ZZZooommm rant latest

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...

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'm not interested in the problems Chuck has with Jim. That's between them.

I guess I'm recalling another worker for Jim who, like you, was
mouthing the Campbell line about Chuck.

I'm not mouthing anything. Chuck claims I lied when I said he had been sued,
successfully. I proved he was the one who was lying, and I haven't even
presented another interesting case in the state of Florida.

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

Chuck's problems with his manhood and Jim are for him and Jim to resolve.

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.

And he decided to bring me into the thread, call me a toady and imply I was
lying. Now he knows better. Or do you think that the right to defend oneself
only applies to Chuck? I'm a little surprised at your selective reading of
the thread, to say the least.

Juan



Corky Scott

Go read it again. It does. Have a nice day.

Juan

wrote in message
...
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.

"Jez" wrote in message
news

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.

You're entitled to your opinion. I disagree.

"C.D. Damron" wrote in message
news:sk86b.368550$o%2.166125@sccrnsc02...


I only check out ANN when somebody brings it up here on RAH. In almost
every case, I see a case a questionable journalism, within moments.

Check out this blurb that appeared on ANN:

"Risky Business": Adam's A-700 Flight To Oshkosh. Barely a week after
their
totally new bird with totally new engines takes flight, Adam Aircraft
decided to bring it to Oshkosh. While many consider the move gutsy
(including our staff, begrudgingly), we consider the move questionable.
Already under fire for safety practices and other concerns, what chance
this
aircraft has of seeing the light of day (certification and production
wise)
were put into jeopardy for what we consider a PR stunt that had
questionable
value and WAY too many risks...

Is this good journalism?

No, it's an editorial. It may surprise you, but there is a difference. If
you knew the background behind those comments, you'd probably reach the same
conclusion. Have you looked for the other side of the story?

Juan

"RobertR237" wrote in message
...

Were they even asked to comment? I doubt it but if they were, obviously
their comments were ignored.

And you obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about.

"Dave Hyde" wrote in message
...
Juan E Jimenez wrote:

...he wasn't being very truthful...

I think it's very important that businessmen
possess honesty and integrity. Do you feel the same
about journalists? A yes or no answer will suffice.

Dave 'the company you keep' Hyde


Sure, except unlike you I don't limit it to just businessmen.

Juan

I'll give this one... umm... at 1.8, and that's only because the foam is
amusing.

"Frank Hitlaw" wrote in message
m...
juan;
The same way as many or more people hold jim campbell in high esteem.
Are you kidding? That statement could only come from someone whos'
cognitive skills have slipped,alzheimers setting in? Eat alot of paint
chips when you were a kid? As the locals here in Jakarta would say
"goblok lu",(you are a total idiot).

Have a nice day,Frank:

"Juan E Jimenez" wrote in message
.net...

No, it's an editorial. It may surprise you, but there is a difference. If
you knew the background behind those comments, you'd probably reach the
same
conclusion. Have you looked for the other side of the story?

Juan, it surprises me that a journalist doesn't know the definition of
journalism.

The craft of journalism is not limited to the presentation of news, it also
includes any material of current or popular interest, including editorials.

Editorials differ from news stories by not necessarily examining all sides
or opinions. However, it is considered good journalism for editorials to
adequately argue their point based on facts presented.

The editorial I cited was an example of bad journalism. It made a rather
dramatic point without presenting any facts or supporting arguments. The
"if you knew what I know" approach would be considered yellow journalism by
just about any objective standard.

Would you like another lesson in journalism?

"C.D. Damron" wrote in message
et...

Juan, it surprises me that a journalist doesn't know the definition of
journalism.

You didn't ask about a piece of news reported in ANN, you asked about an
editorial published in ANN.

Journalism: the profession or practice of reporting about, photographing, or
editing news stories for one of the mass media

Editorial: Of or pertaining to an editor; written or sanctioned by an
editor; as, editorial labors; editorial remarks.

As you can see, the two are quite different.

The craft of journalism is not limited to the presentation of news, it
also
includes any material of current or popular interest, including
editorials.

Editorials are pieces which express opinions, and they can come from many
different sources. There are editorials that express the views of the
publication, and there are guest editorials that express the views of people
who have standing in the community to talk about a specific issue.

Editorials differ from news stories by not necessarily examining all sides
or opinions. However, it is considered good journalism for editorials to
adequately argue their point based on facts presented.

No. Editorials don't necessarily have to _argue_ a point. They may simply
state an opinion based on an observation of something that happened in the
community. In this case, ANN is presenting its opinion on whether or not it
was a good idea for Adam to rush through a few hours of flight and fly to
OSH just because they want to show the a/c. ANN doesn't have to argue
anything to present this opinion. It can simply present it, as it did. Same
as my tiny editorial awarding Adam Aircraft the Steel Cojones Award for
bring the a/c to the show. (Oh, you missed that? hmm... interesting example
of selective reading) I didn't have to argue anything, period. I simply
stated it.

The editorial I cited was an example of bad journalism.

In your opinion... shrug

It made a rather dramatic point without presenting any facts or supporting
arguments.

It didn't have to. You don't agree, write a letter to ANN stating so.

The "if you knew what I know" approach would be considered yellow
journalism by
just about any objective standard.

ROFLMAO! HAHAHAHA! That's funny!!!! You obviously don't have the slightest
clue of the definition of yellow journalism. To suggest that ANN engaged in
yellow journalism related to an activity attended by _hundreds of thousands
of people_ is patently absurd and bordering on the prepubescent. Did you
even bother to do a www.google.com and a simple "what is yellow journalism"?
Let me give you a hint, kiddo. Yellow journalism is about reporting news
with an editorial bias in a situation where most people cannot verify the
facts of the piece. It is _not_ about publishing editorials C.D. Damron does
not agree with.

Would you like another lesson in journalism?

Another? chuckle Your entitled to your opinion. You're wrong, but you're
entitled to that as well.

Have fun!

Juan

Juan E Jimenez wrote:

...I don't limit it to just businessmen.

Who do you think does?

Dave 'value judgment' Hyde