real address for a response.

Juan E Jimenez wrote:

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
et...

I've tried asking Jim... The typical result is a nasty response including
the threat of legal action and a demand that I not e-mail ANN again. Kind
of odd, given that I respond to articles in numerous publications maybe a
half dozen times a year, and other than ANN I've never been threatened or
instructed not to write back.

KB

I've seen the responses that Jim typically makes to email queries sent to
him by readers (when I receive fwd's of reader inquiries about my articles,
or about issues that ANN considers of interest to me), and I've never seen
any threats of legal action. What was the content of your email (not your
recollection, the actual text) and the content of the response (again,
actual text, not your recollection)?

Juan

I have tried to killfile juan's postings but he has done
something to his headers that prevents my filter from
blocking his drivel.

The visible return address is listed in my killfile (five
different times) but that is not blocking anything.

Can anybody who knows someting about computers tell me what
to put into my killfile that will actually stop his trash?

Thanks,

Scott McQ

1¾
************************************************** *
The reply e-dress is a dead end.
If you want me to read your e-mail, send it to "dropbox" at the same ISP.

Come on Bill, don't confuse the poor dumbass. If he has proof, he should
produce it or shut up.

This crap by Campbell has gone on way too long now and needs to be brought to
an end. Jim Campbell's never ending vendetta against Chuck, even if the so
call charges were true, is getting ridiculous. Nobody should have to put up
with having their name and business trashed in any publication on an ongoing,
never ending basis. This is especially true when the proof of the allegations
has never been forthcoming. The whole issue used as the justification for the
ongoing assault is more than 7 years old.


Bob Reed

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.

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.

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. But, I'll guarantee you
one thing, everybody in the ultralight industry knows who Zoom is and
they all hold him and what he says in context. Having Zoom out to get
you is considered an product endorsement by many. In fact most of the
readers of this group are in that category!

Just some simple minded thinking out loud this morning.

Bill

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 15:54:09 GMT, "Juan E Jimenez"
wrote:


"Badwater Bill" wrote in message
.. .

Settling out of court, pretrial, is not an admission of guilt.

Civil lawsuits are not about guilt.


They can be.

Bill

"Stu Fields" wrote in message
...
It is impossible to believe the amount of energy going into this
kind of
thing!!! I could build a house with the time and energy spent in
flaming
each other in this newsgroup. What does everyone get out of this
excercise?
What is the purpose or goal behind it?? I'm really curious.

Basically they have run out of anything useful to write or say so
they have reviewed all that has been said in the past, now they are
just bitching about it. Being old their memory about what really
happened is fadeing a little.
--

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



Stu Fields
"Juan E Jimenez" wrote in message
news:y_t6b.278017$cF.86657@rwcrnsc53...

"Jez" wrote in message
news

1) Chuck Slusarczyk seems to have consistently told the truth,
even when
it
has been an admission that he has settled law suits for fairly
large
sums
of
money, which could reasonably be expected to cause a certain
amount of
embarrassment. Despite many attempts to catch Chuck out in a
lie,
no-one
seems to have succeeded.

You're entitled to your opinion. I disagree.

From: "Juan E Jimenez"

Chuck will not be further embarassed if he chooses not to make any more
derogatory comments about me and imply that I lie about him. And I don't
even have to surmise that it might be worth a try...


Juan, he implied nothing of the sort. He STATED you lied. No implication on his
part nor a need for you to infer.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

From: "Juan E Jimenez"


Funny, I have seen the signs and do not recalling Jim Campbell's name on
any of
those signs.

Poor naive Bob, doesn't have a clue what the signs were about, and thinks
everyone else thinks the same.

Not.

Read it again, Juan, he didn't say he didn't know what the signs were about, he
simply said he doesn't recall seeing Jim Campbell's name on the signs.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Why do you guys keep bothering with Juan?

Was anyone talking to you? If you don't like to see people talking here with
people you don't like, don't read. Shoo.

Juan

Just as a matter of curiosity has anyone ever seen Tarver and Juan in the same
room? Their tactics are identical.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"Juan E Jimenez" wrote in message
. ..
I don't disagree that we need tort reform, but I do disagree that all
lawsuits that are settled out of court have no merit, or are settled
solely
for economic reasons. Many times suits are settled because the defendant
realized that there's no way he/she can win. I think you know that as well
as I do.

I didn't say --- all cases settled out of court have no merit.
I did say --- settling out of court says nothing about a case's merit.

Remember, cases get settled out of court because the plaintiff gets a
guaranteed payout instead of rolling the dice and possibly getting nothing.
The plaintiff settles because their case isn't so airtight that they're
assured of a win.
The defendant is more strongly motivated to settle because when juries are
involved because there is no upper bound to what might be awarded.

I'm in favor of capital punishment for stupid juries... summary judgments,
immediately enforced, no chance for appeals!

Eric (Of course, I feel the same way about parking tickets and jaywalking
)