From the Jim Campbell, Captain Zoom archives (all of 6 years ago)

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:41:51 -0500,
wrote:

Jim had a lot of respect for Tony and was sincerely
shocked when I told him he had passed away. (No, I don't care who believes
me or not, you should know that by now.)

I choose "not", given that Tony brought Zoomie to court several times,
and the court found in his (Tony's) favor.

Corky Scott

Now that I thought about this for a little longer, it could very well
be that Zoomie was "sincerely shocked". People often are shocked to
hear of the untimely demise of someone they know, whether this person
be friend or foe.

So Zoomie could have seemed shocked. Likely shocked at his good
fortune that Tony would no longer be around to drag him into court.

Corky Scott

Actually, Corky, I'd translate "a lot of respect for Tony" as Jimbo was
terrified of him. The thought that he would have to answer those 100
questions that Tony had put together exposing the lies and deception
that Jim excells in was a horrifying thought to JC...

"shocked" probably was merely another way of saying surprised (and
elated that his enemy was no longer here)...

john

wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:06:50 -0400, "Juan Jimenez"
wrote:


Jim had a lot of respect for Tony and was sincerely
shocked when I told him he had passed away. (No, I don't care who believes
me or not, you should know that by now.)


I choose "not", given that Tony brought Zoomie to court several times,
and the court found in his (Tony's) favor.

Corky Scott

"Mick" wrote in message
oups.com...
Juan said:
"I believe you should have the gumption to talk to Jim and get his side
of the story. Until you do that, all you're doing is blowing more hot
air of the RAH gaggle type. "

Mick replied:

Juan,

I think I'll take the opposite approach that you have.

You do that, kiddo. Enjoy.

Question asked and answered. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't
mean it wasn't. Next!

"Mick" wrote in message
ups.com...
Steve,

Please review the context of the discussion.

Context? LOL! What would you know about context?

I know what you say could be technically correct...


translation, "sh*t, caught with my pants down and my brain showing...
sheesh...

To make it simple for folks to follow the conversation, name another
"journalist" or aviation "advocate" who...

Keep trying, sooner or later you'll get there if you modify the question a
few hundred times more.

"anon" wrote in message
news:lGXBf.513772$084.422173@attbi_s22...
Juan Jimenez wrote:
Like I said, I believe you should
have the gumption to talk to Jim and get his side of the story. Until you
do that, all you're doing is blowing more hot air of the RAH gaggle type.


Juan, it is interesting that you suggest talking to Jim. I have had the
pleasure, so I have passed your hot air test.

I spoke to Jim, when he called me on my cell phone early one Sunday
morning. I ended up getting his side of a number of his "stories" in the
course of this 60+ minute conversation.

During this phone call, I was lectured and threatened and was party to
both sides of the good cop bad cop routine.

After I advised a British aviation magazine to check out Jim's credentials
a little more carefully before accepting his contributions, that same
magazine provided Jim with my email message and cell phone number. This
says something about that magazine's integrity.

It could just as well say much more about the accuracy of your story, and
the fact that you won't name which magazine broke your confidence says even
more. Are you worried they're going to take exception to your side of the
story? If so, why?

I do believe I will mercy snip at this point. There's too many BS artists
plying trades around here these days.

Juan

"John Ousterhout" wrote in
message news:jz5Cf.756983$xm3.616820@attbi_s21...
Juan Jimenez wrote:

At any rate, Jim had a lot of respect for Tony and was sincerely shocked
when I told him he had passed away.


BRAVO-SIERRA !

Every now and then I am reminded again why I ignore you Juan.

I'm glad you're easily entertained.

"John Ammeter" wrote in message
...
Actually, Corky, I'd translate "a lot of respect for Tony" as Jimbo was
terrified of him. The thought that he would have to answer those 100
questions that Tony had put together exposing the lies and deception that
Jim excells in was a horrifying thought to JC...

Too bad not a single solitary soul accepted to the bar would so much as
consider taking over that case, eh? Hmm. Don't have to be a lawyer to figure
that one out.

Does that mean there is only one correct answer?

BTW, my wife is ****ed off at me for 'improving' her flan by following your
aluminium foil suggestion.

"Juan Jimenez" wrote in message news:43d91536$0$9235

Question asked and answered. Just because you don't like the answer
doesn't
mean it wasn't. Next!

Juan Jimenez wrote:

It could just as well say much more about the accuracy of your story, and
the fact that you won't name which magazine broke your confidence says even
more. Are you worried they're going to take exception to your side of the
story? If so, why?

I do believe I will mercy snip at this point. There's too many BS artists
plying trades around here these days.

Juan,

Why don't you ask Jim? He knows the magazine and probably recalls the
phone call.

If you want to jog Jim's memory, it was Pilot magazine and the call took
place in March or April of 2003.

There is no doubt that the Pilot editor forwarded my email or
significant portions of it to Jim, as he quoted it verbatim when he
called me.

The details of the call were a little fresher when I described my
conversation with Jim in a post dated Apr 11, 2003 on RAH.

Juan, you are quite the journalist, researcher, and IT professional
aren't you? In thirty seconds you could have found that the magazine
was likely to be one of two popular magazines, then a search of "Pilot
magazine zoom" would have revealed the answer and led you to my earlier
post and other posts about Jim's short tenure as a Pilot contributor.

You are known by the company you keep, Juan. Do you think your
association with Jim has helped or hurt your reputation in journalism,
aviation, or aviation journalism?

Juan Jimenez wrote:


It could just as well say much more about the accuracy of your story, and
the fact that you won't name which magazine broke your confidence says even
more. Are you worried they're going to take exception to your side of the
story? If so, why?

Juan, I didn't recall the magazine title in my first post, but you know
it now. I sent my original email to this Pilot magazine email address:




As you doubt the accuracy of my description of the events associated
with Pilot magazine, I really can't do more than encourage you to ask
Jim to recount his side of the story and contact Pilot magazine.

Ask Jim what happened to his writing gig at Pilot, while you are at it.