ZZZ, Zoom continues to attack Chuck Slusarczyk
John Ousterhout
of attacks on Chuck Slusarczyk.
[QUOTE]
"Ya Gotta Be Kidding" Award: Ultralight Aviation's Ever-Present Clown/Part-Time
Rip-Off Artist, Chuck Slusarczyk of CGS Aviation. (Rant Mode "On") Every time we
go to these events, this clown parades around this silly "Zoom Free Zone" sign
trying to intimate that he is being picked on by ANN's Editor-In-Chief, Jim
"Zoom" Campbell. Campbell has written extensively about the problems experienced
by a number (but not all) of Slusarczyk's customers. While a number of CGS
Aviation Hawk owners are rightfully happy with their aircraft (which can be a
delightful little flyer), this character still pulls enough shady moves that we
can not recommend him and whenever we note this, a new round of personal
attacks, falsehoods and other crapola emerges.
[snip]
[END QUOTE]
I don't believe that it's only coincidence that all of Campbell's attacks on
Chuck began after Chuck was the first to publicly challenge Campbell's
credentials, credibility and truthfulness.
FACT: Chuck Slusarczyk is in the EAA Hall of Fame. I believe that the only
hall that Captain Zoom qualifies for is the Journalists Hall of Shame.
- John Ousterhout -
rah/14, I've been Zoomed and survived.
Read my Captain Zoom page http://www.cyberis.net/~jouster
Juan Jimenez
ago.
"John Ousterhout" <jou...@DIESPAMMERSDIEcyberis.net> wrote in message
news:9m0mm...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In todays AeroNews Best of Oshkosh ...
Warren & Nancy
anyway.
Warren (I too have been Zoomed and survived)
Juan Jimenez
readers. I get mail all the time about the articles I write for Aero-News,
and I try to do a good job with them. <shrug>
"Warren & Nancy" <99...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B840A19...@home.com...
JUSTJEFFMC
will give you the answer you are looking for.
I am one of Chucks customers. I am COMPLETELY satisfied with the product and
the service! Chuck continued to ship parts even through very tough times.
A fan of Chuck and his Hawk,
Jeff McNeil
Daniel Grunloh
John Ousterhout wrote:
> In todays AeroNews Best of Oshkosh Jim Campbell continues his many years pattern
> of attacks on Chuck Slusarczyk.
>
> [QUOTE]
> "Ya Gotta Be Kidding" Award: Ultralight Aviation's Ever-Present Clown/Part-Time
> Rip-Off Artist, Chuck Slusarczyk of CGS Aviation. (Rant Mode "On") Every time we
> go to these events, this clown parades around this silly "Zoom Free Zone" sign
> trying to intimate that he is being picked on by ANN's Editor-In-Chief, Jim
> "Zoom" Campbell. Campbell has written extensively about the problems experienced
> by a number (but not all) of Slusarczyk's customers. While a number of CGS
> Aviation Hawk owners are rightfully happy with their aircraft (which can be a
> delightful little flyer), this character still pulls enough shady moves that we
> can not recommend him and whenever we note this, a new round of personal
> attacks, falsehoods and other crapola emerges.
> [snip]
> [END QUOTE]
>
>
Thanks John. I also note the abundant use of the plural "we" again. It happens
a lot with him. Refers to himself in the third person while using the plural "we".
--
Daniel Grunloh (gru...@uiuc.edu)
http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~grunloh
Kevin O'Brien
>
>In todays AeroNews Best of Oshkosh Jim Campbell continues his many years pattern
>of attacks on Chuck Slusarczyk.
I was embarrassed to see this on a page that also contains material I
contributed. At OSH I met Chuck face-to-face. I discussed one of Jim's perennial
charges with him at great length, and Chuck carries a thick folder of
documentation that refutes the charge. The customer in question (George Conn),
far from being the gentle victim that Zoom portrays, is anybody's idea of a
customer from Hell. Chuck has literally a ream of correspondence on the Conn
matter.
After discussing this I went back and had a long talk with Jim about it. Jim's
responce was essentially, (this is a paraphrase) "well, that's as may be, but
Chuck's still prone to get slippery when he's under financial pressure..." and
he went on to cite his version of facts in a *different* case.
Here are the facts of the Conn case as I understand them. I have not talked with
Conn but I have seen lots of his correspondence. I have talked face to face with
Chuck Slusarczyk and Jim Campbell, *at length*, about the case:
* Chuck had sold out his company to investors during the first ul boom. Chuck
was not a principal, owner, or even officer in the company; he was the designer
and the "airshow personality," but he had squatto to do with sales or business
at the time.
* George Conn bought a Hawk during a show (S n F?) from a DEALER. Dave
Gremminger, who was that iteration of CGS's sales guy, was there, according to
the dealer. Conn claims Chuck was there but the dealer doesn't remember it that
way. Chuck for his part can't remember Conn. I think he is being 100% honest
about that, and he was never there... I suspect Conn mistook Dave G. for Chuck.
* George Conn paid the dealer a deposit of between $2 and $3k - there is no
proof that a dime of the money went to the manufacturer ("Old CGS"), there is no
proof that it didn't; the records of the dealer are incomplete, and he just
doesn't know, and Chuck just doesn't know, either.
* an order was placed with Old CGS for the aircraft
* around this time, the 20/20 hatchet job and other things (perhaps including
market saturation) evaporated the market. That version of CGS ("Old CGS") went
bust and so did the dealer.
* Conn never got his plane, and he never got his deposit back. He waited quite a
long time. He filed suit against (defunct) Old CGS in his state court, and won a
judgment by default when the nonexistent company never responded.
* Somewhere around this time Conn contacted Chuck. Chuck replied, in an honest
and businesslike letter, that he had no idea who Conn was but he'd try to get
the records and determine what was what. At this point Chuck DID NOT EVEN HAVE
THE RECORDS of the defunct company. He started a new company, but it literally
took him years to get the records back.
* Conn, alrady feeling gypped (remember he has paid something, and got nothing),
interpreted the letter from Chuck, where Chuck (honestly, mind!) said he
couldn't remember him, as an attempt to cheat him. Conn blows his stack.
* Conn does NOT help his cause by sending letter after letter to Chuck full of
wild allegations. Also "proof" documents that have been amateurishly doctored,
with sections blacked out like CIA FOIA documents, for christ's sake.
* Conn keeps sending bills with fanciful amounts of money to Chuck. "Interest"
and "Penalties."
* Conn has a jacket made with a slogan and his latest amount on the back. He
poses wearing the jacket with four stern-faced guys (his sons?) pointing at the
number. He sends the photo to Chuck. Chuck interprets this as a threat of
violence (I personally think that reads too much meaning into the stunt, but
remember, that Chuck has been seeing increasingly weird behaviour from Conn.
Conn has been a moving target).
* At some point Chuck gets the files and figures out what happened. He calls the
ex-dealer who remembers Conn. Chuck tries to make some kind of a deal with Conn.
* Meanwhile, Jim, who has had a spectacular but unrelated falling out with
Chuck, discovers Conn. He believes Conn's story (he's already predisposed to be
down on Chuck). He seizes Conn as a handy stick to beat Chuck with and begins
doing so.
* Enter Tony Pucillo. Tony negotiates a deal between Conn and Chuck. From Conn's
point of view it is a *very* sweet deal, particularly when considering that
under the law Chuck and current CGS do not owe George Conn *a damn thing*. Conn
will wind up with a new Hawk -- a better and different machine from the one he
first tried to buy -- and he essentially gets credit for everything he
*claimed*, some of it pretty loopy if you ask me. (Conn was getting according to
my understanding treble the cash value of what he put in. Nice deal if you can
get it).
* Conn balks at the deal. He gives up the chance to be more than made whole,
which Chuck was doing NOT because he owed it to him but because he was willing
to grease a squeaky wheel, and goes pouting off into the distance. Jim writes
this up as if CHUCK backed out and screwed Conn. Nosirreebob: Conn screwed
himself. Ask Tony (if he can talk about this; not sure whether it's client
privileged).
* Fast forward to 2001. Jim is still convinced that George Conn was this sweet,
innocent guy screwed by mean ol' Chuck, and he's still using him as a stick for
beating Chuck.
Trouble is, based on my look at the facts (the copious file that Chuck has which
he will I'm sure show any of you, and the stories that ran in US Aviator) Jim
ought to let up. I tried to talk to Jim about this a good bit. (Hence "in your
face," I suppose). George Conn, I think, wants to be a martyr more than he wants
to have a Hawk. Dumb. Jim Campbell wants to beat on Chuck more than he wants to
look at the facts in this case. Dumb. There are other incidents where Chuck and
Jim present facts that are at variance with each other, but when you ask Jim
what he has against Chuck it *always* gets back to Conn. Conn! More like
Conn-job. Conn is not trying to rip anyone off per se, as he sees it he is a
victim, but he definitely was a moving target as a customer, and could not be
satisfied. As I see it George Conn is one of those guys who makes his own
headwind in life, and he's so sure he's being screwed he winds up screwing
himself.
Final note: this post presents the facts as *I recall* them, but I gathered them
secondhand from Jim, Chuck, and published materials. At least two of the people
*directly involved* are active in this group and I welcome corrections.
cheers
-=K=-
Rule #3: Faith can move mountains. Your aeroplane cannot.
RobertR237
<fly...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>Well, setting aside the aversion to JC, I know that it gets a -lot- of
>readers. I get mail all the time about the articles I write for Aero-News,
>and I try to do a good job with them. <shrug>
>
>"
Jaun,
Despite our differences on some issues I have no doubt that you try and do a
good job on your articles. It is unfortunate that you have picked someone to
write for who is far less than honest in his attacks on others and who will
turn on you in an instant if you chose to question his opinions or sources.
It's ironic that this ongoing attack on Chuck and CGS continues while Campbell
continues to bill for advertising that has never been requested and never even
done. His recent dig at Pulsar prompted a little digging on my own and I found
that Pulsar had refused to pay $1200 for two months worth of advertising on ANN
which was never requested by or authorized by Pulsar. Seems that Campbell has
solicited Pulsar for advertising after doing a story on them. The owner never
replied because he didn't feel the money (the quote was for something around
300 a month) was worth it. Several months later, he receives a bill for two
months at $600 per month. No one that I have talked with ever saw the ads and
nobody ever agreed to pay for them. Now Campbell is threatening to file a law
suit.
This is just one example of which there are more. Is this really you bag?
Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....
"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)
RobertR237
<ke...@useorganisationasdomainname.com> writes:
> Known but valid recount of facts snipped <<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>Final note: this post presents the facts as *I recall* them, but I gathered
>them
>secondhand from Jim, Chuck, and published materials. At least two of the
>people
>*directly involved* are active in this group and I welcome corrections.
>
>cheers
>
>-=K=-
>
Hit the proverbial nail on the head with that. Now start asking Jim about
advertising that was never requested or authorized but is being billed for.
Talk with some of his advertisers who would rather pay than fight. I could go
on but I think you get the drift.
Juan Jimenez
I didn't pick JC, JC picked me out of a lot of people who wanted the free
ride at Sun-N-Fun in exchange for some articles. Like I've repeatedly
stated, I write because I like to write, not because I get paid or because I
subscribe to anything anyone else says. I stand by what -I- write, everyone
else should be expected to do the same. I believe I have the ability to
communicate good info in a clear, factual and interesting way to people in
the aviation industry, and Aero-News happens to be the outlet that wants me
to do that for them right now. <shrug>
Frankly, I don't particularly appreciate the way I was jumped on when people
found out that I write articles for Aero-News. That's no different than the
charges of character defamation that are levelled against Jim Campbell.
Guilt by association? I don't think so.
At this point, I really don't care what people think about where my articles
come out. I believe that what I put down on digital paper stands on its own
two feet as quality material that presents facts and ocassionally my
opinionsa as well. I call them as I see them and don't use my position as a
journalist to grind any axes. There are people here that have already
realized those facts, after some long and spirited private email
conversations, and we have made our peace as gentlemen.
Those who still have different viewpoints on my actions are certainly
entitled to their opinions. And that's the extent of _my_ concern for those
viewpoints.
Juan
"RobertR237" <rober...@aol.compost> wrote in message
news:20010822175048...@nso-mn.aol.com...
Richard R Ilfeld
<jou...@DIESPAMMERSDIEcyberis.net> wrote:
Wouldn't ya think, with all that is going on in the real world of
aviation today, that this clown could find something else
to write about. His credibility is as bankrupt as the rag
he used to run. Remember, the rantee is in the Hall of Fame,
the rantor can only get in if he buys a ticket. nuff said.
rri
ChuckSlusarczyk
>
>
>I don't believe that it's only coincidence that all of Campbell's attacks on
>Chuck began after Chuck was the first to publicly challenge Campbell's
>credentials, credibility and truthfulness.
>
>FACT: Chuck Slusarczyk is in the EAA Hall of Fame. I believe that the only
>hall that Captain Zoom qualifies for is the Journalists Hall of Shame.
>
>- John Ousterhout -
>rah/14, I've been Zoomed and survived.
>Read my Captain Zoom page http://www.cyberis.net/~jouster
You know it's pretty funny John that zoom has never got an award from his peer
group ,I have , I think he's green with envy. In fact Dan Johnson got an award
this year at Oshkosh for his pilot report articles. Funny you would have thought
that the first guy to get it would have been zoomy since he claims all those
skills as a "test" pilot .LOL!! He's a pathetic person but I hope he gets all he
deserves.
Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret
"Credibility it was always about credibility"
ChuckSlusarczyk
justj...@aol.comnojunk says...
Hi Jeff
Thanks for the support I appreciate it. See ya at the fly in in a couple of
weeks..
Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret
ChuckSlusarczyk
rober...@aol.compost says...
>
>It's ironic that this ongoing attack on Chuck and CGS continues while Campbell
>continues to bill for advertising that has never been requested and never even
>done. His recent dig at Pulsar prompted a little digging on my own and I found
>that Pulsar had refused to pay $1200 for two months worth of advertising on ANN
>which was never requested by or authorized by Pulsar. Seems that Campbell has
>solicited Pulsar for advertising after doing a story on them. The owner never
>replied because he didn't feel the money (the quote was for something around
>300 a month) was worth it. Several months later, he receives a bill for two
>months at $600 per month. No one that I have talked with ever saw the ads and
>nobody ever agreed to pay for them. Now Campbell is threatening to file a law
>suit.
>
>This is just one example of which there are more. Is this really you bag?
>
Ditto for RPE (Hirth engines) notice that they are no longer on the banner on
ANN. He's up to his same old crap, running unwanted ads then billing the
companies then threatening with a lawsuit. Think I'll call Pulsar and tell them
what I know .I wondered how long it would be before he started beating up on
Pulsar .I'm sure RPE will be next. He always was a phony and is still a phony.
Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret
"evil didn't triumph because good men spoke and evil was nuts" anon
Kevin O'Brien
>the service!
I hear that from a lot of people. Here is something about Chuck: I showed up
wearing the colours of his arch enemy, Jim. Chuck met me face to face and showed
me his side of the Conn-job story man to man. Chuck invited me to come fly the
Hawk. We weren't able to do that, because of my schedule.
Chuck did that despite knowing that Jim would probably prevent me from writing
anything positive about his plane (which Jim has praised extravagantly himself.
Too extravagantly: one of Chuck's beefs with Jim is that Jim claimed to have
done acro in Chuck's demo Hawk, and Chuck says he and a bunch of people watched
the flight and no acro was done. I dunno if the S-man articulates it quite that
way but I think that bogus praise is not much more use than bogus insult).
Chuck also told me at some length about Hawks' excellent results in European
competition (a Spanish team, flying Hawks, did very well... I think I wrote the
details down but I don't remember them at present). He told me that Jim would
not let me write the story. I meant to beard Jim about this but we wound up in a
long discussion of many events from Jim's past that are not germane here.
Anyway, for every detractor I hear of (even Jim can't fill a hand with them,
counting on his fingers) there are many more satisfied Hawk drivers. Chuck has
numerous repeat customers, which is unlikely for someone who's a crook. People
can use their own judgment on this: which is more likely, that a guy who's a
crook has thrived in this small, gossipy business for years or that a guy who's
sold something like 1500 planes over the years (I don't think even Chuck knows
the exact number) has one or two crank customers?
As far as CGS having gone through some rough times, show me an UL/Lightplane
maker that hasn't. The Conn thing is an illustration of how decently Chuck tried
to deal with a rough-times problem, and at the same time an illustration of how
people can get completely at cross-purposes without any ill intentions.
Nobody in this business really makes money. Even the real crooks like OMAC and
Dennis Fetters would have done better to work their scams in penny stocks
instead. (And for that matter, I don't think that the OMAC principals, the
Mihaylos, and Fetters started out to be crooks. They just painted themselves
into a corner where crookedness looked like a smart move).
ChuckSlusarczyk
>After discussing this I went back and had a long talk with Jim about it. Jim's
>responce was essentially, (this is a paraphrase) "well, that's as may be, but
>Chuck's still prone to get slippery when he's under financial pressure..." and
>he went on to cite his version of facts in a *different* case.
Exactly my problem with him ,he makes vague charges but won't back them up with
data. He creates a perception that is different from reality. But since he once
played at being a Doctor,Father ,Airline Pilot,Food Mission pilot and one I
hadn't heard before,free falling from 10 miles high I guess his reality is
totally different from normal people.Just my opinion of course.
>* Chuck had sold out his company to investors during the first ul boom. Chuck
>was not a principal, owner, or even officer in the company; he was the designer
>and the "airshow personality," but he had squatto to do with sales or business
>at the time.
>
>* George Conn bought a Hawk during a show (S n F?) from a DEALER.
Minor correction ,the dealer was Bob Keech not Dave Gremminger.
>Dave Gremminger, who was that iteration of CGS's sales guy, was there,
>>according to
>the dealer. Conn claims Chuck was there but the dealer doesn't remember it that
>way. Chuck for his part can't remember Conn. I think he is being 100% honest
>about that, and he was never there... I suspect Conn mistook Dave G. for Chuck.
Another minor cerrection. The sales rep from CGS was Gary Grissinger, who along
with Bob Keech took Conns order at Sun n Fun.
>
>* George Conn paid the dealer a deposit of between $2 and $3k - there is no
>proof that a dime of the money went to the manufacturer ("Old CGS"), there is no
>proof that it didn't; the records of the dealer are incomplete, and he just
>doesn't know, and Chuck just doesn't know, either.
>
>* an order was placed with Old CGS for the aircraft
I now have the copy of the check Conn paid to the dealer and a copy of the check
paid by the dealer to the "old" CGS. I never personally took any of Conns money
as both Conn and zoom keep saying.
>
>* around this time, the 20/20 hatchet job and other things (perhaps including
>market saturation) evaporated the market. That version of CGS ("Old CGS") went
>bust and so did the dealer.
>
>* Conn never got his plane, and he never got his deposit back. He waited quite a
>long time. He filed suit against (defunct) Old CGS in his state court, and won a
>judgment by default when the nonexistent company never responded.
>
>* Somewhere around this time Conn contacted Chuck. Chuck replied, in an honest
>and businesslike letter, that he had no idea who Conn was but he'd try to get
>the records and determine what was what. At this point Chuck DID NOT EVEN HAVE
>THE RECORDS of the defunct company. He started a new company, but it literally
>took him years to get the records back.
When I told Conn I didn't remember him he got quite indignant and said I handed
"YOU" the money over the hood of a car at the Sun n Fun. I reality he gave it
to Grissinger and Keech.
Be glad to show them to anyone,
>and the stories that ran in US Aviator) Jim
>ought to let up. I tried to talk to Jim about this a good bit. (Hence "in your
>face," I suppose). George Conn, I think, wants to be a martyr more than he wants
>to have a Hawk. Dumb. Jim Campbell wants to beat on Chuck more than he wants to
>look at the facts in this case. Dumb. There are other incidents where Chuck and
>Jim present facts that are at variance with each other, but when you ask Jim
>what he has against Chuck it *always* gets back to Conn. Conn! More like
>Conn-job. Conn is not trying to rip anyone off per se, as he sees it he is a
>victim, but he definitely was a moving target as a customer, and could not be
>satisfied. As I see it George Conn is one of those guys who makes his own
>headwind in life, and he's so sure he's being screwed he winds up screwing
>himself.
>
>Final note: this post presents the facts as *I recall* them, but I gathered them
>secondhand from Jim, Chuck, and published materials. At least two of the people
>*directly involved* are active in this group and I welcome corrections.
>
>cheers
>
>-=K=-
>
All in all a pretty good synopsis.It all boils down to credibility and zoom
won't provide any real data and never did, so it's as I always said "
credibility it's always been about credibility".
see ya
Chuck S RAH-14/1
"evil didn't prosper because good men spoke and evil was nuts" anon
Kevin O'Brien
>
>All in all a pretty good synopsis.
Thanks, Chuck, and thanks for the corrections. I had forgotten the name of the
dealer (Bob Keech) and dunno how I got Dave Gremminger (which is the name of a
real guy in aviation) from Gary Grissinger. My apologies to these three
gentlemen for the name mixups.
By the way, all, the amplified story (Conn handing the check to Keech and
Grissinger, over the hood of a truck, but thinking he handed it to Chuck) is
exactly the way Chuck told it to me. IIRC Chuck has this in writing from Bob
Keech as well?
Jon Herd
> Thanks John. I also note the abundant use of the plural "we" again. It happens
> a lot with him. Refers to himself in the third person while using the plural "we".
So does the Queen. has he royal pretensions?
ChuckSlusarczyk
>
>
>By the way, all, the amplified story (Conn handing the check to Keech and
>Grissinger, over the hood of a truck, but thinking he handed it to Chuck) is
>exactly the way Chuck told it to me. IIRC Chuck has this in writing from Bob
>Keech as well?
Bob remembered Conn very well when I asked him and he told me about the
transaction over the hood of the car /truck. He even told that to conn during a
meeting I had with conn at SnF and yet conn and zoom still say conn gave the
money to me. The truth dosen't matter to zoom only his vendetta.
Notice that there is not a peep out of zoom about the recent Dreamwings fiasco?
how many people lost deposit money on that one ,yet zoom stays focused on me.
That's what I mean when I say he has no credibility,the guys a first class
phony.
See ya
Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret
"credibility it was always about credibility" chuck
Daniel Grunloh
Jon Herd wrote:
No I think it just a way of trying to give his words more importance by implying
there is someone more than himself making this rants. It's just him. It gets spooky
sometime though for a while when there are all these "identities". Jim himself, Jim the
editor, Zoom the personality, "the" magazine, and now ANN. They are all "we".
I guess the Doctor is in there too.
Charles K. Scott
"Juan Jimenez" <fly...@hotmail.com> writes:
> Frankly, I don't particularly appreciate the way I was jumped on when people
> found out that I write articles for Aero-News. That's no different than the
> charges of character defamation that are levelled against Jim Campbell.
> Guilt by association? I don't think so.
Juan, there is a such a thing as guilt by association. How many
writers do you know of who write for people or organizations they
cannot stand?
By the way, what "charges of character defamation that are levelled
against Jim Campbell" are false? I only know of the "Campbellocities"
that are verified with facts contrary to his fabrications.
Corky Scott
Ed Sullivan
Grunloh <gru...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
I think the Zoomer is using the editorial
"we". A device used on newspapers to keeps
the story from sounding like a personal
editorial. In his case that ain't gonna hunt.
Ed Sullivan
C.D.Damron
"Charles K. Scott" <Charles...@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
news:9m33r4$khf$1...@merrimack.Dartmouth.EDU...
Juan Jimenez
"Charles K. Scott" <Charles...@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
news:9m33r4$khf$1...@merrimack.Dartmouth.EDU...
>
> writers do you know of who write for people or organizations they
> cannot stand?
Not in this case. I get along just fine with JC. Some people don't like
that. <shrug>
> By the way, what "charges of character defamation that are levelled
> against Jim Campbell" are false? I only know of the "Campbellocities"
> that are verified with facts contrary to his fabrications.
I'm not going to get into this. You folks can argue all you want about how
you don't like the guy. I have more important things to do.
Juan
Juan Jimenez
them very well, and that it's not your business anyway. And would probably
ignore the criticism.
"C.D.Damron" <dam...@lex.infi.net> wrote in message
news:9m3bkl$cas$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
Kevin O'Brien
>
>Notice that there is not a peep out of zoom about the recent Dreamwings fiasco?
>how many people lost deposit money on that one
Chuck,
Gotta say on this one it's not as black and white as you make it.
Jim's OSH 99 report sounds skeptical about Dreamwings, which made a big splash
there. At the time people (including me) were being pretty dismissive of
Hunter/DW's claims in this group. Jim doesn't let him have it with both barrels
as we in the NG did, or as Jim does (fairly) to Fetters or (unfairly) to you:
http://www.aero-news.net/sportav/oshkosh99c.htm
Just six weeks ago Dreamwings went paws up. ANN ran both the official statement
on the website, the letter soliciting money that John Hunter of Dreamwings (not
to be confused with John Hunter of Spectrum/Aeroprakt -- different guy as "good
John" takes pains to point out here: http://www.spectrumaircraft.com/org.shtml)
sent to depositors. ANN pointed out the discrepancy between the two letters and
ran a derisive comment from an ANN reader.
http://www.aero-news.net/news2001/0600/062901a.htm
ANN concluded with the comment, "Spend your money like you have to earn it."
>yet zoom stays focused on me.
Yeah, there you have a point. Compared to the dreamwings fiasco, even if you DID
all the stuff Jim claims you did (and I think we have clarified that...) you
would be a mere amateur at the rip-off game. And don't forget that Jim remains
solidly behind Jim Bede, another point on which I cannot sway him... yet. Fr
every pissed off customer that Chuck Many Letters has got, it's a fair bet that
Dreamwings has a dozen (or a hundred) and Bede has a thousand.
All I can say is that one important factor in choosing a kit plane or ultralight
is doing your due diligence about the design, the designer, and the company.
Following that rule leads the savvy prospective buyer to have a bias in favour
of old, established outfits (including CGS) as opposed to new upstarts. This
means that the buyers that the upstarts get are disproportionately Not Savvy (I
was going to use the uncharitable term "bozos"), whose personal characteristics
are such that they further bias the whole jeezly project towards failure. It's
not fair to those new guys who are operating honestly and above board, and who
bring technically mature machines to market. Unfortunately, for every one of
those, there are a bunch of dreamers who cut corners. Most of whom are not
crooks but they sure look that way to the guy who winds up with an empty
checkbook and a worthless production number for an aircraft that will never be
produced.
Russell Kent
> news:9m3bkl$cas$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> > If you join the Hells Angels, you invite certain criticism.
Juan Jimenez responded:
> And people who know the Hell's Angels would tell you that you don't know
> them very well, and that it's not your business anyway. And would probably
> ignore the criticism.
So why aren't you ignoring the criticism? :-)
Russell Kent
Paul J. Bussiere
know. Man....I'm speechless. Chuck, I'm impressed....that's more
baloney than any man should have to endure. At some point doesn't
Zoom cross the line into libel? Tony?
Paul Bussiere
http://www.checksix.net
Charles K. Scott
"Juan Jimenez" <fly...@hotmail.com> writes:
> "Charles K. Scott" <Charles...@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> news:9m33r4$khf$1...@merrimack.Dartmouth.EDU...
> >
> > Juan, there is a such a thing as guilt by association. How many
> > writers do you know of who write for people or organizations they
> > cannot stand?
>
> Not in this case. I get along just fine with JC. Some people don't like
> that. <shrug>
I don't think I explained myself properly. You mentioned that you are
being castigated due to guilt by association. I'm saying that when you
associate with someone who is notorious, it's almost impossible not to
be identified with them.
My comment about writers is meant to say that generally writers don't
write for associations/employers they do not like or cannot identify
with. You get along fine with JC (as you point out above), you are
with him at events and defend him to this group. Then you complain
that you get splashed with the same brush that paints Mr. Campbell.
Corky Scott
Juan Jimenez
"Russell Kent" <ke...@titania.tye.sc.ti.com> wrote in message
news:3B853D86...@titania.tye.sc.ti.com...
Juan Jimenez
>
> I don't think I explained myself properly. You mentioned that you are
> being castigated due to guilt by association. I'm saying that when you
> associate with someone who is notorious, it's almost impossible not to
> be identified with them.
For people who judge others that way, I guess. Most people who do that feel
quite differently when someone does it to them.
> My comment about writers is meant to say that generally writers don't
> write for associations/employers they do not like or cannot identify
> with. You get along fine with JC (as you point out above), you are
> with him at events and defend him to this group. Then you complain
> that you get splashed with the same brush that paints Mr. Campbell.
And rightly so. There are plenty of couch potatoes here who think it is
perfectly allright to judge people from the anonymity of their screens,
without knowing a damn thing about them. That just proves one single fact:
There's always that 10%.
Juan
RobertR237
<ChuckSlusar...@newsguy.com> writes:
>
>Ditto for RPE (Hirth engines) notice that they are no longer on the banner on
>ANN. He's up to his same old crap, running unwanted ads then billing the
>companies then threatening with a lawsuit. Think I'll call Pulsar and tell
>them
>what I know .I wondered how long it would be before he started beating up on
>Pulsar .I'm sure RPE will be next. He always was a phony and is still a
>phony.
>
>Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret
>
>"evil didn't triumph because good men spoke and evil was nuts" anon
>
Fortunately, Pulsar was not totally in the dark regarding Campbell since they
still have several people from the TRI-R (KIS) group who know the past history
of dealings.
RobertR237
<fly...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>Bob,
>
>I didn't pick JC, JC picked me out of a lot of people who wanted the free
>ride at Sun-N-Fun in exchange for some articles. Like I've repeatedly
>stated, I write because I like to write, not because I get paid or because I
>subscribe to anything anyone else says. I stand by what -I- write, everyone
>else should be expected to do the same. I believe I have the ability to
>communicate good info in a clear, factual and interesting way to people in
>the aviation industry, and Aero-News happens to be the outlet that wants me
>to do that for them right now. <shrug>
>
If you really enjoy it, I can understand you reasons and don't have a problem
with them but...
>Frankly, I don't particularly appreciate the way I was jumped on when people
>found out that I write articles for Aero-News. That's no different than the
>charges of character defamation that are levelled against Jim Campbell.
>Guilt by association? I don't think so.
>
when one desides to climb into the pig pen with a big old stinking hog, one
should not be surprised when others believe the worst about them. Guilt by
association? Maybe you don't think so but then what view do others have to use
in making a judgement except by whom you chose to associate with? If you saw
you kids hanging with the local known drug dealers would your first thought be
that they were trying to reform them or that they were headed for trouble?
>At this point, I really don't care what people think about where my articles
>come out. I believe that what I put down on digital paper stands on its own
>two feet as quality material that presents facts and ocassionally my
>opinionsa as well. I call them as I see them and don't use my position as a
>journalist to grind any axes. There are people here that have already
>realized those facts, after some long and spirited private email
>conversations, and we have made our peace as gentlemen.
>
As I said earlier, I have no doubt that you are trying to do a good job. The
issue that hurts you and others that write for ANN is that a past history of
misinformation and total fabrications taints every story and article with doubt
as to it's accuracy. I, and I suspect many others, will always question the
accuracy and truthfullness of every story we see in ANN, even when the byline
says that Jaun was the author.
>Those who still have different viewpoints on my actions are certainly
>entitled to their opinions. And that's the extent of _my_ concern for those
>viewpoints.
>
>Juan
Ditto
ChuckSlusarczyk
>
>
>Gotta say on this one it's not as black and white as you make it.
>
>Jim's OSH 99 report sounds skeptical about Dreamwings, which made a big splash
>there. At the time people (including me) were being pretty dismissive of
>Hunter/DW's claims in this group. Jim doesn't let him have it with both barrels
>as we in the NG did, or as Jim does (fairly) to Fetters or (unfairly) to you:
I'll concede that he made a "Peep", but his handling of Dreamwings was fluff
compared to how he deals with me. Compare the difference in his tone between us
and Dwings. not fair or balanced...But again I will concur you have a valid
point ,he did make a peep.. :-)
>
>ANN concluded with the comment, "Spend your money like you have to earn it."
He sure didn't say NOT RECOMMENDED ,or D- rating ...just "spend your money
etc...."
kinda like a Monty Python torture with the comphy chair :-)
>
>>yet zoom stays focused on me.
>
>Yeah, there you have a point. Compared to the dreamwings fiasco, even if you DID
>all the stuff Jim claims you did (and I think we have clarified that...) you
>would be a mere amateur at the rip-off game. And don't forget that Jim remains
>solidly behind Jim Bede, another point on which I cannot sway him... yet. For
>every pissed off customer that Chuck Many Letters has got, it's a fair bet that
>Dreamwings has a dozen (or a hundred) and Bede has a thousand.
That is better then a fair bet.
>
>All I can say is that one important factor in choosing a kit plane or ultralight
>is doing your due diligence about the design, the designer, and the company.
>Following that rule leads the savvy prospective buyer to have a bias in favour
>of old, established outfits (including CGS) as opposed to new upstarts
Fair enough and if anyone that reads any of zooms misinformation wants copies of
what I have ...just ask and by the way, ask zoom for proof of what he claims to
have done . Start with the Eutheopian food flights and maybe a quiry about a
10mile free fall as claimed in a recent ANN. Credibility it was always about
credibility.
see ya
Chuck RAH-14/1 ret
ChuckSlusarczyk
>
>I'd always wondered what the story was behind Zoom vs CGS and now I
>know. Man....I'm speechless. Chuck, I'm impressed....that's more
>baloney than any man should have to endure. At some point doesn't
>Zoom cross the line into libel? Tony?
>
He has, but he's poor as a church mouse and not worth suing. But it may have to
come to that soon.
See ya
Chuck S
Juan Jimenez
"RobertR237" <rober...@aol.compost> wrote in message
news:20010823183228...@nso-fl.aol.com...
>
> when one desides to climb into the pig pen with a big old stinking hog,
one
> should not be surprised when others believe the worst about them.
Oh, BS. Tell that to the farmer that raises hogs.
> If you saw
> you kids hanging with the local known drug dealers would your first
thought be
> that they were trying to reform them or that they were headed for trouble?
Are you seriously comparing Jim Campbell to a drug dealer? You should know
better, Robert.
> As I said earlier, I have no doubt that you are trying to do a good job.
The
> issue that hurts you and others that write for ANN is that a past history
of
> misinformation and total fabrications taints every story and article with
doubt
> as to it's accuracy.
I doubt that very much, particularly considering that the number of people
who don't like JC can be counted in one hand and in one place, here in RAH.
Juan
Kyle Boatright
>The
>> issue that hurts you and others that write for ANN is that a past history
>of
>> misinformation and total fabrications taints every story and article with
>doubt
>> as to it's accuracy.
>
>I doubt that very much, particularly considering that the number of people
>who don't like JC can be counted in one hand and in one place, here in RAH.
>
>Juan
Based on the list of folks JC sued a few years ago, I'd say there are at least
15 people on RAH who don't like him.
That makes me at least number 16 on the list of non-admirers.
KB
John Ammeter
wrote:
>
>I doubt that very much, particularly considering that the number of people
>who don't like JC can be counted in one hand and in one place, here in RAH.
>
>Juan
>
>
Juan,
I don't know how you figure that statement. Even if you only include
the people he's sued, you get over 15. If you throw in ex-wife, ex
employee's, ex advertisers, and those he's attacked without reason you
can easily reach well into the three figure area.
I can't say I dislike or like him. Actually, the closest "feeling" I
could say I have about him is pity. Pity that he doesn't recognize
his illness and hasn't been able to get treatment for it. Pity that
he has so few people that he can truly call friend. Are you really
his friend or are you simply using him as he uses you?
Jim has the ability to excell but he's not satisfied with that. He
has to have the adulation and admiration of everyone about him.
Why else would he invent the Ethopian rescue flights, his lost son,
his 10 G jet flights, his Japan Airlines 747 flights or his 10 mile
high parachute jump.
He talks the talk but, when pressed to provide evidence of his claims,
he changes the subject.
I wouldn't give a damn about his dreams or lies but when he steps over
the line and denigrates people and companys that do NOT deserve the
crap he says about them, yes, I do care. I think James Richard
Campbell is a sick man and should seek treatment for his illness.
John Ammeter
EAA Technical Counselor
NRA Life Member
Council Member, Snohomish Indian Tribe
assa9
He has not treated me bad, but jeez, I can read,
and I did talk to chuck personally.
I'm not rabidly against him, but he seems like a nut from afar.
assa9
"Richard Riley" <ric...@mylastname.net> wrote in message
news:badbotsvhgbbfuei1...@4ax.com...
> On 24 Aug 2001 01:40:42 GMT, kboat...@aol.comnobs (Kyle Boatright)
> spun an octopus over his head and announced to readers of
> rec.aviation.homebuilt that:
> I can add at least a dozen more that have never posted on the usenet,
> and were never sued by him. And there are the exes of varying
> flavors, like Laurel and Mary, etc.
>
> Add to that the list of people that worked for him at one time or
> another, the former advertisers, etc, it gets to be a sizeable list.
> If everyone else thinks a=1 and you think it equals 2, maybe everyone
> else is right.
>
> Juan, we have very different ideas of what kind of behaviors are to be
> tolerated or accepted. Imagine what kind of aviation industry we'd
> have if every aviation manufacturer acted like Jim B. and every
> aviation magazine editor acted like Jim C. I doubt there'd be
> commercial aviation, let alone the experimental category.
>
> (Is there a Jim A somewhere?)
Juan Jimenez
resembling a significant group of people in the aviation industry, there
would be no Aero-News, and they wouldn't have a single advertiser. They
would have gone under a long time ago. The fact that they are still around
should tell you something.
Juan
"Richard Riley" <ric...@mylastname.net> wrote in message
news:badbotsvhgbbfuei1...@4ax.com...
>
Juan Jimenez
news:3b95b353.180656842@news...
>
> He talks the talk but, when pressed to provide evidence of his claims, he
changes the subject.
John,
I respect your opinions. Allow me share some of mine for a moment.
I'll let you in on a little secret, just to give you a small taste of why I
tend to take what some people say here about JC with a large grain of salt.
The only statement JC has made to me, to my face, since I met him at
Sun-N-Fun, that sounded like a wild tale was a statement that he attended
and graduated from the National Test Pilot School. He doesn't claim he's an
NTPS test pilot graduate, just that he attended the school and graduated.
I checked, because I wanted to know first-hand if he had told me the truth.
He did.
He didn't attend the year-long, quarter-million course, but he did attend
one or more courses and finished them successfully. I was not able to find
out what courses, that is private information. But the NTPS did confirm that
to me in email.
Other than that, since April, in all the times I've talked to him about
various subjects (and we've talked about a whole bunch of stuff), he's never
made any grandiose statements about himself that raised my eyebrows. The man
has a large ego, but I know a lot of other people who fall in the same
category and I don't consider that to be a negative trait. In his chosen
line of business, it's probably a good thing to have.
Of course, it could certainly be that he never had an opportunity to do so,
that we just never talked about subjects that would cause him to do that, or
that he simply doesn't want to do that with me. But I would think that if he
were as big a pathological liar as some people here continually say he is,
or was, or may be, I would have had occassion to personally experience such
behaviour. I have not.
So what I choose to do is very simple, what I always do when I meet anyone
of whom I've heard negative comments. I give them the benefit of the doubt
and put them on a clean slate, for the simple reason that all stories have
two sides to them. You know why I treat people that way? Simple rule: Treat
people as you would expect them to treat you. I don't know about you, but it
works for me, time and time again, even with people here in RAH who have a
very negative opinion of my "online" persona.
Juan
Geoff Thistlethwaite
"Ed Sullivan" <e...@qnis.net> wrote in message
news:3b852973....@news.qnis.net...
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2001 09:40:34 -0500, Daniel
> Grunloh <gru...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>
> I think the Zoomer is using the editorial
> "we". A device used on newspapers to keeps
> the story from sounding like a personal
> editorial. In his case that ain't gonna hunt.
>
> Ed Sullivan
Too true, keep in mind that in the "olden" day of newspaper lore
editors/publishers were like the head of a family. That is, reporters and
other writers were expected to "toe the line" via agreement with editorial
policy and content. If a reporter would turn in a story that differed
greatly from what was the editorial wisdom he was usually invited for drinks
after work and "reeducated".
This may be one reason why Juan and Kevin have been taken to task in this
group for their writing efforts on behalf of the alleged journalist/editor.
BTW Kevin I've admired your writing and would be honored to shake your hand
one day if I ever get a chance to meet you. And I certainly think you
could(can) find better outlets for your handiwork than ANN. The real pisser
is that an ANN is sorely needed, but MUST have journalistic credibility
which, as Chuck S points out, is totally lacking by the editor/publisher of
ANN(the head of the family so to speak).
Piece
Geoff Thistlethwaite
PS Chuck- I know, I know, the interest on my beer payment is piling
up....hell if I don't get to SnF next year and pay you off when I finally do
you won't have to buy no beer for the Hawk party...btw heard Bubba Vidrine
finally got a Sukoi? Geez what a beast of a plane. Can't wait till he starts
practicing for the Worlds...I'll be able to hear that plane all over
Opelousas hehe.
Warren & Nancy
And that might mean that you will become an e-zine owner/editor/writer?
;-)
Warren
Warren & Nancy
Have you ever gone to http://www.cyberis.net/~jouster/zoom/zoom.html and
read all about your boss?
Jon Herd
> Richard, if your opinion of JC were accepted and shared by anything
> resembling a significant group of people in the aviation industry, there
> would be no Aero-News, and they wouldn't have a single advertiser. They
> would have gone under a long time ago. The fact that they are still around
> should tell you something.
>
> Juan
>
Come on Juan, In a country of 350M people, there are more wannabe's
than actual pilots. My country (of birth) has a population of 20M and
the ratio's are probably the same. (I currently live in China).
If you count the people who know more than (to quote an American
saying, and let's hope I get it right) SQUAT about aviation, do THEY
read the rantings of Zoom esq?
Don't quote statistics with a statistician in view.
Personally, I read quite a few "Aviation" mags, but over time, one
sorts the wheat from the chafe. The 12 or 14 year old reader doesn't.
i.e. There are a lot of people who say they "love" aeroplanes but
never aviate.
take the blinkers off, will ya?
ChuckSlusarczyk
says...
>
>>I doubt that very much, particularly considering that the number of people
>>who don't like JC can be counted in one hand and in one place, here in RAH.
>>
>>Juan
>
>Based on the list of folks JC sued a few years ago, I'd say there are at least
>15 people on RAH who don't like him.
>
>That makes me at least number 16 on the list of non-admirers.
Hmmm sounds like jaun thinks exactly like zoom. He makes comments based on his
opinion, hearsay and lack of information and presents them as fact.Just like
zoom. Credibility?? Your comment is right on the mark and I bet it's more then
16 and more wide spread then RAH . Sun n Fun kicked him out bet there's another
15 or 20 :-). Nothing worse then an empty can making a lot of noise
and when it comes to hard truthful facts jaun and zoom are both empty
cans....and totally without credibility.
See ya
Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret
Credibility it's always been about credibility" chuck
ChuckSlusarczyk
>So what I choose to do is very simple, what I always do when I meet anyone
>of whom I've heard negative comments. I give them the benefit of the doubt
>and put them on a clean slate, for the simple reason that all stories have
>two sides to them. You know why I treat people that way? Simple rule: Treat
>people as you would expect them to treat you. I don't know about you, but it
>works for me, time and time again, even with people here in RAH who have a
>very negative opinion of my "online" persona.
Hmmm sounds good but not accurate as far as I'm concerned you "never" offered me
the "clean slate or benefit of the doubt" you never asked me my side of the conn
business or any of zoom claims against me ,you took zooms word for it. So please
don't portray your self as some kind of fair guy when in fact your actions don't
reflect your words. You don't know me or about me. You didn't stop by my booth
at Oshkosh and I couldn't find you at the press booth. So all the bluster about
Oshkosh was just that, bluster. Kevin did stop and we had a good discussion he
was man enough to come over and talk and not hide behind his "online" persona.
He learned that there are two sides to a story and he has earned my respect as
a man and a writer. You on the other hand ...oh never mind you don't care what I
think anyway...
Chuck S RAH -15/1 ret
"Credibility it was always about credibility" chuck
ChuckSlusarczyk
>
>PS Chuck- I know, I know, the interest on my beer payment is piling
>up....hell if I don't get to SnF next year and pay you off when I finally do
>you won't have to buy no beer for the Hawk party...btw heard Bubba Vidrine
>finally got a Sukoi? Geez what a beast of a plane. Can't wait till he starts
>practicing for the Worlds...I'll be able to hear that plane all over
>Opelousas hehe.
Hey Geoff
I'm gonna hold ya to that!! I got a hold of Bubba when I was in Shrevesport
visiting my son but we couldn't get together for a beer. One day we'll "all"
be in the same place for a party!!!
See ya
ChuckS
PS got a name for another good coon ass band ? I need another album and don't
know who to buy. Besides coon ass music albums are hard to find in these parts
ChuckSlusarczyk
>
>Juan,
>
>Have you ever gone to http://www.cyberis.net/~jouster/zoom/zoom.html and
>read all about your boss?
He'd never do that zoom won't let him :-) besides he's have to be objective and
that's a trait jaun lacks.
See ya
Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret
Juan Jimenez
>
> It is accepted by a significant group, that's why Jim runs ads for
> companies that didn't order them, and bills them for ads they never
> wanted. If there were a significant group that *didn't* share my
> opinion, they'd be paying to advertise on ANN instead of on Landings
> and Avweb.
If that were true no one would advertise on ANN. The second part of this
paragraph has no logic in it.
> When he had a real monthly nut to cover he *did* go under. Keeping a
> website up doesn't cost much, especially when you have people willing
> to contribute content for free.
Sure, but maintaining it, paying for people to travel to shows and putting
them up for a week, all expenses paid, to write those stories for free,
renting a vehicle to drive a truckful of equipment to the site, paying
salaries for staff, phone bills, etc. does cost money.
Juan
Juan Jimenez
I suggest you read my messages before you open your mouth to comment about
who is or is not my boss) did more than a decade ago, yes, I do. And?
"Warren & Nancy" <99...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B86219B...@home.com...
Juan Jimenez
statement the ability to make you also lack.
"ChuckSlusarczyk" <ChuckSlusar...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9m5hi...@drn.newsguy.com...
Juan Jimenez
"Jon Herd" <he...@startrekmail.com> wrote in message
news:29491ad6.01082...@posting.google.com...
>
> Come on Juan, In a country of 350M people, there are more wannabe's
> than actual pilots. My country (of birth) has a population of 20M and
> the ratio's are probably the same. (I currently live in China).
Oh, of course, how could I have forgotten that companies like Sierra Flight
Systems, Sonex, parachute maker Softie, Ultraflight, Flightstar, Replica
Aircraft Works and Aircraft Technical Publishers, to name just a few, are
all wannabe's..... <chuckle> And just think, none of them do business out of
China!
Juan
Juan Jimenez
>
> Hmmm sounds good but not accurate as far as I'm concerned you "never"
offered me
> the "clean slate or benefit of the doubt" you never asked me my side of
the conn
> business or any of zoom claims against me ,you took zooms word for it.
Is that true, Mr. Truthfullness? Would you like to me to go back on the
threads and find for you the messages you posted out of the blue, attacking
me for my writing relationship with ANN? Or do you think you're capable of
searching in your news reader's message archive, finding them for yourself,
and perhaps learning how to double check your facts before making false
statements? Maybe you need some memory enhancement vitamins or something
like that.
> You didn't stop by my booth at Oshkosh and I couldn't find you at the
press booth.
As a matter of fact I did stop at your booth and you were not there. In
fact, I stopped at 9-10 booths in the ultralight area, including RPE,
DigiWx, BRS, and many others. And guess what, you didn't find me in the
press booth because I was either where I was supposed to be, out in the
trenches writing stories, or in the hospital. So spare me your BS, ok? Buy
yourself a box of tissues.
Sorry to burst your bubble for the umpteenth time. You should have given
some thought to throwing the first stone before you decided to post this
whining sob story. I would have given you the same clean slate had you not
tried to bust it over my head the first few times you had a chance to say a
civil word to me.
Juan
Warren & Nancy
Gary Thomas
Add one more to the "you're uncredible list."
'PLONK'
Gary Thomas
RobertR237
<fly...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>"Richard Riley" <ric...@mylastname.net> wrote in message
>news:sksbot4vkq53t8u4t...@4ax.com...
>>
>> It is accepted by a significant group, that's why Jim runs ads for
>> companies that didn't order them, and bills them for ads they never
>> wanted. If there were a significant group that *didn't* share my
>> opinion, they'd be paying to advertise on ANN instead of on Landings
>> and Avweb.
>
>If that were true no one would advertise on ANN. The second part of this
>paragraph has no logic in it.
>
>
IF? There is no IF about it. Yes some pay rather than fight because sometimes
it's the least cost method but others will just say NO! and take their chances.
They then get some bad press full of lies but figure the audience it too small
to care.
RobertR237
<fly...@hotmail.com> writes:
BIG FUCKING DEAL! The operative word here should be YET!
RobertR237
kboat...@aol.comnobs (Kyle Boatright) writes:
>>
>>I doubt that very much, particularly considering that the number of people
>>who don't like JC can be counted in one hand and in one place, here in RAH.
>>
>>Juan
>
>Based on the list of folks JC sued a few years ago, I'd say there are at
>least
>15 people on RAH who don't like him.
>
>That makes me at least number 16 on the list of non-admirers.
>
>KB
>
Jaun either has more fingers on his hand than most people or he can't count
beyond the fingers on one hand.
RobertR237
<fly...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>So what I choose to do is very simple, what I always do when I meet anyone
>of whom I've heard negative comments. I give them the benefit of the doubt
>and put them on a clean slate, for the simple reason that all stories have
>two sides to them. You know why I treat people that way? Simple rule: Treat
>people as you would expect them to treat you. I don't know about you, but it
>works for me, time and time again, even with people here in RAH who have a
>very negative opinion of my "online" persona.
>
>Juan
>
>
So when do you plan to look at Chuck's side of the story or is he the exception
to your clean slate rule? BS!
RobertR237
<fly...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>Richard, if your opinion of JC were accepted and shared by anything
>resembling a significant group of people in the aviation industry, there
>would be no Aero-News, and they wouldn't have a single advertiser. They
>would have gone under a long time ago. The fact that they are still around
>should tell you something.
>
>Juan
>
>
If Pulsar is any indication his advertizers are not all that willing. Then
again, he has gone under at least once with USAv and left how many subscribers
with nothing? Yes, Jaun, it does tell us something doesn't it? Now just what
does it tell you when he wants all his reporters to essentially work for
nothing? Can't afford to pay more than a few expenses and want's you to work
for free. Gee, I bet most newpapers and mags would love such a deal.
RobertR237
<fly...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>"RobertR237" <rober...@aol.compost> wrote in message
>news:20010823183228...@nso-fl.aol.com...
>>
>> when one desides to climb into the pig pen with a big old stinking hog,
>one
>> should not be surprised when others believe the worst about them.
>
>Oh, BS. Tell that to the farmer that raises hogs.
>
The farmer knows better that to get into the pig pen with that hog but you?
>> If you saw
>> you kids hanging with the local known drug dealers would your first
>thought be
>> that they were trying to reform them or that they were headed for trouble?
>
>Are you seriously comparing Jim Campbell to a drug dealer? You should know
>better, Robert.
>
Damn, you can be thick headed and dumb at times. NO, I wasn't comparing
Campbell to a drug dealer but asking a question regarding observation and
association which went right over you head.
>> As I said earlier, I have no doubt that you are trying to do a good job.
>The
>> issue that hurts you and others that write for ANN is that a past history
>of
>> misinformation and total fabrications taints every story and article with
>doubt
>> as to it's accuracy.
>
>I doubt that very much, particularly considering that the number of people
>who don't like JC can be counted in one hand and in one place, here in RAH.
>
>Juan
Wrong again Jaun, I know of quite a few people who don't like JC and who have
never even heard of RAH. They number far more than can be counted on you hands
and toes but that may be too high a number for you to comprehend. The biggest
distinction brought by RAH is that it is far more vocal regarding him.
In any case, it is obvious that you have made your choice to align yourself
with Campbell and believe only what you want to hear just as you did with Bede.
Someday, maybe you will pull your head out of the sand but in the mean time,
to each his own.
I have spent too much time on three people who aren't worth the time of day so
this ends it.
highflyer
>
> Jon Herd wrote:
>
> > Daniel Grunloh <gru...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message news:<3B841FA7...@uiuc.edu>...
> >
> > > Thanks John. I also note the abundant use of the plural "we" again. It happens
> > > a lot with him. Refers to himself in the third person while using the plural "we".
> >
> > So does the Queen. has he royal pretensions?
>
> No I think it just a way of trying to give his words more importance by implying
> there is someone more than himself making this rants. It's just him. It gets spooky
> sometime though for a while when there are all these "identities". Jim himself, Jim the
> editor, Zoom the personality, "the" magazine, and now ANN. They are all "we".
>
> I guess the Doctor is in there too.
>
> --
> Daniel Grunloh (gru...@uiuc.edu)
> http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~grunloh
Brings to mind a cartoon I saw recently. The psychiatrist is talking
to his patient, and says "The good news is, you have so many
personalities
I am giving you the 'group rate'."
--
HighFlyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Charles K. Scott
"Juan Jimenez" <fly...@hotmail.com> writes:
> John,
>
> I respect your opinions. Allow me share some of mine for a moment.
>
> I'll let you in on a little secret, just to give you a small taste of why I
> tend to take what some people say here about JC with a large grain of salt.
>
> The only statement JC has made to me, to my face, since I met him at
> Sun-N-Fun, that sounded like a wild tale was a statement that he attended
> and graduated from the National Test Pilot School. He doesn't claim he's an
> NTPS test pilot graduate, just that he attended the school and graduated.
>
> I checked, because I wanted to know first-hand if he had told me the truth.
> He did.
>
> He didn't attend the year-long, quarter-million course, but he did attend
> one or more courses and finished them successfully. I was not able to find
> out what courses, that is private information. But the NTPS did confirm that
> to me in email.
So the one statement that he made to you that you checked out turns out
to be false.
> So what I choose to do is very simple, what I always do when I meet anyone
> of whom I've heard negative comments. I give them the benefit of the doubt
> and put them on a clean slate, for the simple reason that all stories have
> two sides to them. You know why I treat people that way? Simple rule: Treat
> people as you would expect them to treat you. I don't know about you, but it
> works for me, time and time again, even with people here in RAH who have a
> very negative opinion of my "online" persona.
>
> Juan
I do that also. I'll bet a lot of people do exactly the same thing.
The problem is, many of us here have the entire history and know with
what he is diagnosed. I should add, diagnosed and untreated. A
Neurosis does not go away untreated. You cannot cure a neurosis
without the help of the patient, the patient has to understand in the
first place that there is a problem, and that it can be treated. If
the patient does not believe there is a problem then obviously, (in
their mind) there is no need for treatment. A catch 22 type situation
in reverse.
No one ever claimed that Zoomer was stupid, just the opposite in fact.
He is very smart and charismatic when speaking on a one on one basis.
It's almost impossible not to get sucked into his story. Heck, he even
BS'd the shrink who was hired to examine him, until the guy actually
checked the stories.
Remember, he only told you one thing you thought you should check out,
and it turned out to be false. Perhaps he's learned, after all these
years, not to tell too many tales to people he knows are going to bat
for him.
Corky Scott
Richard Isakson
> > When he had a real monthly nut to cover he *did* go under. Keeping a
> > website up doesn't cost much, especially when you have people willing
> > to contribute content for free.
Juan Jimenez replied...
> Sure, but maintaining it, paying for people to travel to shows and putting
> them up for a week, all expenses paid, to write those stories for free,
> renting a vehicle to drive a truckful of equipment to the site, paying
> salaries for staff, phone bills, etc. does cost money.
So, the stories weren't really free. They were a quid pro quo for an all
expenses paid trip to the fly-in that would be valued at two to three
thousand dollars. Do you realize that as either an employee or a free agent
of Aero-News Network you have a substantial tax liability due to the IRS?
Rich
SalleeG
count me among those who has come to the conclusion that Zoom is a
fruitcake.
Mark Smith
free agent
> of Aero-News Network you have a substantial tax liability due to the IRS?
wouldn't these costs then be a deductible business expense ?
--
Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales http://www.trikite.com
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620 mailto:ma...@trikite.com
1-812-838-6351
Ron Natalie
Mark Smith wrote:
>
> Richard Isakson wrote: Do you realize that as either an employee or a
> free agent
> > of Aero-News Network you have a substantial tax liability due to the IRS?
>
> wouldn't these costs then be a deductible business expense ?
>
Coupled with the fact that he probably doesn't have much tax liability
for the fed's anyway. Puerto Ricans don't pay federal tax on income
they earn in Puerto Rico.
Richard Isakson
Mark Smith wrote ...
> Richard Isakson wrote: Do you realize that as either an employee or a
> free agent
> > of Aero-News Network you have a substantial tax liability due to the
IRS?
>
> wouldn't these costs then be a deductible business expense ?
For Aero-News, yes. I'm not a tax expert but in this case the trip is
payment for the stories and it seems to me it would be normal income.
Rich
Richard Isakson
He's a Texas resident, that's well outside the exclusion zone.
Rich
Mark Smith
any money spent making money is a business deduction.
the costs of the trip would result in zero income net when the income
and the expenses were totalled.
Ron Natalie
Unless he is considered an employee of AeroNews, and I don't think
that he would be (even with the more restrictive views of late),
he can take it off the top on the Sched E.
John Ousterhout
>I doubt that very much, particularly considering that the number of people
>who don't like JC can be counted in one hand and in one place, here in RAH.
>
>Juan
I've counted the "dont't like" and "like" votes and it's Twenty Five to Juan.
- John (big hand) Ousterhout-
http://www.cyberis.net/~jouster
Jerry Springer
All the people that got screwed with magazine subscriptions at Arlington
fly in a couple years ago are pissed also. As some of you remember he was selling
subscriptions at the Arlington fly in knowing full well he was going bankrupt.
Jerry
Russell Kent
BRAVO!
A bilingual pun... will wonders neve cease... :-)
Russell Kent
Juan Jimenez
"RobertR237" <rober...@aol.compost> wrote in message
news:20010824112443...@nso-cq.aol.com...
Juan Jimenez
"RobertR237" <rober...@aol.compost> wrote in message
>
> If Pulsar is any indication his advertizers are not all that willing.
It isn't. Try Micco, Europa, Titan, Velocity, RAF, Diamond, Progressive
Aerodyne and Robinson, to name a few.
That says more than any of your ruminations, Bob.
Juan
Juan Jimenez
"RobertR237" <rober...@aol.compost> wrote in message
news:20010824112445...@nso-cq.aol.com...
Jimenez"
> <fly...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> So when do you plan to look at Chuck's side of the story or is he the
exception
> to your clean slate rule? BS!
Chuck never bothered to tell me the side of the story, he showed up and
started shooting. Of course, didn't hit anything, other than himself, but he
didn't buy himself a chance to tell the story either.
Juan Jimenez
"Charles K. Scott" <charles...@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
news:9m5v7o$jv8$1...@merrimack.Dartmouth.EDU...
>
> So the one statement that he made to you that you checked out turns out
> to be false.
Try reading what I posted again then come back.
> I should add, diagnosed and untreated.
I see, so now you have access to his medical record? That's an interesting
one. Care to post that somewhere so we can see it?
> Remember, he only told you one thing you thought you should check out,
> and it turned out to be false.
Excuse me, but I decided what to check out, not him, and it turned out to be
true, not false. I can see you didn't even bother to read what I said.
Juan
Juan Jimenez
"Richard Isakson" <r...@whidbey.com> wrote in message
news:tod30bj...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> So, the stories weren't really free. They were a quid pro quo for an all
> expenses paid trip to the fly-in that would be valued at two to three
> thousand dollars. Do you realize that as either an employee or a free
agent
> of Aero-News Network you have a substantial tax liability due to the IRS?
Really? Valued at $2-3k based on what, wild turkey guessing, or guessing
under the influence of Wild Turkey? :) Rest assured, the value of the trip
was nothing near that.
Juan Jimenez
It never amazes to cease me how people here have this wildassed tendency to
make statements of fact about things of which they have no knowledge...
Juan
"Ron Natalie" <r...@sensor.com> wrote in message
news:3B8692FE...@sensor.com...
Juan Jimenez
>
> For Aero-News, yes. I'm not a tax expert but in this case the trip is
> payment for the stories and it seems to me it would be normal income.
One thing is true, you are not a tax expert. :)
Juan Jimenez
"Mark Smith" <ma...@trikite.com> wrote in message
news:3B86B0...@trikite.com...
>
> any money spent making money is a business deduction.
>
> the costs of the trip would result in zero income net when the income
> and the expenses were totalled.
There you go! The man knows his taxes. :)
assa9
assa9
"Russell Kent" <ke...@titania.tye.sc.ti.com> wrote in message
news:3B86DAE3...@titania.tye.sc.ti.com...
Ron Natalie
Juan Jimenez wrote:
>
> Who lives in Puerto Rico?
>
Sorry, with all your talk about the PRANG and such and other stuff on your
BD5 page I thought you were still down there.
You would look more intelligent if you answered peoples comments with something
other than insults.
Ray Leonard
<fly...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"RobertR237" <rober...@aol.compost> wrote in message
>news:20010823183228...@nso-fl.aol.com...
>>
>> when one desides to climb into the pig pen with a big old stinking hog,
>one
>> should not be surprised when others believe the worst about them.
>
>Oh, BS. Tell that to the farmer that raises hogs.
>
>> If you saw
>> you kids hanging with the local known drug dealers would your first
>thought be
>> that they were trying to reform them or that they were headed for trouble?
>
>Are you seriously comparing Jim Campbell to a drug dealer? You should know
>better, Robert.
>
>> As I said earlier, I have no doubt that you are trying to do a good job.
>The
>> issue that hurts you and others that write for ANN is that a past history
>of
>> misinformation and total fabrications taints every story and article with
>doubt
>> as to it's accuracy.
>
>I doubt that very much, particularly considering that the number of people
>who don't like JC can be counted in one hand and in one place, here in RAH.
>
>Juan
>
That must be one Ripley's museum class mutated hand - make a
squid curl up and die in embarassment.
Ray
Ray Leonard
Finishing a class or three is a long, long way from graduating.
Ray
Dave Hyde
> > So the one statement that he made to you that you checked out turns out
> > to be false.
>
> Try reading what I posted again then come back.
"He doesn't claim he's an NTPS test pilot graduate, just that he
attended the school and graduated."
...
"He didn't attend the year-long, quarter-million course, but he did
attend
one or more courses and finished them successfully."
Do you honestly equate completing a short course
with "graduating?"
Dave 'resume' padding' Hyde
na...@brick.net
Richard Isakson
>"He doesn't claim he's an NTPS test pilot graduate, just that he
>attended the school and graduated."
>...
>"He didn't attend the year-long, quarter-million course, but he did
>attend
>one or more courses and finished them successfully."
>
> Do you honestly equate completing a short course
> with "graduating?"
>
> Dave 'resume' padding' Hyde
This is more than resume padding. Campbell makes the claim here:
http://www.aero-news.net/hq/bios/sportplane.htm
"A graduate of the National Test Pilot School, he was the
Publisher/Editor-In-Chief of US Aviator magazine and is now the CEO and
Editor-In-Chief of the Aero-News Network."
There's no pussy-footing around about a short course in lightplane testing.
He's making the extraordinary claim here that he graduated from the NTPS.
This is a lie at the same level as claiming to be a navy seal or claiming an
unearned military metal. I can understand why Juan would work with Campbell
but I can't understand why Kevin O'Brien would continue to accept this type
of claim.
Rich
John Ammeter
>Juan Jimenez wrote:
>
>> > So the one statement that he made to you that you checked out turns out
>> > to be false.
>>
>> Try reading what I posted again then come back.
>
>"He doesn't claim he's an NTPS test pilot graduate, just that he
>attended the school and graduated."
>...
You simply have to understand the sentence:
"he's a National Test Pilot School test pilot graduate" would imply he
had attended the school as a "test pilot". Since he only claimed to
have attended some courses at the National Test Pilot School and
graduated from those courses, there is no inference that he was a
"Test Pilot".
I can certainly see how, when you use the Jim Campbell method of
deduction, you could have been confused.....
It doesn't matter that, in the normal world, a person doesn't
"graduate" from a course; you complete or finish a course of
instruction with either a failing or passing grade. That "graduation"
is normally reserved for someone that had actually completed a series
of courses that lead to a degree of some sort.
>"He didn't attend the year-long, quarter-million course, but he did
>attend
>one or more courses and finished them successfully."
>
I'd be very interested in what "courses" JC "graduated" from. Does
the NTPS have a course in padding your logbook, jumping to conclusions
or stretching the truth?
>Do you honestly equate completing a short course
>with "graduating?"
>
>Dave 'resume' padding' Hyde
>na...@brick.net
John Ammeter
EAA Technical Counselor
NRA Life Member
Council Member, Snohomish Indian Tribe
assa9
assa9
"Richard Isakson" <r...@whidbey.com> wrote in message
news:toe186t...@corp.supernews.com...
RobertR237
<fly...@hotmail.com> writes:
Real sure of that are you?
I won't assume that you have done your homework and checked it out since you
have not shown any interest in the facts thus far.
RobertR237
<fly...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> <fly...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> So when do you plan to look at Chuck's side of the story or is he the
>exception
>> to your clean slate rule? BS!
>
>Chuck never bothered to tell me the side of the story, he showed up and
>started shooting. Of course, didn't hit anything, other than himself, but he
>didn't buy himself a chance to tell the story either.
>
It appears that I made a mistake regarding you and you're reporting. I made
the statement that I had no doubts that you were trying to do a good job but
had aligned yourself with someone who has a poor reputation for caring about
the facts. I must recant on that statement at this time. I now have every
doubt that you care at all about the facts, especially when those facts fail to
support your preconceived conclusions. You have shown this on anything and
everything concerning Bede, Campbell, and now are applying the same to Chuck.
In my lone opinion, that puts you in the very same category as Campbell with no
credibility period.
Guilt by association...No, guilt based on actions.
BOb U
>>I doubt that very much, particularly considering that the number of people
>>who don't like JC can be counted in one hand and in one place, here in RAH.
>>
>>Juan
>
>
>I've counted the "dont't like" and "like" votes and it's Twenty Five to Juan.
>
>- John (big hand) Ousterhout-
>http://www.cyberis.net/~jouster
YAWN.
BOb U
The more people I meet,
the more I love my dog.
BOb U
>>> So when do you plan to look at Chuck's side of the story or is he the
>>exception
>>> to your clean slate rule? BS!
>>
>>Chuck never bothered to tell me the side of the story, he showed up and
>>started shooting. Of course, didn't hit anything, other than himself, but he
>>didn't buy himself a chance to tell the story either.
>>
>
>It appears that I made a mistake regarding you and you're reporting. I made
>the statement that I had no doubts that you were trying to do a good job but
>had aligned yourself with someone who has a poor reputation for caring about
>the facts. I must recant on that statement at this time. I now have every
>doubt that you care at all about the facts, especially when those facts fail to
>support your preconceived conclusions. You have shown this on anything and
>everything concerning Bede, Campbell, and now are applying the same to Chuck.
>In my lone opinion, that puts you in the very same category as Campbell with no
>credibility period.
>
>Guilt by association...No, guilt based on actions.
>
>
>Bob Reed
You may have a lone opinion, if you wish, but....
Jaun's support can be counted on one finger.
Probably the middle one, at that.
BOb U
The more people I get to know,
BOb U
>Bob,
>
>I didn't pick JC, JC picked me out of a lot of people who wanted the free
>ride at Sun-N-Fun in exchange for some articles. Like I've repeatedly
>stated, I write because I like to write, not because I get paid or because I
>subscribe to anything anyone else says. I stand by what -I- write, everyone
>else should be expected to do the same. I believe I have the ability to
>communicate good info in a clear, factual and interesting way to people in
>the aviation industry, and Aero-News happens to be the outlet that wants me
>to do that for them right now. <shrug>
>
>Frankly, I don't particularly appreciate the way I was jumped on when people
>found out that I write articles for Aero-News. That's no different than the
>charges of character defamation that are levelled against Jim Campbell.
>Guilt by association? I don't think so.
>
>At this point, I really don't care what people think about where my articles
>come out. I believe that what I put down on digital paper stands on its own
>two feet as quality material that presents facts and ocassionally my
>opinionsa as well. I call them as I see them and don't use my position as a
>journalist to grind any axes. There are people here that have already
>realized those facts, after some long and spirited private email
>conversations, and we have made our peace as gentlemen.
>
>Those who still have different viewpoints on my actions are certainly
>entitled to their opinions. And that's the extent of _my_ concern for those
>viewpoints.
>
>Juan
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sorry Juan,
If your _CONCERN_ was more than skin deep you would find that....
One really is known by the company one keeps.
BTW.....
You must really be delusional if you believe that
Aero-Snooze has anything in common with journalism.
P.S
One doesn't not need to defame Jim Campbell.
He is doing a fine job all by himself.
His record really does speak for itself.
A real journalist would check into it sometime.
Your agenda, of course, doesn't allow you to see the light.
BOb U
"Juan Jimenez" <fly...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Richard, if your opinion of JC were accepted and shared by anything
>resembling a significant group of people in the aviation industry, there
>would be no Aero-News, and they wouldn't have a single advertiser. They
>would have gone under a long time ago. The fact that they are still around
>should tell you something.
>
>Juan
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Great Googa-Mooga.
Where the hell have you been?!?!?!?!?!
You have no idea of what you are talking about.
Campbell DID go under and.....
Stiffed more than his fair share of subscribers and others in the ugly process.
Check the Florida Court records for all the SHAMEFUL DETAILS.
Perhaps Tony Pucillo will bring you up to speed.
He was there.
ANN is just the latest incarnation of his failed ventures to convert potential
advertisers and readers into a gold mine.
BOb U
BOb U
>"Juan Jimenez" <fly...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<ZBkh7.125255$oh1.46...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>...
>> Richard, if your opinion of JC were accepted and shared by anything
>> resembling a significant group of people in the aviation industry, there
>> would be no Aero-News, and they wouldn't have a single advertiser. They
>> would have gone under a long time ago. The fact that they are still around
>> should tell you something.
>>
>> Juan
>>
>
>Come on Juan, In a country of 350M people, there are more wannabe's
>than actual pilots. My country (of birth) has a population of 20M and
>the ratio's are probably the same. (I currently live in China).
>
>If you count the people who know more than (to quote an American
>saying, and let's hope I get it right) SQUAT about aviation, do THEY
>read the rantings of Zoom esq?
>
>Don't quote statistics with a statistician in view.
>
>Personally, I read quite a few "Aviation" mags, but over time, one
>sorts the wheat from the chafe. The 12 or 14 year old reader doesn't.
>
>i.e. There are a lot of people who say they "love" aeroplanes but
>never aviate.
>
>take the blinkers off, will ya?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Doubt that you can say anything to make a dent, Jon.
This gentleman appears to champion the dark side of any controversial issue.
Zoom and his US Aviator mag suckered in it's share before going tits up and
leaving most everyone involved holding the bag.
Can't say ANN will share the same fate,
but the MO is strikingly similar.
BOb - leopards don't change their spots - U
BOb U
"Richard Isakson" <r...@whidbey.com> wrote:
>> "Richard Riley" wrote ...
>> > When he had a real monthly nut to cover he *did* go under. Keeping a
>> > website up doesn't cost much, especially when you have people willing
>> > to contribute content for free.
>
>Juan Jimenez replied...
>> Sure, but maintaining it, paying for people to travel to shows and putting
>> them up for a week, all expenses paid, to write those stories for free,
>> renting a vehicle to drive a truckful of equipment to the site, paying
>> salaries for staff, phone bills, etc. does cost money.
>
>So, the stories weren't really free. They were a quid pro quo for an all
>expenses paid trip to the fly-in that would be valued at two to three
>thousand dollars. Do you realize that as either an employee or a free agent
>of Aero-News Network you have a substantial tax liability due to the IRS?
>
>Rich
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Heh, heh.
Surely, no one would snitch Jaun off to the IRS should
he just conveniently happen to forget this bit of income.
BOb U
The more people I meet,
Geoff Thistlethwaite
> "John Ammeter" <amme...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3b95b353.180656842@news...
> >
> > He talks the talk but, when pressed to provide evidence of his claims,
he
> changes the subject.
>
> John,
>
> I respect your opinions. Allow me share some of mine for a moment.
>
> I'll let you in on a little secret, just to give you a small taste of why
I
> tend to take what some people say here about JC with a large grain of
salt.
>
> The only statement JC has made to me, to my face, since I met him at
> Sun-N-Fun, that sounded like a wild tale was a statement that he attended
> and graduated from the National Test Pilot School. He doesn't claim he's
an
> NTPS test pilot graduate, just that he attended the school and graduated.
>
HOLD ON!! He claims he attended AND GRADUATED, but he isn't and NTPS test
pilot graduate?!?!
Now which is it!
> I checked, because I wanted to know first-hand if he had told me the
truth.
> He did.
>
He did WHAT? Attend the school for a couple of courses? OR Graduated?!?!
> He didn't attend the year-long, quarter-million course, but he did attend
> one or more courses and finished them successfully. I was not able to find
> out what courses, that is private information. But the NTPS did confirm
that
> to me in email.
Excuse me, but finishing one or too courses does not entitle on to claim
graduate status.
>
> Other than that, since April, in all the times I've talked to him about
> various subjects (and we've talked about a whole bunch of stuff), he's
never
> made any grandiose statements about himself that raised my eyebrows. The
man
> has a large ego, but I know a lot of other people who fall in the same
> category and I don't consider that to be a negative trait. In his chosen
> line of business, it's probably a good thing to have.
>
> Of course, it could certainly be that he never had an opportunity to do
so,
> that we just never talked about subjects that would cause him to do that,
or
> that he simply doesn't want to do that with me. But I would think that if
he
> were as big a pathological liar as some people here continually say he is,
> or was, or may be, I would have had occassion to personally experience
such
> behaviour. I have not.
>
> So what I choose to do is very simple, what I always do when I meet anyone
> of whom I've heard negative comments. I give them the benefit of the doubt
> and put them on a clean slate, for the simple reason that all stories have
> two sides to them. You know why I treat people that way? Simple rule:
Treat
> people as you would expect them to treat you. I don't know about you, but
it
> works for me, time and time again, even with people here in RAH who have a
> very negative opinion of my "online" persona.
>
> Juan
>
If you're going to be working as a journalist, one of the first rules is get
the facts and get them straight.
Your statements above are extremely misleading. Just because I took a few
courses that were the same as some med school students took does not make me
a doctor and zoom can't take a few courses at test pilot school and claim
graduate status.
Now, I did read several of zooms claims when he had US Aviator and, like
you, I believed him. I took him at face value as I had not even heard of
usenet at the time. I wish I still had those issues to copy and send to you.
Because once you read some of his claims and know the rest of the story
about him you can easily see that the man has a problem. His lack of
truthfullness in his US Aviator editorials (and these have been quoted here
many times) has forever colored my perception of him. His continued
unwarrented attacks against Chuck just serve to to remind me that he is not
to be trusted in ANY statements he makes. As Chuck S. sez "Credibility it
was always about credibility"
Geoff Thistlethwaite