Avgas price and the light plane ownership

wrote in message
news:hByye.50$VN3.15@trnddc01...
For a while I was confused. How could someone as clearly challenged by
the
English language (and common logic) as Mr. Barrow have composed the lucid
and intelligent comments in his second post regarding vapor lock (which
completely contradicted his earlier post on THE SAME DAY)? However, I
took
his advice to heart and "got a clue." A simple Google search on the
phrase
"incompatibility between some of the additives in autogas" pointed me to
the
following website:
http://www.aviation-indonesia.com/mo...rticle&knid=16
It seems that in addition to his wealth of other shortcomings Mr. Barrow
is
also a plagiarist.

Actually, he did cite the source of the words in that post, though it may
not have been obvious that he was doing so.

--Gary

Does the phrase "fermented grape juice" spring lightly to the tongue?

Jim




For a while I was confused. How could someone as clearly challenged by
the
English language (and common logic) as Mr. Barrow have composed the lucid
and intelligent comments in his second post regarding vapor lock (which
completely contradicted his earlier post on THE SAME DAY)?

On 5-Jul-2005, "Gary Drescher" wrote:

Actually, he did cite the source of the words in that post, though it may
not have been obvious that he was doing so.

It appears that the citation was somehow blocked from the viewing window of
my news reader, but I see it now upon re-loading the post. My apologies to
Mr. Barrow for the comments regarding plagiarism.

-Elliott Drucker

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
Does the phrase "fermented grape juice" spring lightly to the tongue?

Scotch.

Dalwhinnie or Talasker.


Jim

For a while I was confused. How could someone as clearly challenged by
the
English language (and common logic) as Mr. Barrow have composed the
lucid
and intelligent comments in his second post regarding vapor lock (which
completely contradicted his earlier post on THE SAME DAY)?

Anyone ever heard of correcting a previous mistake?

Anyone ever done it without having to be bludgeoned with a crow bar? Nah!!

Considering your "normal" person , who will run with a mistake for years, or
even generations, I an imagine it is SHOCKING.

But then, I fully grasp (despite my being "challenged by the English
language") that words really do have objective meaning and I do consider
good hard evidence, rather than just my whims.

Were it only that others here had such honesty and integrity.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
But then, I fully grasp (despite my being "challenged by the English
language") that words really do have objective meaning and I do consider
good hard evidence, rather than just my whims.

Were it only that others here had such honesty and integrity.

Honesty and integrity? We still await an explanation of your claim to have
gotten your July 4th misinformation from a "historical journal", American
History Digest--a journal whose existence has gone unnoticed by both the
Library of Congress and Google. (Moreover, when you first posted the
article, you credited it to "Source Unknown"--a peculiar "author" for a
journal piece, though standard for a chain-email.)

We're also waiting for you to either substantiate or retract the implausible
defamatory quote you attributed to Norman Thomas.

When Elliott learned he'd made a mistaken accusation earlier in this thread,
he promptly retracted it and apologized. *That's* what honesty and integrity
look like.

--Gary

("Matt Barrow" wrote)
Does the phrase "fermented grape juice" spring lightly to the tongue?

Scotch.

Dalwhinnie or Talasker.


Mmm. Two fingers.

....leaves eight for typing, by my count :-)


Montblack
"No going to the dark side!" - Sideways (2004)

("Martin Hotze" wrote)
AUD $1.30 = USD $0.98. Are we talking per gallon here (and is it
imperial
or US) or per liter?

wouldn't it be nice to have the metric system finally in use ALL over the
world?


Marty Marty Marty

Um, that's all I've got ...because you're right.


Montblack

In article , Martin Hotze
wrote:

wouldn't it be nice to have the metric system finally in use ALL over the
world?

why? My airplane doesn't have anything metric in it. :-)

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Matt Barrow wrote:

"xyzzy" wrote in message
...

George Patterson wrote:

Charles Oppermann wrote:


The cost of insuring an aircraft has skyrocketed at a rate greater
than fuel costs.


Really? That wasn't the case when I owned my Maule. The premium was
something like $1,700 the first year (1995-96), but it came down to
around $1,300 the last few years. IIRC, the quote I got last February
was less than that.


Seeing as the accident rate has declined dramatically over the past several
years, that fits.


Please don't get in the way of Barrow's ideologically-driven complaining
about trial lawyers through the proxy of imagined increases in insurance
costs.


Do you recall the 1994 act that brought back the aviation industry from
deaths door?

Do you recall WHAT it did?

Do you comprehend that engineering is not OMNISCIENT? Do you also recall
that only a handful of suits had anything to do with real negligence?

Your post demonstrates a real negligence of harebrained ideology...that of
making excuses most people wouldn't accept from a ten year-old.

GFY.

GFY? You're pretty mature. It's really cute when someone uses that
phrase right after comparing someone else to a 10 year old.

Capping liablity for plane manufacturers does nothing to hold down the
cost of insurance for owners and pilots. As a matter of fact one could
assume it would make that insurance go up, since people who can longer
sue the manufacturers will have to try harder to get it from the owners
and pilots. But our insurance hasn't gone up, despite all those eeevil
trial lawyers.

The fact that you are missing or ignoring is that when it comes to
affecting the price of insurance, lawsuits and legal settlements badly
trail the investment returns that insurance companies get in influence.

"xyzzy" wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:

"xyzzy" wrote in message
...

George Patterson wrote:

Charles Oppermann wrote:


The cost of insuring an aircraft has skyrocketed at a rate greater
than fuel costs.


Really? That wasn't the case when I owned my Maule. The premium was
something like $1,700 the first year (1995-96), but it came down to
around $1,300 the last few years. IIRC, the quote I got last February
was less than that.


Seeing as the accident rate has declined dramatically over the past
several
years, that fits.


Please don't get in the way of Barrow's ideologically-driven complaining
about trial lawyers through the proxy of imagined increases in insurance
costs.


Do you recall the 1994 act that brought back the aviation industry from
deaths door?

Do you recall WHAT it did?

Do you comprehend that engineering is not OMNISCIENT? Do you also recall
that only a handful of suits had anything to do with real negligence?

Your post demonstrates a real negligence of harebrained ideology...that
of
making excuses most people wouldn't accept from a ten year-old.

GFY.

GFY? You're pretty mature. It's really cute when someone uses that
phrase right after comparing someone else to a 10 year old.

It fits.

Now, try addressing your stupid remarks instead of trying to deflect
attention from your onw stupidity.


Capping liablity for plane manufacturers does nothing to hold down the
cost of insurance for owners and pilots.

Didn't say it did. If you would bother to read what I'd said it was:

Patterson: Really? That wasn't the case when I owned my Maule. The premium
was
something like $1,700 the first year (1995-96), but it came down to
around $1,300 the last few years. IIRC, the quote I got last February
was less than that.

Barrow: Seeing as the accident rate has declined dramatically over the past
several
years, that fits.

For your stunted brain, that means that the accident safety record has led
to lower insurance rates.

As a matter of fact one could
assume it would make that insurance go up, since people who can longer
sue the manufacturers will have to try harder to get it from the owners
and pilots. But our insurance hasn't gone up, despite all those eeevil
trial lawyers.

You can't comprehend the difference between PILOT'S insurance rates, and
MANUFACTURERS insurance rates?

Suits agains PILOTS are for accidents of negligence, MANUFACTURERS suits are
for product defects, even ones that have been flying just fine for 40 or 50
years. MANUFACTURERS also have much deeper pockets than 99% of most pilots.

The fact that you are missing or ignoring is that when it comes to
affecting the price of insurance, lawsuits and legal settlements badly
trail the investment returns that insurance companies get in influence.

You are missing the point of lawsuits: PILOTS versus MANUFACTURERS.

Oh, and my insurance premiums have stay stable now for six years as I moved
from a T210, to a Beech 56, and now to a Beech 36. They have gone up $50
since 2000.


So GAFC before you try to cast aspersions. Then learn the basic language and
basic law.

Then GTFU.