Well, well, well.  Hello Jim.  After a little web research (just
try a web search on "zoom" for openers) I feel I know you well
enough to be on a first name basis.  Or would you prefer I call
you doctor:)  Looks like someone should call for a doctor
instead.  You keep refering to yourself as "we".  Either you are
royalty, you have a mouse in your pocket or you need help
(agian).

Actually, after checking the FACTS as shown on court and FAA
documents, I have found out that you are the kind of person that
I choose not to associate with.  No wonder I could not get any
straight answers.  No wonder you are biased about Hawks.  I
assume your so called proof that Chuck lied is the same tired old
bs that you have been screaming for years.  Sorry pal but it just
don't add up.  Chuck is respected and honored in the ultralight
community and you are despised.  The homebuilt community actually
hates you.  Don't you ever wonder why?  15 unfounded lawsuits
didn't help matters any.  No wonder the FAA and others will not
return your calls.  How can you claim to be a big time journalist
when no amount of money will get you in sun-n-fun or other
activities at that site?

Cute touch to cc your "legal dept".  Thats what started my
research.  Feel free to do your damndest.  After your other legal
screwups I doubt your "legal dept." amounts to much.  Its pretty
hard to do much to me for writing a letter to an editor even in
your twisted world.  BTW Did your last attorney ever collect his
fee?

Its amazing how misleading a fancy website can be but it doesn't
take much personal contact to start wondering.  You really should
consider getting back in touch with the real world especially if
you want to be a journalist.  If your advertisers and readers
become aware of your true situation I suspect your so called
publication will cease to exist.  I for one do not care to read
your junk anymore.

Bob

Editor wrote:

> Mr. Metzler...

> We have treated you politely and been treated with falsehood, derision and
> misdirection. I am the boss here and your misinterpretation is pure and
> utter bull that we will no longer waste our time on. Period.
> Your assumption that it does not take much staff to run this place is one
of
> the most hilarious bits of bull I have yet seen. Wire reports and the like
> serve as a contact point but if you read through, you might note that
> virtually all our material is original and that your ridiculous statements
> only further serve to define your ignorance.
> Let me make this clear... we have been polite but we have wasted enough
time
> with you. Do not bother us further. Go back and read the newsgroups that
you
> are so fond of and enjoy your self induced ignorance. Please note the
legal
> caveats attached to these remarks and be advised that we have wasted
enough
> time with a guy who's mind is obviously made up without the benefit of
fact.

> Jim

> cc: Legal Staff

> Aero-News Network, http://aero-news.net
> POB 9132, Winter Haven, FL, 33883-9132.
> 863-299-8680. Fax: 863-294-3678.
> Copyright (c) 1999-2001.
> "Service is the rent we pay for being.
> It is the very purpose of life, and not
> something you do in your spare time."
> Marion Wright Edelman

> Legal Notice: The information contained in this Email is confidential and
> intended only to be read by the person(s) to whom it is addressed.
> No one is authorized to copy, use, disclose, distribute or rely on this
> information.
> If this communication has been sent to you in error, please E-Mail the
> sender and destroy the message.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Metzler [mailto:slee...@worldnet.att.net]
> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 12:19 AM
> To: Editor
> Subject: Re: CGS Hawk crash

> Editor wrote:

> > Oh, bull.
> > We've reported on hundreds of other kinds of aircraft, ultralights
> included,
> > (just look through the archives) and you simply choose to ignore that
> > because YOUR ox is gored. I have answered your questions politely and
> > promptly and you have done nothing but issue false statements and the
> like.
> > We ignore NO faults in other aircraft and have been THE leader in
helping
> > people avoid potential problems in other aircraft and companies. Do your
> > homework before you make rash and ridiculous statements.
> > We have not tried to hurt anything... we just report the facts... please
> > tell me what aspects of the story are NOT factual, prove it and you may
> have
> > a point... but I know you don't.
> > And by the way.... there are a LOT of Editors here. Not all of us can
> check
> > everyone else's work--just those on duty for a particular time and area
of
> > responsibility. Do you think that every editor at every publication
checks
> > EVERY word in their respective pub? Don't be foolish... that was a dumb
> > thing to say and truly denotes your axe-grinding and editorial
ignorance.

> It appears that I contacted the wrong person when I clicked on
> "editor" on your links.  I assumed it would send me to someone in
> authority as it would with other publications.  I also assumed an
> "editor" would be able to read and comprehend the questions as
> they were written which you apparently can not.

> I suppose I could forward it to the "publisher" link but I
> suspect it would wind up on the same desk as the "editor" link.
> After all, if you get most of your stories from the wire and
> govt. agencies it can't take much staff.  If I am wrong, please
> forward this to whomever is in charge.  Maybe he or she can
> answer some of the questions I have asked instead of misreading
> them.  It would be refreshing to get some straight answers.

> > There is no bias here and before you make any more false statements, I
> > suggest you get your facts in order.
> > As to newsgroups... what a joke. You are using THEM as a resource? Do
you
> > believe that Elvis still owns a Burger King in Peoria, too? Do you
believe
> > in little green men? Do they talk to you in your sleep?
> > That's really a stupid source to attribute any credibility to. I don't
> care
> > what's in the newsgroups... that is NOT a proper source for anything
> unless
> > you're trying to assassinate someone's character, give credence to the
> > latest kook/conspiracy theory, or start a flamewar. The idiotic
statements
> > we have seen in the newsgroups have NO place in proper journalism.
> > It is up to the investigating authorities to establish a cause... which
> they
> > have not done YET and that is why we have not suggested a cause AT ALL.
> > Enough. You have an axe to grind, that is OBVIOUS, take it someplace
> else...
> > I have work to do.

> > Jim

> > Aero-News Network, http://aero-news.net
> > POB 9132, Winter Haven, FL, 33883-9132.
> > 863-299-8680. Fax: 863-294-3678.
> > Copyright (c) 1999-2001.
> > "Service is the rent we pay for being.
> > It is the very purpose of life, and not
> > something you do in your spare time."
> > Marion Wright Edelman

> > Legal Notice: The information contained in this Email is confidential
and
> > intended only to be read by the person(s) to whom it is addressed.
> > No one is authorized to copy, use, disclose, distribute or rely on this
> > information.
> > If this

>Bob

>Normally I would not post private e mail exchanges but mooz has cc'ed
>this to the Winter Haven police dept. where it becomes public record.  
>Since he released it, I figured you guys would get a kick out of it.  
>You can see the story at http://www.aero-news.net/indexnews1.htm until
>Sunday evening (or he yanks it).

>Bob

>With Aero-Snooze being so much biased vindictive bullshit, it ain't my bag.
>AVweb's  AVflash is preferred 1000 to 1....
>Nah, more like a million to one.
>However, I always appreciate an appropriate heads up like yours.

>Thanks and Happy Holidays.

>BOb U

> I was just beginning to think that zoomy had changed his ways, and I
> was starting to check ANN every day.  Then I saw that article and my
> immediate reaction was 'Gawd, zoomy's back to his old self."

> Ah well, so much for ANN

> Best Regards,
> Dave Barnhart
> RV-6 N601DB

>John
>RV-6 (left wing tank)

>Dave Barnhart wrote:

>> >>You can see the story at http://www.aero-news.net/indexnews1.htm until
>> >>Sunday evening (or he yanks it).

>> I was just beginning to think that zoomy had changed his ways, and I
>> was starting to check ANN every day.  Then I saw that article and my
>> immediate reaction was 'Gawd, zoomy's back to his old self."

>> Ah well, so much for ANN

>> Best Regards,
>> Dave Barnhart
>> RV-6 N601DB

> "Near-Ground Accident Kills Airport Regular"

> On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 16:15:36 -0600, John Lawson <jwlaw...@hargray.com>
> wrote:

> >Um, I missed the first message in this thread.  For some reason, I'm missing
> >a bunch of messages in this NG...grrrrrrrrrrrr....it seems to happen
> >randomly.  Anyway, what was in the first message?  I went to the aeronews
> >web page and didn't see anything out of the ordinary.

> >John
> >RV-6 (left wing tank)

> >Dave Barnhart wrote:

> >> >>You can see the story at http://www.aero-news.net/indexnews1.htm until
> >> >>Sunday evening (or he yanks it).

> >> I was just beginning to think that zoomy had changed his ways, and I
> >> was starting to check ANN every day.  Then I saw that article and my
> >> immediate reaction was 'Gawd, zoomy's back to his old self."

> >> Ah well, so much for ANN

> >> Best Regards,
> >> Dave Barnhart
> >> RV-6 N601DB

>>>You can see the story at http://www.aero-news.net/indexnews1.htm until
>>>Sunday evening (or he yanks it).

>I was just beginning to think that zoomy had changed his ways, and I
>was starting to check ANN every day.  Then I saw that article and my
>immediate reaction was 'Gawd, zoomy's back to his old self."

>Ah well, so much for ANN

>Best Regards,
>Dave Barnhart
>RV-6 N601DB

>I heard a rumor that Zoom lost his editor a month or so back.  While I
>don't know him, Oysterhouse said he was a straight-up decent sort of
>guy.  It looked as if he had been responsible for most of news material;
>if he's gone, then Zoom is doing it all again.  Which would explain the
>return to the same old claims.

>US AVIATOR was the first case where there was no outside force to
>terminate the cycle; eventually, it took bankruptcy court and the loss
>of advertisers for the attempted resurrection of the magazine.

>The cycle may be beginning anew with ANN.  Some folks expressed surprise
>that the screeching tone didn't continue directly from USA to ANN.  In
>retrospect, I wonder if the switch to the online media "reset" the
>cycle...the staff was practically brand new, and the web-based format
>meant that they lived in different places and weren't daily exposed to
>him in an office environment.

>Where will the cycle end this time?  All Campbell has to get out of ANN
>is a living and his ISP fees.  There's none of the printing costs that
>drove USA under, and the last I heard, most of the writers were working
>for free anyway.  It'll be interesting to watch....

>Ron Wanttaja
>r...@wanttaja.com

>Ah, got it...I went by it 'cuz I don't have a lot of interest in ultralights.

>It 'tis interesting, though, that he singled out that accident to highlight
>on
>the front page of his site.  But he put it there because he felt it was truly
>newsworthy, out of all the ultralight accidents that occur...and not due to
>any
>vendettas or grudges on his part, right?   *tongue in cheek*

>John

> >Ah, got it...I went by it 'cuz I don't have a lot of interest in ultralights.

> >It 'tis interesting, though, that he singled out that accident to highlight
> >on
> >the front page of his site.  But he put it there because he felt it was truly
> >newsworthy, out of all the ultralight accidents that occur...and not due to
> >any
> >vendettas or grudges on his part, right?   *tongue in cheek*

> >John

> AHHHHHH yet another believer in Santa Clause.

>Bob wrote me and asked about the crash that was posted on zoomies site
> and why
>he didn't post other ultralight crashes there. I said somewhat off han
>dedly why
>don't you ask zoom.....
>He did and the rest is history. I haven't checked my e-mail today yet
>but I
>suspect sooner or later I'll be accused of being Bob and to stop haras
>sing
>him,local authorities,Federal investigators etc are notified blah blah
> blah.

>Nothings changed, he still bends the truth,threatens people and bills
>advertizers for ads they don't want.....Credibility it was always abou
>t
>credibility.

>Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

>"evil didn't prosper because good men spoke and evil was nuts"      an
>on

>Not even Mooz could confuse us Chuck.  I'm not in the hall of fame, I
>didn't appear on Junkyard Wars, I can't play the harmonica, I can't
>handle muzzle loader and I never stole chicken in my life:)

>I DO love my Hawk and I appreciate the way you do business.  If that
>puts me on Mooz's s**t list thats fine with me.  I have at least 15
>good people for company.

>Bob

>I DO love my Hawk and I appreciate the way you do business.  If that
>puts me on Mooz's s**t list thats fine with me.  I have at least 15
>good people for company.

>Bob

> In article <a07fsg02...@drn.newsguy.com>
> ChuckSlusarczyk <ChuckSlusarczyk_mem...@newsguy.com> writes:

> > Just like clinton with his "I didn't have sex with that woman etc"
> > nudge ,nudge wink wink, say no more...

> Just for the record, Monica has stated under oath that she and Clinton
> did not have penus inserted into vagina sexual relations.  By almost
> everyone's definition, penus in vagina is what defines sex.
> Masterbating one another to climax is often defined as heavy petting.
> Clinton could state what he did and be literally truthful.

> She also stated that she was VERY disappointed that Clinton did not
> allow her to engage in real sex.

> Corky (stating the literal record) Scott

>Jerry

>"Charles K. Scott" wrote:

>> In article <a07fsg02...@drn.newsguy.com>
>> ChuckSlusarczyk <ChuckSlusarczyk_mem...@newsguy.com> writes:

>> > Just like clinton with his "I didn't have sex with that woman etc"
>> > nudge ,nudge wink wink, say no more...

>> Just for the record, Monica has stated under oath that she and Clinton
>> did not have penus inserted into vagina sexual relations.  By almost
>> everyone's definition, penus in vagina is what defines sex.
>> Masterbating one another to climax is often defined as heavy petting.
>> Clinton could state what he did and be literally truthful.

>> She also stated that she was VERY disappointed that Clinton did not
>> allow her to engage in real sex.

>> Corky (stating the literal record) Scott

> Jerry

> "Charles K. Scott" wrote:

> > In article <a07fsg02...@drn.newsguy.com>
> > ChuckSlusarczyk <ChuckSlusarczyk_mem...@newsguy.com> writes:

> > > Just like clinton with his "I didn't have sex with that woman etc"
> > > nudge ,nudge wink wink, say no more...

> > Just for the record, Monica has stated under oath that she and Clinton
> > did not have penus inserted into vagina sexual relations.  By almost
> > everyone's definition, penus in vagina is what defines sex.
> > Masterbating one another to climax is often defined as heavy petting.
> > Clinton could state what he did and be literally truthful.

> > She also stated that she was VERY disappointed that Clinton did not
> > allow her to engage in real sex.

> > Corky (stating the literal record) Scott

>"richard riley" <rich...@mylastname.com> wrote in message

>> If what Bob Reed says about New Pulsar's experience is true, the this
>cycle is
>> well developed. If he's billing for ads never ordered, libeling companies
>that
>> don't pay the blackmail and threatening people who ask him about it, he's
>back
>> to where he was in 1991.

>It amazing what a little money (or lack there of) does to change your tune
>about an aircraft and/or company. I think he (Zoom) may be a little pissed
>about not receiving money for the advertising that did not take place.

>Straight from ANN:

>*Pre money troubles:

>Either way... it could have been a lot worse, some valuable things were
>learned and the concept of flight test did what it was supposed to do... let
>the manufacturer identify problems before they got into the production
>mainstream. At the same time, Melyon remains upbeat... especially in terms
>of speed... noting that with only 2100-2200 rpm, the Super Pulsar was
>already doing 150 mph IAS... yep, the Super Pulsar 100 "hauls the mail" and
>we look forward to flying it ourselves in a few months.
>http://www.aero-news.net/news/archive2000/0800news/082300a.htm

>*Post money troubles:

>[Note: This is the second accident for this ill-fated craft. The first one,
>on August 20 of last year, on the airplane's second flight (and the first
>flight by the builder) -- ended with an engine (Continental O-200) out,
>attributed to "the pilot's failure to provide enough fuel for the intended
>flight. Contributing to the accident was an improper fuel vapor return
>system," according to the official report  --ed.]
>[Additional Note: While this accident appears to be little more than a
>component failure, there are enough strange things going on with this
>company, and complaints about their business practices, that we recommend
>caution if you plan to do business with this company.--EIC]

>Also note the error in reporting. It was flying with a IO-240, not the
>O-200!

>Cheers!
>Bob