ZZZooommm rant latest

Juan,

Were you there at the court procedings or process? If not then where do
you get your infomation concerning CGS's decision tree ? from this
site ? http://www.tommcgrathlaw.com/. If this is your source of info a
lot can be inferred about your fact gathering skills as the information
listed is provided by the firm that was able to get a settlement out of
CGS and ATlantic uncerwriters and as such is biased info.

Now please tell me you have the integritry to have gathered all the
relevant records perused them and come up with an informed opionion that
you identify as such and not classify your opinon as fact.

all the best
Sean Trost

"RobertR237" wrote in message
...

Where the **** did you read that in his statement? Damn if you are not
worse
than Zoomer on being able to read.

Geez, what a pitiful little brownnoser you are, Bob. plonk!

"sean trost" wrote in message
...

Were you there at the court procedings or process? If not then where do
you get your infomation concerning CGS's decision tree ? from this
site ? http://www.tommcgrathlaw.com/. If this is your source of info a
lot can be inferred about your fact gathering skills as the information
listed is provided by the firm that was able to get a settlement out of
CGS and ATlantic uncerwriters and as such is biased info.

Not much in there that is subject to bias. In fact, everything is factual.

Now please tell me you have the integritry to have gathered all the
relevant records perused them and come up with an informed opionion that
you identify as such and not classify your opinon as fact.

I don't have to gather any other information to prove that Chuck was
successfully sued for an issue related to his company and his products, and
that neither Jim Campbell nor I lied about that. All I have to prove is that
he was, which I already have. If that's not enough for you, that's a
personal problem you'd best discuss with your chaplain.

Juan

"RobertR237" wrote in message
...
In article mi26b.367262$uu5.70059@sccrnsc04, "Juan E Jimenez"
writes:

Thank God...

snip

Go whine somewhere else.

NO!

I was here long before you showed up and I will be here long after you
have
tucked you tain between your leggs and run home to mama.

BTW, glad to see you're learning from your hero and not denying all you're
doing is WHINING.

Juan My apologies I did not frame my question to you properly.
in reverence to this passage from your first responce.... aw hell never
mind i got more important things to do than argue with ya.

all the best
Sean



Juan E Jimenez wrote:
"sean trost" wrote in message
...

Were you there at the court procedings or process? If not then where do
you get your infomation concerning CGS's decision tree ? from this
site ? http://www.tommcgrathlaw.com/. If this is your source of info a
lot can be inferred about your fact gathering skills as the information
listed is provided by the firm that was able to get a settlement out of
CGS and ATlantic uncerwriters and as such is biased info.


Not much in there that is subject to bias. In fact, everything is factual.


Now please tell me you have the integritry to have gathered all the
relevant records perused them and come up with an informed opionion that
you identify as such and not classify your opinon as fact.


I don't have to gather any other information to prove that Chuck was
successfully sued for an issue related to his company and his products, and
that neither Jim Campbell nor I lied about that. All I have to prove is that
he was, which I already have. If that's not enough for you, that's a
personal problem you'd best discuss with your chaplain.

Juan

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 17:05:05 GMT, "Juan E Jimenez"
wrote:

By the way, didn't you at one point sit down with Chuck and view all
the material he had that proves he had nothing to do with Jim's
original complaint?

Nope.

Am I remembering incorrectly?

Yes.

So the next question obviously is, would you be willing to sit down
with Chuck to view the documentation he has the prooves Jim has not
got his facts straight?

I guess I'm recalling another worker for Jim who, like you, was
mouthing the Campbell line about Chuck. Chuck sat down with him,
showed him all the correspondence he has and let him read through it.
The guy then admitted that it sure looked like Jim appeared to be
carrying on a personal vendetta. He said it here in this group which
is why I thought it was you. Sorry, my mistake.

That information is still available from Chuck. Are you man enough to
sit down with him and see it?

Course, I can't speak for Chuck, he may feel you are too negative to
be objective, don't know.

Chuck did not start this latest thread, but the way, Jim Campbell did
by ranting about Chuck in ANN. Chuck has a right to defend himself.

Corky Scott

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 18:16:33 GMT, "Juan E Jimenez"
wrote:

:As Chuck used RAH to attack me with no provocation, using his (and your)
:usual pattern of guilt by association. The difference is that now Chuck (and
:you) now know that I don't just bark, I bite, and walk away with chunks.

Go back and read Chucks post. It doesn't mention you. You broke your
leash and mauled the neighbor.

On 05 Sep 2003 12:30 PM, Bernie the Bunion posted the following:
Corky Scott wrote:


Chuck did not start this latest thread, but the way, Jim Campbell did
by ranting about Chuck in ANN. Chuck has a right to defend himself.


Just what pray tell has THIS NEWSGROUP got to do with
a commercial website owned by Jim Campbell.

Jim Campbell's commercial website is devoted largely to the subject of
homebuilt aviation, and as such is subject to discussion here in RAH.

Correct me if I am wrong but I don't recall any posts in this
newsgroup by Jim Campbell but I sure see lots of posts in this
newsgroup about him.

That is because you are a relative newcomer to this group and do not
have the first clue about what Campbell has done here or elsewhere. He
eventually left RAH when it became clear that the vast majority of
posters here do not take well to his brand of bull****.

Usually by people that are not directly involved with the continuing
saga between Chuck and Jim.

People like YOU Corky who have no direct involvement in the squabble.

When an evil man like Campbell is allowed to defame a respected member
of our community with no response, it lessens us all. Unlike you, Corky
has been a member of this newsgroup community before there even was an
RAH and has generously shared of his building experiences and aviation
knowledge over that time. Like most of us, he has occasionally become
involved in the less than on topic discussions that take place here.
While I do not always agree with him, he has consistently raised the bar
of discussion, patiently and courteously responding to critics who have
in no way deserved it based upon their treatment of him. I have no
doubt he will respond in the same typical manner to you, even though you
have never contributed a thing to this newsgroup, and your only interest
seems to be participation in flame wars. You are not even in the same
league with Corky so when you speak of or to him, SHOW SOME DAMNED
RESPECT!

Chuck has a right to defend himself.

Then let Chuck write a letter to the editor or sue him for slander.

Yeah, right. You want Chuck to write a letter which will either never
be published or will be dissected and taken out of context and used
against him. Nothing can be gained by feeding a vicious animal like
Campbell. As for suing him, it would likely be an open and shut case
but would cost him far more than he could ever hope to collect from
Campbell. And even if he did win, Campbell would likely just declare
another bankruptcy, and start another website where he could continue
his defamation of Chuck.

What the heck does his ongoing, ad naseum problem have to do with this
newsgroup or building planes.

Name one realistic reason why every month someone just like you feels
the need to troll this newsgroup by starting yet another Captain Zoom
thread in this newsgroup.

The answer is simply that this is the only venue Chuck has available to
him where he can defend himself. Zoom has his website, where he is the
sole arbiter of what is published, which makes it impossible for Chuck
to respond there. The fact is that as a self-claimed expert on sport
aviation, Jim Campbell and his publications are right on topic for this
newsgroup. Besides which, if Jim would publicly apologize to Chuck (
unlikely as it may be) and cease his defamation of him, I would bet
money Chuck would be more than happy to not say/post another word about
him.

The education of the masses..... Trust me Corky the masses in this
group have had all the education they need on this subject.

The so-called "masses" of this group are not static. While many of the
regulars know the score and are admittedly getting tired of it, the fact
remains that Campbell continues his attacks, which demands a response.
The ever-changing membership of this group guarantees that if they are
willing to take the time to research the subject (as you so obviously
are not) that eventually the truth will get out about Zoom and he will
be known for what he is outside of this group.

Chuck did not start the latest thread......

Your god damn right he did... Last night if my feeble memory serves me.

See above. Chuck was responding to another attack upon him published by
ANN. This is the most appropriate forum in which to respond to that
attack.

What came first the chicken or the egg.

At this stage of the game who cares.

Must have been the egg, since the only chicken I see here is you, a
cowardly ******* who hides behind anonymity.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

Juan wrote:

Now, close your trap before another fly gets attracted to the odor. Your
hero already admitted he lied.


Jeremy (from across the pond in the UK) adds:

As an observer from afar I'm a bit perplexed by all this. This debate (as I
see it) is really about truthfulness, or the lack of it. The following are
a matter of public record, both from statements on here and from various
legal documents that are freely available:

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.

2) Jim Campbell has been proven to be a liar several times, including in
courts of law. From my own investigations into false claims he made in a UK
aviation magazine I know beyond any doubt whatsoever that he has fabricated
large areas of his personal history and experience. The magazine
independently checked his credentials and subsequently watered down his bio
as a result.

Irrespective of the details of the various court cases, personally held
prejudices and vendettas, those are irrefutable facts, Jim Campbell is a
proven liar, Chuck Slusarczyk is not. I've read every post from Chuck
Slusarczyk on here over the years, and cannot recall one single statement of
his that has been proven to be untrue. Unfortunately the same cannot be
said about Jim Campbell's writings on ANN and elsewhere, he seems to
consistently exaggerate and lie, almost as if he suffers from some form of
delusional disorder.

Just the view from a distant Brit who has watched the saga unfold over the
years. Feel free to ignore my ramblings, many do.................

Jeremy

Juan E Jimenez wrote:

Russell,

Civil courts do not adjudicate guilt or innocence, only criminal courts do
that.

You will note that my response quoted "guilt". I am perfectly aware of the
differences between US civial and criminal courts. My intention in quoting
"guilt" in my summary was to connote the "in-the-wrong" flavor of having damages
awarded in a civil court; obviously in your case I failed to communicate that.

As for claims and counter-claims about "successfully sued", the answer lies in
the definition of "successfully sued". It appears to me that there are three
reasonable interpretations of that phrase: "has filed suit in civil court", "has
reached a settlement in a civil suit", "has been heard and awarded damages in a
civil suit". The first interpretation clearly has no connotation that the
respondent has "done harm". The third interpretation pretty clearly
communicates that the respondent has done harm. The second interpretation is
ambiguous: there may be external pressures on the respondent to settle even when
they have done no harm to the plaintiff.

I have seen (on the web, for what that's worth) evidence that interpretations #1
and #2 are true and that Chuck admits to. I have not seen evidence that
interpretation #3 is true, and have seen no admission from Chuck. And Chuck
pointed out in the original posting that spawned this thread that "succesfully
sued" is ambiguous.

Since you apparently asked an ambiguous question that could reasonably be
answered yes or no (depending on the interpretation), I think you have little
standing to accuse Chuck of lying (based on that evidence, at least).


The issue is very simple: Chuck claimed he has never been successfully
sued and is not currently defending himself from lawsuits,

I've seen no claim from Chuck that he is not currently in litigation. In fact,
in this very thread he said "I am in fact involved in 2 more that are still
pending."

and that Jim and I were both lying about that.

Actually, he said that if "successfully sued" means prevailed, then who
prevailed against him? (paraphrased; he actually wrote it from the losing
respondent's point of view). I haven't seen any evidence that his statement is
untrue. Do you have evidence that Chuck, acting as CGS's respondent to a civil
plea, lost a civil action?

I called his bluff, and Chuck now admits he wasn't being very truthful about
the legal record of CGS Aviation.

I saw no such admission. Perhaps my newsfeed is slow today.

End of story.

Not hardly. I expect this thread will continue to roll merrily along,
accomplishing nothing.

Here's an interesting thought: ANN presumably portrays itself as an unbaised
source of news about all things aviation (I can't confirm this/quote ANN at the
moment since the ANN website seems to be broken). Assuming this is true, why
would ANN permit "a number" of people (here in the newsgroup) to continue to
believe that it *is* biased against CGS aviation and/or Chuck Slusarczyk? I
mean if Chuck really is a bad guy, don't simply demonize him by calling him
names ("con-artist"), but publish the facts of Chuck's badness so that ANN's
readers can be informed. Calling him names ("Clown") seems to support some
people's perception that ANN has some personal bias against Chuck, whereas
publishing unshaded facts would seem to portray ANN as an unbiased news source.

Just my own ramblings...

Russell Kent