US Aviator's Annual S&F Party
vl...@bcmark.com
On Wed, 19 Mar 1997 23:27:46 -0500, Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net> wrote:
>US Aviator Party Time!!!!
>
>Yes... It's True... the Tradition Continues!
>
>US Aviator magazine and the SportPlane Resource Guide are proud to
>announce that our Annual "Lost Patrol Party/Blow-Out/Insanity Fest"
>is ON For 1997!
>Let's face it... it's been a helluva year and no one needs a party more
>than we do. No one.
>So... we bribed all the appropriate officials at Sun ‘n Fun HQ (yeah, it
>cost nearly a whole six pack this year... but at least Zoomer didn't
>have to wax Billy's car this time), and for the seventh year, the JAZZ
>will blow, the chicken will barbecue and over a 1000 or so of our
>closest friends will party their buns off on Monday April 7th, from 1830
>(that's 6:30 PM for you non-military dweebs) to 2130... and maybe even
>longer (as long as the band stays sober... kinda doubtful based on past
>year's history...).
>We'll be based in the main tent at the entrance of the ultralight area
>this year, nicely located between the campgrounds, the ultralight area
>(Paradise City!), and the classic aircraft area. On the menu this year
>is Woody's scrumptious barbecued chicken (yeah, we got tired of the
>brats, too), lots of soft drinks, and the best Jazz this side of the
>Mason-Dixon... and best of al.... US Aviator's own LOST PATROL Jazz
>Band.
>Special Notice... The semi-legendary "Exploding TUBA" will be back this
>year!!
>Yes, in addition to the greatest jazz you've ever heard, we'll have a
>few pyrotechnic surprises for you... be prepared... though we wish to
>state quite strongly that the rumor that our Tuba Player has "gone
>nuclear" this year are totally untrue... and we have NO idea where the
>missing plutonium went to anyway. Just to be safe though (and to keep
>the party going!), members of the Atomic Energy Commission will be
>barred from the premises.
>Further... we plan to exceed last year's heights of insanity by a fair
>margin... so be prepared to have a good time!
>So... Come One, Come All*, and party with America's most talked about
>and courageous aviation magazine and have a great time... on us.
>Remember...
>
>April 7th... Monday... Ultralight HQ Tent... 1830--2130... and beyond!
>
>Be There!
>
>Blue Skies...
>J.R. "Zoom" Campbell Editor-In-Chief
>
>--
>Jim Campbell, Editor/Publisher, US Aviator Magazine
>Author: SportPlane Resource Guide--Second Edition
>http://www.us-aviator.com (over 2 million served!!)
>http://www.kindredspirit.com (under construction!!)
>http://www.sportplane.com (under construction!!)
>"All that is required for the triumph of evil is
>that good people remain silent and do nothing"
>
>*The sponsors of this party reserve the right to bar admission
>to anyone in order to protect the enjoyment of all those in attendance.
So THAT's why you need money for a legal defense fund!
Will subscription refunds be going out soon, or is that what's paying for Woody's chicken?
--
Kevin Mackenzie
vl...@bcmark.com wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Mar 1997 23:27:46 -0500, Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net> wrote:
>>US Aviator Party Time!!!!
>>
>>Yes... It's True... the Tradition Continues!
>>
[snip]
>>So... Come One, Come All*, and party with America's most talked about
>>and courageous aviation magazine and have a great time... on us.
>>Remember...
>>
>>April 7th... Monday... Ultralight HQ Tent... 1830--2130... and beyond!
>>
>>Be There!
>>
>>Blue Skies...
>>J.R. "Zoom" Campbell Editor-In-Chief
>>
>>--
>>Jim Campbell, Editor/Publisher, US Aviator Magazine
>>Author: SportPlane Resource Guide--Second Edition
It infuriates me that you have jilted me on my subscription, yet have
enough money to host a huge party. Jim Campbell, you are are beneath
contempt.
Kevin
Bill Robie
Well, he *did* warn us. His webpage says "Serious Insanity Coming". I'd
call the audacity of throwing a party for 1,000 people pretty insane for a
magazine publisher who hasn't made good paid subscriptions in several months.
I also like the part where he says that the sponsors reserve the right to
bar admission to anyone ... at an event advertised as open to the public ...
held upon the premises of *another* organization that is sponsoring a
public event.
I wonder how welcome paid-up subscribers would be if they showed up in
T-shirts that say, "I want my money back, USA" (and if they would have any
grounds for a class action suit if they were refused admission based on that,
or any other, exercise of free public expression)? Just curious about this.
Maybe one of the lawyers has a response.
Bill Robie
Ronald James Wanttaja
In article <5h2bs0$2...@camel0.mindspring.com>,
Kevin Mackenzie <kevi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Mar 1997 23:27:46 -0500, Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net> wrote:
>
>>US Aviator Party Time!!!!
>
>>and courageous aviation magazine and have a great time... on us.
>
>enough money to host a huge party. Jim Campbell, you are are beneath
>contempt.
That's assuming, of course, he actually plans on holding the party. It
costs him absolutely nothing to announce a party, then cancel it due to
"not wanting to expose my friends to terrorist action".
Perhaps he's been requesting donations to his legal defense fund to
cover any potential breach-of-contract actions from the band or
caterer?
The party makes no business sense. Whether he's trying to woo
advertisers or subscribers, he'd do a far better job by publishing the
magazine he's supposed to be in charge of. If he were to restart at the
beginning of April, it would be *November* by the time all he would be
done shipping out free magazines to shafted subscribers. You *know*
advertisers are going to be unwilling to pay in advance during this
period...and what subscriber in his or her right mind will renew until
they get every one of the back issues they're owed?
In my opinion, Campbell has announced this party for the same reason con
artists set up in fancy hotels or office buildings: To present an image
of financial health that just isn't there. He may even hold the
party... actual cost is probably less than a quarter of what printing
and mailing a single issue of the magazine would run. Based on what
I've heard and the fact the he owes six months' worth of back issues, I
would guess that US AVIATOR is about $250,000 in debt right now. A
$4,000 party is a trivial addition to a quarter-million-dollar
shortfall....
Ron Wanttaja
want...@halcyon.com
http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/
chuck slusarczyk
Kevin Mackenzie wrote:
>
> vl...@bcmark.com wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 19 Mar 1997 23:27:46 -0500, Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net> wrote:
>
> >>US Aviator Party Time!!!!
> >>
> >>
> [snip]
>
> >>and courageous aviation magazine and have a great time... on us.
> >>
> >>April 7th... Monday... Ultralight HQ Tent... 1830--2130... and beyond!
> >>
> >>Be There!
> >>
> >>Blue Skies...
> >>J.R. "Zoom" Campbell Editor-In-Chief
> >>
> >>--
> >>Jim Campbell, Editor/Publisher, US Aviator Magazine
> >>Author: SportPlane Resource Guide--Second Edition
>
> enough money to host a huge party. Jim Campbell, you are are beneath
> contempt.
>
Boy, the guy that crucified manufacturers for having back order
problems and/or
late deliveries seems to be just as guilty of all these transgressions
and more.
The guy that talked about company so and so having financial
problems seems to be in the same pickle maybe worse.
The guy that said company so and so doesn't treat it's customers
fair and is ripping them off seems to be doing the same to his.
The guy that placed himself on a pedestal put on a cape and
proclaimed himself
"Captain Zoom" protector of aviation......seems to have feet of clay...
Normally I would feel bad for a person going through a bad personal
and financial time,but after the way zoom treated me and others, I feel
it's a classic case of the
chickens coming home to roost. For those of you who are new to this
thread and feel that
zoom is somehow getting picked on ,I suggest you do an archive search
and enlighten
yourself before you comment on something you know nothing about....
I've had to suffer with the damage zoom did to me and my company for
over 5 years
but in spite of him we've grown and are now on firm footing...He cost me
5 years of company growth,thank God he was exposed for what he is...
Zoom,for all you've done to me and my company ,I will be able to go
to Sun and Fun
with my head held high, knowing I have "real" friends and a productive
company...You on the other hand........
my opinion only
Chuck (dances on graves) Slusarczyk
Owner CGS Aviation
Any E-mail sent to me concerning this post is subject to re-posting
"evil didn't triumph because good people spoke and evil was nuts"
anon........
Kevin Mackenzie
kevi...@mindspring.com (Kevin Mackenzie) wrote:
>vl...@bcmark.com wrote:
>>On Wed, 19 Mar 1997 23:27:46 -0500, Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net> wrote:
>>>US Aviator Party Time!!!!
>>>
>>>Yes... It's True... the Tradition Continues!
>>>
>[snip]
>>>So... Come One, Come All*, and party with America's most talked about
>>>and courageous aviation magazine and have a great time... on us.
>>>Remember...
>>>
>>>April 7th... Monday... Ultralight HQ Tent... 1830--2130... and beyond!
>>>
>>>Be There!
>>>
>>>Blue Skies...
>>>J.R. "Zoom" Campbell Editor-In-Chief
>>>
>>>--
>>>Jim Campbell, Editor/Publisher, US Aviator Magazine
>>>Author: SportPlane Resource Guide--Second Edition
>It infuriates me that you have jilted me on my subscription, yet have
>enough money to host a huge party. Jim Campbell, you are are beneath
>contempt.
>Kevin
After posting this message, I received a call from Jim Campbell. He
said he thought my previous message was libelous, and that his
attorney might be in contact with my attorney (among other things), at
which point I hung up on him. After thinking it over, I called him
back and tried to offer to write whatever apology or such he wanted,
but he would not listen or answer me, and hung up on me twice.
If I've learned one thing in life, it is that life is too short to be
involved with attorneys, especially over a magazine subscription.
So Jim, I retract what I said in the post above, and apologize to you
for it. I believed that I was entitled to express my opinion, but if
I am not, so be it. If you need me to write something else to satisfy
you, please just let me know what it is.
Kevin Mackenzie
Jim Campbell
Kevin Mackenzie wrote:
>
> It infuriates me that you have jilted me on my subscription, yet have
> enough money to host a huge party. Jim Campbell, you are are beneath
> contempt.
>
> Kevin
To All...
Funds for the party are coming from my book company, our co-sponsors and
my own personal funds. Period.
No one has been jilted on a subscription. CRIMINAL action created a
problem back here and some serious damage to my company. My staff was
threatened, my wife was threatened, our business was interfered with,
we've had a number of actions that have severely impeded our progress
and made a big mess. We've dealt with it the best we could and we are
actively involved in producing the next issue. I dare anyone to do
better. Period.
The above complaint/statement comes from someone who has not previously
logged a complaint with this organization and has never voiced any
problems to me personally before broadcasting his nasti-gram to the net.
If the person who posted this message had any sense of decency, you
would think they would have called me and asked me what was up before
posting a statement that they have made no attempt to research or
verify. I wonder who ultimately is responsible for posting this message,
especially after one of our harassers called Sun & Fun the other day and
tried to interfere in the party, and a few complaint calls we have
received here turn out not to be from subscribers... but from associates
of a company that has not been commented on favorably in our magazine.
Look people... I do not expect a fair shake from our Internet critics...
they don't want the facts, their little minds are obviously made up.
Note that they speak out and never mention whether they've checked with
us to verify what they say before making statements about our intent or
well-being. But they do not ask us what's going on, they distort what
information they get from other sources, and they seem overjoyed that we
have had some serious problems over the last few months. ANYONE who
takes pleasure or satisfaction from the difficulties of others is SICK.
Period.
I could easily sell this place or fold my tent and no one would get
anything... I have other business interests that are far more profitable
than the magazine business and could be quite comfortable with those...
but I have a strong committment to the future of sport and general
aviation and I will not be bullied/threatened/harassed or libeled away
from doing what I believe to be right.
I'm trying to do something positive... I've been severely injured as a
result of taking a stand that most others don't seem to have the courage
for. Face it, what reasons could I have for taking on some of these bad
manufacturers and other such problems? It only costs me money to do
so... as these folks don't advertise and spend a lot of time trying to
disrupt my life. So... why would I keep taking this kind of abuse?
Because, it's the right thing to do... but it's not always the most
popular stand to take (especially to small minded weirdos who would
rather hate and criticize than take part in suggesting cures... or even
implementing them).
Look folks... if you are a subscriber, you will get your mags. If you
have a problem with us, call me, and I will deal with it.
But... if you're just going to bitch and criticize, you'll find out that
we are working to make good and positive changes and you're just wasting
bandwidth and proving to me (and our readers... who continue to be
incredibly supportive) that your agenda is not to offer constructive
criticism, but to destroy what you are either jealous of, covet for
yourself or simply are incapable of doing for yourself.
I'm not quitting. I'm not going away. I believe in what I do... and my
mail bag shows that thousands of others do too. So, if you want to take
a shot at us, be sure that you do so based on fact and not on malice...
Finally... let me leave you with this thought... I'd ask our harassers
if they'd have the courage to continue their mission the way that we
have...
It's not how many times someone knocks you down, it's how many times you
pick yourself back up.
So flame on, children, but I won't be dealing with that much more, I've
got work to do... and you're not going to stop me. Too many people
believe in us for us to give up. You ain't seen nothing yet.
--
Jim Campbell, Editor/Publisher, US Aviator Magazine
Author: SportPlane Resource Guide--Second Edition
Jim Root
Kevin Mackenzie wrote:
>
<snip anouncement re: USAviator party>
>
> >It infuriates me that you have jilted me on my subscription, yet have
> >enough money to host a huge party. Jim Campbell, you are are beneath
> >contempt.
>
> >Kevin
>
> said he thought my previous message was libelous, and that his
> attorney might be in contact with my attorney (among other things), at
> which point I hung up on him. After thinking it over, I called him
> back and tried to offer to write whatever apology or such he wanted,
> but he would not listen or answer me, and hung up on me twice.
>
> If I've learned one thing in life, it is that life is too short to be
> involved with attorneys, especially over a magazine subscription.
>
> So Jim, I retract what I said in the post above, and apologize to you
> for it. I believed that I was entitled to express my opinion, but if
> I am not, so be it. If you need me to write something else to satisfy
> you, please just let me know what it is.
>
> Kevin Mackenzie
Liable? What have you received your mags or your money back? Do you find
it offensive when somebody screws you?
contempt n.
1. Disparaging or haughty disdain, as for something base or unworthy;
scorn.
2. The state of being despised or dishonored; disgrace
I take it you opinion of Mr. Campbell is somewhat less than definition
number 2.
I've kept aloof of this whole USA/Zoom issue for the most part. But when
a man threatens to sue over something as petty as an opinion such as
that, I have to believe that there is a serious problem with the mental
state of said individual.
Don't waste your breath apollogising he has, IMHO, absolutely no grounds
to sue (and with party expenses probably no money to sue with). Your
comment is merely a statement of fact. Your upset, you have no mags and
he's throwing a party about it. You disdain him, your not alone.
Fact fact fact.
Not only that but due to his own designs he is a public figure which
makes liable even harder to prove.
Good Luck!
:{) Jim (not an attorney) Root
Peter Bosch ( South Africa)
It is a shit job, but somebody has got to do it!
( let my subscription lapse for financial reasons.. still use your
SportPlane guide EVERY DAY! (which you signed for me))
Keep it up ( for as long as you can stand it !)
Yours in Safe and Affordable Aviation!
--
Peter Bosch
Tel +27 16 24 22 12
http://www.transport.co.za/business/cheeky/default.htm
"Quality cannot be inspected into a product..it has to be built into it"
Mahan
Well said, Jim. Thanks for the clarification.
Cue: Bad Billy, Garfield, Ron, et. al. Lights, action, aaaaand ...
ROLL EM!
Fred in Florida
Jim Campbell wrote:
>
> To All...
>
> Funds for the party are coming from my book company, our co-sponsors and
> my own personal funds. Period.
<big snip>
Tony P.
Jim:
I am one of your subscribers. I haven't heard a word. I do not choose
to wade through your Pollyanna nonsense periodically on the Internet
just to hear more vague claims. I want to hear a date when an issue
will be delivered. When, Jim?
Anything else you have to say is just snivelling as far as I am
concerned. I no longer believe a word you say about the many anonymous
enemies you claim to have and the impact they have had on your
business. You've had the time and money to put into the other
publication which will no doubt make you a pack of profit. You've had
your hand out to your "friends" seeking contributions, haven't resumed
publication and are having a party heralded with hype.
I for one was one of your most avid supporters, and I'm sick of your
fantastic and bizarre stories and after a succession of impartial and
credible people have described it, have no desire to see the kind of
bizarre behavior they claim to have experienced.
Now, go as ballistic as you want over one more Campbell ex-believer who
is just sick to death of your nonsense. But watch what you say and do
in response, because this particular subscriber has teeth and bites back
when threatened or harrassed (most effectively and within the law).
Tony Pucillo
--
"Castigat ridendo mores" <laughter succeeds where lecturing won't>
Ronald James Wanttaja
In article <3335BC...@earthlink.net>,
Jim Root <jar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Liable? What have you received your mags or your money back? Do you find
>it offensive when somebody screws you?
>
>a man threatens to sue over something as petty as an opinion such as
>that, I have to believe that there is a serious problem with the mental
>state of said individual.
Recall when Zoom lost his medical 17 years ago. One of the symptoms the
judge specifically alluded to was his use of intimidation to get his way.
Seems to me that Zoom's baseless threat to sue was just plain
intimidation.
Things haven't changed, have they?
For those who have lost track, the NTSB judge ruled he was suffering
from Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Borderline Personality
Disorder. If you're curious about the conditions, most libraries (and places
like Barnes and Noble) stock a standard reference called DSM-IV (Diagnostic
and Statistics Manual for Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition). Page 658
is a good place to start.
kfbu...@aol.com
>So flame on, children, but I won't be dealing with that much more, I've got work to do...
You bet you've got work to do, Campbell. You have to refund the money you have cheated all of these innocent subscribers out of. Starting with me. I am still waiting for MY refund which I have demanded over 5 times now, and even the US Post Office Mail Fraud unit has demanded you give me my money back. They are now working on a class action collection effort against you. You claimed that you would not give me my money back because my phone calls and email to you might have been forged, and you would not act on the demands of a "third party" like the Post Office.
1. Everybody, this how it goes with Campbell: You give him money, he spends it on himself.
2. You demand he give your money back, he claims he won't because these imaginary people keep preventing him from operating his magazine. I think just about everyone knows by now that Campbell is very disturbed, and any anonymous threats made to his staff or others came from him. This is NOT speculation; this is something I know quite a bit about from personal dealings with Campbell and his former staff and acquaintances
At least Campbell was right about one thing, there are a few crooks in the aviation business, and he is at the front of the line.
Campbell said he was inviting 1000 people to this party. How about 9,400 showing up. This is the amount of subscribers that Campbell has cheated out of their subscriptions. How about we all show up and collect our money in person? Bring lots of cash to your party, Jim Campbell, we don't take checks.
Don Pearsall, Campbell Victim who won't give up.
Tony P.
Kevin:
I'm not surprised you got a call and a threat. After I posted my
message, I got a call too. However, I was busy on the IRC and refused
to interrupt my IRC conference with another lawyer in Hong Kong to talk
with him. I had my son take a message (insisting that he leave a number
if he wanted me to call back) but on reflection I don't think I will
return the call, assuming the number is good (and I so assume).
(BTW: the message left with my 16-year-old son was that he was
"attempting to give me more courtesy than I gave him, by calling to
explain" -- a sentiment that can be taken more than one way, one of
which is positive, I suppose.)
In any case, I didn't invite Campbell to call me, didn't offer my phone
number, and any communicating I do with him is going to be on the
record, where there can't be any misunderstanding or fabrication of who
said what. Campbell's record of claiming he has been threatened and
otherwise abused, thus ending up in a mutually-discrediting pissing
contest with his detractors, leads me to advise that anyone who must
communicate with him should do so in writing exclusively.
Let me add that I consider it something of an affront, if not a subtle
attempt at intimidation, for a person to place an uninvited telephone
call as the result of a critical NG posting (which I copied him by email
as a courtesy). The appropriate way to respond is via email or post.
(I might add that my past FAXes, letters and emails to Campbell have
never even been acknowledged until I finally spoke critically.)
It's a shame, Kevin, that you backed down. I hate to see a person who
has done absolutely nothing wrong intimidated. Your statement was
absolutely not actionable, was a pure and clear statement of opinion and
Campbell is just blowing smoke if he threatened to sue you. Or maybe he
is silly enough to believe it himself, but I really get pissed when
people try to silence dissent by threatening frivolous litigation. Call
me if you hear anything further (as Campbell easily found, I am listed
in West Palm Beach -- of course I'm also on his subscriber list).
Especially if you get a call from a lawyer (which will cause me no end
of astonishment, should it happen). Very few lawyers I know would even
consider hassling someone for describing a person who failed to fulfill
a contract as "beneath contempt" because any sensible lawyer would know
any litigation threat is just silly.
Statements of opinion, clearly labelled as such and asserting no facts
-- much less falsehoods -- are a privilege we all enjoy. You don't even
need a reason to hold someone in contempt, but you certainly described a
fair one. I judge people by their actions and inaction, and generally
ignore their words. I thus share your low opinion of Campbell, as a
subscriber. He owed us a magazine monthly and so far I haven't even
gotten a letter. If I weren't an avid Internet fan, I wouldn't have a
clue what had happened. In fact, after reading the versions of facts
coming from Campbell and others attributed to people as diverse as
university professors, former ISP employees, former employees of
Campbell and others, I don't think his statements published on the
Internet have nearly satisfactorily explained what's going on and I'm
not going to be satisfied that I know what's going on until I have
details from everyone who knows a piece of the puzzle.
I've taken a lot of flack here for defending Campbell for the good I
think he has done, but he has run out of credible stories for me at
least. I'll be interested to see what the future brings, but in the
meantime I'm interested in hearing from those with first-hand
information about his actions in recent months and years.
Tony Pucillo
Wes Grady
I was not a subscriber. I don't intend to become a subscriber. I find
Mr. Campbell's claims of people being out to get him to be so much fluff
in his quest for self importance and unless he is talking about the
subscribers he abandoned, totally unbelievable.
Whether the money for the party is coming from the subscribers that have
been denied that for which they have paid, his personal funds, sponsors,
or his other magazine is beside the point. If these funds are
available, they should be immediately used to issue a refund to those
who have been requesting them.
Credibility cannot be demanded, it has to be earned and Mr. Campbell,
the screams and cries of those waiting for a refund deny you any claim
of Credibility.
--
Wes Grady
N-9125W (PA28-235)
Dutchess County, NY
Bill Robie
From ro...@umbc.edu Mon Mar 24 09:32:58 1997
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 23:06:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Bill Robie <ro...@umbc.edu>
To: ro...@umbc.edu
Subject: Re: US Aviator's Annual S&F Party
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ultralight,rec.aviation.rotorcraft,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.marketplace,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Here's the latest love note that I've gotten. The [added comments] are mine.
Bill Robie
*********************************
From usa...@gate.net Sun Mar 23 22:08:30 1997
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 17:56:03 -0500
From: Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net>
To: Bill Robie <ro...@umbc.edu>
Subject: Re: US Aviator's Annual S&F Party
Private reponse... you are not authorized to republish. Period.
[Sorry about your Period. It was sent to me and thus became my property.
You were told *repeatedly* that anything you send me will likely be made
public. If you don't like it, don't send me mail. Period. I don't send you
any, and I am entitled to express my opinions in response to things posted
to a public forum.]
Let's see now... we answer questions freely and you use that as an
excuse to attack us.
We post news announcements freely and you use that as an excuse to
attack us.
We throw a free party for our friends and you use that as an excuse to
attack us.
[And now you have shown people what you consider to be an "attack".]
I'd say you have well-crossed the bounds of fair comment and are
trangressing deeply into "harassment" territory.
[And here you demonstrate your definition of "harassment".]
What's next... more personal attacks? More untrue rumors?
Sorry, Bill... you and your sick friends are not winning... we are
getting back into production... quit interfering with that process.
[And without citing (what's new?) any case of my having spread
"untrue rumors", you accuse me of doing so. I guess it is true
if you can convince someone that it is true. That appears to be
your reality. The rest of us need facts, documentation, and proof.
I hope that USA *does* get back into production. I have never
interfered with that process, unless questioning the veracity
of your opinions constitutes interference. I've never sent you any
threats. I've never spread any untrue rumors. If what I have done is
"harassment", Mr. Campbell, what do you think all the notes that
you have sent to my e-mail account are?]
How long can you keep up your hatred?
[I have no hatred. It's merely the most absolute lack of respect
that I've ever felt for a human being. I have no reason to hate
you, but I do admit to being annoyed by you from time to time.]
We are producing a magazine... if you call this office right now, you
will find three of us working on the template for the next issue.
[And you would say that my call was "harassment". No thanks.]
We are paying for the party... it is a private party for our friends and
associates. That gives us the right to bar admittance to anyone who is
trying to cause problems.
[Enjoy yourself.]
If people want their money back, they need to contact us, not play
games. All 7 proper requests for refund have either been paid or are
being paid. The only request not paid is one for a sub that was not
bought from us, but from a subscription service, and they are the ones
that have to process that request.
Suggesting law suits, again? You sure bitched long and hard about us
when we sought to protect our rights (using our counsel) against illegal
attack... but now you seem to want to drag lawyers into everything...
Can you say "double standard"?
["Double standard" ... do I win a prize?]
How about criticizing the bastards who threatened my staff, my wife, my
family and my company... or is that OK, because they are doing something
you agree with... namely, trying to destroy this mag. I never once saw
you protest the vicious threats against my wife and staff...
[Then open your eyes -- or simply quit being so selective about what you
want to see. I have *repeatedly* and *publicly* said that whomever
sent those threats (if there actually were the threats that you claim -- I
never saw them, so I can only take your word) should be punished. Everyone
else on this group saw me say that a couple of weeks back.
But that doesn't fit in with your agenda.
You want to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of hatred and
heinous crimes. You want to pose yourself as the persecuted
martyr. The fact is, James R. Campbell, I simply don't believe a good
bit of what you say, and we both know that I have good reason for my
beliefs -- reasons that are in print, are documented, and can be produced.
That's what scares you the most -- your life is a big paper trail of
federal documents, newspaper accounts, and personal testimony. I didn't
create that, Jim. You did.]
Why don't you cry out gainst the screwing some of Happy Miles' customers
are getting... or Soma's... or NSI's... or Slusarczyk's... etc.
Your hatred seems awfully selective and more than a little sick... and
while we're talking about lawyers... you might want to check with yours
and get a understanding of what libel and harassment is all about... as
you've crossed that line too many times.
[I don't know Happy Miles, Happy Hooligan, Miles Standish or give a
Happy Hoot what you think any of the above have done. Have you saved
the world from Soma or NSI? What did you actually accomplish there.
Let's see some data ... some facts ... not just your opinion.
But you speak of libel and harassment, then talk about "the screwing"
that you claim Chuck Slusarczyk is giving his customers. Where's the
proof? Where's the evidence? Where's *anything* but your claims and
opinions? All we have seen in the way of "proof" is your claims that
you have gotten lots of un-named and undocumented complaints.
Here's the Slusarczyk I know from personal experience:
When I was in competition with him (years ago) he was an honorable man
who did a darned good job of trying to stay in business during a time
that was a crisis for the UL business in general. You seem to want to
bash him for having economic problems when the top manufacturers were
going under like stones tossed into a pond. Now it seems that you are
in the same position (but not necessarily because the market is bad)
and you say that's OK.
Your turn -- "D-O-U-B-L-E S-T-A-N-D-A-R-D".
The Chuck Slusarczyk that *I* know has been repeatedly honored by the
Ultralight industry and his peers in aviation. They were real
awards, too, and not self-promoting fantasies that he invented for himself.
I put a lot of faith in how an industry -- including competitors -- and
how a person's equals publicly regard them. How do others in the industry
view you, Jim? What awards have been given you by aviation writers? Funny,
but the aviation writers and editors who have entered this discussion don't
seem to be singing your praises. I guess they are all (pick one or more)
jealous, sickos, whackos, insane, harassing, libelling, conspiring,
threatening, ....]
Grow up, get a life and stay the hell out of my business. The great
majority of my subscribers are being patient and supportive, and you
(not a subscriber, to my knowledge) are messing with an area that you do
not know anything about... and against the will of the great great
majority.
Jesus... how do you live with all that hate?
[I don't think I'm Jesus ... don't even have the initials "JC" ... and I
don't live with hate, so I do quite well, thanks. It would be convenient
if I really hated you, hated your magazine, was a "sicko" (or "wacko",
etc., etc.), had a bunch of sick friends who hate you, wanted to drive
you out of business, was part of a conspiracy against you, or any of those
things that you recite as your mantra of misery as you try to drum up
support for the persecuted savior.
But I'm not.
I simply don't find you to be a consistently credible source in the
field of aviation, and your attempts to persuade me that
you are really the Saviour of Aviation have failed. You can't accept
that, can you Jim? There has to be something wrong, or criminal, or
sick, or whatever, with *anyone* who refuses to be persuaded by you or
whom you can't badger, threaten, or intimidate into cowering before you.
You base everything on your claims and opinions, without providing
documentation, evidence, proof, substantiation, or whatever you want
to call the stuff that disciplined writers feel obligated by their
integrity to provide their readers. If your word was unimpeachable,
you might get by with this approach. But it isn't.
Then you fly into a rage when anyone questions your methodology or the
related issue of your credibility. You try to make money by "warning"
people about alleged rip-off artists in aviation who are slow to deliver
on paid-for goods, but threaten and shriek when someone dares to point
out that you are advertising that you are throwing a party for 1,000
"friends" while you are holding subscriber money for months without
delivering a page of print. As for your suggestion that I, as a
non-subscriber, am not entitled to have an opinion about any of this:
how many planes have you bought from CGS, Miles, or any of the other
companies that you have trashed in print?
An attorney who frequents these aviation groups recently said something
about most of your opponents appearing to have an "Ox that was gored",
making their comments about you suspect. My Ox hasn't been gored, but
someone sure seems determined to stick their horn into my Ass.
Maybe you will find enough suckers to contribute to your "Legal Defense
Fund" to allow you to launch a frivolous lawsuit in my direction. I have
never grovelled before your threats in the past, and have no intention
to do so in the future.]
David Hyde
Kevin Mackenzie wrote:
>It infuriates me that you have jilted me on my subscription, yet have
>enough money to host a huge party. Jim Campbell, you are are beneath
>contempt.
And later followed up with:
>After posting this message, I received a call from Jim Campbell.
[deletia]
>If I've learned one thing in life, it is that life is too short to be
>involved with attorneys, especially over a magazine subscription.
I'd be willing to bet that the only attorney you'll be involved with will
be one _you_ contact.
>So Jim, I retract what I said in the post above, and apologize to you
>for it.
Which is it: You're no longer infuriated that you haven't received
magazines you paid for in advance, or you've actually received the
magazines? Sorry if it seems I'm poking at you, but I'm genuinely
interested in your experience.
Tony Pucillo writes:
>I am one of your subscribers. I haven't heard a word.
Zoom writes:
>No one has been jilted on a subscription.
OK, suppose I'm interested in subscribing. I'd like to buy a copy, but my
local newsstands don't have any in and haven't for a while. I try to
borrow a recent copy from a friend who subscribes. He hasn't gotten one
in a while in spite of re-subscribing within the past year. I'm glad to
hear that no one has been jilted (is that a legal term, like 'libelous'?),
but when was the previous issue mailed, and when will the next one be?
Will you also be re-supplying my local newsstands? I'd like to sample a
recent edition before I sign up, but it's sure been difficult.
Tony Pucillo writes:
>However, I was busy on the IRC and refused
>to interrupt my IRC conference with another lawyer
^^^^^^^
Oops! The lawyers _have_ gotten involved, and they sound mad ;)
Dave 'on retainer' Hyde
na...@eng.umd.edu
ro...@pineland.net
Come on Zoomer...
Put your money where your mouth is and refund your dis-satisfied
subscribers...
We don't want a party, not even a lynching one <G>
Just our money back...
Any publisher worth their salt and genuinely interested in customer
relations would have circularized all subscribers asking whether they
wished to wait out the delays or receive a refund...
I was a staunch supporter of yours, but my patience has run out...
How about my refund....
Robin Pringle
#ultrafly IRC chat room op
Kevin Mackenzie
na...@Glue.umd.edu (David Hyde) wrote:
>Kevin Mackenzie wrote:
>[deletia]
>Tony Pucillo writes:
>Zoom writes:
>Tony Pucillo writes:
Dave,
I have not received any magazines. Jim Campbell told me on the phone
that if I requested a refund in writing, I would receive it
Requesting it verbally on the phone (even though he looked up my
number, and called me) was not acceptable, because he was concerned
about receiving false requests for refunds.
I have not previously requested a refund because usally when a
magazine goes out of business, it's gone for good, and requesting a
refund just didn't occur to me.
All that I have received from Jim Cambell/US Aviator recently is an
email in which he accused me of posting my message at the request of
someone else, claimed my message was libelous and demanded an apology,
plus a phone call during which he threatened to sue me.
Those are the facts.
I read this newsgroup to participate in a discussion of aviation
because I enjoy it. Fighting with Jim Campbell in not included on my
list of fun things. I'm very grateful to Tony, and to the others who
sent emails assuring me that my original message was not actionable.
Their messages will help me sleep better at night.
Perhaps I'm wimp for backing down because of an intimidating phone
call. I'll know better next time. For now, I'd rather spend my time
reading and writing messages about something else.
Kevin
David L. Wasylenko
Jim Root wrote:
>
> Kevin Mackenzie wrote:
> >
> <snip anouncement re: USAviator party>
> > >enough money to host a huge party. Jim Campbell, you are are beneath
> > >contempt.
> >
> >
> > After posting this message, I received a call from Jim Campbell. He
> > said he thought my previous message was libelous, and that his
> > attorney might be in contact with my attorney (among other things), at
> > which point I hung up on him. After thinking it over, I called him
> > back and tried to offer to write whatever apology or such he wanted,
> > but he would not listen or answer me, and hung up on me twice.
> >
> > involved with attorneys, especially over a magazine subscription.
> >
> > I am not, so be it. If you need me to write something else to satisfy
> > you, please just let me know what it is.
> >
> > Kevin Mackenzie
--
He is blowin' smoke up your hind-quarters. I think he is beneath contempt
for the threat!!! And he can sue me if he wants!
PS: Keep your party pal. And your rag mag.
--
______ ______ _ ___ mailto:d...@inlink.com __ _
(_____ \ (_____ \ (_) ( / \ o / ( / /
_____) ) _____) ) _ / / __, _ ,_, __/ / / /
| ____/ | ____/ | | (/\_/ (_/(_/ |/ (_(_/_ (_/_/ o
| | | | | | http://www.inlink.com/~dlw
|_| |_| |_| (work) mailto:d...@pick.com
http://www.pick.com Pick Professionals, Inc.
Jerry Bidle
David Hyde wrote:
>
> Kevin Mackenzie wrote:
>
> >It infuriates me that you have jilted me on my subscription, yet have
> >enough money to host a huge party. Jim Campbell, you are are beneath
> >contempt.
>
>
>
>
> >If I've learned one thing in life, it is that life is too short to be
> >involved with attorneys, especially over a magazine subscription.
>
> be one _you_ contact.
>
> >for it.
>
> magazines you paid for in advance, or you've actually received the
> magazines? Sorry if it seems I'm poking at you, but I'm genuinely
> interested in your experience.
>
> Tony Pucillo writes:
>
> >I am one of your subscribers. I haven't heard a word.
>
> Zoom writes:
>
> >No one has been jilted on a subscription.
>
> OK, suppose I'm interested in subscribing. I'd like to buy a copy, but my
> local newsstands don't have any in and haven't for a while. I try to
> borrow a recent copy from a friend who subscribes. He hasn't gotten one
> in a while in spite of re-subscribing within the past year. I'm glad to
> hear that no one has been jilted (is that a legal term, like 'libelous'?),
> but when was the previous issue mailed, and when will the next one be?
> Will you also be re-supplying my local newsstands? I'd like to sample a
> recent edition before I sign up, but it's sure been difficult.
>
> Tony Pucillo writes:
>
> >However, I was busy on the IRC and refused
> >to interrupt my IRC conference with another lawyer
> ^^^^^^^
> Oops! The lawyers _have_ gotten involved, and they sound mad ;)
>
> Dave 'on retainer' Hyde
> na...@eng.umd.edu
Say What? What do you mean no has been jilted on a subscription!!!
You choice of words is very good, it would bave been bad to said taken or
cheated or what ever you would call it if you paid for a subscription and
the publisher stopped sending it in the middle of the term. Since your
no longer publishing how do you title yourself as publisher. Best not
have a press badge on at SUN & FUN or EAA is going to take a lot of heat.
Jerry
Gridnet International News Admin.
Just when life seems boring, we get to bash Zoom!
Ronald James Wanttaja
In article <33357D...@gate.net>, Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net> wrote:
>Kevin Mackenzie wrote:
>>
>> It infuriates me that you have jilted me on my subscription, yet have
>> enough money to host a huge party. Jim Campbell, you are are beneath
>> contempt.
> Funds for the party are coming from my book company, our co-sponsors
> and my own personal funds. Period.
Let's see...who owns the book company? James R. Campbell. What's the
address of the book company? Same as that of US AVIATOR. What's the
toll-free phone number of the book company? The same as US AVIATOR.
What are the regular and fax numbers of the book company? The same as
US AVIATOR. Since the magazine has sat idle since September, I suspect
US AVIATOR computers, equipment, and what salaried employees remained
were used to produce the book. Did US AVIATOR subscription money
($22,000 a month, based on the number of claimed subscribers) go
towards producing the book? It sure wasn't put into producing any
magazines....
I don't see any difference between US AVIATOR money, "book company"
money, or Campbell's "personal funds". He controls all the entities
involved: US AVIATOR Magazine, Airedale Press, and Kindred Spirits
Press.
> No one has been jilted on a subscription.
I agree with you. "Jilted" refers to breaking off a relationship prior
to legal consummation. As the subscribers already had a legal
relationship (they paid money in advance for magazines), I think
MacKenzie should have said, "It infuriates me that you have *screwed*
me on my subscription...." But he's probably more genteel than I am.
> CRIMINAL action created aproblem back here and some serious damage to
> my company.
Criminal action? You've been claiming that for more than four
years.... extortion, bomb threats, personal threats, threats against
your girl friend, your wife, your dog, your bathroom rug, etc. You've
*never* been able to get a single charge filed, or any police agency to
pay more than passing interest. If your definition of "Criminal" is as
sloppy and incorrect as your definition of "Libelous", that might
explain it.
Or is it because, as you claim on your web page, that federal agencies
"... beg off from involvement 'until someone gets hurt' because their
workload is so high..."?
You're saying the FBI won't investigate "terrorist" activity until a
bomb goes off and people get hurt? Pullleeeeezzzeeee......
A better explanation: The FBI's definition of "terrorism" doesn't
match yours. And that they have completely rejected your claims.
In reality, it takes next to nothing to trigger an FBI investigation.
Here's something that was recently posted to a number of newsgroups in
response to a spam by a "literary agency" accused of scamming money
from writers. The author has written a number of articles about the
company for such publications such as the Los Angeles Times.
]] From mi...@pacbell.net Tue Mar 4 20:56:38 PST 1997
]] Article: 6012 of rec.arts.books.hist-fiction
]] From: Jack Mingo <mi...@pacbell.net>
]] Subject: BEWARE OF DUBIOUS LITERARY AGENTS
]] Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 18:59:04 -0800
]] Message-ID: <331CE1...@pacbell.net>
]]
(Major, industrial-grade snip)
]] Finally, here is what happened to me because I wrote newspaper
]] articles about them. Last Tuesday morning, two FBI agents came to my
]] door... They said that [A woman who is one of the two accused
]] literary agents] had filed a complaint with the US Attorney
]] General's office, claiming that I had called her, identified myself
]] by name, and threatened to hire a hitman to slit her throat (!). The
]] agents were really quite friendly once we got it straightened out,
]] but really....
]]
The woman with the "dubious" literary agency ...a person with an
obvious reason why she might want to lodge a false accusation and
herself already publicly accused of several felonies... was able to get
a FBI investigation started with a single unsubstantiated complaint.
Yet James R. Campbell *can't*, even with a dozen employees supposedly
quitting due to the "terrorist" threat. Why is that? To me, it's
obvious: The FBI, the DEA, the FDA, the CIA, Fox Mulder, and the local
police forces don't think James R. Campbell is credible. They don't
believe his accusations. They don't believe his tale of "terrorists".
Maybe those ex-employees talk differently when Campbell's not in the
room. Maybe his wife tells them she *hasn't* been threatened by
outside parties. Perhaps she tells them *why* she left Mr. Campbell
last July.
> If the person who posted this message...
His name is Kevin MacKenzie, Mr. Campbell. If you're going to threaten
to destroy a man, please grant him the courtesy of remembering his
name.
>... had any sense of decency, you
> would think they would have called me and asked me what was up before
> posting a statement that they have made no attempt to research or
> verify.
Well, maybe he just didn't think he could believe you. When US AVIATOR
initially quit publishing, the US AVIATOR web page said "Campbell has a
raging case of the flu." A few weeks later, it was "The magazine is on
hiatus". After a couple more weeks it was "You'll never believe what
has been happening...story to come!". Now it's "Terrorists are
preventing publication". He probably accepted the "flu" and the
"hiatus" lines, but finds the "terrorism" story a bit far-fetched.
You promised him a product. If you cannot deliver that product it's
*your* responsibility to fully inform him. He didn't do a darn thing,
other than state an opinion regarding you. He's under no obligation to
you. It's the other way around.
Did you have utterly NOTHING else to do that day than than search out
MacKenzie's number, call him, and threaten him? No US AVIATOR business
to take care of? No book production work? No party planning? Were
you so busy that you had to add "Threaten Kevin MacKenzie" to your
Daytimer, or was it something you decided to do on the spur of the
moment?
Kevin MacKenzie is exactly the kind of person you claim to represent.
The little guy, being ripped off by a company that takes his money,
refuses to deliver a product, then ostentatiously spends money on
fripperies. The little guy, threatened with a lawsuit when he publicly
expresses his frustration. The kind of guy who doesn't know much about
the law, and doesn't have the $20,000 it would cost to mount a defense
in such a lawsuit. A lawsuit you *knew* you couldn't afford to proceed
with... why else are you pleading for donations to your "legal defense
fund"? But you could use those threats to make Kevin MacKenzie really,
really, REALLY scared, couldn't you?
Was it good for you? Why else did you threaten him, other than for
your own pleasure? You didn't want an apology or a retraction. You
hung up on him when he called you to offer them. You knew you could
never carry through with a suit. Why, then, threaten him in the first
place, unless you did it just for kicks?
Your treatment of Kevin MacKenzie was contemptuous. Why not pick on
someone your own size? Are there no foes worthy of your greatness?
Was Happy Miles out gardening and unable to come to the phone, but you
had to vent your bile on SOMEBODY and so picked MacKenzie? Are Delmar
Benjamin's problems with the FAA so trivial that you can spend your
time beating up on little guys rather than haranguing the mean ole
Feds?
And what did your little verbal assault accomplish? What did you
possibly expect to gain by threatening this man? Does Kevin MacKenzie
think you're a great man, now? Do you think he'll renew his
subscription? Do you think he'll recommend your book, or your
magazine, to his fellow EAA members? How many netters who have read of
his plight will recommend your book or your magazine, now?
When you saw MacKenzie's posting, you could have ignored it and come
out ahead. His is just one man's opinion... and you claim there are
7,000 people who think you're the greatest guy in the world. 7,000 to
2 isn't a bad ratio. I'd take it.
But you couldn't ignore this little pinprick to your ego. All you had
to do is shrug it off and go on trying to get back in business. You
couldn't shrug it off. Every slight, no matter how small, demands
massive retaliation. You are unable to swallow your pride, even when
it's in your best interest. I'm not surprised... it's tough to swallow
a methane-filled bladder the size of Madagascar, oozing with the
putrescence of wild paranoia and spined with the brittle spikes of a
frenzied ego. Mr. Campbell, you are a living, breathing example of the
second derivative of motion.
> Look folks... if you are a subscriber, you will get your mags.
When? It's a simple, fair question. You've been working on the next
magazine since last November, when you announced it was almost ready to
go. When will it be mailed to subscribers? If it does eventually come
out, will subsequent issues be delivered on time, or is all your effort
dedicated toward cranking out one last "Campbell's Final Attack" issue?
> You ain't seen nothing yet.
100% true. We've seen no filings of criminal charges. Just wild
claims of "terrorism". We've seen no libel or harassment lawsuits.
Just threats. We've seen no issues of US AVIATOR. Just promises.
Actions speak louder than words. Put up or shut up. Make up those
seven months of free magazines you currently owe your subscribers, THEN
you'll have something to brag about.
Sid & Mari Lloyd
Hey,
For all of us who may have unfulfilled subscriptions how about
showing up at the party and eating/drinking or "doggy bagging"
our residual subscription value in food?
Food for thought...
IMHO, it does seem very odd that an organization with sufficient funds
to throw a party for 1000 people (along with sponsors) would be
soliciting legal defense funds. Kind of like the OJ defense team
throwing a party for L.A. after they spend all of OJ's money...
Oh well, US Aviator was some entertaining reading. I'll miss some
of the good stories they had and believe that I got my (past)
subscriptions money's worth. As with any publication, just
because I read it in print doesn't mean I believe it. Buyer
beware is as true in publications about homebuilts as it
is about homebuilts.
Personally, I'm not optimistic about seeing any more issues
and even they do come out again I'll invest my subscription dollars
in alternatives. I'm a fairly conservative investor and only invest my
funds where there is a fair to even chance of a return. If they establish
a 12 month track record or so of on-time publication I may reconsider.
Sid Lloyd
si...@insync.net
David Hyde
Taken from US Aviator's web page (look up 'fair use' before you start
whining):
"...supposed subscribers would post
complaints to the Internet about our lack of publication... but
withouthaving contacted us, at all, first."
"...both complainants (out of a grand total of two) admit that they
have not tried to contact us directly..."
That would be Tony Pucillo and Kevin MacKenzie, right?
Tony Pucillo had previously posted:
>(I might add that my past FAXes, letters and emails to Campbell have
>never even been acknowledged until I finally spoke critically.)
Doesn't sound like he's admitting anything, and certainly says he's tried
to contact you.
"...if we get a complaint about a
manufacturer, the first thing we ask is whether
they have contacted those they are complaining about and
tried to deal with them..."
Chuck Slusarczyk, care to comment? I seem to recall stuff like
"We've had lots of complaints" being tossed about, and the
manufacturer not being aware of any. There's an excellent source in the
newsgroup (even in the thread), if he'd care to speak up.
"...Message-ID: <97012616060...@emout20.mail.aol.com>..."
^^^
"...his (Don Pearsall's) Internet Provider was alerted and
they assured us that he would not be harassing us via E-Mail..."
However, also in this thread:
>From: kfbu...@aol.com
^^^
[deleted]
>Don Pearsall, Campbell Victim who won't give up.
What'd they do, just take away E-mail priveleges?
Comments, Don?
"...can you believe that we're also taking crap for having
a FREE party.."
Absoulutely, when just prior to that you say:
"To get a magazine back into production...takes an
average of three months from start to finish. We're about a
month into that process..."
So your last issue was, what, November? December? It's March now, and you
won't be ready for 2 more months, say May? And you're partying?
I wrote:
>OK, suppose I'm interested in subscribing
Oh, forget it.
Dave 'shoulda known better' Hyde
dh...@windvane.umd.edu
Jim Schinnerer
Jim Campbell (usa...@gate.net) wrote:
: To All...
: Funds for the party are coming from my book company, our co-sponsors and
: my own personal funds. Period.
I've included the first line of the announcement from another post:
>US Aviator magazine and the SportPlane Resource Guide are proud to
>announce that our Annual "Lost Patrol Party/Blow-Out/Insanity Fest"
Certainly, by including US Aviator magazine as a "presenter" of the
party, it is easy to understand why jilted subscribers are offended.
Have a nice day.
*---------------------------------------------------------*------------------*
| Jim Schinnerer - PP-ASEL-IA | Hewlett Packard |
| | Fort Collins, CO |
| email - schi...@fc.hp.com | (970) 229-6621 |
*---------------------------------------------------------*------------------*
kfbu...@aol.com
> "...his (Don Pearsall's) Internet Provider was alerted and
>they assured us that he would not be harassing us via E-Mail..."
>
>However, also in this thread:
>
>>From: kfbu...@aol.com
> ^^^
>[deleted]
>>Don Pearsall, Campbell Victim who won't give up.
>
>What'd they do, just take away E-mail priveleges?
>Comments, Don?
Yes I will comment. Campbell considers it harrassment when you ANSWER one of his nastigrams. He always SENDS vile hate mail to me and then ends it with this:
" E-Mail to my address is "harassment" as defined by State and Federal Law. DO NOT send me any more electronic mail."
To which I naturally reply. Remember, Campbell sends me email, I have rarely initiated it to him.
And my e-mail carrier has never even mentioned Campbell to me, much less taken any priveledges away from me, so once again Campbell shows that he has a great future writing science fiction, and not a chance of writing an aviation magazine.
By the way, when I was trying to buy US Aviator from Campbell, he kept telling me the next issue was ready to go to print. Now his story is that it will take him three months to get it ready. So which is Campbell, were you lying then, or are you lying now? My guess is both.
Don
kfbu...@aol.com
Matthew S. Whiting
Ronald James Wanttaja wrote:
>
> Your treatment of Kevin MacKenzie was contemptuous. Why not pick on
> someone your own size? Are there no foes worthy of your greatness?
> Was Happy Miles out gardening and unable to come to the phone, but you
> had to vent your bile on SOMEBODY and so picked MacKenzie? Are Delmar
> Benjamin's problems with the FAA so trivial that you can spend your
> time beating up on little guys rather than haranguing the mean ole
> Feds?
Actually, I'd like to see him take on Badwater Bill. I like BWB's
philsophy on how to deal with this kind of crap ... as he posted some
time ago on this
newsgroup. But then taking on someone like that would take real guts!
Matt
Ronald James Wanttaja
In article <3339AE...@epix.net>,
Matthew S. Whiting <whi...@epix.net> wrote:
>Ronald James Wanttaja wrote:
>>
>> Your treatment of Kevin MacKenzie was contemptuous. Why not pick on
>> someone your own size? Are there no foes worthy of your greatness?
>
Dibs on the popcorn concession! :-)
Ron "ringside" Wanttaja
want...@halcyon.com
http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/
Tony P.
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------5FA647F33399
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To all:
As I promised, any nastygrams from Campbell will continue to be posted
for your edification. Here they are, and my responses.
What we may be seeing here is a typical and uncontrollable reaction:
once criticized, the critic has to be placed in the role of harrasser
and abuser in order to maintain the appearance (to himself and others,
possible) that Campbell is not criticized by anyone objective -- only
those who hate him, as demonstrated by the venom of the exchanges.
In short, by buying into the ad hominem attack and taking offense, one
simply permits Campbell to set the tone of the exchange. Then a casual
observer, unaware of the history, assumes that the opinions expressed by
an angry critic of Campbell are without objectivity.
Don't worry: I don't intend to fall into that trap despite the rhetoric
about harrassment, privacy and other stuff already bubbling up. the
goal here is simply to compile as much objective data as I can and to
permit people to reach their own conclusions without having to reinvent
the wheel.
Attachments should be in chronological order, hopefully.
Unfortunately, the last one from myself (of today) appears to have been
truncated when my puter went into Netscape-induced memory spasm mode
after hitting "send." You didn't miss much though.
Isn't this just a fascinating character study? As in how to prove with
one's actions the very thing one is simultaneously denying with one's
words...
Tony Pucillo
Tony Pucillo
Tony Pucillo
--
"Castigat ridendo mores" <laughter succeeds where lecturing won't>
--------------5FA647F33399
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="CAMPBL.1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="CAMPBL.1"
>From - Mon Mar 24 21:45:09 1997
Received: from osceola.gate.net (ro...@osceola.gate.net [199.227.0.18])
by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA29039
for <ae...@idt.net>; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 21:07:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from gate.net.gate.net (wthfl2-34.gate.net [199.227.49.34]) by osceola.gate.net (8.8.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA353374; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 21:08:01 -0500
Message-ID: <3335E1...@gate.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 21:07:49 -0500
From: Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net>
Reply-To: usa...@gate.net
Organization: Airedale Press, Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ae...@idt.net
Subject: Re: US Aviator's Annual S&F Party
References: <3330BC...@gate.net> <6264715...@dejanews.com> <5h2bs0$2...@camel0.mindspring.com> <33357D...@gate.net> <333607...@mail.idt.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: 60f0b8db17ec73f3636113978e90786f
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 4089
This is a private response... you do not have my permission to republish
ai anywhere or at anytime.
> "Castigat ridendo mores" <laughter succeeds where lecturing won't>
Mr. Pucillo...
If you are a subscriber, you are one of about 8, so far, who has chosen
to be nasty about it. The implicit threat at the end of your message is
noted and will be filed appropriately. Use your teeth where you will...
and I care not whether you beleive me or not. The evidence is as plain
as the nose on your face and is well documented.
BTW, get your fascts straight... you say you haven't heard a word... and
yet you then say you've read our Internet postings... your statement is
in conflict and therefore incorrect. Add that to the malice you express
throughout the message and you ceetainly seem unprofessional.
Now... if you have a complaint, you have not voiced it to me directly,
before now. We have a toll-free number that we do respond to and we have
never refused to talk to anyone who has called us. You have not. Period.
If you want a refund, send us a written letter stating so (as we have no
idea who you really are when using e-mail) and I will process it
quickly... as I prefer to write for people that tend to show more class,
more patience, and more courtesy than you. I will be very happy to not
have you as subscriber.
I've had to suffer a lot for my beliefs (which is my choice)... only to
take nasty commebnts from small minded critics who would rather create a
public embarassment to me than, first, dealing with me honorably and
honestly.
Just be thankful that no one is threatening you, your family, your
staff, or your livelihood... but know that despite your threatening
letter and incorrect insinuations, that I'll fight on...
Good luck with your life... it must be terribly burdensome knowing all,
telling all and deciding the truth of a matter without ever asking for
the facts from someone who just might know more than you about a
particular situation.
P.S. May I have your permission to reprint your E-Mail in in upcoming
issue? All viewpoints should be represented... though you'll note that I
offer you the courtesy of asking your permission before subjecting you
to the potential of public discourse.
--
Jim Campbell, Editor/Publisher, US Aviator Magazine
Author: SportPlane Resource Guide--Second Edition
http://www.us-aviator.com (over 2 million served!!)
http://www.kindredspirit.com (under construction!!)
http://www.sportplane.com (under construction!!)
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is
that good people remain silent and do nothing"
--------------5FA647F33399
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="CAMPBL.2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="CAMPBL.2"
>From - Mon Mar 24 21:45:11 1997
Received: from osceola.gate.net (ro...@osceola.gate.net [199.227.0.18])
by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA26434
for <ae...@idt.net>; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 21:22:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from gate.net.gate.net (wthfl2-34.gate.net [199.227.49.34]) by osceola.gate.net (8.8.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA138188; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 21:22:31 -0500
Message-ID: <3335E5...@gate.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 21:22:19 -0500
From: Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net>
Reply-To: usa...@gate.net
Organization: Airedale Press, Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ae...@idt.net
Subject: Re: US Aviator's Annual S&F Party
References: <3330BC...@gate.net> <6264715...@dejanews.com> <5h2bs0$2...@camel0.mindspring.com> <33357D...@gate.net> <333607...@mail.idt.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: 70207b56395f274a99194af76175c414
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 577
By the way....
Who are these "impartial and credible" people you refer to. I don't like
anonymity any more than you do (though I have no choice but to accept it
until IDs are proven). Put up or shut up.
--
Jim Campbell, Editor/Publisher, US Aviator Magazine
Author: SportPlane Resource Guide--Second Edition
http://www.us-aviator.com (over 2 million served!!)
http://www.kindredspirit.com (under construction!!)
http://www.sportplane.com (under construction!!)
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is
that good people remain silent and do nothing"
--------------5FA647F33399
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="AEP2JRC.324"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="AEP2JRC.324"
>From - Mon Mar 24 23:02:18 1997
FCC: /C|/NETSCAPE/mail/Sent
Message-ID: <333778...@mail.idt.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 23:02:18 -0800
From: "Tony P." <ae...@mail.idt.net>
Reply-To: ae...@mail.idt.net
Organization: The product of Attention Deficit Disorder
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: usa...@gate.net
Subject: Re: US Aviator's Annual S&F Party
References: <3330BC...@gate.net> <6264715...@dejanews.com> <5h2bs0$2...@camel0.mindspring.com> <33357D...@gate.net> <333607...@mail.idt.net> <3335E5...@gate.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mozilla-Status: 0811
Content-Length: 5153
Mr. Campbell:
I'm not going to respond to any of the aspersions cast in your
message. Res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself). Indeed, your
current tactic, immediately upon receiving criticism, of tossing me into
the bin with your other detractors speaks even more loudly. It's a very
effective way to confuse the ordinary casual reader by creating the
appearance of yet another Campbell detractor who must have an axe to
grind. In fact, I first began to have doubts about you when I noticed
the number of decent, respectable people in that bin, like former
friends and employees, university professors, even ISP staff. That's
good company. Will I be accused of anonymous threats by next week? I
wonder if you even noticed the posts I made on numerous occasions in
your defense, or the sympathetic messages I sent? They outnumbered the
critical ones about five to one.
Let me say this once, believe it or not as you choose. I bear you and
your magazine no ill will. I would dearly love for you to actually turn
out to be the long-suffering, idealistic champion of the underdog you
claim to be, and not to be the maladjusted and vengeful person so many
others claim. If you are both, I would like to see the "good" Campbell
in control (or in control again, if he ever was). There needs to be a
REAL "Captain Zoom, defender of the aviation consumer." If you can't
live up to it, let's get somebody who can.
I have no economic motivation, I am not in the aviation business, and I
do not represent anyone desiring to be involved in litigation with you
(though I already sense that my phone would be ringing off the hook if I
were willing to do so). I am not interested in any little personality
quirks you may have.
I am simply interested in the truth as to what you actually are. Are
you a high-minded champion of the consumer, beset by malicious and
vengeful villains whose scams you have foiled? Or are you a retaliatory
and egomaniacal fellow whose supposedly objective critiques of industry
participants are the product of a series of irrational squabbles with a
succession of decent businessmen -- as some of them claim? I'm curious
enough to spend the time to find out and hardly likely to be buffaloed
by implied or expressed threats.
The few dollars your magazine owes me for prepaid issues are a
NONissue. That is trivial. I simply think it is peculiar to neglect
even to send a postcard advising your subscribers what is going on.
And offensive to advertise a big splash while neglecting anything so
basic.
Fact is, I haven't received a word from you as a subscriber. Not even
a notice that my issues weren't coming, and I consider four or five
months adequate for that purpose. I had to seek out information on the
Internet after stumbling across your Web page, only to read repeatedly
what you are about to do but have yet to do.
Anything I have to say to you or you to me is "on the record." I will
furnish anyone I choose a copy whenever I choose. Making up fanciful
rules of law isn't going to prevent that. The law of every jurisdiction
in the United States is that any truthful matter may be communicated
freely. That's the First Amendment.
These messages and this reasponse are going on Usenet tonight, as will
anything else you send me if I choose (and I will almost certainly
choose unless and until, in advance, I consent to do otherwise in
writing). Indeed, I may just put the darn things on a billboard to make
it clear to you that you have no more right to choose what others inform
each other of than they have. If you are unable to obtain a briefing on
the laws of defamation, privacy or anything else in Florida, just ask
and I will point you toward them.
Meanwhile, I'm afraid that the only way to get to the bottom of who and
what Jim Campbell really is is for all those who have pieces of the
puzzle, good and bad, to contribute them.
Finally, consistent with my statement that it's "on the record" or I
have no desire to converse with you, thereby avoiding differing versions
of any dialogue, please refrain from telephone calls. I might add that
I consider it highly inappropriate for any individual to respond,
uninvited, to an email message with a personal telephone call.
In my process of getting to the bottom of these various conflicting
versions of events, I will eventually have specific times, places and
events to let you respond to. At that point I'll be interested in the
existence of documentation, independent, unbiased witnesses and other
evidence beyond the "he said-she said" stuff. Probably I'll make those
inquiries by private e-mail, giving you every chance to point me to
favorable facts and inferences without makng ashow of putting you on
the spot. That's because I am seking information rather than posturing
or debating. And if I see any of the behavior that others describe as
typical when your stories are questioned, I will take note of that as
well.
Tony Pucillo
"Castigat ridendo mores" <laughter succeeds where lecturing won't>
--------------5FA647F33399
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="AEP2JRC2.324"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="AEP2JRC2.324"
>From - Mon Mar 24 23:47:03 1997
FCC: /C|/NETSCAPE/mail/Sent
Message-ID: <333782...@mail.idt.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 23:47:01 -0800
From: "Tony P." <ae...@mail.idt.net>
Reply-To: ae...@mail.idt.net
Organization: The product of Attention Deficit Disorder
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: usa...@gate.net
Subject: Re: US Aviator's Annual S&F Party
References: <3330BC...@gate.net> <6264715...@dejanews.com> <5h2bs0$2...@camel0.mindspring.com> <5h4525$u...@camel4.mindspring.com> <333648...@mail.idt.net> <333699...@gate.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mozilla-Status: 0811
Content-Length: 445
Mr. Campbell:
I have no sources of information you don't know exist. Just a matter
of assembling them, one by one. When I name them it will be in order to
tell the whole story once I have it pieced together. And your
statements will be part of it too, and documents, and anything you have
to say will be considered.
Tony Pucillo
Tony Pucillo
--
"Castigat ridendo mores" <laughter succeeds where lecturing won't>
--------------5FA647F33399
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="CAMPBL3.324"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="CAMPBL3.324"
>From - Mon Mar 24 21:45:24 1997
Received: from osceola.gate.net (ro...@osceola.gate.net [199.227.0.18])
by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA14592
for <ae...@idt.net>; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:10:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from gate.net.gate.net (wthfl2-39.gate.net [199.227.49.39]) by osceola.gate.net (8.8.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA120582; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:10:23 -0500
Message-ID: <333699...@gate.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:10:02 -0500
From: Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net>
Reply-To: usa...@gate.net
Organization: Airedale Press, Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ae...@idt.net
Subject: Re: US Aviator's Annual S&F Party
References: <3330BC...@gate.net> <6264715...@dejanews.com> <5h2bs0$2...@camel0.mindspring.com> <5h4525$u...@camel4.mindspring.com> <333648...@mail.idt.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: acccfa7d35713e539b808f458037e4b2
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 726
Tony P. wrote:
No one has been threatened. Get your facts straight. I called you out of
courtesy... which is more than you have done with me. I have a toll-free
number darn it. You have no excuse for not knowing what's going on if
you won't pick up a phone and make a call.
Finally; you refer vaguely to outside sources of information. Name them.
--
Jim Campbell, Editor/Publisher, US Aviator Magazine
Author: SportPlane Resource Guide--Second Edition
http://www.us-aviator.com (over 2 million served!!)
http://www.kindredspirit.com (under construction!!)
http://www.sportplane.com (under construction!!)
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is
that good people remain silent and do nothing"
--------------5FA647F33399
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="CAMPGRAM.4"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="CAMPGRAM.4"
>From - Wed Mar 26 23:03:23 1997
Received: from osceola.gate.net (ro...@osceola.gate.net [199.227.0.18])
by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA06919
for <ae...@idt.net>; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 18:02:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from gate.net.gate.net (wthfl2-13.gate.net [199.227.49.13]) by osceola.gate.net (8.8.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA301648; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 18:02:43 -0500
Message-ID: <3339AA...@gate.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 18:02:22 -0500
From: Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net>
Reply-To: usa...@gate.net
Organization: Airedale Press, Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ae...@idt.net
Subject: Re: US Aviator's Annual S&F Party
References: <3330BC...@gate.net> <6264715...@dejanews.com> <5h2bs0$2...@camel0.mindspring.com> <33357D...@gate.net> <333607...@mail.idt.net> <3335E5...@gate.net> <333778...@mail.idt.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: 041cba55a232253228c83d40edbcb091
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 6078
Mr. Pucillo....
This is a private communication. I do not authorize you to reproduce it
anywhere else.
Asto your lack of sub notification... I have an 800 number as everyone
knows... if you have a question or a concern, there is no excuse for not
calling and getting it from the horse's mouth. Only 7 people have seen
fit to seek refunds... over 7000 others have voiced support. No one
seems to have any problem reaching me.
First... you have never talked to me. You have never consulted me. You
refused my polite call to you to try and find out what your problem was.
You are obviously not a proper or objective source of information on us
or what we are doing. You have proven that with your negative comments,
attacks, and judgemental observations... all done without a single shred
of opposing/verifying detail.
You speak of friends and former employees and others... yet you do not
name sources... don't you think that it makes sense to see if your
sources are not impeachable before investing time in that avenue? I have
no doubt that you have had contact with some people who have problems
with me--I've had my share of them--both due to my own failings, as well
as to those of the other person involved. I'm human... sue me. The only
one that I'm fairly sure you've talked to, the so-called University
Professor, if I am correct in my ID of who you refer to, has in the past
shown a deceptive disregard for checking his facts.. confusing Jim
Campbell with Jim Lawrence, naming unverifiable sources, etc. I have a
letter from his university in which his actions were questioned and were
judged negatively by those he was responsible to. More important... do a
deja news search on this guy and see how many messages you can find that
cast negative lights on yours truly... if you come up with over 100,
over the 3 years, I would not be surprised. Frankly... his actions seem
more like stalking than so-called fair comment. For sure, I feel he
needs to get a life. Jesus... what a weirdo (in my personal opinion).
More important, though, instead of invading my privacy more than it has
already, why don't we look at the facts of what we have reported? That's
really the issue, isn't it... and that's what are detractors are really
afraid of... Obfuscation is a marvelously effective tactic in trying to
deflect justifiable criticism...
Why don't you see if we really have all the complaints we've reported
about Happy Miles, RB Brady, Scott Malone, Chuck Slusarczyk and so many
others? I will not brook with further invasions into my personal life...
I do not invade others (despite being given huge files of such on
others... I don't want and I won't use them)... delving into every
aspect of my personal life is getting to be a sick, vicious, habit for
the folks I know to be involved in the harassment that has gone on
here... and I consider it stalking, at this point, as it is repetitive,
harmful, and there is no justifiable reason for it. I'm tired of it...
some of this crap really hurt my wife and family... and I will not put
up with it at all... period. As is my right. Face it... it all sounds a
little sick.
Besides all that... why the hell haven't you talked to me first... or,
at all, for that matter? Under the guise of your so-called
investigation, you cite sources you won't name and you have never once
talked to me... and you publicly bitched about the fact that I called
you personally... offering you far more courtesy than you have offered
me. I have never called a manufacturer on the carpet without first
calling them for their side of the story and without giving them a
chance to resolve an issue or complaint. That's not just common
courtesy... it's what's necessary in the current legal system to avoid
severe repercussions.
I'm sorry... I don't believe that you don't have an axe to grind. No one
could be this nasty, right from the get-go, without a reason. You nail
me to the wall without ever calling me, make suppositions and judgements
without evidence or consultation from here, and then announce that
you're going to delve deeply into my life and business. You DON'T have
the right to do that and I'm afraid that such actions really do sound
like the beginnings of yet another stalking scenario. Are you going to
join Riley, Slusarczyk, and Troyer with boasts of the massive files you
are compiling on me? The last cop I spoke to said that the minute he
heard such phrases (in other cases), it was time to start looking into a
stalking scenario.
If you have questions about our editorial and stories, I will not only
be pleased to answer them, I will be happy to go into in-depth detail.
But... fair warning, do not invade my privacy or disturb my business,
you do not have the right. The law says so.
I remain available for appropriate discussion should you wish it... but
let me explain one thing... I expect everyone, myself included, to work
with facts and not on rumor, to deal with things objectively (as
possible) and not with malice... and I expect the law to be obeyed. I
will not put with up with harassment, invasion of privacy, stalking,
libel and other such actions... as will be demonstrated in due course.
You've already made threats about your ability to bite back and all,
which certainly sounds malicious, especially since no threat was made to
you, to require such a threat from you... so I'd be very careful about
your actions from here on out. No... that's a threat... just simple good
sense and an attempt, on my part, to make sure that my life doesn't get
screwed up by another potential nut looking for a vendetta.
Govern yourself accordingly...
--
Jim Campbell, Editor/Publisher, US Aviator Magazine
Author: SportPlane Resource Guide--Second Edition
http://www.us-aviator.com (over 2 million served!!)
http://www.kindredspirit.com (under construction!!)
http://www.sportplane.com (under construction!!)
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is
that good people remain silent and do nothing"
--------------5FA647F33399
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="CAMPGRAM.5"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="CAMPGRAM.5"
>From - Wed Mar 26 23:03:27 1997
Received: from osceola.gate.net (ro...@osceola.gate.net [199.227.0.18])
by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA09518
for <ae...@idt.net>; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 19:49:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from gate.net.gate.net (wthfl2-26.gate.net [199.227.49.26]) by osceola.gate.net (8.8.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA313400; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 19:47:25 -0500
Message-ID: <3339C3...@gate.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 19:46:57 -0500
From: Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net>
Reply-To: usa...@gate.net
Organization: Airedale Press, Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ae...@idt.net
Subject: Correction
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: ce0d45e30e877f3ecda133da288edbfa
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length: 691
The last paragraph of my message to you is missing a word. This is the
last paragraph... as corrected.
No... that's NOT a threat... just simple good sense and an attempt, on
my part, to make sure that my life doesn't get screwed up by another
potential nut looking for a vendetta.
Govern yourself accordingly...
--
Jim Campbell, Editor/Publisher, US Aviator Magazine
Author: SportPlane Resource Guide--Second Edition
http://www.us-aviator.com (over 2 million served!!)
http://www.kindredspirit.com (under construction!!)
http://www.sportplane.com (under construction!!)
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is
that good people remain silent and do nothing"
--------------5FA647F33399
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="AEP2JRC.326"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="AEP2JRC.326"
>From - Thu Mar 27 02:22:59 1997
Message-ID: <333A44...@mail.idt.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 01:55:34 -0800
From: "Tony P." <ae...@mail.idt.net>
Reply-To: ae...@mail.idt.net
Organization: The product of Attention Deficit Disorder
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: usa...@gate.net
Subject: Re: Correction
References: <3339C3...@gate.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 9183
Mr. Campbell:
I waded through your most recent rambling, doing my best to make sense
of your string of emotionally-charged words which included "malicious"
"libel" "privacy" "stalking" "invasion" "disturb my business"
"harrassment" "potential nut looking for a vendetta" and, finally --
the one which I hear is ever-present "govern yourself accordingly."
Unfortunately, while some of it was perhaps unintentionally humorous, I
was unable to construct a coherent statement anywhere in it. I can only
suspect that you feel obliged to use all the words you associate with
your martyrdom in your relations with others, but were intelligent
enough to realize that actually accusing me of any of that would be a
rather grave error. Did the mere mention of the words amount, in your
mind, to an implication that I am actually doing ANY of these things?
Is it meant to suggest that I need be concerned that you actually WILL
say such silly things about me?
I will say again that I am not trying to convince you of anything, much
less of my objectivity. As I said, believe me or not, as you see fit.
I already perceive that my objectivity became nonexistent in your eyes
(or at least in your posturing) the moment I decided that some of your
detractors might just be credible people, and that if nothing else based
on their sheer numbers, all the former employees, associates and others
with these stories about your behavior couldn't be utterly disregarded.
Your projections are your problem, not mine.
Once again, there is no such thing as a "private conversation"
unilaterally declared. Once again, anything I say to you will be "on
the record" and anything you say to me will be as well. That's why I
won't talk to you on the telephone. These messages will be posted along
with the others, and any future ones. With some people, in some
situations, I have agreed to honor confidences. Of course, they asked
and I agreed. Nobody before has been silly enough to attempt to order
me to keep their statements to myself. In the event that you ever show
signs of desiring or capacity for a candid dialogue regarding what is
and isn't going on with you -- a likelihood that seems rather remote in
light of the stream of self-justification and complaining I have seen so
far -- I will consider any request for an "off-the-record" exchange and
so advise in writing.
Regarding your "privacy" I can only say that you have an odd notion
about that subject. I do not debate law with those who are ignorant of
it, but I really suggest you talk with a lawyer about this or at least
do SOME research before throwing words like these around. You seem to
believe that others are not entitled to discuss you without your
consent, and that they are not permitted to learn any of your personal
history without your permission. Wrong. I don't know where you got such
a silly idea. Please get a clue. Any person is freely entitled to seek
whatever information he wishes and the "right to privacy" referred to in
caselaw is an entirely different concept. Do you realize that you are
suggesting nothing less than that whatever a person considers his own
business and desires others not to know, that person has a legal right
to block access or reporting of? This is a truly astonishing notion,
coming from a journalist. Good grief, half of your writing would
violate such a privilege, if one existed.
What I would suggest, consistent with your use of the pronoun "we" to
describe yourself, is that these notions amd this indignation are
consistent with the grandiosity others have claimed is one of your
problems. In Thailand, citizens are not permitted to criticize the
King. But this is not Thailand and you are not the king. Indeed, as
others have pointed out, you are by choice a public figure and that
alone has legal consequences.
I have now had five messages and a telephone call from you, all because
I made a post which criticized your plans to hold a costly bash without
even having bothered to send a postcard to each subscriber explaining
your plans and when they will get their magazines. Some might call all
of these repetitive messages a bit obsessive. Regardless, you may be
sure that I will not be losing any sleep over this exchange. You are
simply a matter of some curiosity to me and my curiosity is piqued even
more as you protest and posture as a victim.
I really have no particular desire to correspond with you at all at
this point, and your most recent ramble really didn't add anything to
the previous ones. You haven't referred me to any impartial persons who
can set the record straight regarding Jim Campbell and his personality;
nor have you pointed me toward any documentation which will demonstrate
whatever it is that you wish me to believe about you. That would be a
great deal more constructive than self-indulgent whining about what you
perceive as my nosiness. If you choose to continue making demands on
me, I suppose I'll give you the courtesy of a response another time or
two. Then I will simply stop having any exchange WITH you, while still
doing whatever I feel is necessary to learn what I need to about you in
order to get to the bottom of this.
My mission, simply, is to get to the truth. The reasons are several.
First, if others are to be believed, far too many have backed down and
been silenced. I have none of the fears of you that others claim to
have had, and I see nobody else capable of tying up the loose ends just
in case you are what some claim. The second reason is ironically
reflected in the unattributed quote appearing under your signature
line. I intend to speak to everyone who knows a piece of it that I can
readily reach, and to judge their credibility based on their own
motives, interests and personal histories. I intend to look at every
piece of documentation I can find. I do not have "huge file" at this
point, though at some point I suspect I will have. I sure have a long
list of folks who seem to be more than happy to relate personal
experiences. So what? Do you really believe that gathering information
aimed at measuring your credibility is self-evidently either immoral,
illegal or even suspect? Please. I am not prepared to diagnose your
personality or your reactions, but doesn't that suggest even to you a
bit of egotism?
The greatest irony, of course, is that you have already taken offense,
though I have yet to even reach or express any conclusions about your
interactions with others. Apparently, my frequent statements in your
defense and my refusal to write you off as a blowhard eccentric as some
newsgroup posters suggest, do not indicate to you that I am as capable
of weighing the personal animus or interest of others as I am of yours.
My only conclusion so far has been that, as a subscriber, I find your
actions to date toward subscribers entirely unsatisfactory. Further, I
find the tone of your repeated posts and messages to date rather
self-centered and self-pitying (I think I used the term "snivelling").
I do not yet know whether you are unbablanced or untruthful as some
claim, or whether you indeed have redeeming virtues as you claim.
I am not prepared, as you seem to demand, to disregard information
available from dozens of other persons who have had extended personal
experiences with you, and I am not prepared to permit you to decide for
me who I may and may not speak or correspond with. Nor am I willing to
permit you to monitor my research, though I due course I may permit ou
to comment on some of the facts I learn. One might suspect from you
rapparent desire to do so that you have already concluded I will learn
things which will lead me to disparage you if I continue to investigate.
Finally, I suggest that if you intend to repeatedly refer to my
statement about my "ability to bite back and all" as you characterize
it, please get it right: "this particular subscriber has teeth and bites
back when threatened or harrassed (most effectively and within the
law)."
Since this will likely be my last message to you except in response to
anything substantive you may communicate, I will simply close it my
reassuring you that even if I do conclude that you are not credible or
are emotionally unstable, I am not terribly judgmental about such
things. I have seen many people recover from many things, once willing
and able to achieve insight and acknowledge responsibility for the
condition of their lives and relationships (and not a moment sooner). I
would certainly hold out that hope for you as well, should I ultimately
conclude that you are in need of it.
As I have already said, nothing would make me happier than to conclude
that those who claim you are not what you seem are wrong. A character
like the "Captain Zoom" role you have created is really needed in
aviation and if it turns out that you aren't he, I hope we find another
who can do the job.
Tony Pucillo
"Castigat ridendo mores" <laughter succeeds where lecturing won't>
--------------5FA647F33399--
MARK
Tony P. wrote:
<EDIT OF A WHOLE LOT OF DRIVEL AND TRIPE>
What in the *world* does this have to do with discussions of rotorcraft???
Geez guys, get a life, and quit cross-posting!!
Mark
John McCann
--
Oh come on....This is "Almost" better than flying! :)
__|__
__|__ *---o0o---*
__|__ *---o0o---*
*---o0o---*
Bill Robie
Gee, Tony, thanks for letting me know about these Campbell comments to you:
********************************************
"The only one that I'm fairly sure you've talked to, the so-called University
Professor, if I am correct in my ID of who you refer to, has in the past shown a
deceptive disregard for checking his facts.. confusing Jim Campbell with Jim
Lawrence, naming unverifiable sources, etc. I have a letter from his university
in which his actions were questioned and were judged negatively by those he
was responsible to. More important... do a deja news search on this guy and
see how many messages you can find that cast negative lights on yours truly...
if you come up with over 100, over the 3 years, I would not be surprised.
Frankly... his actions seem more like stalking than so-called fair comment. For
sure, I feel he needs to get a life. Jesus... what a weirdo (in my personal
opinion)."
I think, since Campbell has accused me directly of confusing Jim Campbell
with Jim Lawrence, that it is pretty clear that I am his "so-called University
Professor." I'm still waiting for him to tell me what that is all about. I don't
know a Jim Lawrence. I guess it's a big secret what this is all about -- or
something so trivial that he doesn't want to admit it and have everyone find out
that his claim of my "deceptive disregard for checking [my] facts" is based on
something trivial, or on nothing at all.
But for the record:
Note that the date on his note was Wednesday, the 26th of March. I would like
for you to point out to Mr. Campbell (and the others reading this) just how
much contact I had with you prior to that date, either by telephone, e-mail, or
any other personal contact. You might also tell them exactly how much
information about Jim Campbell I had shared with you prior to that date. That
all may well change after this.
Also for the record (this is Vintage Zoom at work):
Yes, it is true that Jim Campbell has a cc: of a very brief letter once sent to
*me* by an official of the University of Maryland / Baltimore County. This
was in response to Mr. Campbell's repeated attempts to censure me by
contacting my Department Chair, the head of the University Computing
Services, and eventually the Attorney General's office of the State of Maryland.
In each conversation, I am told, he shared his tale of harassment and threats
(making it appear that I might be involved in a criminal conspiracy); suggested
a possible lawsuit against the university; and mentioned that I owed him an
apology.
He didn't get anywhere with the Department Chair -- he asked for proof and
received none.
He didn't get anywhere with the head of the University Computing Services --
he asked for proof, too, with the same results.
But eventually he pushed enough buttons. What he *did* get was an attempt
by a nervous university official to firewall the threat of a lawsuit (surprised?).
It was one of those vaguely worded might-be-inappropriate-use-of-facilities and
might-lead-to-further-action things that was pretty clearly intended to satisfy
his demands for something in writing, thus insulating the institution. Ask him
to send you a copy of the letter ver batim, and see how *you* would interpret it.
Have you noticed yet how important such documents are to him -- how he
insists on getting them and how he uses them? He says, for example, that all of
the employess who resigned in the past months stated on their letters of
resignation that they feared for their safety. I wonder if there is more to that
one, as well.
BTW -- the particular Administrator who had that letter sent had never spoken
with me about the matter. They didn't realize that my postings had *not* been
made from the office while "on the clock". Somehow they were put under the
impression that they had been. Imagine that.
But here's the Vintage Zoom part: "...his actions were questioned and were
judged negatively by those he was responsible to". Note how he makes vague
comments and tries to lead the reader to assume the worst. Only one person
made the call to send a letter to me. They sent the letter without the prior
knowledge of my Department Chair or the head of University Computing, who
*had* spoken with both Campbell and myself. Both of these administrators
later protested the letter quite vigorously. In the long run, it was probably a
service to the university community because it made campus officials take a
look at issues of free speech and the Internet. I think the outcome would be
*quite* different if the thing were replayed today.
But there's yet more:
"...do a deja news search on this guy and see how many messages you can find
3 years, I would not be surprised"
about him ... just that it wouldn't surprise him if there were -- more Vintage
Zoom. How about Jim giving me ten bucks for every one *under* 100 postings
vs. my giving him ten bucks for every one *over* 100? I wonder how surprised
he would be then? ;-) I will admit that it seems like a good many -- especially
since I decided to post his e-mail messages to me and to respond to them
publicly -- but you have already learned what that's all about. You've gotten
the replies-to-this-are-stalking routine.
And so we get to the use of the word "stalking" (after implying that I may have
posted over 100 negative messages about him). Nobody could possibly do a
better job of revealing how Jim's interpretations of words and situations work
than Jim. I'll let the thing speak for itself.
I'm glad that you are taking an unbiased look at this situation, Tony, especially
since you once had the reputation of being a staunch Campbell defender. I'll be
interested to see what your final assessment is.
Bill Robie
Al Thompson
>>It happened tome... If that doesn't intimidate you enough you may receive a call
from your local police department investigating a complaint that you
allegedly threatened him and his non-existant son and that you are a
devil worshipper. It happened to me...<<
Once he was going to call the Florida state police and the FBI on
me, although my company is in California.
Campbell remarks are bizarre to say the least, and he's not worth
the effort for anything. The best thing to do is to ignore him,
and with any luck he'll just go away.
I even have a tape recording of him threatening me.<g> He's done
this type of tactic on many of his advertisers.
When I asked him to prove to me that he mailed 75-90,000 magazines
with my ads in them, he wouldn't provide any bulk mailing or
printing receipts. So it is no wonder he hasn't printed any more
magazines. He did my company great harm, at a time when we were just
starting out at could least afford it.
Al Thompson
Ronald James Wanttaja
In article <333adc84...@news.primenet.com>,
Charlie Porter <READS...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>... If that doesn't intimidate you enough you may receive a call
>from your local police department investigating a complaint that you
>allegedly threatened him and his non-existant son and that you are a
>devil worshipper. It happened to me...
That's interesting.
Last fall, I got a phone call from Dave Martin, the Editor of KITPLANES
magazine. Campbell had emailed him a rambling set of accusations about
me, and Martin was having trouble figuring out exactly WHAT I was
supposed to have done.
After we got that sorted out, Martin dropped his second bombshell. The
same day Campbell sent his email, someone had called KITPLANES'
Publisher's Vice-President for Editorial and left a message:
"Why are you still buying articles from that devil-worshipper, Ron Wanttaja?"
After a moment's incredulous pause, I roared with laughter.
The circumstances were interesting. The caller asked for the
Vice-President by name. The VP wasn't there, and the secretary offered
to connect the caller to the VP's voice mail.
The caller refused. And demanded she write the message down by hand.
Wouldn't you have liked to see her face...? :-)
Can't prove who made the call, of course. But some points to consider:
Your typical complainer is going to call the name at the top of the
masthead: The editor. The name of the VP was buried in (literally)
fine print, half-way down the page.
Who would dig way down there, knowing that one of those names would have
more pull than the editor? Someone familiar with the publishing
business.
Why not complain directly to the editor? Perhaps because the person had
complained before, to no result. Or maybe he decided to take a
two-pronged approach, and complain to BOTH the editor and the VP.
Campbell has called Martin before and accused me of various violations of
journalistic ethics. And, like I mentioned, Campbell sent an email
about me to Martin that same day.
Why demand the secretary write down the complaint, rather than leave a
voice mail? Perhaps the person was afraid the VP might call KITPLANES'
editor to their office to listen to the voice mail, and that the editor might
recognize the voice.
The editor of KITPLANES has known J. R. Campbell for over ten years.
They used to work together on another magazine.
And just so it's still clear: I do not work for KITPLANES and I never
have. I am an independent freelancer. Look on the magazine's masthead
if you don't believe me...you won't find my name.
Tony P.
Bill:
For the record, your description of the amount (or more properly, the
lack) of contact between us before this message is accurate. I seem to
recall only one brief comment (containing no information at all) that
arose when either I responded to an open NG post by you or the reverse.
That's it, and it didn't involve anything substantive about Campbell
though he may have been a subject of the thread. If I recall correctly,
you simply expressed surprise that I had become interested in learning
about the "other side" of Captain Zoom.
In fact, I simply heard some of the details of your experience from
several others. My experience with University faculty and staff has
been that they are not usually the combative sort, and your presence on
the list along with some poor fellow who worked for an ISP just struck
me as inconsistent with a conspiracy of yammering manufacturers.
I'm sure his reference to you is the result of my description of those
who have described his behavior as bizarre as including such diverse
folks -- and people without axes to grind -- as university professors
and ISP employees (as well as his former employees, business associates,
etc.) The point is that the sheer volume of credible commentary on
bizarre behavior prevents me from simply accepting Campbell's
description of a vendetta by businesses bent on revenge for bad reviews.
Thus my curiosity is piqued. Having been told so many times that
people are afraid to come forward because of retaliatory behavior, it
just seems to me that as a self-employed trial lawyer with absolutely no
axes to grind here, who can better get to the bottom of this.
Mr. Campbell is incensed at my interest, as reflected in his messages.
I am posting another exchange, which will likely be my last with him. I
have invited him to furnish specifics of his assertions against the
credibility of others; we'll see what I get. I would think he would be
interested in presenting factually his side of the stories here, but
instead he keeps demanding to know with whom I have spoken
For what it's worth, I long ago began taking note of the lack of
substance in the typical Campbell communications. He has used every
word available to describe mistreatment (or possible mistreatment, or
mistreatment I might be thinking about? or which he may be afraid I'm
thinking of?) of him, without once coming right out and saying I've
harrassed him or anything similarly declaratory. This is a technique
he's apparently mastered. but one which is so transparent that only the
harebrained would be taken in by it. You don't need to be a rocket
scientist to get to the end of one of his paragraphs and ask "what did
he just say?"
Let's say that I doubt Mr. Campbell would withstand cross-examination
on some of the factual assertions he makes .. er doesn't make... implies
... mumbles... (whatever it is that he does).
Note, BTW, that according to his last message, I am now "flaming" him.
This really hurts my feelings. If I can't flame better than this, I'm
gonna get run out of the trial bar and my boyhood friends on the West
side of Chicago will disown me.
National Aero Safety
Al Thompson wrote:
>
He did my company great harm, at a time when we were just
> starting out at could least afford it.
Al,
Has anyone checked the passenger list on that big UFO leaving Rancho
Santa Fe California? Perhaps we will find Zoomer on board! Thirty
years ago most States provided care for delusional individuals, now they
are allowed to freely walk among us, whoever thay may be.
It is beyond belief that anyone would have the unmitigated gall to take
other people's money without fulfilling the promise to provide service
for that money! Then to throw a party at a major aviation event???
That's simply amazing!
A comparison would be for P.T. Barnum/Bede to have a tent party at Sun &
Fun for the purpose of thanking the thousands of bilked customers who
sent him money on the BD-5 project! It's almost laughable that people
accept this kind of behaviour in today's business environment, and chalk
it up to: "Business is Business". Kind of makes one hope for a return
to stocks in the town square for the purpose of punishing those who
steal from others, with a tomato or two. Then again, they probably have
no shame!
The real shame will be if anyone remotely associated with aviation, even
thinks of participating in a celebration thrown by Barnum/Bede or his
buddy with unearned money obtained from others. What is the aviation
community comming too? Why is the EAA allowing this kind of thing?
Roswell
Al Thompson
>>Thirtyyears ago most States provided care for delusional individuals, now they
are allowed to freely walk among us, whoever thay may be.<<
Again, the man isn't worth the time really. If the state can't do
anything to put him away, we'll all have to put up with it. He's
not breaking the law being delusional. However, taking subscription
money with no forthcoming subscriptions is no surprise to me.
His behavior is a disgrace to the aviation community, however,
there's not much that can legally be done.
If I were running any of the air shows and events, I would at the least
put him through a metal dectector before he would be allowed in.
Al Thompson
Lou Haas
What galls me is that the jokers who run Sun 'n Fun allow their
show's name to be abused in such a fashion. Nuff said.
chuck slusarczyk
The following is an E- mail sent to me by Jim Campbell
Jim Campbell wrote:
>
> Official Notice: This is a personal message... you do not have my
> permission to republish anywhere. Period.
Sorry Jim you sent it to me, it's mine and I'll do with it as I
choose. I choose to post it...
> Chuckles...
Chuckles??? I haven't been called that since 3rd grade by
Sister Mary Holy Smoke..
>
> Grave dancing, eh?
> I expect as much.
> Let's see now... it's OK for you to file defamatory and libelous
> messages under false names, make false and knowingly errant statements.
> That's Ok, because it's right if it covers your butt. Chuck's law...
> right?
OK, once again, What defamatory and libelous messages under false
names??? What false and knowingly errant statements??? You have my
permission to post any E-mail or FAX I ever sent you. Show me the
statements you say I made...
> It's OK to harass and threaten others (right, CAG007?). It's OK to
> terrorize others (and not just me, your customers, too, I see).
Once again you say I threatened you. Tell me when, where, and
how I threatened you under any screen name I've used. Be it
CAG007, Jake1776 or Chucks1067. Also what customer have I
threatened??? I know, and everyone on the net knows how you
treated your customer by bullying him into an apology with
the threat of a lawsuit...
> And, of course, who was the guy who made the nasty comment to me at
> Oshkosh about Vicki? You are the only one who has ever said such a thing
> to me (but at least it was to my face... I'll give you that... I
> consider you a sleezy guy... but you're not bashful about it). That's a
> painful situation and you looked positively gleeful when you tried to
> nail me with that nonsense. That's sick. That's low... that's almost
> beneath... well, you.
Lets see, I believe my "nasty comment" went something like this:
"Hi Jim, how's Vicky"....
> Most of all... our difficulties arose from outside our company (though
> we do acknowledge that it was our efforts that seemed to incite the
> crminal and illegal harassment of our staff, company, friends, and
> family)... a problem that you knowingly and definitely contributed to,
> are now used as justification for your screwing dozens of people over
> the years. What about the guy with the lawsuit from down here in FL?
> What about the others? Eh, Chuck? What about the guy you turned into the
> FAA after he successfully made you liable for aircraft problems that
> injured him?
Jim I'll be more than willing to discuss any and all of the above
issues right here on the net after we settle just one issue....
When did I threaten you???? Lets not confuse the issue lets deal
with one at a time ...When did I ever threaten you???? Time, place,
date and what was said. Then we can deal with criminal harassment of
your staff etc...
> Chuck... you have a lousy rep for customer service, there are still many
> complaints out there about you and your act is not cleaned up...
> While others have made vast improvements in their situation... you spend
> time bitching about me when you could be fixing your problems. Get a
> grip.
Jim this statement shows just how out of touch you are. You don't
have a clue what's been going on at CGS this past year...I've
delivered more kits in the last 6 months than you have magazines.
You should take your own advice...Your not exactly a role model.
> Most important... we're coming back, we're doing what we have to do, we
> answer ever question our readers call in with (on a toll-free line that
> WE pay for) and we're surviving (no matter what you've done to hurt us)
> so that everyone who paid $25/$45 for their subs will get them...
> And, oh yes, I'm sure that our publication delay and the temporary delay
> in delivering those $25 and $45 subscriptions is right on par with your
> screwing people over for THOUSANDS of dollars and late deliveries for
> THOUSANDS of dollars of their paid merchandise.
> Hmmm... and USA readers don't seem that pissed... we've gotten over 7000
> supportive comments, letters and E-Mails. We've refunded 7 subs... every
> one who has asked us for their money back... have you?
Suffice it to say that every month you screw more of your customers
than I ever could. I suppose if I asked to see 3000 of the 7000
supportive comments you say you received you'd say it's private info.
Sorry Jim, I don't believe you got that kind of support. If you
did have that many loyal supporters you wouldn't be in the financial
pickle your in...Period..
> No Chuck... you're not really indignant about US Aviator's publication
> delays... you're really pissed that you didn't kill us off and that,
> now, when someone has a complaint about you in the future, there will be
> someone to listen, investigate and, if necessary, report on it.. and
> that's us.
Funny, when someone reports a complaint about you, investigates
you or reports about you....it's called "terrorism", "harassment",
"libel" a "criminal activity" etc...When you do it to a manufacturer
you call it your "mission" .
>
> Look Chuck... you're a clever and talented guy... but you're also the
> most viciously defensive and vengeful personality I've run into in quite
> a while. Start fixing your company and you won't have to bitch about
> me... and I'll be happy (heck, delighted) to sing your praises... keep
> screwing folks, though, and we'll keep telling it like it is.
Golly... thanks for the nice remarks, and the same to you. Fix
your company and you won't have me to bitch about either.. In
fact (gee whiz you betcha, by golly, holy smoke-a-roose, by
crackie)I'll sing your praises...
Buuutt... keep screwing your advertisers and your subscribers
and I'll keep telling it like it is too. "samu jest samu.
> Don't bother replying... I just wanted this on the record, for legal
> purposes.
Ah...was that line a veiled threat???? Legal purposes???
> Good luck... really.
> P.S. In light of your previous threats, stated malice, and other
> unsociable acts, I'm sure you'll understand when I tell you that you are
> not invited to the party... it's for our friends. I don't think even you
> would think you qualify in the regard.
Regarding "previous threats, stated malice, and other
unsociable acts."
Once again lets just see if we can deal with just one at a
time, Ok?? Post here on the net the exact date, time, location
and content of the threat you claim I made... Then we'll deal with
the others, malice etc..
It's my understanding that any parties held in Paradise City
are public affairs and whether I come or not is up to
me... Private parties are not allowed...
> --
> Jim Campbell, Editor/Publisher, US Aviator Magazine
>"All that is required for the triumph of evil is
> that good people remain silent and do nothing"
My opinions only...
Chuck (polka dancing on graves)Slusarczyk
"evil did not triumph because good men spoke and evil was nuts"
anon
Al Thompson
>> Lets see, I believe my "nasty comment" went something like this: "Hi Jim, how's Vicky"....<<
Grin. Boy, now that's slanderous. Mr. Campbell calls me an
"a**hole" when he walks by me at trade shows. Coming from Mr. Campbell,
I consider it a compliment.
Al
Tony P.
Ron:
I keep hearing these stories about contact Campbell has made with
superiors, employers (or as you point out in your case, a purchaser of
your stories), police departments and others, making strange accusations
like devil worship, receipt of threats and other craziness. Indeed, it
has been predicted that I will myself likely soon be receiving
accusations of being a devil worshipper, stalking, harrassing or illegal
activities. (For the record, no such thing has happened as yet other
than a lot of whining directed to me about not contacting him first
regarding anything negative I learn and not giving him a list of those
who tell me their stories; boy does he ever want to know whom I am
talking to).
A couple of folks Campbell believes have spoken to me HAVE received
some negative correspondence which I feel confident was the result of
that supposed contact. [I am reminded of the questions my kid asks when
obviously caught and trying to avoid making it worse with a lie while
also trying not to admit too much: "Who told you that?" "How do you
know?" I don't answer those questions either.]
Amyway, nobody I've heard of yet has taken him to court for these
contacts and claims so many describe as having been made to employers
and others.
I just need to point out that this kind of thing is quite actionable.
Any false allegation made to a third party -- I don't care whether it is
the police, FBI, CIA, KGB, employer, purchaser or anyone else who has a
relationship with a person -- for the purpose of causing trouble, is a
self-immolating grenade thrown by a foolish person. It doesn't even
matter whether the story was believed or acted upon, and if it was --
enough even for a letter of response to be sent as in one case I
recently read about here -- even the smallest amount of actual injury
or none at all will support punitive damages based on malice. A
defamation directed to the honesty or profession of an individual is so
actionable that an intentional falsehood is called defamation "per se."
Almost nothing need be proved except the action itself and you start
talking about the person's assets and how much you want in punitive
damages.
There is nothing that infuriates judges and juries more than that kind
of manipulation or retaliation, especially when made or attempted
anonymously. The policy of the law on this kind of thing is so clear
that creditors are expressly forbidden to make any contact with
employers at all, or to even threaten such contact!
Let me add -- and here is the most important part -- similar behavior
toward others may be admissible to show the malicious intent. The rule
of evidence on this is similar to the one relating to fraud; evidence of
past frauds is not itself relevant to whether the act was COMMITTED in a
later case, but it is highly relevant to whether the act was taken with
a fraudulent intent. Frankly, I have never even had one of those cases
go to trial in 24 years of trial practice, since the person making the
defamatory claim has in every case totally capitulated, retracted the
statement, paid damages and taken any other action demanded in every
single case once having received legal advice. Statements that can only
have been made for retaliatory or injurious purpose are just not
defensible in court except by proof of their truth. [Ron, tell me the
truth now, this is important! ARE YOU REALLY A DEVIL WORSHIPPER? WE
REALLY NEED TO KNOW!]
I would probably never consider suing Campbell -- at least for his
actions toward anyone else -- because I started this investigation when
conflicts in stories arose with no predisposition as to its ultimate
outcome and I won't permit myself to be stuck in a bin with all the
others Campbell claims as enemies and harrassers (though his whining
that I am "malicious" toward him has already begun). However, you can
bet that there are a lot of lawyers out there who would be interested in
any case wherein an individual was subjected to intentional interference
with his employment and it can be proved that similar false allegations
and interference had been directed at numerous others in similar
situations.
The irony, of course, is that Campbell is claiming others are defaming
him while at the same time I keep hearing these stories about his own
actions. Another thing you need to know about claims of defamation is
that when they are made frivolously, THEY PERMIT THE PERSON ACCUSED OF
DEFAMATION TO PROVE THE TRUTH OF THE STATEMENT allegedly made. In short,
if a man says you slandered him by calling him a thief, you get to prove
he really is one and the door is open to all kinds of evidence regarding
his reputation and veracity. Thus a false claim of defamation is also a
self-immolating grenade if thrown in the wrong direction. It is
virtually the only time it is possible to have a court rule, finally and
on the record, that a person is a liar, thief or what-have-you -- and
only because they themselves put the question in issue.
Our law and constitution are quite unique in this respect: the right to
free expression is protected by the absolute entitlement to prove the
truth of any statement made, and it is a complete defense to any claim
of defamation. He who speaks the truth has little to fear from the one
spoken of, and every right to shame that person in court if he denies it
and claims defamation. He has even less to fear when there are numerous
credible witnesses able to testify that the evil action described by the
alleged defamer was done not once but repeatedly and to many others.
Given the sheer number of these stories out there, this might change
the perspective of some regarding threats of suit attributed to
Campbell.
Tony P.
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------43471AA9328C
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
As promised, here is the most recent exchange with Campbell,
notwithstanding his continuing unilateral demand that his statements not
be disclosed to others.
I've heard nothing further, and am now beginning to wonder when I will
hear from the immigration service that I am an illegal
(extraterrestrial) alien or something similar, per an anonymous tipster.
Tony Pucillo
--
"Castigat ridendo mores" <laughter succeeds where lecturing won't>
--------------43471AA9328C
--------------43471AA9328C
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="CAMPBELL.327"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="CAMPBELL.327"
>From - Fri Mar 28 00:33:53 1997
Received: from osceola.gate.net (ro...@osceola.gate.net [199.227.0.18])
by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA23305
for <ae...@idt.net>; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 09:46:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from gate.net.gate.net (wthfl3-9.gate.net [199.227.49.136]) by osceola.gate.net (8.8.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA32196; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 09:45:50 -0500
Message-ID: <333A88...@gate.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 09:45:29 -0500
From: Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net>
Reply-To: usa...@gate.net
Organization: Airedale Press, Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ae...@idt.net
Subject: Re: Correction
References: <3339C3...@gate.net> <333A44...@mail.idt.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: 3e10e7fe5870f7aeb426929875d75ca3
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 4826
Note: This is a private communication. You do not have my permission to
republish this anywhere else. Period.
I'm rather surprised with the tone of the note that you sent me... but I
also have little reason to believe that you are objectively seeking
information when you been the flamer in a situation where you've failed
to talk to me, at all, in advance of your nastigrams and accusations.
I'll explain one thing... then I give up... as I beleive that your mind
is made up and the facts will not suffice. And even the facts seem to be
of little use when you will not give your so-called info to me, to begin
with... and I'll not wage public pissing matches with you over this...
especially in an arena populated by those who attack for the shear
pleasure of it.
There is little reason to take the stand I have taken for reasons other
than trying to get truthful stories out. This has pissed quite a few
people off. Some of those pissed off people have defamed, libeled,
threatened and even attacked yours truly. Fact.
I will not tolerate anything which disturbs my life any more than it
has. Period.
The real facts of the matter is not whether the nuts, (some of whom who
have impersonated feds, lawyers, famous persons; interfered in our
business; threatened my staff, family, company and friends; or acted in
other bizarre fashions) have so protested that the din begins to sound
louder than all else, but whether or not what we have reported are the
facts... and they are.
There are a number of manufacturers, that we have reported on, over the
years that have some real problems. I can prove that... attacking the
messenger is an age old tactic that often works amazingly well... and
this is what is occuring.
If you really want to see what's goin on here, you need to see if our
stories are credible and I can PROVE they are... which is the last thing
these folks want. No... they'll cast aspersions, tell stories, weave
well orchestrated hate campaigns and inundate electronic meeting spots
with all kinds of venom (check out my most vocal critics on Deja News...
these folks have nailed me dozens, even near to a hundred times in at
least one case... and then there are the anonymous posters... some of
whom are now known, totally weird stuff).
I understand you claim to be a lawyer... if that is the case, then you
really have me puzzled (as well as few others, apparently of your
profession, who have followe your posts...) though I must note that in
today's system, it is a prevalent tactic to attack the messenger if
someone wants to debunk the message without having to deal with the real
facts of the matter.
Fella... let's get to the REAL facts of the matter... are the "Not
Recommended" manufacturers really as bad as we think they are... or are
we just making this up so we can lose more ads, take more flak and enjoy
more harassment (not too attractive a thought, eh?)... or are our
detractors folks who are trying to deflect accurate criticism with
personal attacks, people with axes to grind or even a few who attempt to
compete with us and are now taking advantage of the flame fest to gain
an advantage?
Do I beleive that our detractors are nutty and act as a group with
improper intention? Of course I do... we've been dealing with this
nonsense for over three years... take a look at the history of what has
occured on Usenet, much less out in the real world, and there is NO
question that some persons have acted in ugly ways to express
displeasure and to do us harm.
I'm not expecting fairness or objectivity from you anymore based on the
atagonistic communications that have occured so far... and by not
offering me any way to defend myself against sources you refuse to name,
you are building a situation in which you become judge, jury,
executioner and law-giver--without ever giving a chance to defend
myself... in a situation where I should not the judged... but the FACTS
of our stories, SHOULD BE.
Hardly fair... though I no longer expect fairness...
Surprise me... that would be a change. Be different... be willing to
hear both sides, discuss this privately and consider all the evidence
that way before making public pronouncements that do not help our
mission and our company at all (as we have attempted to do with the
objects of our stories), in our quest to do something different--to do
the right thing by our fellow flyers.
--
Jim Campbell, Editor/Publisher, US Aviator Magazine
Author: SportPlane Resource Guide--Second Edition
http://www.us-aviator.com (over 2 million served!!)
http://www.kindredspirit.com (under construction!!)
http://www.sportplane.com (under construction!!)
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is
that good people remain silent and do nothing"
--------------43471AA9328C
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="AEP2JRC.327"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="AEP2JRC.327"
>From - Fri Mar 28 01:26:42 1997
FCC: /C|/NETSCAPE/mail/Sent
Message-ID: <333B8E...@mail.idt.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 01:26:42 -0800
From: "Tony P." <ae...@mail.idt.net>
Reply-To: ae...@mail.idt.net
Organization: The product of Attention Deficit Disorder
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: usa...@gate.net
Subject: Re: Your message of today
References: <3339C3...@gate.net> <333A44...@mail.idt.net> <333A88...@gate.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mozilla-Status: 0811
Content-Length: 5172
Mr. Campbell:
I have read your message of today and will give you the courtesy of at
least this last response. Frankly, I just don't have the time or
patience to read more of your rambling. Yes, I "claim" to be a lawyer
and I'm certain you have by now verified both that fact and my
professional background. I do not need to invent professional roles for
myself. If there is indeed a lawyer who has "followe" the
correspondence, please furnish me his name and telephone number and I
will be more than happy to unpuzzle him (or her).
Like others, I am weary of hearing about your lawyers and your legal
theories. Unlike others, perhaps, I would be delighted to hear FROM
them. Perhaps they can do a better job of explaining just what it is
you think you are entitled to than you have done. So far, your comments
sound like the complaints of a man who reveres the First Amendment when
it permits him to freely comment on others, but believes he has the
right to set the rules when the spotlight is turned on himself and his
actions.
As far as your own puzzlement is concerned, I cannot help you further.
You will not understand until you deal with whatever internal obstacles
are impeding your perceptions.
This will be my last response to your messages until and unless you
have something substantive to say. I am not at all interested in the
complicated reasoning processes and motives you have attributed to all
of these critics you claim are unfairly treating you. They are a bit
too tortuous to follow, and I am not much of a believer in
conspiracies. If I were, I would have some trouble believing that the
businesses you attacked somehow invented all the folks who have known
you personally and professionally and described your behavior as
strange, put them all up to it, suborned all of your former employees
and otherwise created this trail of people who duck under the desk when
they hear the name "Campbell."
I am interested in whether Jim Campbell is as mentally unstable as a
number of people believe (you have certainly and vocally followed the
threads here) and whether he is credible as a commentator on the
honesty, integrity and motivations of people in the aviation business.
If he does have such a problem, I am interested in seeing that he deals
with it and fulfills his potential without terrifying those around him.
I am interested secondarily in specific instances of criticisms and
ratings by yourself only because there are in so many cases assertions
by others that they followed disagreements over various issues including
business practices attributed to you. (Of course the persons criticized
insist on attacking your objectivity. Just as you now wish to prove
that your criticisms of them are valid, they wish to present evidence
that your assertions were subjective, retaliative and ill-motivated. I
will be happy to hear specifics from both sides.)
No, I will not refrain from investigating these relationships and
events until after I have obtained from you your spin on them, and
indeed when I do receive your version of them, I have every intention of
doing so exactly as I have proceeded up to this point: with every
exchange "on the record" and with sufficient distance that these silly
claims of persecution you drag out in each message remain self-evidently
that.
In short, I will get to the bottom of each of these events, and where
they reflect well on your intentions and actions, I fully intend to so
note. Where they do not, my conclusions aren't going to be influenced
by the "stop picking on me" rhetoric you keep sending me.
It would be much more constructive simply to furnish me detailed
information on all of the people whose credibility in describing your
behavior is suspect. I am certainly interested in and will review any
narratives, documentation, court filings and similar matters. I am
especially interested in disinterested persons, if any exist in your
mind. I hope that you haven't by now declared all those on even the
outskirts of your relationships to be "potential nuts" and flamers as
you already have me. I'd like to see somebody come forward and describe
the Jim Campbell you claim to be, who is fair in his relationships, has
integrity in his business dealings, and does not behave in a bizarre and
threatening manner toward those who disagree with him. I will certainly
follow up upon receipt.
One thing that would be helpful in particular, would be a list of all
the law-enforcement agencies and employers you have contacted and filed
reports with, and against whom. I would then like to see copies, if
available of the complaints filed. As a beginning point I will then be
able to proceed from indisputable documents of record and weigh the
differing explanations.
Again, please do not bother to respond unless it is to furnish
information. Opinions and characterizations of what I am doing and
speculation as to my motives are a waste of my time and your energy.
Tony Pucillo
--
"Castigat ridendo mores" <laughter succeeds where lecturing won't>
--------------43471AA9328C--
Al Thompson
Tony,
>> I've heard nothing further, and am now beginning to wonder when I will hear from the immigration service that I am an illegal
(extraterrestrial) alien or something similar, per an anonymous
tipster.<<
I'll go for that! I guess you've been out chasing Hale-bob comet
in your C172. I did that the other night. I saw the comet and
I didn't know what it was, my instructor who was checking me out
had to explain it to me. I've been living a sheltered life.<g>
Maybe I can get into a dog fight with the UFO that's supposedly
following it.
Wes
Ronald James Wanttaja
In article <333E49...@mail.idt.net>, Tony P. <ae...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>
> Amyway, nobody I've heard of yet has taken him to court for these
>contacts and claims so many describe as having been made to employers
>and others.
>
> I just need to point out that this kind of thing is quite actionable.
Yes, I understand. Three basic problems, there. First, I live in
Washington state, Campbell lives in Florida. An attorney I consulted
(thank GOD for free-first-30-minute programs) told me that Campbell
would have to sue me in Washington, as I'm not under Florida's
juristiction.
I must assume the corollary is true: If I wanted to sue Campbell, I'd
have to do it in Florida. I would have to handle the entire case by
remote control, and travel to Florida when court-time comes.
Second... such a case would cost a LOT of money. The attorney I talked
to said it would cost Campbell between $10,000 and $20,000 to sue me.
Again, I have to assume that it would cost me the same to sue him.
$10,000 is a lot of money... with four books in print over the last five
years, I probably haven't made that much in royalties.
Yes, I'd win the case, and would be awarded damages and court costs.
Getting *awarded* money, and *getting* the money are two different
factors. Campbell just posted that US AVIATOR is broke. It's never
been that profitable, and Campbell never has owned anything worth going
after. The Mooney is gone; the magazines' production equipment is
five-year-old technology. A court case "For the honor of the regiment"
sounds good, but in reality I can't justify spending $20,000 just
because my feelings are hurt.
Which brings me to my third point. It's my understanding that one of
the factors I'd have to show is *how* the libel/slander damaged me.
While they were personally upsetting, in reality I'd be hard-put to
point to any financial loss. And I'm not the type to sue for "pain and
suffering".
It was upsetting to have Campbell's comments to a third party trigger a
security investigation on me at my engineering job (Note: so it's
clear, Campbell DID NOT call my employer). But I was cleared, and
during this period got the best reviews and raises I ever recieved.
Hard to prove I was damaged.
His calls and emails to editors of magazines I write for.... well, "The
Campbell Situation" is well-known in the homebuilt arena. The
editor of KITPLANES worked with Campbell on another magazine, the editor
of SPORT PILOT was Campbell's managing editor, that person's son was
covering homebuilding for FLYING last time I checked, the managing
editor for PRIVATE PILOT, when she worked for IN FLIGHT, hired Campbell's
ex-fiancee after she left USA and took considerable Campbell flak for it,
several frequent writers for GENERAL AVIATION NEWS have been either writers
for USA or even a former USA Managing Editor, two other editors I'm
currently writing for have long association with Campbell and have
expressed their support.
> [Ron, tell me the truth now, this is important! ARE YOU REALLY A DEVIL
> WORSHIPPER? WE REALLY NEED TO KNOW!]
"Ummmm...you mean like 'practicing', or ....?"
- Bill Murray, "Stripes"
Unfortunately, with the environment Campbell has fostered, I find that I
have to actually answer this question. Otherwise, the USA web page will be
updated to say, "Wanttaja refused to deny that he is a devil worshipper,
and in fact, strongly implied that he has tendencies in that direction."
So: No, I am not a devil worshipper, nor have I ever been one, nor have I
had any inclination to become one. My only brush with the occult came
when I was a thirteen-year old one-striper CAP Cadet on a bivouac. The
older cadets decided to hold a seance and dragooned all of us to
participate. We all sat in the dark while one of the older female
cadets tried to raise the spirit of John F. Kennedy.
At one point she intoned, "Give us a sign of your presence."
Well, I had made rather free with the campfire chili that night. When
she said, "Give us a sign of your presence"...
... I answered with a huge, echoing fart.
"With a talent like that, he should go far."
- Jack Hunter, _The Blue Max_
Ron "Goat? Uhhhh... what goat?" Wanttaja
want...@halcyon.com
http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/
Wilson
"Tony P." <ae...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
> [Ron, tell me the truth now, this is important! ARE YOU REALLY A
> DEVIL WORSHIPPER? WE REALLY NEED TO KNOW!]
>
I'm lost here. I thought Charlie Porter was the Devil Worshipper and Ron was
the Nazi.
I mean, Troyer was the Child Molester, Riley was the Mad Bomber, Don Jones and
RB Brady alternated at Drug Smuggler, Reid was the Murderous Capitalist and
Chuck was the Great Impostor. Now RON'S the Devil Worshipper? But that makes
Troyer the Pinko-Commie, puts Riley in at Drug Smuggler, Doug replaces Vernon at
Judas, Chuck goes down to the farm team, Kevin Mackenzie gets traded to the Lone
Gunmen organization for a North Korean Submarine and a conspirator to be named
later, and I Don't Know is on Third Base!
Would someone get me a program?!
Ron Natalie
> I must assume the corollary is true: If I wanted to sue Campbell, I'd
> have to do it in Florida. I would have to handle the entire case by
> remote control, and travel to Florida when court-time comes.
Or opt for federal jurisdition and have the case heard in federal
court.
Ronald James Wanttaja
In article <43572FH...@earthlink.net>,
Wilson <Wil...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> [Ron, tell me the truth now, this is important! ARE YOU REALLY A
>> DEVIL WORSHIPPER? WE REALLY NEED TO KNOW!]
>>
>the Nazi.
>
I find the trading cards are for more useful... a picture, stats,
accusations, etc.
I've got an extra 1990 Bob Yoder and 1993 Ken Cooke... am looking for a
vintage 1985 Jeff Worsinger. Anybody wanna trade?
Bill Robie
Since Tony Pucillo made public a message attributed as having come
to him from James R. Campbell, editor of the apparently-dormant
US Aviator magazine, it gives me a very good opportunity to demonstrate
to the uninitiated and/or unbelieving just how Mr. Campbell manipulates
facts in order to make them appear to support his case--even when
they don't do so at all. For those who have wondered why others have
made so much about his credibility as a spokesman for aviation and a
resource for information about various aircraft (especially the homebuilts
whaich are the focus of this group), perhaps this will shed some light
on why people have those concerns.
Tony Pucillo posted a letter here in which Campbell is represented
as having tried to damage (presumeably, my) credibility by stating:
"I have a letter from his university in which his actions were questioned
and were judged negatively by those he was responsible to. More important...
do a deja news search on this guy and see how many messages you can find
that cast negative lights on yours truly... if you come up with over 100,
over the 3 years, I would not be surprised.
Frankly... his actions seem more like stalking than so-called fair comment.
For sure, I feel he needs to get a life. Jesus... what a weirdo (in my personal
opinion)."
***********************************
Now let's look at documented and verifiable facts, rather than Mr. Campbell's
misleading insinuations and unqualified interpretation of the law.
***********************************
Just about two years ago, Campbell contacted the Attorney General's office of
the State of Maryland and spoke with Ms. Sarah Slaff, the Assistant Attorney
General assigned to handling legal matters for the University of Maryland,
Baltimore County. In his phone conversation with her, he reportedly made
the same allegations of "stalking" and of my making defamatory statements.
He later followed up the phone call with a fax to Ms. Slaff, including a
posting that I had made to RAH. That fax also included the following
excerpts from Campbell to Slaff:
"I do not have the more offensive files here as they were cleared off and
given to counsel some time ago. I am sending one of my staffers over to
get copies ASAP and will dispatch them as well."
[I will note here that both my Department Chair and the Chair of the
University's Computing Services had earlier been promised such
"more offensive files" and none of these people ever received anything
of the sort.]
"You might note that there are a number of anti-Campbell ravings on
Rec.Aviation.Homebuilt right now, and that a number of people have
come forward, after messages from Robie, to inform me that there is
a significant bias and inclination on his part to cause me and my
company problems."
[Sounds like he has verifiable reports from people with factual
knowledge that I am out to get him, right? If so, none of that
information from "a number of people" was ever shared.]
"I hope that we can resolve this peacefully."
[This speaks for itself, I think.]
***********************
How did the Assistant Attorney General respond to this? Here's an excerpt
from her initial letter of March 14, 1995 -- with information a good bit
different from that which Tony Pucillo indicates that Campbell tried
to "spin" in his direction:
"On March 3, 1995, you contacted the University of Maryland Baltimore County
(UMBC) regarding allegations of stalking by William A. Robie [...]. After
fully reviewing the materials you have submitted and investigating this
matter, we have concluded that there is no substantial evidence of stalking
that requires further action by the University. We further conclude that
the statements made by Mr. Robie were not made with knowledge that they were
false; any ill-will towards you; or reckless disregard or falsity of the
of the statements."
Two days later, at the direction of a campus administrator who appears to have
been concerned about implied threats of lawsuit from Mr. Campbell, a second
letter was sent to me with Campbell at the top of the cc: list. That letter
reaffirmed the position that the Attorney General's office found:
"...these communications do not amount to stalking and are not, necessarily,
actionable as defamatory statements."
That letter, however, continued to say:
"...the University views your use of UMBC's Internet communications link
as an inappropriate use of University computer resources."
*****************
So now people can judge for themselves. I personally feel that Campbell's
attempts to discredit me in Pucillo's eyes have backfired rather elegantly.
It has allowed me the opportunity to share with this group how the Attorney
General's office of the State of Maryland viewed his interpretation of
"stalking" and other such accusations. It demonstrates his use of misleading
people with his description of the contents of "evidence" that he claims
to have, but almost never reveals. And it further demonstrates his habitual
use of a tactic in which he claims to have other, more damaging, "evidence"
that never seems to materialize.
The initial discussion about Campbell all centered around credibility. That
hasn't changed. It is very hard for me to personally give *any* credence
to his statements about, or evaluations of, matters related to aviation,
to aircraft, or especially to homebuilt aircraft and their manufacturers.
Bill Robie
Rvbldr3170
As a *former* believer in Mr. Zoom, I can only lament the preceding
comments, stories, and anecdotes. I was a staunch supporter, albeit
quietly, of the man, from the time I subscribed to his mag until the
latter part of January,when I started to fear there may be some
credibility to the accusations being hurled his way. But to hear that he
is *still* going to throw this S-n-F bash while all of his formerly loyal
subscribers (myself included) go without their mags, is the last straw.
Jim, if you are reading this you must accept the fact that it is not good
PR OR business to go forward with your plan. In your mag and SRG you
advised caution in dealing with companies who, you said, did exactly what
you are doing now, not delivering on promised (and paid for) goods.
Shame on you Mr.Campbell, for being the exact person you warned your
readers about
Regards
Merle
(former loyal supporter)
chuck slusarczyk
Richard Riley wrote:
>
> On Sun, 30 Mar 1997 14:21:52 -0500, Wilson <Wil...@earthlink.net> held
> forth thus:
> >
> >I mean, Troyer was the Child Molester, Riley was the Mad Bomber, Don Jones and
> >RB Brady alternated at Drug Smuggler, Reid was the Murderous Capitalist and
> >Chuck was the Great Impostor. Now RON'S the Devil Worshipper? But that makes
> >Troyer the Pinko-Commie, puts Riley in at Drug Smuggler, Doug replaces Vernon at
> >Judas, Chuck goes down to the farm team, Kevin Mackenzie gets traded to the Lone
> >Gunmen organization for a North Korean Submarine and a conspirator to be named
> >later, and I Don't Know is on Third Base!
>
> in exchange for 2 minor league Bolsheviks and an FAA examiner with a
> bad rotator cup.
What !!!!! I'm going back to the farm!!! Boy,the players are always the
last to know...
Chuck(I'll be back)Slusarczyk
"the faster you throw the quicker it gets to the plate"Yogi Berra to
Satchel Paige ....
Gridnet International News Admin.
Ronald James Wanttaja wrote:
>
> In article <43572FH...@earthlink.net>,
> Wilson <Wil...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> DEVIL WORSHIPPER? WE REALLY NEED TO KNOW!]
> >>
> >the Nazi.
> >
> >Would someone get me a program?!
>
> I find the trading cards are for more useful... a picture, stats,
> accusations, etc.
>
> I've got an extra 1990 Bob Yoder and 1993 Ken Cooke... am looking for a
> vintage 1985 Jeff Worsinger. Anybody wanna trade?
>
> Ron Wanttaja
> want...@halcyon.com
> http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/
How much you give me for my Ken Wheeler?
Its got blood stains and everything.
Badwater Bill
On 31 Mar 1997 12:00:56 -0500, ro...@umbc.edu (Bill Robie) wrote:
>The initial discussion about Campbell all centered around credibility. That
>hasn't changed. It is very hard for me to personally give *any* credence
>to his statements about, or evaluations of, matters related to aviation,
>to aircraft, or especially to homebuilt aircraft and their manufacturers.
>
>Bill Robie
>
>
Dear Uncle Bill: You have pointed out that the guy is acting like a
weenie. Too bad for everyone. This kind of stuff is for real and
causes people a lot of Gastrointesinal acid. I even thought "whooaa"
too much! Good luck!
Bad Billy
Tony P.
Ron:
Can I interest you in a first-year Pucillo card? May not look like
much now, but seems certain to increase in infamy in the near future,
based on early returns for Winter Haven. this one has investment value.
Tony
--
Tony P.
Ron:
No criticism or questioning of your description was intended in my
response. I completely understand why a rational person would not want
to become as obsessed with Campbell's antics as he appears to become
with any criticism by others. You can give that kind of thing far too
much power, and I think some people have done so.
As I have recently said to others, I am somewhat embarrassed to see
that the threat of resort to the judicial system has so effectively
become a resort of bullies rather than the refuge of the innocent in
this kind of situation.
Anyway, I'm sure you didn't need my advice, but your experience
presented an opportunity I couldn't resist to recommend an apppropriate
response to dirty tricksters. I suspect that the amount of bullying
successfully inflicted in these situations is inversely proportional to
the sophistication of the recipient, and if a future potential victim
learns here of his options, or if a potential bully is reminded that
people won't be ignorant of those options, some good may have been done.
In short, you recognized your choices and had other and more effective
responses. Indeed, you are sufficiently articulate that Campbell seems
to spar with you directly seldom and at his own peril (it's hell to be
beaten in a contest of words when words are your profession). However,
others may believe that one can with impunity engage in the kind of
dirty tricks you endured and I kind of stepped on you in my haste to
deny it. You responded with most un-Devil-worshipper-like good grace.
I would therefore place you more in the category of pest control
specialist than Satanist. Dr. Venkman, I presume?
Ronald James Wanttaja
In article <3340FB...@mail.idt.net>, Tony P. <ae...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>Ron:
>
> Anyway, I'm sure you didn't need my advice, but your experience
>presented an opportunity I couldn't resist to recommend an apppropriate
>response to dirty tricksters. I suspect that the amount of bullying
>successfully inflicted in these situations is inversely proportional to
>the sophistication of the recipient, and if a future potential victim
>learns here of his options, or if a potential bully is reminded that
>people won't be ignorant of those options, some good may have been done.
In truth, I think one of the reasons criticism of Campbell has become more
vocal is that more and more people have come to recognize that the
threats *are* empty. One's skin tends to toughen up; four years ago
being accused of being a "devil worshipper" wouldn't have thrown me into
a fit of laughter. "What does not kill you makes you stronger" (Niezche
is peachy :-). All Campbell has done with his years of empty threats is
produce a far more resistant breed of opponent.
>However, others may believe that one can with impunity engage in the kind of
>dirty tricks you endured and I kind of stepped on you in my haste to
>deny it.
S'all right, Tony, I'm content to be used as a bad example. I hardly
noticed your foot... after all, I've been stomped on by an expert.
> You responded with most un-Devil-worshipper-like good grace.
Wait 'til the next full moon, my lad...arms prickling yet? :-)
Garfield
On Tue, 01 Apr 1997 04:12:03 -0800, "Tony P." <ae...@mail.idt.net>
wrote:
> As I have recently said to others, I am somewhat embarrassed to see
>that the threat of resort to the judicial system has so effectively
>become a resort of bullies rather than the refuge of the innocent in
>this kind of situation.
>
>...and if a future potential victim
>learns here of his options, or if a potential bully is reminded that
>people won't be ignorant of those options, some good may have been done.
I've been keeping outta this cause I thankfully never got involved with
this raving lunatic's antics, but this is my best opportunity to express
something:
Thanks, Tony, for taking the time (and tedium) to deal with this issue
and give some much appreciated counsel. I cannot express how incensed
I've been in watching this latest stuff go on, and hearing the past
history. My sincere condolences and utmost respect to the victims,
especially their astounding patience in enduring such a snot.
This perversion of a system whose august and noble purpose originally
was/is to protect the individual against wicked and sinister adversaries
(yes, I said wicked & sinister, you bet I did...look at the situation
and tell me those words don't apply) like abusers of power (be it
governments or corporations or presses), to see that being attempted to
be used to overthrow it's very reason for being, and used as a tool for
oppressing people, is just TOO gross.
And anybody that doesn't think this traffic is appropriate to the group
needn't look any farther than the present situation, where a handful of
litigious individuals who wish to avoid the reality of this sport (both
X & G aviation) being a risky endeavor, have all but strangled the
freedom of anyone involved commercially or otherwise in aviation.
So thanks, Counselor. Existence proof that there still are lawyers that
remember what and who our great legal system was meant to protect.
Sorry to maybe make you blush, but I thought the thanks needed saying.
Garfield
Tony P.
Gar:
Thanks for the kind words -- and especially for remembering the whole
purpose of the system. I really bought all that idealism hook, line and
sinker as a kid law student and the real tragedy of today's environment
isn't the unpopularity of lawyers (we'll get by, as you may have
noticed) but the alienation of those we're here to help.
chuck slusarczyk
> So thanks, Counselor. Existence proof that there still are lawyers that
> remember what and who our great legal system was meant to protect.
> Sorry to maybe make you blush, but I thought the thanks needed saying.
>
> Garfield
Well said Garfield ,Tony's arrival on the scene has certainly been a
breath of fresh air on this topic.Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing
we Americans take for granted until threatened with a lawsuit for using
it ...Until Tony, most people were afraid to express an opinion because
of fear of the dreaded "I'm going to sue you phone call" ...
Thanks Tony for enlightening us .My hats off to you...
Chuck(going to Sun n Fun)Slusarczyk
"from a distance things seem far away" C. Columbus to seamen Juan
Kowalski,the only Pole on the trip to the New World...
bal...@aol.com
>Well said Garfield ,Tony's arrival on the scene has certainly been a
>breath of fresh air on this topic.Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing
>we Americans take for granted until threatened with a lawsuit for using
>it ...Until Tony, most people were afraid to express an opinion because
>of fear of the dreaded "I'm going to sue you phone call" ...
Fresh air? Are you kidding!? I can't believe Garfield actually got sucked into this thing too. Guys, isn't it clear by now the only way to make this stop is to let him rant & rave
himself blue in the face. IGNORE HIM! Let's get back to airplanes while we're still allowed to use the airspace.
Marty
Bobby Cox
Mike Has a Merlin Mk iv from a Mosquito for sale it has just 25 hrs run
time
If you want more,
Mike will send it at
leg...@ix.net.au
Lou or Annette Hinshaw
"Tony P." <ae...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>Kevin:
> I'm not surprised you got a call and a threat. After I posted my
>message, I got a call too. However, I was busy on the IRC and refused
>to interrupt my IRC conference with another lawyer in Hong Kong to talk
>with him. I had my son take a message (insisting that he leave a number
>if he wanted me to call back) but on reflection I don't think I will
>return the call, assuming the number is good (and I so assume).
> (BTW: the message left with my 16-year-old son was that he was
>"attempting to give me more courtesy than I gave him, by calling to
>explain" -- a sentiment that can be taken more than one way, one of
>which is positive, I suppose.)
> In any case, I didn't invite Campbell to call me, didn't offer my phone
>number, and any communicating I do with him is going to be on the
>record, where there can't be any misunderstanding or fabrication of who
>said what. Campbell's record of claiming he has been threatened and
>otherwise abused, thus ending up in a mutually-discrediting pissing
>contest with his detractors, leads me to advise that anyone who must
>communicate with him should do so in writing exclusively.
He may be telling the truth; a threat to sue is still a threat, and
calling him names can be construed BY RECIPIENT as abuse.
Nothing actionable there, but I once sued a lawyer for return of
a "Last Year's Give-Away Calendar" and it scared him near to death.
> Let me add that I consider it something of an affront, if not a subtle
>attempt at intimidation, for a person to place an uninvited telephone
>call as the result of a critical NG posting (which I copied him by email
>as a courtesy). The appropriate way to respond is via email or post.
>(I might add that my past FAXes, letters and emails to Campbell have
>never even been acknowledged until I finally spoke critically.)
There seems nothing subtile about the reports I have had from people
in the air industry. Intimidation is the name of the game. As said
above, a threat to sue is a threat.
> It's a shame, Kevin, that you backed down. I hate to see a person who
>has done absolutely nothing wrong intimidated. Your statement was
>absolutely not actionable, was a pure and clear statement of opinion and
>Campbell is just blowing smoke if he threatened to sue you. Or maybe he
>is silly enough to believe it himself, but I really get pissed when
>people try to silence dissent by threatening frivolous litigation. Call
>me if you hear anything further (as Campbell easily found, I am listed
>in West Palm Beach -- of course I'm also on his subscriber list).
>Especially if you get a call from a lawyer (which will cause me no end
>of astonishment, should it happen). Very few lawyers I know would even
>consider hassling someone for describing a person who failed to fulfill
>a contract as "beneath contempt" because any sensible lawyer would know
>any litigation threat is just silly.
I thought Kevin had his tongue in his cheek until it was pushing out
some teeth. The (written) threat to sue is, I am told, grounds for
preemptive countersuit. Scots beware. Kevin should get a recorder
and have all his family write an agreement that they will record all
calls. Post a small sign near the liv.rm Phone saying we record all
calls. Then do it. He might get some real responses from such
threats ( I **MAY** have my lawyer get in tough woth you.) when he
says at the tail of the call that "we are taping this call." Likely,
he will never get a call of any kind from that person again.
> Statements of opinion, clearly labelled as such and asserting no facts
>-- much less falsehoods -- are a privilege we all enjoy. You don't even
>need a reason to hold someone in contempt, but you certainly described a
>fair one. I judge people by their actions and inaction, and generally
>ignore their words. I thus share your low opinion of Campbell, as a
>subscriber. He owed us a magazine monthly and so far I haven't even
>gotten a letter. If I weren't an avid Internet fan, I wouldn't have a
>clue what had happened. In fact, after reading the versions of facts
>coming from Campbell and others attributed to people as diverse as
>university professors, former ISP employees, former employees of
>Campbell and others, I don't think his statements published on the
>Internet have nearly satisfactorily explained what's going on and I'm
>not going to be satisfied that I know what's going on until I have
>details from everyone who knows a piece of the puzzle.
> I've taken a lot of flack here for defending Campbell for the good I
>think he has done, but he has run out of credible stories for me at
>least. I'll be interested to see what the future brings, but in the
>meantime I'm interested in hearing from those with first-hand
>information about his actions in recent months and years.
> Tony Pucillo
>
>"Castigat ridendo mores" <laughter succeeds where lecturing won't>
To assure peace, prepare for war.
G. Washington.
Walk softly and carry a big stick.
T. Roosevelt.
It works for me.
R. Reagan.
Hi, Honey, what's your name?
B. Clinton. (Unheard by me but likely said.)
Ciao people.
Lou HInshaw
Prolific inventor,
Lousy Salesman,
Incompetent businessman.
(Typical)