ZZZooommm rant latest

"RobertR237" wrote in message
...
In article , "Eric
Miller"
writes:


We definitely need some kind of tort reform.
Americans have a lottery mentality regarding civil suits, both as
plaintiffs
and jurors... and the jackpots keep getting bigger and bigger.

I quite literally has become a legal lottery.

You HAS?

So many lawyer wannabes, so little time to slap them around.

In article , "Larry Smith"
writes:


I quite literally has become a legal lottery.

You HAS?

So many lawyer wannabes, so little time to slap them around.



I capt'n, I given it all she got and if'n I could learn to type on this damn
laptop i mightn of typed "It quite literally has..... :-)



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)

osite (RobertR237) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Corky Scott) writes:
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? My recollection is that you stated after that
meeting that it sure looked like Jim was a bit over the top on that
subject.

I think you are talking about another poster here who did some work
for Jim but has since moved on.

I believe you gentlemen may both be speaking of Kevin O'Brien

For example:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V307217D5
or for masl haters:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ch...guy.com&rnum=1

Cheers,
Sydney

"Jerry Springer" wrote in message
ink.net...

You have to be the dumbest f*** of all time. Yes we own you but you are
not one of the states. Speaking of yellow stripes when are you going to
fly the BD?

rofl! No, Jerry, you have taken over that spot all for yourself. And
you're welcome to keep it as long as you want. The BD will fly when it's
ready, unlike you and your apparent desire to have no problem showing your
stupidity any time you feel like doing so.

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

So defendants should not accept personal responsibility when they screw
up
and damn near get someone killed? Or is personal responsibility
something
that applies only to plaintiffs?

What I'm saying is that when you decide to use a product, you accept a
certain amount of responsibility.
How much? More than Joe Schmoe currently accepts, that's for sure!
Where motorcycles and flying machines are concerned, that burden is even
greater.

Make up your mind. Either there is personal responsibility for both sides,
or there isn't any. Can't pick and choose, because when you BUILD a problem,
you also accept a certain amount of responsibility.

It didn't go to trial, so the defendent didn't make an issue of anything.

Sorry, but here you're wrong, period. You don't have to get to trial to make
an issue of something in the lawsuit.

Remember, if reading the account according to the plaintiff's counsel,
you're getting a definite slant.

In this case, that's rather unlikely.

Juan

"Juan E Jimenez" wrote
"Eric Miller" wrote in message
. net...
Make up your mind. Either there is personal responsibility for both sides,
or there isn't any. Can't pick and choose, because when you BUILD a
problem,
you also accept a certain amount of responsibility.

I didn't contradict myself.
Where motorcycles and flying machines are concerned the USER must accept
more responsibility.
That's why we preflight.

Besides, I'll bet the builder test flew the UL before declaring it ready to
fly.
That suggests plaintiff inexperience, either as a pilot in general, or in
make&model.

It didn't go to trial, so the defendent didn't make an issue of
anything.

Sorry, but here you're wrong, period. You don't have to get to trial to
make
an issue of something in the lawsuit.

You don't have to go to trial to make an issue of something, but you don't
have to raise all issus before the trial.
In other words, you can't claim to know the defendent's entire defense and
strategy.

Remember, if reading the account according to the plaintiff's counsel,
you're getting a definite slant.

In this case, that's rather unlikely.

I'm suggesting that one side's account might be... (wait for it...)
one-sided.
Especially where the account is provided a) by a lawyer b) in support of
advertising services.


I see a pattern in this thread of confusing/blurring the distinction between
set and subset.
merit is a subset of settlement...
pre-trial issues are a subset of trial issues

Forget this case. I dont even care about it. All my spouting is meant in
general anyway.
Can you agree that settlements can happen without merit (which is different
from frivilous) and issues can be raised in trial that don't come up
pre-trial?
Say yes and I can stop posting!

Eric "I'll settle for just using the letters E, S and Y in any order "

In article vC26b.367444$uu5.70843@sccrnsc04, Juan E Jimenez says...

Richmond, Virginia Circuit Court: Case # LK-989-3.

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

I admitted no such thing your like your hero zoom playing word games and
twisting the factsand telling the lie so often that you believe it.

# LK-989-3 I believe that's the Morgan Case which I located today, after I read
it over to refresh my memory I'll comment on it here ,in public .I will also
comment on the Florida case you mentioned .But if you were as good at digging up
dirt as you think you are you should have known the George Conn subject has been
talked about quite a bit in this public forum. Ask Kevin O'Brien about the
paperwork I showed him concerning the George Conn situation.
Once again I got nothing to hide .

In fact Conn and I have a case pending right now and as soon as we get it over
with if anyone wants to know how it comes out I'll tell them .
As I said before I got nothing to hide unlike your hero zoom.

Chuck SRAH-15/1 ret

"credibility it was always about credibility" chuck s

In article ,
says...

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 flam
ing
each other in this newsgroup. What does everyone get out of this exce
rcise?
What is the purpose or goal behind it?? I'm really curious.
Stu Fields


Justice, fair play, ethics and a host of other words along those lines
come to mind.

On one hand you have a businessman who has spent well over 20 years
building a reputation for honesty and integrity. Along the way he has
recieved numerous awards from the aviation community. He has earned
the respect of that community and the loyality of his customers. Of
course over the years he has had a few unhappy customers and law suits.
Any business will have a certain amount of that but Chuck has had far
fewer than most because he tries to do the right thing and he is
willing to publicly discuss them.

On the other hand you have an individual that has had severe mental,
financial and moral problems for a very long time. He has used the
power of his press to shamelessly extort money from some of his
advertisers. He published good articles about Chuck as long as Chuck
was an advertiser but turned on him when Chuck would not continue to
advertise ..... and Chuck is not the only one. The list of things Jim
has done reads like a bad soap opera. Take notice of the number of
people that quickly rise to defend Chuck and then look at his paid
lacky Juan posting half truths, evasions and wise cracks. Jim will not
even post himself because there are too many questions that he doesn't
want to answer. Check the Osterhaus site for some background.

This discussion belongs on this group since it is about a well known
aviation figure and a so called aviation magazine publisher. The truth
needs to come out here since it will never be published in ANN as long
as Zoom owns it.

In article , Badwater Bill says...

I'm not so sure that the publicity Chuck gets from some maniacal rant
is all harmful. I think most people who really know what's going on,
understand the rift and take it for what it's worth. As for those who
don't know beans about Zoom or Chuck, I really think that the press,
even though negative possibly helps Chuck because it keeps his
company's name in circulation.

Frankly Bill if I had my druthers I would rather that 9 years ago zoom just
would have left me alone.I'm capable of generating my own press that isn't
harmful and have done enough legitimate things in this business to earn press
space. I've accomplished things that are verifiable and not embellished, unlike
most of zooms record.
Negative publicity might work for politicians and movie stars but it don't work
for guys like me I don't like it and it cost me plenty.But he dealt the cards
and I'm stuck with it.


Yes, I know this is a strange thing to say to some of you, but I have
friends who feel that any press, negative press included can be a
benefit.

Maybe they're movie stars or politicians, they can have it.


I'm not trying to open a debate over this, I'm just speculating a bit,
and I'm not sure what the real outcome is.

I think the real outcome will come when zoom finally gets 2 nickles to rub
together and has something of value ,then I'll probably sue him for all this
crap and take it away . But at the rate he's going it will be a long time.That
may be the only way it will stop. Until then every time he lies or twists the
truth he will be exposed for doing it.

But, I'll guarantee you
one thing, everybody in the ultralight industry knows who Zoom is and
they all hold him and what he says in context. Having Zoom out to get
you is considered an product endorsement by many. In fact most of the
readers of this group are in that category!

That is true enough but it only applies to those who are aware of the whole
story .To newbies it sounds like it's just a ****ing match between some people
who don't like each other.They think zoom is probably a legitimate guy and not
the phoney that he is.He tried passing off his phoney credientials to an English
magazine recently,which only proves that he's still trying to pass himself off
as legitimate and that people who are unaware of his background will accept him
at face value unless they have reason not to .

Sadly he could have been a legitimate player in this field but he chose for what
ever reason to try to make himself bigger then life and and the savior
of aviation. That attitude caused him to lose credibility and for many others
such as ex employees ,ex writers and manufacturers to have to deal with the
unnecessary grief he caused.

See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

"credibility it was always about credibility" chuck s

And the insurance company probably said "let's settle this turkey and get on
with our lives".

Eric Miller wrote:

"Juan E Jimenez" wrote
"Eric Miller" wrote in message
. net...
Make up your mind. Either there is personal responsibility for both sides,
or there isn't any. Can't pick and choose, because when you BUILD a
problem,
you also accept a certain amount of responsibility.

I didn't contradict myself.
Where motorcycles and flying machines are concerned the USER must accept
more responsibility.
That's why we preflight.

Besides, I'll bet the builder test flew the UL before declaring it ready to
fly.
That suggests plaintiff inexperience, either as a pilot in general, or in
make&model.

It didn't go to trial, so the defendent didn't make an issue of
anything.

Sorry, but here you're wrong, period. You don't have to get to trial to
make
an issue of something in the lawsuit.

You don't have to go to trial to make an issue of something, but you don't
have to raise all issus before the trial.
In other words, you can't claim to know the defendent's entire defense and
strategy.

Remember, if reading the account according to the plaintiff's counsel,
you're getting a definite slant.

In this case, that's rather unlikely.

I'm suggesting that one side's account might be... (wait for it...)
one-sided.
Especially where the account is provided a) by a lawyer b) in support of
advertising services.

I see a pattern in this thread of confusing/blurring the distinction between
set and subset.
merit is a subset of settlement...
pre-trial issues are a subset of trial issues

Forget this case. I dont even care about it. All my spouting is meant in
general anyway.
Can you agree that settlements can happen without merit (which is different
from frivilous) and issues can be raised in trial that don't come up
pre-trial?
Say yes and I can stop posting!

Eric "I'll settle for just using the letters E, S and Y in any order "