ZZZ - Jim Campbell: Plagiarist?
John H Ousterhout
Campbell heavily plagiarized copyrighted material from the Vans
Aircraft Web page.
Check it out and decide for yourself.
http://www.aero-news.net/news/archive2000/0400news/040400a.htm
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/pers-bil.htm
- John Ousterhout -
http://www.cyberis.net/~jouster/
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Shotzy
John H Ousterhout wrote in message
<013454d0...@usw-ex0106-045.remarq.com>...
Jim Baker
John O wrote:
In the April 4th issue of Aero News Network, it appears that Jim
Campbell heavily plagiarized copyrighted material from the Vans
Jim C didn't read this page: http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/legal.htm
If he had, he surely wouldn't have.
Jim B
RobertR237
<jouster...@cyberis.net.invalid> writes:
>
>In the April 4th issue of Aero News Network, it appears that Jim
>Campbell heavily plagiarized copyrighted material from the Vans
>Aircraft Web page.
>
>Check it out and decide for yourself.
>
>http://www.aero-news.net/news/archive2000/0400news/040400a.htm
>
>http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/pers-bil.htm
>
>- John Ousterhout -
>http://www.cyberis.net/~jouster/
>
>
Gee, I am surprised that he would do such a thing! (NOT!!!!)
The bigger question that goes begging is rather there is anything outside of
the [ed] comments that isn't being plagiarized.
Bob Reed
http://robertr237.virtualave.net/ (KIS Project)
KIS Cruiser in progress...2001 Oshkosh Odessy ;-) (I can hope!)
"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and Slide on the
Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freidman)
Jesse D. Sightler
He posted the information as a quote. While it probably would have been better
had he mentioned the source, I can hardly see the plagiarism charge here.
Surely you are overreacting?
----
Jess
John H Ousterhout wrote:
> In the April 4th issue of Aero News Network, it appears that Jim
> Campbell heavily plagiarized copyrighted material from the Vans
> Aircraft Web page.
>
> Check it out and decide for yourself.
>
> http://www.aero-news.net/news/archive2000/0400news/040400a.htm
>
> http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/pers-bil.htm
>
> - John Ousterhout -
> http://www.cyberis.net/~jouster/
>
Ben Sego
> Why does everyone despise this man so much?
>
> He posted the information as a quote. While it probably would have been better
> had he mentioned the source, I can hardly see the plagiarism charge here.
> Surely you are overreacting?
>
> ----
> Jess
>
It's difficult to answer that briefly. There is quite a lot of history here. For
a brief background, go to
http://www.deja.com/home_ps.shtml
This is the power search site for the archives of news groups. In the keyword box,
enter:
hate & usaviator
In the author box, enter
wanttaja
in the dates boxes, enter
to:
mar 9 1998
from:
mar 10 1998
Click on the last hit that you get (there should be six.) At the top of the
message it should say: Message segment 1 of 5 - Get _Next_ Segment -
_Get_all_5_Segments_.
Click on "Get All 5 Segments." What Ron Wanattaja is answering is the question
"Why does everyone hate USAviator."
Also, check out this link:
http://www.cyberis.net/~jouster/zoom/zoom.html
It probably helps to understand all this if you had read the editorials in Mr.
Campbell's defunct magazine, USAviator.
Enjoy.
B.S.
RobertR237
writes:
>
>Why does everyone despise this man so much?
>
>He posted the information as a quote. While it probably would have been
>better
>had he mentioned the source, I can hardly see the plagiarism charge here.
>Surely you are overreacting?
>
>----
>Jess
>
>
Surely, you haven't a clue. I won't bother to go into the long answers
required by the above question but will say that the information is available
online in Deja News and on various web sites if you are really interested in
the facts. If you are not interested in the facts then just be quiet, listen
and learn.
Jesse D. Sightler
I guess I get the point now. What a wacko!
----
Jess
Ben Sego wrote:
> "Jesse D. Sightler" wrote:
>
> > Why does everyone despise this man so much?
> >
> > He posted the information as a quote. While it probably would have been better
> > had he mentioned the source, I can hardly see the plagiarism charge here.
> > Surely you are overreacting?
> >
> > ----
> > Jess
> >
>
Jesse D. Sightler
> In article <38F15EFD...@pair.com>, "Jesse D. Sightler" <jsi...@pair.com>
> writes:
>
> >
> >Why does everyone despise this man so much?
> >
> >He posted the information as a quote. While it probably would have been
> >better
> >had he mentioned the source, I can hardly see the plagiarism charge here.
> >Surely you are overreacting?
> >
> >----
> >Jess
> >
> >
>
> Surely, you haven't a clue.
I don't. That's why I asked. Sometimes it's necessary to be beaten by the ol'
ClueStick. ;-)
> I won't bother to go into the long answers
> required by the above question but will say that the information is available
> online in Deja News and on various web sites if you are really interested in
> the facts. If you are not interested in the facts then just be quiet, listen
> and learn.
Er, what would I learn if I didn't listen to the facts?
----
Jess
Probably-whatever-Jim-Campbell-says-ly-ers
Charles K. Scott
"Jesse D. Sightler" <jsi...@pair.com> writes:
> WOW!
>
> I guess I get the point now. What a wacko!
See folks? Any normal intelligent person can see for him or herself
what is going on with cpn zoom, when given the facts. It's beyond
incredible to hear or read of his take on the S&F situation or his
reaction to Tony Pucillo; it's like he's from the darkside of the moon.
He needs help. He REALLY needs help but that just isn't going to
happen in this day and age of gentle understanding and the barely (and
sometimes non) functional mental patients allowed to walk the streets.
To ask for help would be to admit that his lifetime to this point was
literally a lie, that the people who have been dogging him these last 8
years or so were in fact correct in their estimation of his mental
state. Campbell's neurosis and his monumental ego just cannot permit
this to happen.
Corky (my take) Scott
jho...@my-deja.com
But I have one question. When and how did Tony Pucillo get involved in
this? From what I gather, Tony was the lawyer for one of zoom's
creditors in a previous bankruptcy. Is that true? Thanks for any info.
Kevin Hovis
In article <8ctbb1$5cm$1...@merrimack.Dartmouth.EDU>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ron Natalie
jho...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> I've been following this for some time and agree zzzoom is unstable.
> But I have one question. When and how did Tony Pucillo get involved in
> this? From what I gather, Tony was the lawyer for one of zoom's
> creditors in a previous bankruptcy. Is that true? Thanks for any info.
>
Tony is a lawyer who actually started like many of us. We picked up a
copy of US Aviator (back in the glory days) and took it at face value.
In my case Zoom had just the irreverence towards the FAA for my taste.
Tony popped up on this group wanting to know why everybody hated him
and offered to be an impartial arbiter of some of the controversial
issues. Well it doesn't take someone of average intelligence long to
ferret out the bull and Zoom showed hostility towards Tony's attempt
to clear the air. Never piss off a lawyer with too much time on his
hands.
Tony offerred to represent several of the zoomed. He helped the bankrupcy
trustee understand what this lunacy was, and managed to get hired as
counsel for the trustee. Of course by then he was on Z's enemy list and
was named in the Zoom's sham (I love that as a legal term) countersuit.
Charles K. Scott
jho...@my-deja.com writes:
> I've been following this for some time and agree zzzoom is unstable.
> But I have one question. When and how did Tony Pucillo get involved in
> this? From what I gather, Tony was the lawyer for one of zoom's
> creditors in a previous bankruptcy. Is that true? Thanks for any info.
Toni will likely answer this himself but originally he was a Campbell
supporter, although Zoomer does not aknowledge this. That's right, a
supporter. He used to ask the group to give Campbell some slack
because he (Campbell) was trying to do good work.
Toni got razzed so much for his initial stance that he decided to prove
to us that Campbell was a good guy and started asking him to explain
some of what he claimed, or give some concrete evidence for his claims.
Being a lawyer, naturally he wanted actual evidence. I think just one
question was all it took for Campbell to light into him and climb up
one side of his face and then down the other (figuratively speaking of
course). Campbell managed to turn his one lonely supporter in the
group into an implaccable enemy. Toni was taken aback and decided to
do some heavy research and promised to post the results good or bad.
He found out a LOT more than he had bargained for. He discovered a
relentless pattern of extortion by Campbell who used the power of his
magazine to extract electronic goodies (among other things) to test,
some of which were never returned. He claimed they were stolen but
some then showed up in his house, according to Toni.
The extent of his mean spirited attacks on people who's apparent only
transgression was to stop buying advertising space in his magazine were
breathtaking.
Toni became a hardened investigator turning up more and more evidence
that Campbell was truly a menace, not some slightly warped good guy who
keeps seeing monsters under the bed.
Toni can explain the details of how he came to represent the people
opposite Zoomer's suits but In my opinion he did us all, and by all I
mean the people he represented and the homebuilt aviation world in
general an enormous favor.
He was the right man in the right place and had the knowledge to be
extremely effective.
Corky Scott
Ron Natalie
"Charles K. Scott" wrote:
> > I've been following this for some time and agree zzzoom is unstable.
> > But I have one question. When and how did Tony Pucillo get involved in
> > this? From what I gather, Tony was the lawyer for one of zoom's
> > creditors in a previous bankruptcy. Is that true? Thanks for any info.
>
> Toni will likely answer this himself but originally he was a Campbell
> supporter,
Toni? Was there a lifestyle change that I missed?
edt...@erols.com
"Charles K. Scott" wrote:
> In article <8d2063$i4j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> jho...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> > I've been following this for some time and agree zzzoom is unstable.
> > But I have one question. When and how did Tony Pucillo get involved in
> > this? From what I gather, Tony was the lawyer for one of zoom's
> > creditors in a previous bankruptcy. Is that true? Thanks for any info.
>
I'm sure that Tony will respond to this on his own, but until he does, let
me propose one *slight* modification to Corky's otherwise right-on-target
synopsis.
> He discovered a
> relentless pattern of extortion by Campbell who used the power of his
> magazine to extract electronic goodies (among other things) to test,
> some of which were never returned. He claimed they were stolen but
> some then showed up in his house, according to Toni.
I think that it would be more accurate to say something like, "according to
people whom Tony has interviewed and/or deposed", but we'll let him speak
for himself.
Charles K. Scott
Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com> writes:
> Toni? Was there a lifestyle change that I missed?
Geeze, sorry Tony, thanks for the catch Ron.
Corky Scott
Kevin O'Brien
> I've been following this for some time and agree zzzoom is unstable.
> But I have one question. When and how did Tony Pucillo get involved in
> this? From what I gather, Tony was the lawyer for one of zoom's
> creditors in a previous bankruptcy. Is that true? Thanks for any info.
Tony started off as a Zoom defender(!) in this NG. He has wound up, over
the YEARS that this mess has dragged on, representing a lot of people
who got legally stuck to the Zoom tar baby, but I don't think anyone who
knows them both believes Tony fired the first shot. Or is out to 'get'
Jim.
Tony did represent the bankruptcy trustee in the Aero-Media, Inc.
bankruptcy (which was two publishing ventures ago). Many of the relevant
legal documents are on John Ousterhout's website. This is probably what
you're thinking of.
I think I know how Tony first came into legal contact with JRC but I
will leave it for Tony to explain, in the interests of accuracy.
My first public comment when the two of them were going at it hammer and
tongs was that they probably should sit down and sort it out over a
beer. I know both protagonists a little better now, and know that'll
never happen. :/ But the real reason is that the problem can't be sorted
out.
I like Jim. I think he's a great guy who has done a lot for aviation,
and for years he did fulfill the promise of being 'proof that magazines
don't have to be boring.' He didn't fulfill a lot of other promises
though, notably to subscribers and creditors. And I think he has some
severe issues with how he perceives himself, the world, and the other
people in it. His reality isn't real reality all the time. Now, many
people are a lot less pro-Jim than I. Some of them have very good reason
to be. While he has the balls to take on things that are real problems
(Piper Tomahawk, Revolution Helicopter) he has not always had good
judgment about who to take on, and when he attacks someone who doesn't
deserve it (CGS [Chuck Slusarczyk], the Berkut folks, for a couple of
examples) he hurts real people, innocent people, in real ways. People
still tell Chuck 'But I read in USAviator...' and here Chuck is a guy
who is practically an icon in the ultralight world and honest as the day
is long.
Just my 2d. You're entitled to your own!
cheers
-=K=-
Don Campbell
"Charles K. Scott" wrote:
>
<Clip>
> course). Campbell managed to turn his one lonely supporter in the
> group into an implaccable enemy. Toni was taken aback and decided to
<clip>
He has taken many supporters on here and turned them around. I have seen
many on here that supported Jim on this group that was turned around by
something that he said. If you look back in the old messages you will find
that I was one of them.
Jim is very good at making himself look good at other expence.
Don
Ron Natalie
Kevin O'Brien wrote:
>
I. Some of them have very good reason
> to be. While he has the balls to take on things that are real problems
> (Piper Tomahawk, Revolution Helicopter) he has not always had good
> judgment about who to take on, and when he attacks someone who doesn't
> deserve it (CGS [Chuck Slusarczyk], the Berkut folks, for a couple of
> examples) he hurts real people, innocent people, in real ways
The problem is that there's no correlation to reality. It would seem that "Jim's
balls" really just come down to who he likes or recieves money from. I don't
call this guts or investigative reporting, it is biased reporting at the shabbiest.
Jim provides glowing reviews to his buddies and damns those he doesn't. The
fact that he writes in the style of a muckraker makes for good reading, and
just perpetuates the illusion that there's seriuos journalism going on.
As my father would say, "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day."
Tony P
Corky Scott pretty well summarized it. If you go back to the 10/96 - 1/97
you'll find me sticking up for Campbell. I figured his personality was
irrelevant if he was a real consumer advocate (I had no conception of the
possible depth of dishonesty involved, obviously). Then in April and May,
'97 Campbell became incoherent. Check Dejanews in this newsgroup under my
name, Campbell, the word "zoom" and CGS and U.S. Aviator. See for yourself. I
asked him to stop embarrassing himself and even refused to respond anymore to
his sputtering rages.
I got involved because I was the only apparently neutral party, having been a
supporter and subscriber. I started out trying to get to the bottom of
whether he was lying in his attacks on some people he had feuds with, or
whether Chuck Slusarczyk, Ernie Carlson, the Berkut folks and a few others he
made a lot of nasty claims about were the ones who were lying. I intended to
put the documentation I acquired on a Web page and let people LOOK at it so
they'd stop arguing here whether Campbell was a nutball and liar or not. I
actually didn't even intend to publish conclusions, just to put the
first-generation document copies there so people could judge for themselves.
I know enough about aviators to have assumed they wouldn't believe anyone
else's version anyway.
Slusarczyk and the others opened their files. They couldn't furnish details
fast enough. Most of what I found contradicted Campbell's version. They
referred me to other companies who'd had the same problems with Campbell, to
ex-employees and a host of others. The ex-employees supported the companies'
assertions too, and contradicted Campbell. By contrast, Campbell refused to
disclose anything. Instead, he began excoriating ME. He accused me of
working for his enemies, of having an agenda, of conspiracy, of representing
Slusarczyk (or somebody) and eventually of stalking and consorting with
terrorists (I'm not kidding). Then he started publicly calling me an
'unethical' lawyer (a mistake, as you might imagine). Eventually he even
began claiming he was having me 'disbarred' for investigating him. He
actually even tried to file complaints with the Bar, which were tossed out for
frivolousness.
None of Campbell's claims were substantiated by him. The claims others made
about his vendettas and lies were substantiated. I asked hard questions,
really quite demanding, and I expressed some views critical of one or two of
the companies. But what I found was a range of companies no worse, and time
after time far BETTER, than the run of experimental aviation companies he
either ignored or praised. They all seemed to share one characteristic,
though: having in some fashion crossed, angered or criticized this fellow
Campbell.
I probably would have gone no further except for his truly irrational
behavior in response to my inquiries. When I did, I was appalled at what else
turned up, and I'm not just talking about mental illness problems, but
egregious business practices, treatment of employees and others generally. It
wasn't just abrasiveness or even exaggerating his credentials, it extended to
every variety of honesty and integrity issue. And the story was told by
everyone from a half-dozen former business partners to ex-wife and ex-fiance.
There was just too much to ignore or disbelieve, eventually.
As far as representing people, it's a long story. I really had no role in
this as a lawyer at all except that UNLIKE others he had threatened into
silence, I wasn't at all concerned with his stream of invective and litigation
threats. Eventually I got to know some victims and Florida problems (where I
practice AND where Campbell is based) turned up. I agreed to represent Vicki,
his ex-wife, who was a creditor in his company bankruptcy. I was then asked
by the Trustee in that same case, to represent HER in getting back all the
company assets Campbell had taken. Meanwhile, Campbell had told enough lies
about ME that I finally sued him after repeated warnings, hoping he'd get a
lawyer who would talk some sense into him. Instead he got an inexperienced
lawyer who did what he was told to and what he was told to do -- which was to
serve 14 other people with a frivolous lawsuit in retaliation -- was stupid.
Since that was not only in Florida but right here in Palm Beach County, I
naturally agreed to represent the other 14 people free. Thus arose the RAH
15.
Does that explain it?
Someday I suppose I'll write it all down. Until then, you just have to read
Dejanews or the jouster page for some of it. There's enough there and
elsewhere to give you the gist.
Tony Pucillo
jho...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> I've been following this for some time and agree zzzoom is unstable.
> But I have one question. When and how did Tony Pucillo get involved in
> this? From what I gather, Tony was the lawyer for one of zoom's
> creditors in a previous bankruptcy. Is that true? Thanks for any info.
>
> Kevin Hovis
>
> In article <8ctbb1$5cm$1...@merrimack.Dartmouth.EDU>,
> Charles...@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) wrote:
> > In article <38F1FB8F...@pair.com>
> > "Jesse D. Sightler" <jsi...@pair.com> writes:
> >
> > > WOW!
> > >
> > > I guess I get the point now. What a wacko!
> >
> > See folks? Any normal intelligent person can see for him or herself
> > what is going on with cpn zoom, when given the facts. It's beyond
> > incredible to hear or read of his take on the S&F situation or his
> > reaction to Tony Pucillo; it's like he's from the darkside of the
> moon.
> >
> > He needs help. He REALLY needs help but that just isn't going to
> > happen in this day and age of gentle understanding and the barely (and
> > sometimes non) functional mental patients allowed to walk the streets.
> > To ask for help would be to admit that his lifetime to this point was
> > literally a lie, that the people who have been dogging him these last
> 8
> > years or so were in fact correct in their estimation of his mental
> > state. Campbell's neurosis and his monumental ego just cannot permit
> > this to happen.
> >
> > Corky (my take) Scott
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
I speak only for myself unless otherwise stated.
One personality is enough, thank you.
"Irony better befits a gentleman than buffoonery;
the ironical man jokes to amuse himself,
the buffoon to amuse other people." (Aristotle, 'Rhetoric')
Tony P
HI:
Yep. The notion kept popping up among aviation businesses that Campbell was
making a living with his terror tactics. Many people felt he used the threat
of negative publicity, and the EXAMPLE he made of each company who crossed
him, to terrify others into maintaining ads. The fact that almost all of his
ongoing targets were former advertisers who were only attacked after they
CEASED to advertise certainly supported the impression that advertising was
the only way to receive 'protection.'
Ultimately, Dennis Fetters of Revolution Helicopter overtly asserted that was
the case and exhorted advertisers to stop en masse. Whether by coincidence
or not, Campbell bitterly complained and never published another issue. He
even claimed Fetters was putting him out of business. If the tactic worked,
it would seem to confirm that those who quit WERE paying an 'insurance'
premium, I suppose.
Tony Pucillo
edt...@erols.com wrote:
>
> "Charles K. Scott" wrote:
>
> > In article <8d2063$i4j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> > jho...@my-deja.com writes:
> >
> > > I've been following this for some time and agree zzzoom is unstable.
> > > But I have one question. When and how did Tony Pucillo get involved in
> > > this? From what I gather, Tony was the lawyer for one of zoom's
> > > creditors in a previous bankruptcy. Is that true? Thanks for any info.
> >
>
> I'm sure that Tony will respond to this on his own, but until he does, let
> me propose one *slight* modification to Corky's otherwise right-on-target
> synopsis.
>
> > He discovered a
> > relentless pattern of extortion by Campbell who used the power of his
> > magazine to extract electronic goodies (among other things) to test,
> > some of which were never returned. He claimed they were stolen but
> > some then showed up in his house, according to Toni.
>
> I think that it would be more accurate to say something like, "according to
> people whom Tony has interviewed and/or deposed", but we'll let him speak
> for himself.
--
highflyer
Actually, Jim is sometimes a good fiction writer. Many of his super
test reports made exciting and interesting reading. If he had gone
ahead and labeled them clearly as fiction he would probably never have
gotten in trouble.
Unfortunately, he labeled them "hard nosed investigative reporting" and
implied that they were something other than fiction. That has and is
causing him no end of grief.
I rather suspect that his personality problem and his grasp of reality
is such that he has difficulty sometimes telling the difference between
his fictive worlds and the one the rest of us live in. He is certainly
not the only person, getting along in the world, with a sometimes
slippery grasp of reality. However, he did cause a lot of good people
a lot of grief because he trumpeted his strange version of reality
so loudly in his magazine. It is always a question, "Where do you
draw the line?"
I have no problem personally, with people whose perceptions of the
world are somewhat out of touch with reality. I can usually deal
with their distorted perception. However, I DO have a problem when
they attempt to force the world to agree with their misconceptions. :-)
--
HighFlyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Tony Pucillo
I just noticed from your link, that in November '99 Campbell referred to US
Aviator being in business for 12 years. Lemme see. First issue, Nov. '89.
Calls it quits Sept. '99 about 25 issues short of ten years' worth and a
couple of months short of a decade.
I get it, this is Campbell math again, isn't it??
Tony Pucillo
John H Ousterhout wrote:
>
> In the April 4th issue of Aero News Network, it appears that Jim
> Campbell heavily plagiarized copyrighted material from the Vans
> Aircraft Web page.
>
> Check it out and decide for yourself.
>
> http://www.aero-news.net/news/archive2000/0400news/040400a.htm
>
> http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/pers-bil.htm
>
> - John Ousterhout -
> http://www.cyberis.net/~jouster/
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
--
jho...@my-deja.com
Thanks for the reply. I had seen some of the stuff you talk about
from the "early days" but didn't see your name. I re-did the search and
found it. I think zzoom is like the rabid dog, one minute nice, calm and
friendly, the next all over you tearing you a new @@@hole. Maybe I'll
get over to Pinkneyville, only a hop, skip and puke across the river
from my place!
Kevin Hovis
In article <38F5365E...@flite.net>,
Don Campbell
Don
Tony Pucillo wrote:
> Hi John:
>
> I just noticed from your link, that in November '99 Campbell referred to US
> Aviator being in business for 12 years. Lemme see. First issue, Nov. '89.
> Calls it quits Sept. '99 about 25 issues short of ten years' worth and a
> couple of months short of a decade.
>
> I get it, this is Campbell math again, isn't it??
>
> Tony Pucillo
>
> John H Ousterhout wrote:
> >
> > In the April 4th issue of Aero News Network, it appears that Jim
> > Campbell heavily plagiarized copyrighted material from the Vans
> > Aircraft Web page.
> >
> > Check it out and decide for yourself.
> >
> > http://www.aero-news.net/news/archive2000/0400news/040400a.htm
> >
> > http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/pers-bil.htm
> >
> > - John Ousterhout -
> > http://www.cyberis.net/~jouster/
> >
> > * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> > The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>