ZZZooommm rant latest

In article , Warren & Nancy
writes:


In reference to your quoted story, where is the view from Adam Aircraft on
why
they felt it was necessary to have their plane at the biggest and most
important aviation even of the year? Was it really a risk to bring it here
or
not? Were they even asked to comment? I doubt it but if they were,
obviously
their comments were ignored.


I haven't been to ANN for quite a while, but has Adam Aircraft advertised
with
zoom? Or did he use his reported tactic of putting in unauthorized
advertising and
then sending a bill for it?



Can't say for sure but I wouldn't give any odds.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

In article , "Juan E Jimenez"
writes:


If it were just between them, why is it plastered all over ANN every few
months?

Probably for the same reason Chuck puts up his silly signs up every few
months.


Funny, I have seen the signs and do not recalling Jim Campbell's name on any of
those signs. They do say "Zoom Free Zone" or something similar but whats the
big deal about that? Only a very few insiders know what that means and aside
from that, its his right to post any damn sign he wants. I don't see Chuck
going out of his way to publish on a public news service a condemnation of
Campbell every few months. I wouldn't blame him if he did. I also wouldn't
blame him if he made it a point to go to every potiential advertiser on ANN and
tell them the details of Campbell's past dealings. I wonder how Jim would like
that?



Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

"C.D. Damron" wrote:

Yellow journalism need not be limited to news stories.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

IMO....

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

Not even that Chuck and the Pope are Catholic,
if Zooom editorializes otherwise. ; - (


Barnyard BOb --

Juan E Jimenez wrote:



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.


There's an idea C. D.! Send an e-mail to ANN disagreeing, and then post the
response here. THAT should be interesting reading, and you might earn an "I've
been zoomed" t-shirt.

Warren

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.

"Warren & Nancy" wrote in message
...


Juan E Jimenez wrote:



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.


There's an idea C. D.! Send an e-mail to ANN disagreeing, and then post
the
response here. THAT should be interesting reading, and you might earn an
"I've
been zoomed" t-shirt.

Warren

"Juan E Jimenez" wrote
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.

The evidence is right there in front of your eyes. When you agree to
settle
a suit and pay damages, you lose.

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

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.

The cost of settling could have smaller than the cost of defending a case
and appeals that might've dragged on for a couple years.
Better a known figure now which you can write off, than an unknown amount
(for both defense and outcome) in the future.

It also could've been an insignificant sum to the insurance company...
remember, insurances companies have insurance too (called re-insurance) to
spread their risk. (And re-insurers have insurance, etc, etc... it can even
come full circle, which makes calculating responsibility for payouts fun and
interesting.)

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

Just because money changed hands doesn't mean bupkis about the merits of the
suit.

And frankly speaking, I wouldn't trust a "jury of my peers" to decide if it
was day or night.
These are the same "peers" that bankrupted Dow with a $3.2 billion payout
for silicone breast implants which showed no scientific or statistical
evidence of causing disease (systemic or otherwise).

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.
Did he supply it in his initial post? No, but then it wasn't relevant.
Similarly, you'll notice I haven't provided a list of my civil, criminal and
traffic violations

Eric "you can't flame me... I said "breast" :-)"

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 11:46:32 GMT, "C.D. Damron"
wrote:

:
:"Barnyard BOb --" wrote in message
.. .
: You will convince Jaun of nothing of
: which he is not already convinced.
:
:
:I must stop jousting with windmills.

All you get is a torn up windmill.

You are probably right, but Juan said to write to ANN. All I suggested is that
he do so, and publish the results here. Then Juan could see the type of
response one gets from honest questions and criticism. I got mine when I asked
a former friend if he actually wrote a letter published in ANN. My question
was forwarded to JC, and the zooming began.

Warren

Cy Galley wrote:

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.

"Warren & Nancy" wrote in message
...


Juan E Jimenez wrote:



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.


There's an idea C. D.! Send an e-mail to ANN disagreeing, and then post
the
response here. THAT should be interesting reading, and you might earn an
"I've
been zoomed" t-shirt.

Warren

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 14:17:39 GMT, "Cy Galley"
wrote:

:As a school teacher I always recommended that the teasing would stop if the
erson being teased ignored the teaser. They just like the attention that
:your response brings. Likewise Juan and Jim. Might be worth a try.

As a former victim of a school bully, who spent 2 weeks in the
hospital with multiple broken bones and a fractured skull, I disagree.

The only way to deal with teasing and bullying is with overwhelming
counter force. When the local authority - the teacher - tells the
victim to not respond, it guarantees an escalation of the threat.
Other counter force must be found, or eventually the victim will be
killed. That counterforce will be found either with police, lawyers,
or, in some cases, superior violence.

Teachers that support one group of students abusing others is why
Columbine happened.

It is impossible to believe the amount of energy going into this kind of
thing!!! I could build a house with the time and energy spent in flaming
each other in this newsgroup. What does everyone get out of this excercise?
What is the purpose or goal behind it?? I'm really curious.
Stu Fields
"Juan E Jimenez" wrote in message
news:y_t6b.278017$cF.86657@rwcrnsc53...

"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.