Zoomed... Part I
FLAnews
such. We have not met face to face up to this point. But I must applaud
his courage and conviction in using the net as a platform to voice his
views and experiences. What better use of a communication tool is there.
Chuck has been an invaluable resource to me as a writer, publisher and
pilot with his extensive knowledge of aircraft design, testing and
practical usage. Not once has he been too busy to spend time talking to me
and clearing up any questions I may have on aviation related subjects.
Chuck always sets aside the time to talk to me. And I appreciate his doing
so. His friendship and willingness to share his mental warehouse full of
facts, figures and anecdotes has been entertaining and enlightening.
I'm sorry his troubles with another aviation publication have brought him
to this newsgroup under these circumstances. But I'm glad he's here and I
hope we will all be suportive and attentive to what he has to say.
Thanks for letting me put in my two cents worth. And thanks Chuck! Keep
your chin up. I hope to get the pleasure of meeting you in person this
year at Sun n' Fun!
Jamie Beckett
ChuckS1067
engineer, not a writer, and hunting and pecking with two fingers is
time-consuming.)
Zoomed... Part I
Zoom v. (1930s-1940s) to obtain something without paying for it;
to sneak (without paying) into a public place (like a theater)
where admission is charged
"From Juba to Jive: the dictionary of African-American slang"
by Clarence Major, 1994, by permission of the author, page
521
In the Jan. ‘95 issue of U.S. Aviator our company, CGS Aviation, was
listed in a negative light for the 3rd year in a row. It's time to tell
our side of the story, unfiltered by US Aviator’s slanted editorial
policies. Since I don't own a magazine in which to defend myself, I am
using the Internet as a vehicle to exercise my First Amendment right to
"free speech". As to the question of whether this posting belongs in this
folder; I believe it does, since I design and manufacture recreational and
homebuilt aircraft. To those of you who are not interested in this
subject matter, please use your kill file or leave now. Those of you who
are interested in my side of the story, I welcome your participation.
I have documentation for anything I state here as fact, (ie: dates,
newspaper articles, magazine articles, police reports, canceled checks,
NTSB transcripts, etc.). The rest will be to the best of my recollection.
First a brief history is in order.
My name is Chuck Slusarczyk and I started Chuck's Glider Supplies (later
known as CGS Aviation) in 1971. I designed and built hang gliders from
1971 until 1981 when I sold the hang glider portion of the company.
During 1973 I started experimenting with the idea of motorizing my hang
gliders. As a result of this work, I received a utility patent from the
U.S. Patent Office entitled "Powered Hang Glider with Reduction Drive"
(Reg. U.S. Pat. Off. #4,262,263). I designed and built reduction drive
units and engine conversion packages for various hang gliders and early
ultralights like the Easy Riser, Fledgling, Mitchell Wing, Quicksilver,
Viper, F.L.A.C., and others. In 1974 I piloted a towed hang glider 52
miles across Lake Erie from Cleveland, Ohio to Rondeu Bay, Canada which
was the first international flight in a tow kite. In 1979, as part of a
promotion for the Cleveland National Air Show, I piloted my Easy Riser
ultralight 62 miles across Lake Erie. This was the longest over water
flight in an ultralight at the time. I also carried 100 first day covers
stamped by the Post Office to be the first ultralight to carry the mail.
My Easy Riser now hangs in the EAA Museum at Oshkosh.
I started designing the CGS Hawk in 1981. The prototype was flown in
February of 1982 and has been in continual production ever since. The EAA
museum in Lakeland has accepted the prototype CGS Hawk for their permanant
display. Prior to all of this, I worked at NASA Lewis as a research
technician and for Scheutzow Helicopter Corp. as part of their type
certification team.
I say all of this not to blow my own horn, but to establish the fact that
I am not a newcomer to this sport, nor am I unqualified for what I do.
My first contact with Mr. Jim (Zoom) Campbell was, to the best of my
recollection, at Oshkosh 1981. He and Pat Trusty claimed to be in the
process of flying around the world in ultralights. I autographed the
canard on his Pterodactyl at his request. At that time there were rumors
floating around the U/L area about Mr. Campbell’s alleged impersonations
of a Medical Doctor, and that he was something of a "unique, colorful
character".
A year or so later I encountered Mr. Campbell while he was working as a
writer for an aviation publication. He flew the CGS Hawk and wrote a
pilot report for the magazine. However the flight we observed bore no
resemblance to the way he described it in his article. The actual flight
was in no way as "dramatic" as he described it.
In 1985 Mr. Campbell wrote a book entitled "Flyers Guide to Ultralights"
published by Tab Books Inc. In it Mr. Campbell says of me "There are few
people in the ultralight community who can claim to have done as much for
ultralight aviation as Chuck Slusarczyk....his sense of humor, fairness,
and propriety have made him one of the sport's more endearing
participants" (page 41).
After Mr. Campbell left Hot Kits and Homebuilts Magazine, I neither saw
nor heard any more of him until Sun-n-Fun 1990. Up to this point I had no
problems with Mr. Campbell. Little did I know what I was in for.
End part 1. (To be continued).
Nuthrflyer
I read the review Chuck Slusarczyk got this year, and I noticed that US
Aviator scored him better than in the last year's issue and still said a
lot of nice things about him/his airplane. Which part does Chuck disagree
with? Everything? Or just the parts that say he hasn't been the most
attentive businessman in the world and his customers have had the gall to
call a magazine to complain about it?
Is this is the same Chuck Slusarczyk that tried to make the entire
ultralight industry pay him royalties for a patent on something that had
been done (by others) at least a dozen times before?
Is this is the same Chuck Slusarczyk who went after the Titan people with
a vengeance after they couldn't do business with him any more (and after
they bailed his butt of trouble on several occasions)?
Is this is the same Chuck Slusarczyk that still can't pay big $$$ for the
tooling that built his Hawks back in the 80's, the bill being a decade
over- due now?
Is this is the same Chuck Slusarczyk that went after the dude (even turned
him in to the FAA!) who won a settlement from his insurance company after
one of his Hawks went down ('seems that the old Hawk might have the
annoying tendency to have an elevator lock-out when the rudder was just
so--) several years ago? Do you really enjoy these vendettas, Chuck?
Is this is the same Chuck Slusarczyk that was distributing those nasty
Zoom posters at Sun ‘n Fun last year--the ones that said he had nothing to
do with, and that the police are investigating?
And oh yes, the other guy; is this the same Jamie Beckett that is trying
to compete with the same guy he keeps taking nasty stabs at? How
objective!
Is this the same Jamie Beckett who was either fired from or let go from
the two flying jobs he couldn't keep at Winter Haven Airport (one
ex-employer/FAA Designated Examiner says he was "kinda underwhelming" as
an employee)?
As a matter of fact, isn't this the same Jamie Beckett who threw rocks,
figuratively speaking, at this other magazine's editorial staff and it's
managing editor, who used to be his supervisor at one of the
aforementioned flying jobs, here on R.A.H.?
Is this the same Jamie Beckett who had one of his associates actually step
on to this other magazine's property to try and entice one of their
writers away? Even trying to convince this writer that he'll never get
paid--until that writer showed him the check for the story that he had
just dropped off?
Is this the same Jamie Beckett who disrupts, regularly, Zoom's AOL
Aviation Forums so that the rest of the people who are there to hear what
he has to say can't get a question in or simply enjoy what they logged on
for?
Is this the same Jamie Beckett who actually used to work for this other
magazine, and was heard by two other employees say that he was "grateful"
for the chance to work there--or at least he was, until he had the chance
to learn the fine art of back-stabbing?
And of course, this can't be the same Jamie Beckett who has called to
harass a certain magazine's female staff members (got a problem with
women, Jamie? After all those marriages, you should have that solved by
now) or has been heard to tell people that he intends to put Campbell out
of business? I know that he has a problem with their Editor, I saw what
she had to do to make one of Jamie's early stories passable--all those
corrections, Jamie! All those red marks! All that bad grammar! All those
mistakes! That couldn't have been you, could it? It must have been another
Jamie Beckett.
And what is it, anyway, that these guys hate most about US Aviator? Do
they hate US Aviator's stand against FAA abuses (heaven knows, these guys
never screw up, right?). Do they hate US Aviator for defending Bob Hoover
(hey, the guy is old as the hills and deserves whatever the Feds want to
dish out, right?). Do they hate how he stands up for the little guy all
the time? Do they hate how he ignores the big expensive airplanes so that
he can write about stuff that real people can actually hope to afford? Do
they hate that the guy has spent his life's savings to make something of
himself and speaks his mind in front of god and everyone? Do they hate the
fact that Campbell has actually told a couple dozen manufacturers that he
won't run their ads until they clean up their act? Do you see Flying do
that? Air Progress? Sport Pilot? I don't think so. Yeah; aviation will be
immeasurably enriched because guys like Chuck and Jamie are out to cause
Zoom trouble.
And no; this isn't who you think it is. It's just someone who has seen
this crap go on long enough at close range (and yes, I have worked with
Campbell--I know of what I speak), who has never had a call not returned
by US Aviator when he needed a hand or a bit of advice (and I'm one of the
thousands that do just that every year--I know), who enjoys the hell out
of the magazine and admires the heck out of what it is trying to do--even
if a fair amount of this industry doesn't have the guts to stand beside
someone who really is trying to fight for the rights of us flyers.
The guy (Zoomer) ain't perfect--he is impatient, opinionated, occasionally
arrogant (OK, more than occasionally. I like the guy--sue me), and a real
dreamer--probably too much so-- he really thinks aviation can be saved!
But he is also very concerned about the future of flying, unwilling to put
up with the same kind of BS that appears in other mags, unforgiving of
manufacturers scamming us little guys, and totally devoted to the welfare
of his readers. I like the way he works for us, and right or wrong, I
support his right to try and save a business that has pretty much gone
down the toilet.
C'mon guys; if you want to fight dirty, do your fighting in private, via
E-Mail, let the rest of us get on with some decent aviating and cut the
crap. Those of you with the biggest rocks seem to have the most fragile
glass houses of all, and sooner or later someone is simply going to throw
your rocks back at you. You've already cheated the 'net of what he might
have to offer, are you going to try and drive him out of aviation too?
Can we now get back to flying talk now? Please?
an19...@anon.penet.fi
No comment...
_ _
/ \/\/\/\ BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LAKELAND / \/\/\/\
/ \ \ \ \ POST OFFICE BOX 763 / \ \ \ \
/ /\ \ \ \/ / LAKELAND, FL 33802-0763 / /\ \ \ \/ /
/ /\ \ \ \/ / (813) 686-1719 / /\ \ \ \/ /
/ /\ \ \ \/ / FAX (813) 686-4057 / /\ \ \ \/ /
/ /\ \ \ \/ / / /\ \ \ \/ /
\ \ \ \ / \ \ \ \ /
\/\/\/\_/ STATEMENT \/\/\/\_/
DATE: June 23, 1994
=
TO: U. S. Aviator Magazine
3000 21st Street N.W.
Winter Haven, FL 33881
_________________________________________________________
DATE | CHARGES AND CREDITS | BALANCE
__________|___________________________________|__________
04-14-94 | Grilled Bratwurst Event |
| |
| 546 served @ $5.85 per person | $ 3,773.25
| 4 cased of beer @ $25 per case | $ 100.00
| 6% Sales Tax | $ 432.40
| | __________
| | $ 4,105.65
| Less Deposit | 1,000.00
| Less 6/13 payment | 500.00
| Less 6/07 payment | 500.00
| |___________
| | $2,105.65
| |
| WE WOULD APPRECIATE THIS BALANCE |
| BEING CLEARED. WE WERE ADVISED |
| SIX WEEKS AGO THAT MOST OF THIS |
| HAD BEEN COLLECTED AND WOULD BE |
| FORTHCOMING..... |
__________________________________________________________
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF POLK COUNTY,
FLORIDA CLAIMS DIVISION
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF
LAKELAND, INC., a Florida
corporation, =
c/o Stephen C. Watson, Esquire
P.O. BOX 38 CASE NO. 94-CC11-1381
Lakeland, FL 33082-0038
(813) 688-7747 =
94 NOV-1 PM 3:55
Plaintiff, FILED-LAKELAND BRANCH
E.D. =93BUD=94 DIXON, CLERK
vs. CIRCUIT AND COUNTY COURTS =
J.R. CAMPBELL, d/b/a/
US AVIATOR MAGAZINE
3000 21st St. NW
Winter Haven, FL 33881
(813) 294-6396
Defendant
________________________________/
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Plaintiff, BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF LAKELAND, INC., sues Defendant, J=
=2ER.
CAMPBELL, d/b/a/ US AVIATOR MAGAZINE, and alleges:
1: This action for damages in an amount less than $2500 (exclusiv=
e of
interests and costs) is within the jurisdictional limit of this Court.
=
2: Defendant owes Plaintiff $2,105.65 that is due with interest s=
ince
April 14, 1994 according to the attached account.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff, BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF LAKELAND, INC., demands=
judgment for damages against Defendant, J.R. CAMPBELL, d/b/a US AVIATOR
MAGAZINE.
Dated this 27 day of Oct, 1994
HAHN, McCLURG, WATSON, GRIFFITH & BUSH
By: STEPHEN C. WATSON, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No. 130020
P.O. BOX 38
Lakeland, FL 33082-0038
(813) 688-7747
Attorney for Plaintiff
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to he...@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to ad...@anon.penet.fi.
Mickey Baker
: OH Please!!!
Oh, Please, indeed.
Gee, Nuthrflyer, we couldn't guess who you might be from the style.
Relax everybody. I suggest we get to the airplane part of this
story and skip all the personal stuff.
For example, this is airplane discussion, IMO, appropriate
to this forum:
Statement: Joe Flywriter said that my Boxkite 2000 has an aft cg
and wouldn't fly more than 2 knots above stall speed
Appropriate Rebuttal: Mike Airjock, a USAF test pilot, used a GPS
and that my Boxkite will, indeed, fly at 27.5 knots above stall
speed. Perhaps the fact that Joe Flywriter weighs 325 pounds
affected the performance in the manner that he observed.
Inappropriate Response: Joe Flywriter was convicted of having
sex with farm animals in Nebraska in 1973 while under the influence
of psychedelic toadstools. Obviously, his judgement cannot be
trusted and his evaluation resembles bovine excrement, of which
he has had intimate knowlege, according to the court transcript,
which is in my next message.
Basically, I don't want to read another rehash of the same
arguments, factual or not, that doesn't directly concern factual
claims or rebuttal of factual misstatements ABOUT AIRCRAFT.
Mickey Baker
mba...@gate.net
SidLloyd
<<<stuff deleted>>>
> Since I don't own a magazine in which to defend myself, I am
>using the Internet as a vehicle to exercise my First Amendment right to
>"free speech"
Understandable but in my opinion wrong.
> As to the question of whether this posting belongs in this
>folder; I believe it does, since I design and manufacture recreational
and
>homebuilt aircraft.
Again, in my opinion, wrong. Please look at the charter of
Rec.aviation.homebuilt. This is not about personalities and mud slinging,
this is about airplanes. Specifically homebuilt airplanes. Please keep
it to that. I believe that most of us on this forum are intelligent
enough to use our own filters.
-------------------------------------------
Sid Lloyd
Cozy IV under construction, GlaStar in the batter's box...
email: SI...@bangate.compaq.com or SidL...@AOL.com
Don't blame Compaq for my opinions
Johnny
>
>OH Please!!!
>
>I read the review Chuck Slusarczyk got this year, and I noticed that US
>Aviator scored him better than in the last year's issue and still said a
>lot of nice things about him/his airplane. Which part does Chuck disagree
Jim, I thought you left the news group. Funny how everything "pro zoom"
comes from "unk...@AOL.COM"
-j-
A. Reichert
: Why is it that not very many of these AOL posters seem to have names? It
: really isn't all that hard to write in the name of the person expressing
: an opinion.
: Bill Robie
My guess is they don't have the integrity to stand behind their
opinions. Makes one question if the opinions are valid, doesn't it?
- Alan
Bill Robie
I just gave your posting another reading. You repeatedly ask, "Is this
the same (fill in the name) who ______?"
Now I have a question. Who are you? Why not just tell us how you came to
be so well-informed about the alleged activities of these particular people?
Why hide behind a "screen name," if you are being honest and objective?
Bill Robie
Steve Hardaway
: OH Please!!!
[*major* delete]
: Can we now get back to flying talk now? Please?
Hey Nuthrflyer,
anonymous = 0
validity = (strength of arguments) x anonymous
You do the math.
Bill Robie
Bill Robie
Chuck wrote:
>> As to the question of whether this posting belongs in this
>>folder; I believe it does, since I design and manufacture recreational
>and
>>homebuilt aircraft.
Sid replied:
>Again, in my opinion, wrong. Please look at the charter of
>Rec.aviation.homebuilt. This is not about personalities and mud slinging,
>this is about airplanes. Specifically homebuilt airplanes. Please keep
>it to that. I believe that most of us on this forum are intelligent
>enough to use our own filters.
True enough--but it is clearly stated that the group *is* about the
selection of homebuilt aircraft. Here we have a manufacturer who has
been given less-than-favorable ratings for awhile by a magazine that
purports to be the leading publication currently helping aviators to
select homebuilt aircraft. Other than on forums like this one, the
manufacturers have no way of telling their side of the story. If the
criteria used to produce those ratings were influenced by anything other
than cold, hard, numbers, the manufacturers should be able to tell why
they think their product got bashed.
Several years ago, I found myself in competition with Chuck. At that time,
he was one of two manufacturers who were really hard to combat, because
their product, service, and follow-through were excellent. I know several
folks who own and fly his aircraft, including one of the best-known
aircraft designers of the 1930s and '40s. I'd like to know what has
changed to make this award-winning designer fall toward the bottom of the
pack.
I'd like to hear both sides of this sort of issue, and would agree that
it would be nice to stick to *verifiable* facts and figures. If these
ratings are intended to improve the quality of aircraft available to all
of us, and if they are based on actual customer comments, it would seem
to me that aviation would be better served for those customers to be
put into direct contact with the manufacturer--so they can have the option
to improve the service, make good the complaint, or whatever. It would
be good to see how manufacturers respond to various legitimate complaints
about their products and services. Maybe we should invite some of those
dissatisfied customers and a few other manufacturers to give their
opinions, as well?
Bill Robie
CAP10ZOOM
I really have no desire to be here (RAH) anymore but these chicken-sxxt
anon and weirdo postings are getting out of hand. There is NO problem with
the Boy's Club and US Aviator. If any of you people who obviously do not
have lives of your own want to try and assert otherwise, we have a letter
from them that was requested after similar anon postings appeared
elsewhere, and in that letter they state that there are no problems
between us and that they will be happy to serve US Aviator if we have a
party at Sun 'n Fun this year.
This letter is available for upload if you care to request it (C/O
CAP1...@AOL.COM).
Also, I am not the author of the reply post to Chuck and Jamie... though I
am amazed that someone else knows ALL that stuff. Look... all this is
nothing less than terrorism... we have had threatening anon messages to my
employees, E-Mail threats, bomb threats on the fax that refer to same, and
I find it mysterious that all this party stuff apears a week or so after
Beckett harassed my forum on AOL about our Annual S&F party... and now it
seems that S&F is reluctant to allow ANY more private parties during the
Fly-In... Gee, I wonder who has been harassing them about that? I'm sure
the 1000 people who enjoyed last year's party would love to know.
Look folks, there are some serious psychos out there that seem to think
that their opinion of US Aviator is more important than those who want to
read it. Some of those characters are using the Internet to harass and
terrorize my friends, my staff and myself. If this is what you want RAH to
be, enjoy your anarchy and please leave me out of it... but already you
have missed my potential posts on flying the Glastar, the Stewart S-51,
the Sport Copter Vortex and the new Super Lancair ES... stuff that I
wouild have been happy to share with you if it wouldn't start another
flame fest. And mind you, is there any doubt in anybody'sa mind that these
characters are NOT trying to harm our business? Would YOU put up with
that?
Note from Vicki Cruse Campbell (as of this spring): It's really a shame
that the few people who continue to play games with us have nothing better
to do. Are your lives so far gone that you insist on trying to ruin
someone else's? Why not go about fixing your own problems and stop trying
to create more for me? You may think you are having the effect of turning
people against us, but you'd be surprised at the number of supporters we
have gotten as a result of your actions... so in a way...Thanks for the
publicity!!!
Jim Campbell (really), and Vicki Cruse Campbell (soon)
JFBECKETT
about me. I am also overweight and losing my hair.
Granted that has nothing to do with aviation, but then neither does the
rest of that particular post. At least I can sign my name to what I write
and be proud of my position without hiding behind name calling and
anonymous screen names.
As for everything else written here I think it might be good if we all
took a deep breath and calmed down. Let's consider this shall we:
This newsgroup is about AVIATION. Chuck S. is a respected designer and
manufacturer of kit aircraft. And everybody has a right to their opinion.
That's pretty much it. Shocking huh!
I am glad that we are lucky enough to have a variety of writers,
manufacturers, designers, pilots, A&P's etc...on this newsgroup. That is
the very reason I am a particiant, the tremendous variety of information
available from so many different sources.
Unfortunately there seems to be a fly in the ointment. I just haven't been
able to figure out what it is exactly. How could it be that Chuck's post
of a few days ago, and my post in response could illicit such a tirade
from "nuthrflyer"? I find this peculiar to say the least.
So let's talk about aviation. Openly, including all aspects of homebuilt
aviation. Because let's face it, there's more to flying that piloting
isn't there? I am interested in anything the manufacturers have to say.
Good or bad, interesting or bland. They are the ones that have put their
personal finances and security on hold in order to persue a dream that all
the rest of us benefit from. Capt. (and I use that term in this context
with a cringe) Zoom and I are writers. That's all. Writers are a lot of
things, but certainly not important by themselves. The subject matter is
of interest in this case. The subject matter is fun, educational,
entertaining, exhilarating and well worth the effort it takes to become
proficient at. I'm glad I can be a part of it. I really am!
So let's get back to the point of this thread, Chuck's experiences, and
his defense of his design and his companies soundness. Let's leave the
personal attacks out of it.
But if any of you following this thread feel the desperate desire to
follow Capt. Zoom and Nutherflyer (the same guy?) down the garden path,
please feel free to e-mail me at your leisure with any questions you may
have about my personal life. I'm never going to run for President, I'll be
happy to answer virtually anything. But I must say that it fascinates me
that anyone would be interested. I came here to talk flying- not
marriages. (free tid bit: I've had three, and I'm sticking with this one).
Good luck to all, and best wishes for the future.
Jamie Beckett
Editor / Publisher FLAnews
Commercial Pilot: ASEL - AMEL, Instrument, CFI - CFII - MEI - Advanced
Ground Instructor
You can verify by calling the FAA in Oklahoma City, if you think it's that
important. I don't mind. Employment histories you'll have to get from me
or my former employers. No problems there either. If you really think you
need to know, I'll tell you.
Andrew Boyd
he said:
>Can we now get back to flying talk now? Please?
aw, do we have to? Reading about the "zoomer" is far more
entertaining than watching the OJ trial! :)
--
#include <std.disclaimer>
Bill Robie
CAP10ZOOM <cap1...@aol.com> wrote:
[...]
>Also, I am not the author of the reply post to Chuck and Jamie... though I
>am amazed that someone else knows ALL that stuff. Look... all this is
>nothing less than terrorism... we have had threatening anon messages to my
>employees, E-Mail threats, bomb threats on the fax that refer to same, and
This was the same song and dance that you did when you repeatedly telephoned
my employer and various other officials at my university, Mr. Campbell.
Since there have been none of those things committed on this forum, why
is it important that you keep bringing it up? I propose that it is for the
same reason you brought it up to my employer -- to *imply* that those who
simply have expressed opposing opinions to your own are actually involved
in such terrible things. It worked some of the time, but that time is over.
You gotta have some facts these days.
>I find it mysterious that all this party stuff apears a week or so after
>Beckett harassed my forum on AOL about our Annual S&F party...
[...]
Funny how when other folks say things it is "harassment." What was it
when you reported my "criminal activities" to my employer? Why did you
suddenly decide to drop the matter when they insisted on proof?
>Look folks, there are some serious psychos out there that seem to think
>that their opinion of US Aviator is more important than those who want to
>read it. Some of those characters are using the Internet to harass and
>terrorize my friends, my staff and myself. If this is what you want RAH to
>be, enjoy your anarchy and please leave me out of it... [...]
Let me get this straight: if someone has a dissenting opinion about what
your magazine says, that makes them a "serious psycho?" If someone wants
to read your magazine, they can simply go buy it. What's that got to
do with RAH? I believe that the real problem is that you can dish it out
from your editorial pulpit, but you can't take exactly the same kind of
scrutiny to which you publicly subject others in the business. Whose
fault is that?
>And mind you, is there any doubt in anybody'sa mind that these
>characters are NOT trying to harm our business? Would YOU put up with
>that?
Good point, Mr. Campbell. What should I do, then, about someone who
tried very hard to damage my reputation and employment here at this
university, with his repeated phone calls and unfounded allegations of
"criminal activities"? Should I put up with it? Apparently you don't
realize that everything I send from my account can be monitored by
our systems people, the campus attorney, and even the State Attorney
General's Office. If I'm involved in "criminal activities," they can
check it out. Likewise, they can check out that I have *not* been.
So what course should I take against someone who has tried to interfere
with *my* livelihood?
If you have received threats, etc., get all of your law enforcement
resources together and go after those people. They shouldn't be doing
that. I don't support or condone it. If these things are happening to
you with the frequency you claim, I would think that the law could trace
them and catch them. Get caller ID and find out who is doing all that
anonymous stuff.
But if any of that has happened, it hasn't happened on this newsgroup.
People have disagreed with you and said things you didn't want to hear,
but nobody has threatened you on RAH. Nobody has mentioned bombs, rape,
or whatever on this forum, so why not just drop that little ditty? It
doesn't work here anymore, unless you have something concrete to back
it up. When does what *you* do constitute harassment, Mr. Campbell, or is
that a term that applies only to those who don't agree with you?
As for folks trying to harm someone's business, what do you think those
manufacturers feel when they get bashed by a magazine that is "rating"
them? If there are allegations of customer complaints made to the
reading public, but the magazine refuses to show any evidence of there really
being customer complaints, don't you think that a manufacturer might
likewise feel as if someone is trying to harm *their* business? These
things work both ways, Mr. Campbell. And the electronic forums allow
such information to flow both ways.
So what does a manufacturer do when they feel they have been misrepresented
in such a magazine rating? Although it is a small forum, they can come
here and give their side of the story--and one is trying to do that. But
what response did you give that manufacturer for trying to have his say
on the matter, Mr. Campbell? Did you call him up and threaten a lawsuit
for saying what he did?
You have told us that you have your very own forum on AOL, but you don't
seem to understand that usenet newsgroups are not set up the same way.
This forum doesn't belong to any one of us. We can express our opinions
here, and others can either try to shout us down, give a well-reasoned
counter argument, or something in between. If you participate in this sort
of forum, you need to expect that sort of response. We all get it from
time to time. If I want your unquestioned opinions, I'll buy your magazine.
If I want to hear the other side of it, I'll give someone with an opposing
viewpoint the right to speak, and this is where people let those viewpoints
be heard. Before you appeared here, there was no mention of lawsuits,
bomb threats, rape threats, calls to people's employers, or any of those
other things. I'm not sure your opinions of how an airplane flys are a
fair exchange for any of that, but that's only my opinion. Others can
give theirs without fear of lawsuit or harassment from me.
Bill Robie
CAP10ZOOM
is incorrect... as she often is when commenting on matters involving the
Airedale Press. We do not beleive that she is an objective source of
information regarding us.
I really won't comment on Mr. Robie anymore since he never misses a chance
to defame, libel, or otherwise harass our company and personnel. Mr. Robie
has left dozens of messages demeaning us at every opportunity and I really
must wonder what has caused his vendetta to occur. Many of those messages
are not based in fact. He also has a tough time differentiating which
aero-writers names "Jim" he hates so much. I wish he would find someone
else to harass... and/or adhere to the RecAvFAQ he touts so widely to
others. What was that about flaming in private, Bill??? He seems to be a
very bitter man.
As for CGS... we stated that the company has problems delivering what it
promises in a timely manner and our letter and call file verifies that
readily (got another report late last night). However; we also stated that
his situation was improving... and maybe if Mr. Slusarczyk would pay more
attention to his business than engaging in illegal harassment, the
situation might improve some more. He, himself, has admitted to his past
problems at timely delivery. He has a good airplane... it just needs to be
suported better... as many of his customers have so attested.
As to "nuthrflyer"... we now know who he is and while we appreciate the
sentiment, and found his information to be accurate, we have asked him to
refrain from further efforts in our defense since that only inflames the
jerks who seize on every opportunity to hurt our magazine and company. He
has agreed. I am sorry that he was so provoked but he has seen the inside
of this story and the many illegalities that have been foisted upon us by
a few people who do not conform to the rules and mores of a legal society.
He is as tired as I ma about the lies, hatred, and harassment that have
been transmitred via this forum and other venues. I must note however that
his decision to remain anonymous is probably a sound one since many of the
people who have come to our defense all of a sudden find themsleves under
attack by those few who seem bound and detemined to hurt and/or destroy
our magazine. At the same time, it is interesting to note that some attack
HIS anonymity while saying nothing about the damaging and errant posts
left by others who have either done so anonymously or using obviously
false names.
Look "gentlemen" and "ladies"... I and my magazine must work within the
bounds of the law as regards libel and defamation. Those rules also do
apply to the Internet...as a number of legal authorities, who have
witnessed this debacle, have indicated. Some of you have stepped across
the line many a time between nastiness and illegality, and while I may not
wish to be involved in any more cat-fights with those of such dubious
moral character, you are sure to flame someone who eventually will feel
differently.
I am doing my best to stay out of this... since my time is better spent
fighting the Hoover debacle, that ridiculous NPRM 94-31, FAA harassment,
manufacturers who don't live up to their promises, getting the news out to
my readership and writing about aviation... and of course, no one here is
trying to destroy our right to do that, are they? But somehow, it seems
like the flamers seem to think that we do no good at all, and that their
malicious, egotistical, all-knowing, opinions and mis-perceptions of who
and what we are, give them the right to try and restrict and/or interfere
with our work. I have tens of thousands of monthly readers who would tend
to diasagree with that.
You do not have the right to lie about me and my magazine. You do not have
the right to pry incessantly into my private life. You do not have the
right to harass me and my readership. You do not have the right to
threaten me. You do not have the right to interfere in my business... and
you surely are not doing yourself, aviation, or anyone here any good.
Grow up, get a life, and leave me the hell out of yours. Besides... you
can watch OJ 24 hours a day, lately... what do you need to bash me for???
Jim Campbell
Dirk Rackley
>really isn't all that hard to write in the name of the person expressing
>an opinion.
Good point. I think we would have all been better off if the link
between AOL and the net had never been implimented. Just my
opinion.
* OLX 2.1 TD * Very bored, easily armed, and never had any medication.
--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|--------------------------->>>>>>>>>!!
| vor...@teleport.COM "Anything! given sufficient thrust |
| Dirk Rackley "will fly." _|_ |
| Vortecs Aircraft ---{*}--- |
Bill Robie
I feel it only fair to state that I got a very nice (ok...except for the
parts about being a psyber-stalker and mentally unstable, etc., etc.)
note from Mr. Campbell that stated that he was not the one who called my
house last night. I'll take his word for it, and will take the phone
company's word for future calls of that nature. Thanks for clearing
that up, Mr. Campbell.
>I really won't comment on Mr. Robie anymore since he never misses a chance
>to defame, libel, or otherwise harass our company and personnel. Mr. Robie
>has left dozens of messages demeaning us at every opportunity and I really
>must wonder what has caused his vendetta to occur. Many of those messages
>are not based in fact.
Name one that was not, and I'll provide the backup info. or issue an apology.
>He also has a tough time differentiating which
>aero-writers names "Jim" he hates so much.
This one goes right over my head. I don't hate any aero writers (trust and
hate are different issues), and I can't recall knowing any others named
Jim.
>I wish he would find someone
>else to harass... and/or adhere to the RecAvFAQ he touts so widely to
>others. What was that about flaming in private, Bill??? He seems to be a
>very bitter man.
Again this is too cryptic for me. I don't know that there is anything
in the FAQ that says I can't have, and express, private opinions. Is
there a new law of thought censorship that I missed? As for whether
or not I'm "bitter," that's clearly a matter of taste.
But I can only guess that this refers to Mr. Campbell's recent e-mail
demands that I include his magazine in the Publications and Organizations
list. When a revised list didn't appear within a couple of days of
his original demand, he sent me an additional demand. I didn't respond
to either of those, because the last communication he sent me prior to
that warned me that I'd be prosecuted for sending him any e-mail. Because
I didn't respond (as per his original demand), he reportedly notified some
folks who are working on the FAQ that someone had informed him that his
magazine would be kept off that list. I'd like to know who had thus
informed him. It sure was not me, and that's my list.
What Mr. Campbell fails to recognize is the fact that the publications list
goes through a moderated newsgroup, and is re-posted automatically. I can't
instantly change it, and the last revision was done over a year ago. This
is not a paid position--it is a voluntary contribution. Nobody subscribes
to it (but I'd be glad to accept royalties from AOL and do a better job).
Because of all this, I am under no obligation to jump when someone makes a
demand, nor do I feel any obligation to update the list on any particular
set schedule. The list clearly states that it isn't encyclopaedic, is
updated only sporadically, and that some entries may be outdated or otherwise
in error. It also clearly states that it was last updated in Jan. 1994,
which predates any of this other stuff.
That's the way things used to be done around here--you contributed things
that others might find useful, and they did the same for you. Nobody
got bent out of shape because things weren't as they wanted them to be.
A polite note of correction would usually produce a new entry the next
time a revision was put out (unless a local glitch or lapse of concentration
happened to wipe out the file of stuff to be revised). The list itself was
based on a number of sources that I compiled for a project in 1992. If
this was done to spite or anger Mr. Campbell over more recent developments,
I had remarkable powers of seeing into the future.
Bill Robie
Ladycub I
:There is NO problem with the Boy's Club and US Aviator. If any of you
people :who obviously do not have lives of your own want to try and assert
otherwise, we :have a letter from them that was requested after similar
anon postings appeared
:elsewhere, and in that letter they state that there are no problems
between us :and that they will be happy to serve US Aviator if we have a
party at Sun 'n Fun :this year.
Well, we need to clarify this a bit. Maybe this isn't a problem anymore,
but that's not really the point. Through mediation in the Florida Court
System, US Aviator was required to pay the remainder of the balance by
March 3, 1995 (the new case number: 94-SP13-1381, clerk of courts phone #
813-534-4556). That still doesn't change the fact that it took ELEVEN
months to pay a debt to a CHARITY organization, and then only after they
had to SUE to get it.
As for serving a party this year, of course they probably would, but
again, that's not the point. Virtually anyone will do business with a
credit risk provided payment is made up front, but that doesn't imply
support of the customer, or their business practices.
Laurel Ramey
Bill Robie
they were misled what Mr. Campbell said here.
He wrote:
>I really won't comment on Mr. Robie anymore since he never misses a chance
>to defame, libel, or otherwise harass our company and personnel.
Mr. Campbell's definitions of these terms must be more elastic than
the bungee cords used to launch gliders in the '30s. I will readily
admit to taking exception to *his* actions and words, but I have not had
*any* dealings of *any sort* with *any member* of his company, other than
himself. He makes statements like this, and then wonders why some people
question his credibility. I won't pretend to understand how he reconciles
fact-backed statements with claims of "defam[ation], libel and harass[ment]."
He'll have to explain that one himself.
>Mr. Robie
>has left dozens of messages demeaning us at every opportunity and I really
>must wonder what has caused his vendetta to occur.
This was interpreted by at least one person as meaning that I have left
numerous telephone messages at Mr. Campbell's home or business. What he is
actually referring to is public postings. I have never called Mr. Campbell's
home (he's called mine), his office (he's called mine), or attempted
to talk with any of the people with whom he works (as he has done to me).
I've sent him precious little e-mail, and what I did send him was always
a reply to a message he sent me (in fairness, most of his messages were
responses of some sort to postings of mine). I have never, in any way,
initiated any form of contact with, criticised, or even mentioned any
member of Mr. Campbell's staff other than himself. I challenge him to
back up this statement with even a shred of proof.
I don't have any "vendetta" against Mr. Campbell or his magazine. I'm
not a competitor of his, a manufacturer who feels that they have been
wronged, or a disgruntled former employee. Nor am I a saint seeking the
moral high ground, or a martyr seeking net.sainthood. I'm just someone
who believes we all have the right to call "BS" on someone who is spreading
it without having to be bullied by threats of lawsuit, intimidated by
insinuation-laden calls to our employers, and maligned by misrepresentations
of the truth.
Freedom of speech, as we have been reminded, does not grant someone the
right to cry "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. But what that person failed
to point out is that it *does* allow us to say that we think the script
of the movie was a crock of hockey, and that the actors and director
were inept. When someone tries to deprive me of this freedom, they can
expect to have a hell of a fight on their hands. The pity is that I've
heard from too many folks who support me privately, but who are afraid to
do so publicly. As long as people have that kind of fear, other people will
use it to manipulate them.
So how did I "harass, libel and defame" Mr. Campbell, his company, and
his personnel? I stated that I don't consider Mr. Campbell to be a reliable
information source, and backed my opinion up with only the *slightest
bit* of literally hundreds of pages of courtroom testimony and other
information contained in verifiable public records from Mr. Campbell's
past. I didn't create these documents or the events that caused them to
be created. I didn't invent any of it. It is no fault of mine that he
has a paper trail like that. And the bottom line of all of this paper
trail is that Mr. Campbell has had some genuine problems with telling
the truth. My later first-hand experiences with Mr. Campbell, including
things like the comments leading off this posting, have not helped me
to change my opinion of his credibility.
Why did I do that in the first place? Because Mr. Campbell first showed up
on this newsgroup amidst a pointless display of power in which he made
two of our fellow contributors grovel in apology or face his threat of
lawsuit. Because Mr. Campbell contacted the employer of one of our
fellow contributors, badgering them into restricting his net access.
What was his reason for coming down on these guys so hard? They said
things that he claims were not true. Had he simply corrected them with the
facts of the matter, and then gone on to become another part of the
crowd, I'll wager nothing more would have been said about it and none of
this other stuff would have happened. (As a note of interest, I was
hardly the only one who protested his actions at the time.)
Has he tried to make things better...to brighten his image? Well, he
recently raised a fuss because the RAH FAQ does not mention his
book on homebuilts--a book that has not even been *published* yet!
Watch out, folks, you may suddenly find yourself part of a "conspiracy"
and not even know how you got there.
Over the past months Mr. Campbell has called me a myriad of insulting
names in public, insinuated that I *might* be a part of a "criminal
conspiracy" that has made threats of bombing, rape, etc., etc., called my
home and my place of employment, tried to damage my reputation and
employment status with insinuations (never facts), and now tries to
claim that he is the one who has been wronged. I have called him--in
my opinion--an unreliable source, and I have never phoned, faxed, threatened,
or posted anonymously, to either him or anyone in his employment.
You figure it out.
I won't conclude this with Mr. Campbell's typical "grow up and get a life"
sort of paternalistic pap, but I will make him an offer:
Calm down, Mr. Campbell, and quit looking for enemies behind every
tiedown in this electronic hangar--maybe then they'll go away. Realize
that there is no need to exert yourself as a "heavyweight" here, because
everyone here is a heavyweight. Likewise, realize that everyone has
something to contribute here that is just as valuable, in its own way,
as your flight review of the newest hot kitplane. Don't rate yourself
any higher than anyone else, and you won't be treated any differently
than anyone else. But most of all, be honest. There simply is no
need to exaggerate or "puff" the truth here. No matter how good
any of us think we are, there are folks on this group who can fly
the freaking pants off us, and who have done things we could only
imagine doing. This is a big hangar.
Do this stuff--just like everyone here was doing long before you
showed up--and I, for one, will climb off your case.
Bill Robie
ehs...@tiac.net
>From: cap1...@aol.com (CAP10ZOOM)
>Subject: Re: Zoomed... Part I
>Date: 4 Mar 1995 15:01:28 -0500
Zoom-
Don't get into pissing contests with academics - they don't have to earn a
real living and have nothing but time on their hands, with which to wear you
down. Its just a case of "illigetimus non carburundi"
Larry Nelson
Who cares!!!!
LA-> Well, we need to clarify this a bit. Maybe this isn't a problem anymore,
No, you don't need to clarify... Nobody cares!!!!
LA-> As for serving a party this year, of course they probably would, but
Who gives a flying @#$%^&.... Give it a rest!
Larry
---
ş SLMR 2.1a ş Sapport Outcum Bassd Ejucayshun!!
Pete Malcom
>Path:
>cronkite!psinntp!psinntp!rebecca!newserve!ub!news.kei.com!world!decwrl!purdue!ha
>ven.umd.edu!news.umbc.edu!not-for-mail
>From: ro...@umbc.edu (Bill Robie)
>Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
>Subject: Re: Zoomed... Part I
>Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County
>Lines: 103
>Message-ID: <3jfgjk$7...@umbc7.umbc.edu>
>References: <043335Z...@anon.penet.fi> <3jaguo$5...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: f-umbc7.umbc.edu
I have become to wonder what exactly makes Mr. Campbell
an *expert* on aircraft. Does he have a degree in Engineering,
training from a respected test pilot organization, experience
*building* the majority of an airplane, owning a aircraft company,
etc.
The complaints against Mr. Campbell all seem to come from
folks who have been in the business much longer than he has.
And, people who have actually been there. Owners of companies,
*actual* builders of airplanes. Has Mr. Campbell ever actually
built his own aircraft? If not, how can he be an expert?
Also, I have been told by people on AOL that Mr. Campbell
is the final judge of the comments and discussion on the
AOL homebuilt forum. I wonder if *all* the submitted posts
actually make it up on the system?
Mr. Robie articulated it correctly when he said (paraphrasing)
'this is a big hangar, nobody is the star of the show.'
Daniel C. Wroe, VAX Operations
standing on the grassy knoll.
-"Skid" Wroe
Ladycub I
In article <3jhpq9$1...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, cap1...@aol.com
(CAP10ZOOM)
wrote:
>I regret getting dragged into this again, but we must state that Ms.
Ramey
is incorrect... as she often is when commenting on matters involving the
Airedale Press. We do not beleive that she is an objective source of
information regarding us.
I'm always open to the possiblity that I might be wrong, so I called the
court again just to double check The Facts. The number is still
813-534-4556.
The case number is still 94-SP13-1381. The clerk I spoke with pulled the
file, and the invoice is still dated 4/14/94. March 1995 minus April 1994
still equals eleven months. And the Boys and Girls Club is still a
non-profit, charity based organization.
Mr. Campbell, would you mind re-defining "incorrect"? I'm just a little
bit
confused.
Laurel Ramey
Georgem259
<We do not beleive that she is an objective source of
information regarding us.>
In using the editorial "we" are you relying on you position as King of all
aviation?
Or have you gotten a tapeworm?
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
: Cap10zoom wrote:
Careful there. Comments about a persons health could be considered
libelous.
Donn Pedro ....................................dfp...@uswnvg.com
Corey Cole
: I think they're all wrong. The perpetrator of all these events was clearly
: standing on the grassy knoll.
we could get Oliver Stone to make a guest appearance on
rec.aviation.homebuilt?
: -"Skid" Wroe
CAP10ZOOM
We are not going to further inflame the issue with public comments. We
have a private official response to the nonsense previously posted, and it
is available if you have a need for it, via E-Mail from CAP1...@AOL.COM.
We beleive that this statement refutes the allegations appropriately and
contains a number of statements from persons other than myself attesting
to our side of the story. If you have a beef with USA, contact me
directly, because that is the only way we will reply to such nonsense...
certain elements have already turned this system into a cesspool of
misinformation as it is and we refuse to contribute to that.
By the way; if you want to talk airplanes, we're always happy to do
that... and sure wish we could get back to it...
Jim Campbell
FLAnews
remember Zoom signing off this newsgroup?) But I never saw anyone stomp
off, only to come back to get in the last word repeatedly.
I mean aside from Bud Abbott and Lou Costello, of course!
Welcome back Jim. I figured you'd miss us all and come home.
Jamie Beckett
Ladycub I
(CAP10ZOOM) wrote:
>We are not going to further inflame the issue with public comments. We
>have a private official response to the nonsense previously posted, and
it
>is available if you have a need for it, via E-Mail from
>CAP1...@AOL.COM. ... certain elements have already turned this
>system into a cesspool of misinformation as it is and we refuse to
>contribute to that.
In the past three issues alone, I have seen several disparaging articles
written by Mr. Campbell which use the terms "assault", "obnoxious",
"threatening", "vicious", "threats", "bomb threats", "extorsion",
"harassment" and "half a dozen law enforcement agencies are now involved".
Extremely serious accusations made in an extremely public forum, and is
all presented under the umbrella of "investigative journalism".
This hardly sounds like someone who doesn't want to "inflame the issue".
Possibly a more appropriate assertion would be that Mr. Campbell doesn't
want to "inflame the issue" in a forum where he doesn't have final
control.
Laurel Ramey
RT Riley
>In the past three issues alone, I have seen several disparaging
>articles
>written by Mr. Campbell which use the terms "assault",
>"obnoxious",
>"threatening", "vicious", "threats", "bomb threats",
>"extorsion",
>"harassment" and "half a dozen law enforcement agencies are now
>involved".
>Extremely serious accusations made in an extremely public forum,
>and is
>all presented under the umbrella of "investigative journalism".
How odd. Those are exactly the same terms he uses about me in
his most recent issue. You don't suppose Mr. Campbell is . . .
MAKING IT UP??
Noooo, it couldn't be, Mr. Campbell is a paragon of truth and
virtue, after all, he's flown more than 900 different kinds of
airplanes. I'm probably being watched by a half-dozen law
enforcement agencies right now, just waiting for me to make my
move before they pounce. Let's see, is it that woman with a baby
carriage? Or that man running for his van-pool? I'll let you
know from my cell on Alcatraz.
--
RT Riley - Dpt Edu/ATS/PacMang/Cohen&Sterns/EAI/Paramount