County Sheriff Arrests Pilot After Botched Landing

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:38:19 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
I had no idea airmen operate under a federal implied consent law.

Really Larry, you didn't know?


How would I know? It's not in the FARs that I'm aware of.

Are you able to cite the specific federal law that indicates airmen
have implied consent to law enforcement taking bodily specimens?



That's not what I asked.

wrote:


Another great reason NOT to live in California.......................

Like we needed another.

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:38:19 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
I had no idea airmen operate under a federal implied consent law.

Really Larry, you didn't know?


How would I know? It's not in the FARs that I'm aware of.

Are you able to cite the specific federal law that indicates airmen
have implied consent to law enforcement taking bodily specimens?



That's not what I asked.

Gig, you deliberately edited Larry's original sentence from:

"I had no idea airmen operate under a federal implied consent law,"

to:

"I had no idea airmen operate under a federal law."

then had the nerve to falsely attribute the latter sentence to him. Larry
actually had to edit your reply to return the sentence to its original
statement. What's up with that sort of nonsense?

On Fri, 16 May 2008 12:40:08 -0500, Jim Logajan
wrote in :


Gig, you deliberately edited Larry's original sentence from:

"I had no idea airmen operate under a federal implied consent law,"

to:

"I had no idea airmen operate under a federal law."

then had the nerve to falsely attribute the latter sentence to him. Larry
actually had to edit your reply to return the sentence to its original
statement. What's up with that sort of nonsense?

Revealing isn't it? Disappointing too. Not to mention immature,
sophomoric, duplicitous, devious, disingenuous, shifty, sneaky,
underhanded, deceptive, deceitful, sly, dishonest ...

And here I thought no one was paying attention. You've got a sharp
eye, Jim.

I think some folks use Usenet as a tavern. They just don't realize
how transparent they are when inebriated.

Jim Logajan wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:38:19 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
I had no idea airmen operate under a federal implied consent law.

Really Larry, you didn't know?

How would I know? It's not in the FARs that I'm aware of.

Are you able to cite the specific federal law that indicates airmen
have implied consent to law enforcement taking bodily specimens?


That's not what I asked.

Gig, you deliberately edited Larry's original sentence from:

"I had no idea airmen operate under a federal implied consent law,"

to:

"I had no idea airmen operate under a federal law."

then had the nerve to falsely attribute the latter sentence to him. Larry
actually had to edit your reply to return the sentence to its original
statement. What's up with that sort of nonsense?

That is exactly what I did because he did the same thing to one of my
posts earlier this week. You caught it, he didn't. Good work.

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:38:19 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
I had no idea airmen operate under a federal implied consent
law.

Really Larry, you didn't know?

How would I know? It's not in the FARs that I'm aware of.

Are you able to cite the specific federal law that indicates airmen
have implied consent to law enforcement taking bodily specimens?


That's not what I asked.

Gig, you deliberately edited Larry's original sentence from:

"I had no idea airmen operate under a federal implied consent law,"

to:

"I had no idea airmen operate under a federal law."

then had the nerve to falsely attribute the latter sentence to him.
Larry actually had to edit your reply to return the sentence to its
original statement. What's up with that sort of nonsense?

That is exactly what I did because he did the same thing to one of my
posts earlier this week. You caught it, he didn't. Good work.

I'm afraid I missed that transgression because I haven't read all your
posts or his. Do you happen to have the message ID or Google Groups link of
his post?

Still, I know you know the old saw about two wrongs not making a right (but
that three rights make a left). Perhaps if you are more explicit in what
you are doing and why then you wont have slow witted readers like myself
assuming you are the original perp and not a victim seeking payback.

Jim Logajan wrote:


Still, I know you know the old saw about two wrongs not making a right (but
that three rights make a left). Perhaps if you are more explicit in what
you are doing and why then you wont have slow witted readers like myself
assuming you are the original perp and not a victim seeking payback.

It was in the thread about the guy who got stuck in the JetBlue bathroom.