ZZZooommm rant latest

"RobertR237" wrote in message
...

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.

"Barnyard BOb --" wrote in message
...

You will convince Jaun of nothing of
which he is not already convinced.

Pot. Kettle. Black. chuckle

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...

"Cy Galley" wrote in message
news:76H6b.379889$YN5.252939@sccrnsc01...
As a school teacher I always recommended that the teasing would stop if
the
person being teased ignored the teaser. They just like the attention that
your response brings. Likewise Juan and Jim. Might be worth a try.

"Eric Miller" wrote in message
. net...

Not taking sides, but there's generally no admission of wrong-doing when a
settlement is reached.

You still lose. Doesn't matter if admit it or not. You know that as well as
I do.

Something else to consider in regards to the "big" settlement is that they
had liability insurance, therefore the insurance company was named as
co-defendant, and they might have driven the decision to settle.

shrug Doesn't change the end result.

Better a known figure now which you can write off, than an unknown amount
(for both defense and outcome) in the future.

On a simple case of determining why an ultralight crashed? The plaintiff
claims it was negligence in design and construction. The defense claims it
was a stall just prior to landing. There were witnesses to the event, and
expert witnesses are lined up to argue the plaintiff's evidence. A week
before the pre-trial conf, the defense settles, in six figures. You can look
at it in umpteenthousand ways. The conclusion is still the same.

So it could be just as fair to say that the suit was successfully
defended.

No, it could be _rationalized_ that way. Quite a difference.

As a disinterested third party, I also found Chuck to be very forthcoming
about his past and current litigation, which is a far cry from catching
him
in a lie.

Unhuh. It is pointed out that he's been successfully sued, and his comeback
is to ask what that means. Forthcoming indeed.

"Juan E Jimenez" wrote in message
news:3ZS6b.386081$o%2.174316@sccrnsc02...

"RobertR237" wrote in message
...

No Jaun, the Steel Cojones Award was not missed by anyone but, anyone
with
half
a brain also knows that it doesn't represent a compliment either. It
was
taken
as a slam on Adam Aircraft which is obviously, in light of the
editorial,
the
way it was intended.

You're entitled to your own rationalizations. Unless you ask Jim himself,
you don't have a damn clue what you're talking about.

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

"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

"Juan E Jimenez" wrote in message
news:w5T6b.385999$Ho3.58776@sccrnsc03...

On a simple case of determining why an ultralight crashed? The plaintiff
claims it was negligence in design and construction. The defense claims it
was a stall just prior to landing. There were witnesses to the event, and
expert witnesses are lined up to argue the plaintiff's evidence. A week
before the pre-trial conf, the defense settles, in six figures. You can
look
at it in umpteenthousand ways. The conclusion is still the same.

Juan,

If you think that every out-of-court settlement is an admission of
negligence or responsibility, you are an idiot. Maybe, your stupid peasant
mentality can't comprehend how an individual or company could agree to a
tremendous settlement.

Screw it, I think that Juan is a helpless case. For the rest of you...

For any of you that might have found logic in Juan's analysis that
settlements imply guilt or responsibility, I'll share a personal story. I
don't know enough about Chuck's settlements to offer a comparison, but I
would dare to say that there are parallels to my story.

In many, if not most cases, out-of-court settlements are acts of
preservation. I'm not just talking self-preservation - I'm talking about
preserving things that you value more than shallow moral victories - like
your ability to support your family and the families of those you employ,
people that have supported a company through their hard work and sacrifices
made over their careers.

Sometimes, you can't afford to take a chance. The risks are too great.

In the not so distant past, a company owned by a relative of mine settled a
case, out of court, for a tremendous sum of money, based on the advice of
both their insurance company and lawyers.

In this case, a truck driver lost control of his truck and attempted to jump
out of the truck before it ran off the road into a rather steep ravine. The
driver was killed in his foolish attempt to avoid injury or death, as the
truck rolled over him. Had the driver been wearing his seatbelt, it is
likely that he would have walked away without serious injury, as the cabin
was undamaged.

Before the same truck was driven off the crash site (after being put back on
its wheels), the truck was inspected by both the DOT and Mine Safety
inspectors. According to the DOT inspectors, the only things that would
have kept the truck from passing an inspection to legal road-service were
the crushed lights.

Despite the overwhelming evidence that my relative's company was not at
fault, the insurance company was not prepared to let a jury decide the case
and settled the case for what almost any of us on this board would consider
a tremendous amount of money. In the geographic area involved in this case,
no insurance company had ever won a wrongful death suit. The evidence
didn't matter.

Nearing retirement, my relative could have risked the company and its assets
by fighting the "good fight". His personal wealth would not have been
impacted greatly by the company's bankruptcy or insolvency that a negative
jury decision could have yielded.

He took a bitter pill and along with the insurance company, settled the
suit. Almost ten years later, twenty people still have their jobs, their
homes, and their security.

Chuck, don't let the *******s get you down.

"Juan E Jimenez" wrote in message
news:w5T6b.385999$Ho3.58776@sccrnsc03...

"Eric Miller" wrote in message
. net...

Not taking sides, but there's generally no admission of wrong-doing when
a
settlement is reached.

You still lose. Doesn't matter if admit it or not. You know that as well
as
I do.

Something else to consider in regards to the "big" settlement is that
they
had liability insurance, therefore the insurance company was named as
co-defendant, and they might have driven the decision to settle.

shrug Doesn't change the end result.

Better a known figure now which you can write off, than an unknown
amount
(for both defense and outcome) in the future.

On a simple case of determining why an ultralight crashed? The plaintiff
claims it was negligence in design and construction. The defense claims it
was a stall just prior to landing. There were witnesses to the event, and
expert witnesses are lined up to argue the plaintiff's evidence. A week
before the pre-trial conf, the defense settles, in six figures. You can
look
at it in umpteenthousand ways. The conclusion is still the same.

So it could be just as fair to say that the suit was successfully
defended.

No, it could be _rationalized_ that way. Quite a difference.

As a disinterested third party, I also found Chuck to be very
forthcoming
about his past and current litigation, which is a far cry from catching
him
in a lie.

Unhuh. It is pointed out that he's been successfully sued, and his
comeback
is to ask what that means. Forthcoming indeed.

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



Why do you guys keep bothering with Juan? If you do it for the fun of it
fine. If you do it to try to get him to be reasonable you are wasting
time. He is to stupid to see that the things he says about Chuck
can also be applied to the moron zoomy. At least Chuck has what it takes
to talk about the problem he had, Zoomy has never responded to the
outrageous things he has said in print. Apparently Juan has not been
around long enough to remember when zoom threats were posted right here
for all to see. When you read the reports from SnF about Zoomy you have
to wonder how anyone can read anything he says and think it is credible.

Jerry

"Juan E Jimenez" wrote in message
news:w5T6b.385999$Ho3.58776@sccrnsc03...

"Eric Miller" wrote in message
. net...

Not taking sides, but there's generally no admission of wrong-doing when
a
settlement is reached.

You still lose. Doesn't matter if admit it or not. You know that as well
as I do.

Just what exactly do you lose (besides the time the litigation takes)?
If you have liability insurance, you probably don't even pay an extra dime.

Something else to consider in regards to the "big" settlement is that
they
had liability insurance, therefore the insurance company was named as
co-defendant, and they might have driven the decision to settle.

shrug Doesn't change the end result.

It doesn't change the fact that money changed hands, but it changes the
reason WHY.
As I said before, just because money was exchanged doesn't mean anything
about the merits of the suit.

On a simple case of determining why an ultralight crashed? The plaintiff
claims it was negligence in design and construction. The defense claims it
was a stall just prior to landing.

I'm sure that since the plaintiff built the UL he did NOT claim the
construction was negligent.
That would reek of personal responsibility, which is strictly verboten in
this country.
On the other hand, he was claiming brain damage, so who knows...

So it could be just as fair to say that the suit was successfully
defended.

No, it could be _rationalized_ that way. Quite a difference.

Using exactly the same amount of rationalization used to say it was
successfully won.

Unhuh. It is pointed out that he's been successfully sued, and his
comeback
is to ask what that means. Forthcoming indeed.

As I read it, he listed his past and current litigation to show he WASN'T
successfully sued.

Eric