I just got an email threat this afternoon from Dennis Fetter resulting
from our interchange in Rotary Froum. Link to thread below.

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19577

Monk

What did it say?????

Monk wrote:

> I just got an email threat this afternoon from Dennis Fetter resulting
> from our interchange in Rotary Froum. Link to thread below.
>
> http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19577
>
> Monk

Monk > wrote:
> I just got an email threat this afternoon from Dennis Fetter

Dennis who? Monk who? Spreading a personal feud from a web forum to Usenet
accomplishes what? That's a rhetorical question, by the way. I know you're
fishing for allies or sympathy. Why else post the announcement of a threat
to so many unrelated Usenet groups? What does the subject have to do with
student pilot training? Or is this something that gets asked by the
examiner? ;-)

If you feel you've been threatened, contact the police or a lawyer or
somebody else who might actually make a difference.

No point dragging Usenet through the mud! :-)

Jim

Search for Dennis Fetters on Google to get some history on the
Mini-500 and Dennis.

Big John
************************************************** ***************************

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:28:38 -0600, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>Monk > wrote:
>> I just got an email threat this afternoon from Dennis Fetter
>
>Dennis who? Monk who? Spreading a personal feud from a web forum to Usenet
>accomplishes what? That's a rhetorical question, by the way. I know you're
>fishing for allies or sympathy. Why else post the announcement of a threat
>to so many unrelated Usenet groups? What does the subject have to do with
>student pilot training? Or is this something that gets asked by the
>examiner? ;-)
>
>If you feel you've been threatened, contact the police or a lawyer or
>somebody else who might actually make a difference.
>
>No point dragging Usenet through the mud! :-)

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Monk > wrote:
>> I just got an email threat this afternoon from Dennis Fetter
>
> Dennis who? Monk who? Spreading a personal feud from a web forum to Usenet
> accomplishes what? That's a rhetorical question, by the way. I know you're
> fishing for allies or sympathy. Why else post the announcement of a threat
> to so many unrelated Usenet groups?

Posted it to the POA forum, too, though it looks like it got pulled by
the management.

Ron Wanttaja

On Feb 8, 7:32*pm, Monk > wrote:
> I just got an email threat this afternoon from Dennis Fetter resulting
> from our interchange in Rotary Froum. *Link to thread below.
>
> http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19577
>
> Monk

"I'd pay real money if he'd (STFU) shut up!"
'Bones' McCoy

So deal with it you whiner. Or does your mommy post here too?

On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 17:32:29 -0800 (PST), Monk wrote:

> I just got an email threat this afternoon from Dennis Fetter resulting
> from our interchange in Rotary Froum. Link to thread below.
>
> http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19577
>
> Monk

Post it.

On Feb 9, 2:32*pm, Monk > wrote:
> I just got an email threat this afternoon from Dennis Fetter resulting
> from our interchange in Rotary Froum. *Link to thread below.
>
If you attack people they are going to hit back.
Don't you know what a killfile is or how it works ?

On Feb 8, 7:32*pm, Monk > wrote:
> I just got an email threat this afternoon from Dennis Fetter resulting
> from our interchange in Rotary Froum. *Link to thread below.
>
> http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19577
>
> Monk

Monk,

I don't know you and most likely will never meet you so without
pulling punches here I'll tell you that you lit that fire and stirred
the pot. Taunting others is rude and childish. I don't know what the
context of the "e-mail you recievied was and don't want to know, you
brought it on yourseld. Given the entire tone of the thread you posted
your not likely to get very far with a court case because it'll be
thrown out. Had I been the moderator of that forum I'd have thrown
both of you out until each of you learned to act like adults. Now for
the final throw; just why did you think it was necessary to bring all
of this garbage over to this forum?

Joe S.

On Feb 9, 3:45*pm, Copperhead > wrote:
> On Feb 8, 7:32*pm, Monk > wrote:
>
> > I just got an email threat this afternoon from Dennis Fetter resulting
> > from our interchange in Rotary Froum. *Link to thread below.
>
> >http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19577
>
> > Monk
> [...]

> Now for
> the final throw; just why did you think it was necessary to bring all
> of this garbage over to this forum?

Probably because the thread was closed there.

> Joe S.

Regards,
Jon

Jon wrote:
> On Feb 9, 3:45 pm, Copperhead > wrote:
>> On Feb 8, 7:32 pm, Monk > wrote:
>>
>>> I just got an email threat this afternoon from Dennis Fetter resulting
>>> from our interchange in Rotary Froum. Link to thread below.
>>> http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19577
>>> Monk
>> [...]
>
>> Now for
>> the final throw; just why did you think it was necessary to bring all
>> of this garbage over to this forum?
>
> Probably because the thread was closed there.

But aside from that, sharing fetters garbage may serve to keep a future
potential victim out of harm's reach. He's still scheming a comeback,
evidenced by his recent ploy to furnish parts to owners of orphaned kits.

Any one buying a used or 500 kit should contact the "International
Helicopter Builders Association, Inc"

They know about all that is known about the 500 and what to
fix/modify/etc. to get the most safety.

Big John
************************************************** *********************************

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 00:42:59 -0600, Tech Support <> wrote:

>Jim
>
>Search for Dennis Fetters on Google to get some history on the
>Mini-500 and Dennis.
>
>Big John
>************************************************** ***************************
>
>On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:28:38 -0600, Jim Logajan >
>wrote:
>
>>Monk > wrote:
>>> I just got an email threat this afternoon from Dennis Fetter
>>
>>Dennis who? Monk who? Spreading a personal feud from a web forum to Usenet
>>accomplishes what? That's a rhetorical question, by the way. I know you're
>>fishing for allies or sympathy. Why else post the announcement of a threat
>>to so many unrelated Usenet groups? What does the subject have to do with
>>student pilot training? Or is this something that gets asked by the
>>examiner? ;-)
>>
>>If you feel you've been threatened, contact the police or a lawyer or
>>somebody else who might actually make a difference.
>>
>>No point dragging Usenet through the mud! :-)

On Feb 8, 8:32*pm, Monk > wrote:
> I just got an email threat this afternoon from Dennis Fetter resulting
> from our interchange in Rotary Froum. *Link to thread below.
>
> http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19577
>
> Monk

Just run an ad in the classified for gay male seeking action,
and refer his phone number. He'll either cuss or thank you.
Either way, he'll be busy. Lol!

Mark
A kind word turneth away wrath

george wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2:32 pm, Monk > wrote:
>
>>I just got an email threat this afternoon from Dennis Fetter resulting
>>from our interchange in Rotary Froum. Link to thread below.
>>
>
> If you attack people they are going to hit back.
> Don't you know what a killfile is or how it works ?


I'm sorry for this MONK clown posting his spewings here. He was banned
from the Rotary Forum for doing so. The only way I threatened him is if
a debate on the forum is a threat. After he was banned, someone told me
to do a google search on his name; "Bryan & Sue Chaisone" and
"Chaisone's bar", and I realized this was not a normal person, and no
amount of debating in the world would have lead to anything. Again,
sorry, and I'll leave you all to your little world here.

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> george wrote:
>> On Feb 9, 2:32 pm, Monk > wrote:
>>
>>> I just got an email threat this afternoon from Dennis Fetter resulting
>>> from our interchange in Rotary Froum. Link to thread below.
>>>
>>
>> If you attack people they are going to hit back.
>> Don't you know what a killfile is or how it works ?
>
>
> I'm sorry for this MONK clown posting his spewings here. He was banned
> from the Rotary Forum for doing so. The only way I threatened him is if
> a debate on the forum is a threat. After he was banned, someone told me
> to do a google search on his name; "Bryan & Sue Chaisone" and
> "Chaisone's bar", and I realized this was not a normal person, and no
> amount of debating in the world would have lead to anything. Again,
> sorry, and I'll leave you all to your little world here.

Dennis,

that was from a month ago.
How about letting it go?

Richard

cavelamb wrote:
> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>
>> george wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 9, 2:32 pm, Monk > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I just got an email threat this afternoon from Dennis Fetter resulting
>>>> from our interchange in Rotary Froum. Link to thread below.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you attack people they are going to hit back.
>>> Don't you know what a killfile is or how it works ?
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm sorry for this MONK clown posting his spewings here. He was banned
>> from the Rotary Forum for doing so. The only way I threatened him is
>> if a debate on the forum is a threat. After he was banned, someone
>> told me to do a google search on his name; "Bryan & Sue Chaisone" and
>> "Chaisone's bar", and I realized this was not a normal person, and no
>> amount of debating in the world would have lead to anything. Again,
>> sorry, and I'll leave you all to your little world here.
>
>
> Dennis,
>
> that was from a month ago.
> How about letting it go?
>
> Richard

Hey Richard. I just seen it, because I don't frequent here. That ok with
you now?

The person in Jays Rogue's gallery.....?????

Dennis Fetters wrote:

> I'm sorry for this MONK clown posting his spewings here. He was banned
> from the Rotary Forum for doing so. The only way I threatened him is if
> a debate on the forum is a threat. After he was banned, someone told me
> to do a google search on his name; "Bryan & Sue Chaisone" and
> "Chaisone's bar", and I realized this was not a normal person, and no
> amount of debating in the world would have lead to anything. Again,
> sorry, and I'll leave you all to your little world here.

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> cavelamb wrote:
>> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>>
>>> george wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 9, 2:32 pm, Monk > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I just got an email threat this afternoon from Dennis Fetter resulting
>>>>> from our interchange in Rotary Froum. Link to thread below.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you attack people they are going to hit back.
>>>> Don't you know what a killfile is or how it works ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sorry for this MONK clown posting his spewings here. He was
>>> banned from the Rotary Forum for doing so. The only way I threatened
>>> him is if a debate on the forum is a threat. After he was banned,
>>> someone told me to do a google search on his name; "Bryan & Sue
>>> Chaisone" and "Chaisone's bar", and I realized this was not a normal
>>> person, and no amount of debating in the world would have lead to
>>> anything. Again, sorry, and I'll leave you all to your little world
>>> here.
>>
>>
>> Dennis,
>>
>> that was from a month ago.
>> How about letting it go?
>>
>> Richard
>
> Hey Richard. I just seen it, because I don't frequent here. That ok with
> you now?

You didn't have to bring up anything after the second sentence.
Everything from that point on is petty.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan wrote:
> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>>>> I'm sorry for this MONK clown posting his spewings here. He was
>>>> banned from the Rotary Forum for doing so. The only way I threatened
>>>> him is if a debate on the forum is a threat. After he was banned,
>>>> someone told me to do a google search on his name; "Bryan & Sue
>>>> Chaisone" and "Chaisone's bar", and I realized this was not a normal
>>>> person, and no amount of debating in the world would have lead to
>>>> anything. Again, sorry, and I'll leave you all to your little world
>>>> here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dennis,
>>>
>>> that was from a month ago.
>>> How about letting it go?
>>>
>>> Richard
>>
>>
>> Hey Richard. I just seen it, because I don't frequent here. That ok
>> with you now?
>
>
> You didn't have to bring up anything after the second sentence.
> Everything from that point on is petty.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Hey Dan, why don't I just start sending you everything before I post it,
so that way you can edit it to your satisfaction. Would that do it for you?

"Dennis Fetters" > wrote in message
...
> Dan wrote:
>> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>>>>> I'm sorry for this MONK clown posting his spewings here. He was banned
>>>>> from the Rotary Forum for doing so. The only way I threatened him is
>>>>> if a debate on the forum is a threat. After he was banned, someone
>>>>> told me to do a google search on his name; "Bryan & Sue Chaisone" and
>>>>> "Chaisone's bar", and I realized this was not a normal person, and no
>>>>> amount of debating in the world would have lead to anything. Again,
>>>>> sorry, and I'll leave you all to your little world here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dennis,
>>>>
>>>> that was from a month ago.
>>>> How about letting it go?
>>>>
>>>> Richard
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey Richard. I just seen it, because I don't frequent here. That ok with
>>> you now?
>>
>>
>> You didn't have to bring up anything after the second sentence.
>> Everything from that point on is petty.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Hey Dan, why don't I just start sending you everything before I post it,
> so that way you can edit it to your satisfaction. Would that do it for
> you?

What was your purpose in posting an apology, and telling your side of the
issue?

Maxwell wrote:
> "Dennis Fetters" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Dan wrote:
>>
>>>Dennis Fetters wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>I'm sorry for this MONK clown posting his spewings here. He was banned
>>>>>>from the Rotary Forum for doing so. The only way I threatened him is
>>>>>>if a debate on the forum is a threat. After he was banned, someone
>>>>>>told me to do a google search on his name; "Bryan & Sue Chaisone" and
>>>>>>"Chaisone's bar", and I realized this was not a normal person, and no
>>>>>>amount of debating in the world would have lead to anything. Again,
>>>>>>sorry, and I'll leave you all to your little world here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Dennis,
>>>>>
>>>>>that was from a month ago.
>>>>>How about letting it go?
>>>>>
>>>>>Richard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Hey Richard. I just seen it, because I don't frequent here. That ok with
>>>>you now?
>>>
>>>
>>> You didn't have to bring up anything after the second sentence.
>>>Everything from that point on is petty.
>>>
>>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>Hey Dan, why don't I just start sending you everything before I post it,
>>so that way you can edit it to your satisfaction. Would that do it for
>>you?
>
>
> What was your purpose in posting an apology, and telling your side of the
> issue?

Well Maxwell, the same as yours would be. ??!!

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>>>>> I'm sorry for this MONK clown posting his spewings here. He was
>>>>> banned from the Rotary Forum for doing so. The only way I
>>>>> threatened him is if a debate on the forum is a threat. After he
>>>>> was banned, someone told me to do a google search on his name;
>>>>> "Bryan & Sue Chaisone" and "Chaisone's bar", and I realized this
>>>>> was not a normal person, and no amount of debating in the world
>>>>> would have lead to anything. Again, sorry, and I'll leave you all
>>>>> to your little world here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dennis,
>>>>
>>>> that was from a month ago.
>>>> How about letting it go?
>>>>
>>>> Richard
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey Richard. I just seen it, because I don't frequent here. That ok
>>> with you now?
>>
>>
>> You didn't have to bring up anything after the second sentence.
>> Everything from that point on is petty.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Hey Dan, why don't I just start sending you everything before I post it,
> so that way you can edit it to your satisfaction. Would that do it for you?

I guess maturity isn't exactly your strong point, is it?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Dennis Fetters" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell wrote:
>> "Dennis Fetters" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Dan wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dennis Fetters wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm sorry for this MONK clown posting his spewings here. He was
>>>>>>>banned from the Rotary Forum for doing so. The only way I threatened
>>>>>>>him is if a debate on the forum is a threat. After he was banned,
>>>>>>>someone told me to do a google search on his name; "Bryan & Sue
>>>>>>>Chaisone" and "Chaisone's bar", and I realized this was not a normal
>>>>>>>person, and no amount of debating in the world would have lead to
>>>>>>>anything. Again, sorry, and I'll leave you all to your little world
>>>>>>>here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Dennis,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>that was from a month ago.
>>>>>>How about letting it go?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Richard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Hey Richard. I just seen it, because I don't frequent here. That ok
>>>>>with you now?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You didn't have to bring up anything after the second sentence.
>>>> Everything from that point on is petty.
>>>>
>>>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>
>>>Hey Dan, why don't I just start sending you everything before I post it,
>>>so that way you can edit it to your satisfaction. Would that do it for
>>>you?
>>
>>
>> What was your purpose in posting an apology, and telling your side of the
>> issue?
>
> Well Maxwell, the same as yours would be. ??!!

What would my reason be?

Dan wrote:
> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>> Hey Dan, why don't I just start sending you everything before I post
>> it, so that way you can edit it to your satisfaction. Would that do it
>> for you?
>
>
> I guess maturity isn't exactly your strong point, is it?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Hey Dan, you're the one telling people what you want to see wrote around
here. I just apologized for what some other guy did in your little
world. You are the one childishly aggravating the matter. I even offered
to let you edit what I wrote to your satisfaction before I posted it,
just to make you happy, yet that is still not enough to keep you from
crying. Face it, you will never be happy, so why try?

Maxwell wrote:
>>>>Dan wrote:
>>>What was your purpose in posting an apology, and telling your side of the
>>>issue?
>>
>>Well Maxwell, the same as yours would be. ??!!
>
>
> What would my reason be?


Yea, I guess you couldn't understand at that.

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>>> Hey Dan, why don't I just start sending you everything before I post
>>> it, so that way you can edit it to your satisfaction. Would that do
>>> it for you?
>>
>>
>> I guess maturity isn't exactly your strong point, is it?
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Hey Dan, you're the one telling people what you want to see wrote around
> here. I just apologized for what some other guy did in your little
> world. You are the one childishly aggravating the matter. I even offered
> to let you edit what I wrote to your satisfaction before I posted it,
> just to make you happy, yet that is still not enough to keep you from
> crying. Face it, you will never be happy, so why try?

Try again. It's not my "little world," you didn't need to apologize
for the actions of another and your suggestion you'd let me "edit" your
responses was just ludicrous. All I said in the first place was a
portion of your response was petty. In my opinion what you said about
the OP was purely out of spite. You could have agreed or disagreed with
me in a mature manner. You didn't do so. I was respectful to you and you
were petulant in return.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dennis Fetters wrote:
[ Some stuff. ]

Dan > wrote:
[ Some other stuff, and then wrote: ]
> I was respectful to you [...]

Ah - so describing someone's action as being "petty" is a sign of respect.
The things I learn on Usenet! Well Dan, everything you write from this
point on is a sign of pettiness. There - if that isn't respectful I don't
know what is! And I learned it all on Usenet - thanks to your benevolent
tutelage!

"Dennis Fetters" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell wrote:
>>>>>Dan wrote:
>>>>What was your purpose in posting an apology, and telling your side of
>>>>the issue?
>>>
>>>Well Maxwell, the same as yours would be. ??!!
>>
>> What would my reason be?
>
> Yea, I guess you couldn't understand at that.

No, actually I don't.

It would appear you were attempting to redeem yourself from his comments.
Something that was completely unnecessary, because he had done such a poor
job of presenting his case.

Now you show up acting like an asshole, and it makes you appearing to have
no more motive than outing his identity to even the score.

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Dennis Fetters wrote:
> [ Some stuff. ]
>
> Dan > wrote:
> [ Some other stuff, and then wrote: ]
>> I was respectful to you [...]
>
> Ah - so describing someone's action as being "petty" is a sign of respect.
> The things I learn on Usenet! Well Dan, everything you write from this
> point on is a sign of pettiness. There - if that isn't respectful I don't
> know what is! And I learned it all on Usenet - thanks to your benevolent
> tutelage!

If you hadn't noticed Fetters made cheap comments not related to his
"apology" and without merit. I pointed out such actions are petty. That
wasn't disrespectful.

On the other hand your snide comments can be taken as disrespectful
by many people. I will leave it to the reader to come to his own conclusion.

Believe it if you will, but it is possible to disagree without being
disagreeable.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan > wrote:
> If you hadn't noticed Fetters made cheap comments not related to
> his "apology" and without merit.

His "apology" was obviously rhetorical and one would have to have been
"born yesterday" not to notice. The "cheap comments," on the other hand,
appeared to me to be reasonably merited on the simple fact that the OP
was potentially libelous. Perhaps if someone falsely claimed on a public
forum that you had threatened them you'd want to reply with some choice
"cheap comments" of your own when you found out about them. Or not.

> I pointed out such actions are petty. That wasn't disrespectful.

Hey - that's what I was going to claim about my comments about your post!

> On the other hand your snide comments can be taken as disrespectful
> by many people. I will leave it to the reader to come to his own
> conclusion.

Thank god for small favors! At least my snide remarks aren't totally
lost. So there is no need to "leave it to the reader to come to his own
conclusion," the post was intended to be snide. But I can be snide
without being disrepectful. In fact I haven't given any thought to
whether I should respect you or not. Certainly wouldn't want to make that
decision based on just one post!

But unlike you, I definitely don't want to leave readers to come their
own conclusions - if Usenet can't give me complete control over their
thinking then what use is this dang thing!? Curse the readers and the
horses they rode in on!

> Believe it if you will, but it is possible to disagree without
> being disagreeable.

Actually I do believe that. But on rare occasions it is more effective to
be disagreeable - as you may know. Depends on the context and the
intended audience and message to be delivered, right? My snide post was
my disagreeable way of pointing out that you managed to write your post
in such a way as to make this otherwise uninvolved party think you were
being disingenuous. Consider my original post, then, my own comment on
your composition of that one particular post. Or you can feel free to
point out your original post was not itself petty, so I must have a
reading comprehension problem.

> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Jim, U.S. Taxpayer, not yet retired (alas).

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Dan > wrote:
>> If you hadn't noticed Fetters made cheap comments not related to
>> his "apology" and without merit.
>
> His "apology" was obviously rhetorical and one would have to have been
> "born yesterday" not to notice. The "cheap comments," on the other hand,
> appeared to me to be reasonably merited on the simple fact that the OP
> was potentially libelous. Perhaps if someone falsely claimed on a public
> forum that you had threatened them you'd want to reply with some choice
> "cheap comments" of your own when you found out about them. Or not.
>
>> I pointed out such actions are petty. That wasn't disrespectful.
>
> Hey - that's what I was going to claim about my comments about your post!
>
>> On the other hand your snide comments can be taken as disrespectful
>> by many people. I will leave it to the reader to come to his own
>> conclusion.
>
> Thank god for small favors! At least my snide remarks aren't totally
> lost. So there is no need to "leave it to the reader to come to his own
> conclusion," the post was intended to be snide. But I can be snide
> without being disrepectful. In fact I haven't given any thought to
> whether I should respect you or not. Certainly wouldn't want to make that
> decision based on just one post!
>
> But unlike you, I definitely don't want to leave readers to come their
> own conclusions - if Usenet can't give me complete control over their
> thinking then what use is this dang thing!? Curse the readers and the
> horses they rode in on!
>
>> Believe it if you will, but it is possible to disagree without
>> being disagreeable.
>
> Actually I do believe that. But on rare occasions it is more effective to
> be disagreeable - as you may know. Depends on the context and the
> intended audience and message to be delivered, right? My snide post was
> my disagreeable way of pointing out that you managed to write your post
> in such a way as to make this otherwise uninvolved party think you were
> being disingenuous. Consider my original post, then, my own comment on
> your composition of that one particular post. Or you can feel free to
> point out your original post was not itself petty, so I must have a
> reading comprehension problem.
>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Jim, U.S. Taxpayer, not yet retired (alas).

Actually I won't bother. If you can't see the difference there's no
way I can explain it to you. Believe what you want about me or what I
said. Have a good evening.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan > wrote:
> Have a good evening.

You too.

In article >,
Jim Logajan > wrote:

> Dennis Fetters wrote:
> [ Some stuff. ]
>
> Dan > wrote:
> [ Some other stuff, and then wrote: ]
> > I was respectful to you [...]
>
> Ah - so describing someone's action as being "petty" is a sign of respect.

He didn't initially describe it as "petty". He said:

"that was from a month ago.
How about letting it go?"

> The things I learn on Usenet! Well Dan, everything you write from this
> point on is a sign of pettiness. There - if that isn't respectful I don't
> know what is! And I learned it all on Usenet - thanks to your benevolent
> tutelage!

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

Alan Baker > wrote:
> In article >,
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
>> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>> [ Some stuff. ]
>>
>> Dan > wrote:
>> [ Some other stuff, and then wrote: ]
>> > I was respectful to you [...]
>>
>> Ah - so describing someone's action as being "petty" is a sign of
>> respect.
>
> He didn't initially describe it as "petty". He said:
>
> "that was from a month ago.
> How about letting it go?"

I believe that was actually written by Richard a.k.a. cavelamb.

In article >,
Jim Logajan > wrote:

> Alan Baker > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Jim Logajan > wrote:
> >
> >> Dennis Fetters wrote:
> >> [ Some stuff. ]
> >>
> >> Dan > wrote:
> >> [ Some other stuff, and then wrote: ]
> >> > I was respectful to you [...]
> >>
> >> Ah - so describing someone's action as being "petty" is a sign of
> >> respect.
> >
> > He didn't initially describe it as "petty". He said:
> >
> > "that was from a month ago.
> > How about letting it go?"
>
> I believe that was actually written by Richard a.k.a. cavelamb.

I stand correct, but Dan's initial reply is respectful.

Calling particular words petty when they are petty isn't disrespectful.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

Dan wrote:
> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>> Hey Dan, you're the one telling people what you want to see wrote
>> around here. I just apologized for what some other guy did in your
>> little world. You are the one childishly aggravating the matter. I
>> even offered to let you edit what I wrote to your satisfaction before
>> I posted it, just to make you happy, yet that is still not enough to
>> keep you from crying. Face it, you will never be happy, so why try?
>
>
> Try again. It's not my "little world," you didn't need to apologize
> for the actions of another and your suggestion you'd let me "edit" your
> responses was just ludicrous. All I said in the first place was a
> portion of your response was petty. In my opinion what you said about
> the OP was purely out of spite. You could have agreed or disagreed with
> me in a mature manner. You didn't do so. I was respectful to you and you
> were petulant in return.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

See Dan, (and some of you others too)here is your problem;

Your morality judgment indicator is all out of whack. You are blinded by
preconceived ideas based on inaccurate myths that cloud your judgment.

Point in case… It's just fine with you that this psycho MONK fellow can
come here and make wild accusations that I threatened him just to damage
my reputation, and only did so because he was kicked off another forum
for doing the same thing and had nowhere else to go do his “thing”. You
see, you would gladly accept the fact that he had something bad to say
about me, that's just fine in your book, you like that, and he can post
it and talk about it here until the cows come home!!, and don't insult
our intelligence by trying to deny it, printed history is against you.

On the other hand, I see that this fellow MONK did this here, so be it
was a month later, and I not only apologize for him trying to start some
crap in your little world here about me, but I provide you the source of
information to go look at only if you wanted to, so that you could see
that this guy was not all together in the head, just so people can have
some information... if they wanted to go to the trouble to find it, so
that they could make their own informed opinion. Notice, I didn't go to
Google and cut and paste the information here like some of you people
would have done to me, and probably will, I just pointed where to go if
someone wanted to make an informed decision.

But, there is the rub with you! In your little world, it's not fair for
Dennis Fetters to defend myself; he should just take it up the wazoo....
and for what? Just so you can have your warped satisfaction that I'm
getting bashed?

You see Dave, that’s your problem; you just need a morality enema until
it pours out your big mouth, and the same thing for the rest of you that
agree with him.

Now I know this fact hurts, and your first instinct will be to go dredge
up a bunch of old unfounded and proven to be false lies to try and
elevate your ego back up, but I hope you will just be man enough to
accept these facts and try to be better from it from now on.

There, you can have back your little world to do in and rule over as you
wish again.

Have a ball.

The OTHER Kevin in San Diego wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:50:27 -0700, Dennis Fetters
> > wrote:
>>Hey Dan, why don't I just start sending you everything before I post it,
>>so that way you can edit it to your satisfaction. Would that do it for you?
>
>
> Man, who pee'd in your Corn Flakes?

Dan did. Didn't you read?

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:03:28 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

> Dan > wrote:
>> Have a good evening.
>
> You too.

My preference would be for you to go **** yourself, Jimmie.

Just sayin'
--
Of course you don't, My Little Trick Pony.
And yes, once again, that *IS* your ass I handed you and
that *IS* your HAT too.

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:13:13 -0700, Dennis Fetters wrote:

> See Dan, (and some of you others too)here is your problem;
>
> Your morality judgment indicator is all out of whack. You are blinded by
> preconceived ideas based on inaccurate myths that cloud your judgment.

Good, Jesus Christ to the rescue.

> Point in case¡K It's just fine with you that this psycho MONK fellow can
> come here and make wild accusations that I threatened him just to damage
> my reputation,..

Whoa there, Jesus, this is Usenet, if you carry any weight to your
reputation from Usenet, it's your own little mind and world that is
fukked to the gills.

> On the other hand, I see that this fellow MONK did this here, so be it
> was a month later, and I not only apologize for him trying to start some
> crap in your little world here about me, but I provide you the source of
> information to go look at only if you wanted to, so that you could see
> that this guy was not all together in the head, just so people can have
> some information>

Error@: Assumption anyone gave a **** except you.

> But, there is the rub with you! In your little world, it's not fair for
> Dennis Fetters to defend myself; he should just take it up the wazoo....
> and for what? Just so you can have your warped satisfaction that I'm
> getting bashed?

Go ahead Jesus, we need a good hardy-har.

> You see Dave,

Dan, you nitwit, blither on.....

> that¡¦s your problem; you just need a morality enema until
> it pours out your big mouth, and the same thing for the rest of you that
> agree with him.

Jesus, we do hope you leave soon, any chance?

> Now I know this fact hurts, and your first instinct will be to go dredge
> up a bunch of old unfounded and proven to be false lies to try and
> elevate your ego back up, but I hope you will just be man enough to
> accept these facts and try to be better from it from now on.

There is only one demonstrable fact here, you're a fukking headcase.

> There, you can have back your little world to do in and rule over as you
> wish again.
>
> Have a ball.

I don't do homo much less headcase homosexuals.
--
http://tr.im/1f9p

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 15:27:00 -0500, Morgans wrote:

> "Dan Camper" > wrote
>
>> And yes, once again, that *IS* your ass I handed you and
>> that *IS* your HAT too.
>
> You obviously have a mighty high opinion of yourself, to think that there
> was any ass or hat handing being done in that last exchange.
>
> When blood flows, let me know.

Sure will. <rolling eyes>

Does everyone ignore you and make fun of you at the same time?
--
http://tr.im/1f9p

"Dan Camper" > wrote

> And yes, once again, that *IS* your ass I handed you and
> that *IS* your HAT too.

You obviously have a mighty high opinion of yourself, to think that there
was any ass or hat handing being done in that last exchange.

When blood flows, let me know.
--
Jim in NC

Dan Camper wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:13:13 -0700, Dennis Fetters wrote:
>
>
>>See Dan, (and some of you others too)here is your problem;
>>
>>Your morality judgment indicator is all out of whack. You are blinded by
>>preconceived ideas based on inaccurate myths that cloud your judgment.
>
>
> Good, Jesus Christ to the rescue.
>
>
>>Point in case¡K It's just fine with you that this psycho MONK fellow can
>>come here and make wild accusations that I threatened him just to damage
>>my reputation,..
>
>
> Whoa there, Jesus, this is Usenet, if you carry any weight to your
> reputation from Usenet, it's your own little mind and world that is
> fukked to the gills.
>
>
>>On the other hand, I see that this fellow MONK did this here, so be it
>>was a month later, and I not only apologize for him trying to start some
>>crap in your little world here about me, but I provide you the source of
>>information to go look at only if you wanted to, so that you could see
>>that this guy was not all together in the head, just so people can have
>>some information>
>
>
> Error@: Assumption anyone gave a **** except you.
>
>
>>But, there is the rub with you! In your little world, it's not fair for
>>Dennis Fetters to defend myself; he should just take it up the wazoo....
>>and for what? Just so you can have your warped satisfaction that I'm
>>getting bashed?
>
>
> Go ahead Jesus, we need a good hardy-har.
>
>
>>You see Dave,
>
>
> Dan, you nitwit, blither on.....
>
>
>>that¡¦s your problem; you just need a morality enema until
>>it pours out your big mouth, and the same thing for the rest of you that
>>agree with him.
>
>
> Jesus, we do hope you leave soon, any chance?
>
>
>>Now I know this fact hurts, and your first instinct will be to go dredge
>>up a bunch of old unfounded and proven to be false lies to try and
>>elevate your ego back up, but I hope you will just be man enough to
>>accept these facts and try to be better from it from now on.
>
>
> There is only one demonstrable fact here, you're a fukking headcase.
>
>
>>There, you can have back your little world to do in and rule over as you
>>wish again.
>>
>>Have a ball.
>
>
> I don't do homo much less headcase homosexuals.

Very intelligent response. Just exactly as I expected from you. All
words with no meaning. you are a dinosaur, when will you finally realize
it and lay down and go extinct like all the others here did?

On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 09:43:42 -0700, Dennis Fetters wrote:

> Dan Camper wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:13:13 -0700, Dennis Fetters wrote:
>>
>>>See Dan, (and some of you others too)here is your problem;
>>>
>>>Your morality judgment indicator is all out of whack. You are blinded by
>>>preconceived ideas based on inaccurate myths that cloud your judgment.
>>
>> Good, Jesus Christ to the rescue.
>>
>>
>>>Point in case¡K It's just fine with you that this psycho MONK fellow can
>>>come here and make wild accusations that I threatened him just to damage
>>>my reputation,..
>>
>> Whoa there, Jesus, this is Usenet, if you carry any weight to your
>> reputation from Usenet, it's your own little mind and world that is
>> fukked to the gills.
>>
>>
>>>On the other hand, I see that this fellow MONK did this here, so be it
>>>was a month later, and I not only apologize for him trying to start some
>>>crap in your little world here about me, but I provide you the source of
>>>information to go look at only if you wanted to, so that you could see
>>>that this guy was not all together in the head, just so people can have
>>>some information>
>>
>> Error@: Assumption anyone gave a **** except you.
>>
>>>But, there is the rub with you! In your little world, it's not fair for
>>>Dennis Fetters to defend myself; he should just take it up the wazoo....
>>>and for what? Just so you can have your warped satisfaction that I'm
>>>getting bashed?
>>
>> Go ahead Jesus, we need a good hardy-har.
>>
>>
>>>You see Dave,
>>
>> Dan, you nitwit, blither on.....
>>
>>>that¡¦s your problem; you just need a morality enema until
>>>it pours out your big mouth, and the same thing for the rest of you that
>>>agree with him.
>>
>> Jesus, we do hope you leave soon, any chance?
>>
>>
>>>Now I know this fact hurts, and your first instinct will be to go dredge
>>>up a bunch of old unfounded and proven to be false lies to try and
>>>elevate your ego back up, but I hope you will just be man enough to
>>>accept these facts and try to be better from it from now on.
>>
>> There is only one demonstrable fact here, you're a fukking headcase.
>>
>>
>>>There, you can have back your little world to do in and rule over as you
>>>wish again.
>>>
>>>Have a ball.
>>
>> I don't do homo much less headcase homosexuals.
>
> Very intelligent response. Just exactly as I expected from you.

You don't know me from **** except for the fact that I am kicking your
egomaniacal ass all over the place in this thread.

> All
> words with no meaning. you are a dinosaur, when will you finally realize
> it and lay down and go extinct like all the others here did?

Take a lesson.

Wit 101.
--
http://tr.im/1f9p

"Dan Camper" > wrote

> You don't know me from **** except for the fact that I am kicking your
> egomaniacal ass all over the place in this thread.

I'm no Dennis fan. Far from it, but.....

There you go again. I don't see anyone's ass getting kicked, except in
your head.

You must be a legend in your own mind. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Get a life, Dan.

Really.

ker-plunk.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
> "Dan Camper" > wrote
>
>> You don't know me from **** except for the fact that I am kicking your
>> egomaniacal ass all over the place in this thread.
>
> I'm no Dennis fan. Far from it, but.....
>
> There you go again. I don't see anyone's ass getting kicked, except in
> your head.

Dennis Fetters has kicked his own ass, it's done. He not-so-cleverly
posted from his Google "planeman" account to glowingly praise Dennis
Fetters.
The posts, with IP addresses, are archived. A couple examples out of the
bunch:

<http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec.aviation.rotorcraft/msg/47ed484e4cd0e2f8?dmode=source>
"In this detailed analysis, it can be seen that all accidents are a
result of pilot error or a maintenance/assembly problem aggravated by
pilot error... "

<http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec.aviation.rotorcraft/msg/16c98f092f6ef3da?dmode=source>
"I just read the complete Mini-500 accident report and found it to be
overwhelming in completeness. I can't recall any kit manufacturer that
has made such a complete report as these people did."

On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 01:38:56 -0500, Morgans wrote:

> "Dan Camper" > wrote
>
>> You don't know me from **** except for the fact that I am kicking your
>> egomaniacal ass all over the place in this thread.
>
> I'm no Dennis fan. Far from it, but.....

> Really.

Really.

> ker-plunk.

Proof.
--
http://tr.im/1f9p

On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:19:10 -0700, Poultry in Motion wrote:

> Morgans wrote:
>> "Dan Camper" > wrote
>>
>>> You don't know me from **** except for the fact that I am kicking your
>>> egomaniacal ass all over the place in this thread.
>>
>> I'm no Dennis fan. Far from it, but.....
>>
>> There you go again. I don't see anyone's ass getting kicked, except in
>> your head.
>
> Dennis Fetters has kicked his own ass, it's done. He not-so-cleverly
> posted from his Google "planeman" account to glowingly praise Dennis
> Fetters.
> The posts, with IP addresses, are archived. A couple examples out of the
> bunch:
>
> <http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec.aviation.rotorcraft/msg/47ed484e4cd0e2f8?dmode=source>
> "In this detailed analysis, it can be seen that all accidents are a
> result of pilot error or a maintenance/assembly problem aggravated by
> pilot error... "
>
> <http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec.aviation.rotorcraft/msg/16c98f092f6ef3da?dmode=source>
> "I just read the complete Mini-500 accident report and found it to be
> overwhelming in completeness. I can't recall any kit manufacturer that
> has made such a complete report as these people did."

Got it. He's an assclown.
--
http://tr.im/1f9p

Dan Camper wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:19:10 -0700, Poultry in Motion wrote:
>
>
>>Morgans wrote:
>>
>>>"Dan Camper" > wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>You don't know me from **** except for the fact that I am kicking your
>>>>egomaniacal ass all over the place in this thread.
>>>
>>>I'm no Dennis fan. Far from it, but.....
>>>
>>> There you go again. I don't see anyone's ass getting kicked, except in
>>>your head.
>>
>>Dennis Fetters has kicked his own ass, it's done. He not-so-cleverly
>>posted from his Google "planeman" account to glowingly praise Dennis
>>Fetters.
>>The posts, with IP addresses, are archived. A couple examples out of the
>>bunch:
>>
>><http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec.aviation.rotorcraft/msg/47ed484e4cd0e2f8?dmode=source>
>>"In this detailed analysis, it can be seen that all accidents are a
>>result of pilot error or a maintenance/assembly problem aggravated by
>>pilot error... "
>>
>><http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec.aviation.rotorcraft/msg/16c98f092f6ef3da?dmode=source>
>>"I just read the complete Mini-500 accident report and found it to be
>>overwhelming in completeness. I can't recall any kit manufacturer that
>>has made such a complete report as these people did."
>
>
> Got it. He's an assclown.

This has happened more than once, but as soon as anyone agrees with me,
the same old people say it's me behind it with a fictitious name.

I have said it before, I have enough balls to post with my own name, and
I have never used another name to post under, although there have been
people use my name to make posts. I have no need to play such games.

Dennis Fetters > wrote:

> Dan Camper wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:19:10 -0700, Poultry in Motion wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Morgans wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Dan Camper" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You don't know me from **** except for the fact that I am kicking
>>>>>your egomaniacal ass all over the place in this thread.
>>>>
>>>>I'm no Dennis fan. Far from it, but.....
>>>>
>>>> There you go again. I don't see anyone's ass getting kicked,
>>>> except in
>>>>your head.
>>>
>>>Dennis Fetters has kicked his own ass, it's done. He not-so-cleverly
>>>posted from his Google "planeman" account to glowingly praise Dennis
>>>Fetters.
>>>The posts, with IP addresses, are archived. A couple examples out of
>>>the bunch:
>>>
>>><http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec.aviation.rotorcraft/msg/47ed484e
>>>4cd0e2f8?dmode=source> "In this detailed analysis, it can be seen
>>>that all accidents are a result of pilot error or a
>>>maintenance/assembly problem aggravated by pilot error... "
>>>
>>><http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec.aviation.rotorcraft/msg/16c98f09
>>>2f6ef3da?dmode=source> "I just read the complete Mini-500 accident
>>>report and found it to be overwhelming in completeness. I can't
>>>recall any kit manufacturer that has made such a complete report as
>>>these people did."
>>
>>
>> Got it. He's an assclown.
>
> This has happened more than once, but as soon as anyone agrees with
> me, the same old people say it's me behind it with a fictitious name.
>
> I have said it before, I have enough balls to post with my own name,
> and I have never used another name to post under, although there have
> been people use my name to make posts. I have no need to play such
> games.

Are you saying you made none of the posts that were referenced above? Not
even the ones claiming to be from you?

(It takes a fair bit of knowledge of network protocols, effort, and luck
to spoof an IP address or "steal" a DHCP leased IP address. Seems
unlikely.)

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Dennis Fetters > wrote:
>
>
>>Dan Camper wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:19:10 -0700, Poultry in Motion wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Morgans wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Dan Camper" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>You don't know me from **** except for the fact that I am kicking
>>>>>>your egomaniacal ass all over the place in this thread.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm no Dennis fan. Far from it, but.....
>>>>>
>>>>>There you go again. I don't see anyone's ass getting kicked,
>>>>>except in
>>>>>your head.
>>>>
>>>>Dennis Fetters has kicked his own ass, it's done. He not-so-cleverly
>>>>posted from his Google "planeman" account to glowingly praise Dennis
>>>>Fetters.
>>>>The posts, with IP addresses, are archived. A couple examples out of
>>>>the bunch:
>>>>
>>>><http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec.aviation.rotorcraft/msg/47ed484e
>>>>4cd0e2f8?dmode=source> "In this detailed analysis, it can be seen
>>>>that all accidents are a result of pilot error or a
>>>>maintenance/assembly problem aggravated by pilot error... "
>>>>
>>>><http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec.aviation.rotorcraft/msg/16c98f09
>>>>2f6ef3da?dmode=source> "I just read the complete Mini-500 accident
>>>>report and found it to be overwhelming in completeness. I can't
>>>>recall any kit manufacturer that has made such a complete report as
>>>>these people did."
>>>
>>>
>>>Got it. He's an assclown.
>>
>>This has happened more than once, but as soon as anyone agrees with
>>me, the same old people say it's me behind it with a fictitious name.
>>
>>I have said it before, I have enough balls to post with my own name,
>>and I have never used another name to post under, although there have
>>been people use my name to make posts. I have no need to play such
>>games.
>
>
> Are you saying you made none of the posts that were referenced above? Not
> even the ones claiming to be from you?
>
> (It takes a fair bit of knowledge of network protocols, effort, and luck
> to spoof an IP address or "steal" a DHCP leased IP address. Seems
> unlikely.)

Jim, I am saying that this person calling himself planeman was not me,
as some people like to think. I have never posted under a false name.

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Dennis Fetters > wrote:
>
>> Dan Camper wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:19:10 -0700, Poultry in Motion wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Morgans wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Dan Camper" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't know me from **** except for the fact that I am kicking
>>>>>> your egomaniacal ass all over the place in this thread.
>>>>> I'm no Dennis fan. Far from it, but.....
>>>>>
>>>>> There you go again. I don't see anyone's ass getting kicked,
>>>>> except in
>>>>> your head.
>>>> Dennis Fetters has kicked his own ass, it's done. He not-so-cleverly
>>>> posted from his Google "planeman" account to glowingly praise Dennis
>>>> Fetters.
>>>> The posts, with IP addresses, are archived. A couple examples out of
>>>> the bunch:
>>>>
>>>> <http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec.aviation.rotorcraft/msg/47ed484e
>>>> 4cd0e2f8?dmode=source> "In this detailed analysis, it can be seen
>>>> that all accidents are a result of pilot error or a
>>>> maintenance/assembly problem aggravated by pilot error... "
>>>>
>>>> <http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec.aviation.rotorcraft/msg/16c98f09
>>>> 2f6ef3da?dmode=source> "I just read the complete Mini-500 accident
>>>> report and found it to be overwhelming in completeness. I can't
>>>> recall any kit manufacturer that has made such a complete report as
>>>> these people did."
>>>
>>> Got it. He's an assclown.
>> This has happened more than once, but as soon as anyone agrees with
>> me, the same old people say it's me behind it with a fictitious name.
>>
>> I have said it before, I have enough balls to post with my own name,
>> and I have never used another name to post under, although there have
>> been people use my name to make posts. I have no need to play such
>> games.
>
> Are you saying you made none of the posts that were referenced above? Not
> even the ones claiming to be from you?
>
> (It takes a fair bit of knowledge of network protocols, effort, and luck
> to spoof an IP address or "steal" a DHCP leased IP address. Seems
> unlikely.)

From what I've read, it takes talent and luck to pull it off even once.
It's hit or miss, usually miss. And yet "planeman" was posting articles
repeatedly, always from Fetters' IP address.

The charade began with the "planeman" puppet, an apparent rotorcraft
newbie asking the group for advice about purchasing Mini-500 stuff. He
inexplicably blew up at friendly replies he got from everyone. It was
just weird.

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:28:11 -0700, Dennis Fetters wrote:

> Dan Camper wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:19:10 -0700, Poultry in Motion wrote:
>>
>>>Morgans wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Dan Camper" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You don't know me from **** except for the fact that I am kicking your
>>>>>egomaniacal ass all over the place in this thread.
>>>>
>>>>I'm no Dennis fan. Far from it, but.....
>>>>
>>>> There you go again. I don't see anyone's ass getting kicked, except in
>>>>your head.
>>>
>>>Dennis Fetters has kicked his own ass, it's done. He not-so-cleverly
>>>posted from his Google "planeman" account to glowingly praise Dennis
>>>Fetters.
>>>The posts, with IP addresses, are archived. A couple examples out of the
>>>bunch:
>>>
>>><http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec.aviation.rotorcraft/msg/47ed484e4cd0e2f8?dmode=source>
>>>"In this detailed analysis, it can be seen that all accidents are a
>>>result of pilot error or a maintenance/assembly problem aggravated by
>>>pilot error... "
>>>
>>><http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec.aviation.rotorcraft/msg/16c98f092f6ef3da?dmode=source>
>>>"I just read the complete Mini-500 accident report and found it to be
>>>overwhelming in completeness. I can't recall any kit manufacturer that
>>>has made such a complete report as these people did."
>>
>> Got it. He's an assclown.
>
> This has happened more than once, but as soon as anyone agrees with me,
> the same old people say it's me behind it with a fictitious name.

It's Usenet, AssClown, grab a a life or get the **** out.

> I have said it before, I have enough balls to post with my own name,

And my name is Sherlock Fruitart.

AssClown.

> and
> I have never used another name to post under, although there have been
> people use my name to make posts. I have no need to play such games.

*yawn*
--
http://tr.im/1f9p

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> Dennis Fetters > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Dan Camper wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:19:10 -0700, Poultry in Motion wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Morgans wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Dan Camper" > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't know me from **** except for the fact that I am kicking
>>>>>>> your egomaniacal ass all over the place in this thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm no Dennis fan. Far from it, but.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There you go again. I don't see anyone's ass getting kicked,
>>>>>> except in your head.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dennis Fetters has kicked his own ass, it's done. He
>>>>> not-so-cleverly posted from his Google "planeman" account to
>>>>> glowingly praise Dennis Fetters.
>>>>> The posts, with IP addresses, are archived. A couple examples out of
>>>>> the bunch:
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec.aviation.rotorcraft/msg/47ed484e
>>>>> 4cd0e2f8?dmode=source> "In this detailed analysis, it can be seen
>>>>> that all accidents are a result of pilot error or a
>>>>> maintenance/assembly problem aggravated by pilot error... "
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec.aviation.rotorcraft/msg/16c98f09
>>>>> 2f6ef3da?dmode=source> "I just read the complete Mini-500 accident
>>>>> report and found it to be overwhelming in completeness. I can't
>>>>> recall any kit manufacturer that has made such a complete report as
>>>>> these people did."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Got it. He's an assclown.
>>>
>>> This has happened more than once, but as soon as anyone agrees with
>>> me, the same old people say it's me behind it with a fictitious name.
>>>
>>> I have said it before, I have enough balls to post with my own name,
>>> and I have never used another name to post under, although there have
>>> been people use my name to make posts. I have no need to play such
>>> games.
>>
>>
>> Are you saying you made none of the posts that were referenced above?
>> Not even the ones claiming to be from you?
>>
>> (It takes a fair bit of knowledge of network protocols, effort, and
>> luck to spoof an IP address or "steal" a DHCP leased IP address. Seems
>> unlikely.)
>
> Jim, I am saying that this person calling himself planeman was not me,
> as some people like to think. I have never posted under a false name.

If you were being honest all along, you would have quickly told Jim that
you made *none* of the posts that were referenced above, not even the
ones claiming to be from you. That's what Jim was fishing for.
But no, you continue to deny that "planeman" was you, and that's all.

Jim is a clever guy. He knows that the two posts referenced above were
typed at the same computer, and he gave you a fair opportunity to plant
doubt in his mind. Do you need a full explanation of why you just
failed, Dennis, or can you figure it out yourself?

Poultry in Motion > wrote:
> Jim is a clever guy.

Such flattery!

> He knows that the two posts referenced above were
> typed at the same computer

Actually I know nothing of the sort. There are many possibilities and there
is insufficient evidence to rule many of them out. For example, Fetter's
computer or one on his local network may have been compromised with a
trojan program, allowing someone else remote access. Nor is it clear who
has physical access to the computer he uses or the network it is on. (He
appears to be operating behind a NAT firewall that may have more than one
machine on it.) And so on.

When people die, their friends and loved ones would (in my very humble
opinion) seem to me to be the ones most probable to become emotionally
obsessive, less so the target of their wrath.

But most important from my own pragmatic point of view is that none of the
posts in dispute appear to have any relevance to the underlying issues
pertaining to the aircraft's safety record. I'm unclear how the inclusion
of the disputed posts can have any affect on the analysis of the causes of
any of the crashes.

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Poultry in Motion > wrote:
>> Jim is a clever guy.
>
> Such flattery!
>
>> He knows that the two posts referenced above were
>> typed at the same computer
>
> Actually I know nothing of the sort. There are many possibilities and there
> is insufficient evidence to rule many of them out. For example, Fetter's
> computer or one on his local network may have been compromised with a
> trojan program, allowing someone else remote access.

Uh, right. <rolls eyes>

> Nor is it clear who has physical access to the computer he uses or the network it is on. (He
> appears to be operating behind a NAT firewall that may have more than one
> machine on it.) And so on.
>
> When people die, their friends and loved ones would (in my very humble
> opinion) seem to me to be the ones most probable to become emotionally
> obsessive, less so the target of their wrath.
>
> But most important from my own pragmatic point of view is that none of the
> posts in dispute appear to have any relevance to the underlying issues
> pertaining to the aircraft's safety record.
> I'm unclear how the inclusion of the disputed posts can have any affect on the analysis of the causes of
> any of the crashes.

I don't want you to be unclear.
Fetters' self-produced and overwhelmingly complete Mini500 accident
analysis has tremendous relevance to the underlying issues. Case closed,
look no deeper, nothing else to see here. It satisfied "planeman" handily!

It was to be an example for all rec.aviation.rotorcraft readers to
follow. Fetters used "planeman" to steer public opinion.

Google obscures email addresses by truncating them and throwing ellipses
in there. The actual Yahoo! email address that Fetters got for
"planeman" was planemanman_at_yahoo.com, funny huh? I guess the dope was
in a hurry and planeman was already taken.

Poultry in Motion > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> Poultry in Motion > wrote:
>>> Jim is a clever guy.
>>
>> Such flattery!
>>
>>> He knows that the two posts referenced above were
>>> typed at the same computer
>>
>> Actually I know nothing of the sort. There are many possibilities and
>> there is insufficient evidence to rule many of them out. For example,
>> Fetter's computer or one on his local network may have been
>> compromised with a trojan program, allowing someone else remote
>> access.
>
> Uh, right. <rolls eyes>

Who started this thread by bringing it from another forum to Usenet?
Which of the two people involved was that obsessed?
One would have engage in "special pleading" to ignore the information
provided by the answers to those questions.

> It was to be an example for all rec.aviation.rotorcraft readers to
> follow. Fetters used "planeman" to steer public opinion.

Uh, right. <rolls eyes>

And the poster who started this thread wasn't trying to steer public
opinion? Looks like you're engaging in special pleading again to me.

> Google obscures email addresses by truncating them and throwing
> ellipses in there. The actual Yahoo! email address that Fetters got
> for "planeman" was planemanman_at_yahoo.com, funny huh? I guess the
> dope was in a hurry and planeman was already taken.

So explain why Fetters start a thread using a sock puppet to ask:

"I see Mini-500 helicopters selling on eBay, but much less these days.
Is there someone in the marketplace that can sell me parts if I was
compelled to buy the incomplete one selling now?"

And why Fetters would wait almost a full day to post a response that
included this:

"As for the guy that originally asked the question about places to buy
Mini-500 parts, no, there is nowhere to purchase parts. I might add that
this is a good thing. Even if you could buy parts, the Mini-500 should
not be flown without a factory that continues to flight test and keeps
track of ongoing issues common to all helicopters operating."

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Poultry in Motion > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>> Poultry in Motion > wrote:
>>>> Jim is a clever guy.
>>> Such flattery!
>>>
>>>> He knows that the two posts referenced above were
>>>> typed at the same computer
>>> Actually I know nothing of the sort. There are many possibilities and
>>> there is insufficient evidence to rule many of them out. For example,
>>> Fetter's computer or one on his local network may have been
>>> compromised with a trojan program, allowing someone else remote
>>> access.
>> Uh, right. <rolls eyes>
>
> Who started this thread by bringing it from another forum to Usenet?
> Which of the two people involved was that obsessed?

We're about to see, Jim.

> One would have engage in "special pleading" to ignore the information
> provided by the answers to those questions.

Looked to me like Fetters rather belligerently strode into someone
else's discussion at that other forum. Did you even read there?

1) Monk, who brought the issue here, began a thread there with a simple
question about UltraSport helicopters.

2) It was "thesultanofscud", hardly an hour later, who first uttered the
name Mini-500.

3) It was a full week after that when Monk recalled the troubles, and
death, that his friend Gil Armbruster suffered from his experience with
the Mini.

4) Couple hours later, the bombastic Fetters is there pounding his
"facts" into Monk.
"You know Bryan, these are really quite reckless and misleading comments...
... pack of unfounded lies and misconceptions."

So give the discussion
http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19577
an unbiased read and decide,
Was Monk obsessed in event 3) above?
Was Fetters obsessed in event 4) above?

>> It was to be an example for all rec.aviation.rotorcraft readers to
>> follow. Fetters used "planeman" to steer public opinion.
>
> Uh, right. <rolls eyes>

And you think that's as far-fetched as your scenario where Fetters'
computer was controlled by a hacker?

> And the poster who started this thread wasn't trying to steer public
> opinion? Looks like you're engaging in special pleading again to me.

Of course he was trying to steer opinion. So am I, and so are you.
But Monk wasn't trying to deceive anyone, nor am I.

>> Google obscures email addresses by truncating them and throwing
>> ellipses in there. The actual Yahoo! email address that Fetters got
>> for "planeman" was planemanman_at_yahoo.com, funny huh? I guess the
>> dope was in a hurry and planeman was already taken.
>
> So explain why Fetters start a thread using a sock puppet to ask:
>
> "I see Mini-500 helicopters selling on eBay, but much less these days.
> Is there someone in the marketplace that can sell me parts if I was
> compelled to buy the incomplete one selling now?"

He started the thread so he could answer his own question. And the
puppet would then extend his appreciation to Mr. Wonderful for everyone
to see.

> And why Fetters would wait almost a full day to post a response that
> included this:
>
> "As for the guy that originally asked the question about places to buy
> Mini-500 parts, no, there is nowhere to purchase parts. I might add that
> this is a good thing. Even if you could buy parts, the Mini-500 should
> not be flown without a factory that continues to flight test and keeps
> track of ongoing issues common to all helicopters operating."

Almost a full day, eh? He could have replied to his own puppetpost the
next minute, but that would smell funny.

What do you think of "planeman"'s reaction to the other replies? He
acted very hurt and offended by the group. Did that make any sense?

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:23:14 -0700, Dennis Fetters
> wrote:

>Poultry in Motion wrote:
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> It was to be an example for all rec.aviation.rotorcraft readers to
>> follow. Fetters used "planeman" to steer public opinion.
>
>Actually, I don't want any person to "steer" public opinion concerning
>the Mini-500 helicopter. I only want the facts to steer public opinion,
>and that is why we spent the time to compile all FAA accident reports
>along with what we knew about the case, and put together one of the most
>complete accident analyses reports even done on a kit-built aircraft.


Dennis.

In your defense...
I don't believe most folks know how to take you to task because they
don't have a clue about the facts and how the FAA determines them...
just like you lament.

For my money, every death in a Mini-500 was preventable had the
pilot exercised proper judgment, caution and treated the Miin-500
as the lethal weapon I personally believe it to be.

In my opinion, everyone that died in a Mini-500 had no one to
blame but themselves. They all made mistakes where there is
almost no margin for error if you want to see the sun rise the
next day.

Do I endorse the Mini-500 as an inherently safe chopper?
Not on your friggin' life!!!!! [Literally]


Barnyard BOb - 55 years of licensed powered flight

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:23:14 -0700, Dennis Fetters wrote:

> Actually, I don't want any person to "steer" public opinion concerning
> the Mini-500 helicopter.

<snipped quickly scanned bull****>

So you posted 345 pages of self-supporting bull****?

Do you realize what a ****tard you look like?
--
http://tr.im/1f9p

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:02:11 -0700, Poultry in Motion wrote:

> Jim is a clever guy. He knows that the two posts referenced above were
> typed at the same computer, and he gave you a fair opportunity to plant
> doubt in his mind. Do you need a full explanation of why you just
> failed, Dennis, or can you figure it out yourself?

He ain't that clever, no one is.
--
http://tr.im/1f9p

Barnyard BOb wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:23:14 -0700, Dennis Fetters
> > wrote:
>
>> Poultry in Motion wrote:
>>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>> It was to be an example for all rec.aviation.rotorcraft readers to
>>> follow. Fetters used "planeman" to steer public opinion.
>> Actually, I don't want any person to "steer" public opinion concerning
>> the Mini-500 helicopter. I only want the facts to steer public opinion,
>> and that is why we spent the time to compile all FAA accident reports
>> along with what we knew about the case, and put together one of the most
>> complete accident analyses reports even done on a kit-built aircraft.
>
>
> Dennis.
>
> In your defense...
> I don't believe most folks know how to take you to task because they
> don't have a clue about the facts and how the FAA determines them...
> just like you lament.
>
> For my money, every death in a Mini-500 was preventable had the
> pilot exercised proper judgment, caution and treated the Miin-500
> as the lethal weapon I personally believe it to be.
>
> In my opinion, everyone that died in a Mini-500 had no one to
> blame but themselves. They all made mistakes where there is
> almost no margin for error if you want to see the sun rise the
> next day.
>
> Do I endorse the Mini-500 as an inherently safe chopper?
> Not on your friggin' life!!!!! [Literally]
>
>
> Barnyard BOb - 55 years of licensed powered flight

I recently started monitoring rec.aviation.homebuilt again, after being
run off quite a few years ago by the level of abrasive comment there.
Some of that seemed to focus on some homebuilt helicopter.

Now I see again some harangue of a helicopter homebuild designer, and
his self-defense efforts. Could this STILL be the same feud?


Here's my take.
The very first successful powered aircraft designers managed to kill the
designated representative of their most important and desired customer -
the US Army. They were then greeted as heroes when they took their
design abroad.

Should I even mention that the British aviation authorities turned up
their noses at the quality of the construction and design detail on the
Flyer models? And THESE were the folks who were the recipients of the
historic Flyer, so Lord knows how badly the Wrights felt they were
treated by their fellow Americans, in comparison.

Anybody, ANYBODY who is bold enough to design an aircraft - a helicopter
no less - deserves my great respect and admiration - and IF I expect any
more bold souls (or suckers, depending on your point of view) to step up
to the plate, I had better not harangue the ones who have succeeded in
putting something they designed into the air. They did not ever claim
(or if they did they shouldn't have) that their design or kit was bound
to be as safe as a certified design. I personally have seen companies
spend millions in that particular effort - before going down the tubes.

Take Home Message: if you think some hapless aircraft designer is
underhand, peculiar or sneaky, you never studied Wilbur and Orville.

Think twice before venting your spleen. Be kind - it's a thankless task.
You have heard how to make a million in aviation - by starting with five
million. So show some gratitude for people who have tried - successful
or unsuccessful - like the Wright designers. Bury the hatchet.

Then the people who know a couple of things, like Barnaby, like the
plane electronics man, like several others, might feel they can
contribute without feeling undermined and threatened.

There. I said it. Have at it.

Brian Whatcott Altus OK
(Don't tell ME I'm a sock-puppet)

Dan Camper wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:02:11 -0700, Poultry in Motion wrote:
>
>> Jim is a clever guy. He knows that the two posts referenced above were
>> typed at the same computer, and he gave you a fair opportunity to plant
>> doubt in his mind. Do you need a full explanation of why you just
>> failed, Dennis, or can you figure it out yourself?
>
> He ain't that clever, no one is.

I thought it clever. The precise question asked, and Fetters' answer,
confirm that Fetters is "planeman" and there was not someone else using
Fetters' name.

"Brian Whatcott" > wrote in message
...
> Barnyard BOb wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:23:14 -0700, Dennis Fetters
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Poultry in Motion wrote:
>>>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>>> It was to be an example for all rec.aviation.rotorcraft readers to
>>>> follow. Fetters used "planeman" to steer public opinion.
>>> Actually, I don't want any person to "steer" public opinion concerning
>>> the Mini-500 helicopter. I only want the facts to steer public opinion,
>>> and that is why we spent the time to compile all FAA accident reports
>>> along with what we knew about the case, and put together one of the most
>>> complete accident analyses reports even done on a kit-built aircraft.
>>
>>
>> Dennis.
>>
>> In your defense...
>> I don't believe most folks know how to take you to task because they
>> don't have a clue about the facts and how the FAA determines them...
>> just like you lament.
>>
>> For my money, every death in a Mini-500 was preventable had the pilot
>> exercised proper judgment, caution and treated the Miin-500
>> as the lethal weapon I personally believe it to be.
>>
>> In my opinion, everyone that died in a Mini-500 had no one to
>> blame but themselves. They all made mistakes where there is
>> almost no margin for error if you want to see the sun rise the next day.
>>
>> Do I endorse the Mini-500 as an inherently safe chopper?
>> Not on your friggin' life!!!!! [Literally]
>>
>>
>> Barnyard BOb - 55 years of licensed powered flight
>
> I recently started monitoring rec.aviation.homebuilt again, after being
> run off quite a few years ago by the level of abrasive comment there.
> Some of that seemed to focus on some homebuilt helicopter.
>
> Now I see again some harangue of a helicopter homebuild designer, and his
> self-defense efforts. Could this STILL be the same feud?
>
>
> Here's my take.
> The very first successful powered aircraft designers managed to kill the
> designated representative of their most important and desired customer -
> the US Army. They were then greeted as heroes when they took their
> design abroad.
>
> Should I even mention that the British aviation authorities turned up
> their noses at the quality of the construction and design detail on the
> Flyer models? And THESE were the folks who were the recipients of the
> historic Flyer, so Lord knows how badly the Wrights felt they were treated
> by their fellow Americans, in comparison.
>
> Anybody, ANYBODY who is bold enough to design an aircraft - a helicopter
> no less - deserves my great respect and admiration - and IF I expect any
> more bold souls (or suckers, depending on your point of view) to step up
> to the plate, I had better not harangue the ones who have succeeded in
> putting something they designed into the air. They did not ever claim (or
> if they did they shouldn't have) that their design or kit was bound to be
> as safe as a certified design. I personally have seen companies spend
> millions in that particular effort - before going down the tubes.
>
> Take Home Message: if you think some hapless aircraft designer is
> underhand, peculiar or sneaky, you never studied Wilbur and Orville.
>
> Think twice before venting your spleen. Be kind - it's a thankless task.
> You have heard how to make a million in aviation - by starting with five
> million. So show some gratitude for people who have tried - successful or
> unsuccessful - like the Wright designers. Bury the hatchet.
>
> Then the people who know a couple of things, like Barnaby, like the plane
> electronics man, like several others, might feel they can contribute
> without feeling undermined and threatened.
>
> There. I said it. Have at it.
>
> Brian Whatcott Altus OK
> (Don't tell ME I'm a sock-puppet)

Brian: There is more than a little truth in what you say. I'm a retired EE
(that now have a stack of ME reference works and helicopter design texts)
and have several ME friends that have noted that good helicopter design
involves quite a bit more than just "Wet Thumb" knowledge. That said, I
recently jointly wrote an article for our magazine (Experimental Helo)
commenting on some of the mechanical design found in some parts of a
helicopter transmission. We found the total absence, in some cases, of the
normal fillets in shafts diameter changes, which created some very high
concentration factors, the lack of adequate pre-load on some bearings, and
in one case a "botched" machine operation that left a nasty looking area on
a main rotor shaft. The obvious lack of Quality Control on these parts and
the fact that you would have to disassemble the transmission and use an
optical comparator to measure the fillets, makes it difficult for a
prospective kit buyer to analyze the quality of the kit components. And
that assumes that you had the knowledge and experience to look. Another
thing noted by a friend is that the normal accident investigation of an
experimental helicopter crash usually involves NTSB people with little
experience with that particular design and, if available, a representative
from the kit mfr. Now it is possibly true that every kit mfr. rep is not
biased to find pilot responsibility vs material failure, but I'm sure that
it is in their best "Short Term" interest to find it that way. I know of
some fatigue failures of shafts in areas where inadequate fillets were
present, where the failure was attributed to something that the
pilot/mechanic had done and the lack of adequate fillets got ignored.
Dennis Fetters did own up to some design errors. This gives him at least
one thumbs up. There have been others in the game that would avoid
admitting a mistake if you held their feet to the fire. Accident rates for
experimental helos can be very misleading. Claims of having X hundred ships
out there flying for Y years doesn't address the average hours on the ships
at accident time. The fatigue life of helicopter parts tends to be much
shorter if there is any excessive vibration. Especially with high stress
concentrations and landings not of the soft variety.
It would be of great interest if we could have some neutral people with
extensive engineering and practial experience review the present set of
designs and quality of components that are out there now flying about.
I once saw a coaxial helicopter built by an older gentleman that had no
collective control. It was throttle up and throttle down. There was a lot
of use of emt conduit tubing used along with a 4 cyl water cooled car
engine that the cylic was required to pitch and roll to achieve control.
He asked me if I would be interested in the role of test pilot....I declined
saying that I was not qualified. (under my breath I said that I was only
fearless and was missing one important requirement). However, he was not
setting on the sidelines just telling everyone how to do it. He went and
did it. If he lives thru it he will be a lot smarter than he was before and
his initative is something that seems to be disappearing in our society.
BTW are you familiar with the experimental helo fly-in that occurs every
year near Cleveland OK? I believe it is Oct 1-5 this year. It is a good
show.

Stuart Fields wrote:
> "Brian Whatcott" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Barnyard BOb wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:23:14 -0700, Dennis Fetters
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Poultry in Motion wrote:
>>>>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>>>> It was to be an example for all rec.aviation.rotorcraft readers to
>>>>> follow. Fetters used "planeman" to steer public opinion.
>>>> Actually, I don't want any person to "steer" public opinion concerning
>>>> the Mini-500 helicopter. I only want the facts to steer public opinion,
>>>> and that is why we spent the time to compile all FAA accident reports
>>>> along with what we knew about the case, and put together one of the most
>>>> complete accident analyses reports even done on a kit-built aircraft.
>>>
>>> Dennis.
>>>
>>> In your defense...
>>> I don't believe most folks know how to take you to task because they
>>> don't have a clue about the facts and how the FAA determines them...
>>> just like you lament.
>>>
>>> For my money, every death in a Mini-500 was preventable had the pilot
>>> exercised proper judgment, caution and treated the Miin-500
>>> as the lethal weapon I personally believe it to be.
>>>
>>> In my opinion, everyone that died in a Mini-500 had no one to
>>> blame but themselves. They all made mistakes where there is
>>> almost no margin for error if you want to see the sun rise the next day.
>>>
>>> Do I endorse the Mini-500 as an inherently safe chopper?
>>> Not on your friggin' life!!!!! [Literally]
>>>
>>>
>>> Barnyard BOb - 55 years of licensed powered flight
>> I recently started monitoring rec.aviation.homebuilt again, after being
>> run off quite a few years ago by the level of abrasive comment there.
>> Some of that seemed to focus on some homebuilt helicopter.
>>
>> Now I see again some harangue of a helicopter homebuild designer, and his
>> self-defense efforts. Could this STILL be the same feud?
>>
>>
>> Here's my take.
>> The very first successful powered aircraft designers managed to kill the
>> designated representative of their most important and desired customer -
>> the US Army. They were then greeted as heroes when they took their
>> design abroad.
>>
>> Should I even mention that the British aviation authorities turned up
>> their noses at the quality of the construction and design detail on the
>> Flyer models? And THESE were the folks who were the recipients of the
>> historic Flyer, so Lord knows how badly the Wrights felt they were treated
>> by their fellow Americans, in comparison.
>>
>> Anybody, ANYBODY who is bold enough to design an aircraft - a helicopter
>> no less - deserves my great respect and admiration - and IF I expect any
>> more bold souls (or suckers, depending on your point of view) to step up
>> to the plate, I had better not harangue the ones who have succeeded in
>> putting something they designed into the air. They did not ever claim (or
>> if they did they shouldn't have) that their design or kit was bound to be
>> as safe as a certified design. I personally have seen companies spend
>> millions in that particular effort - before going down the tubes.
>>
>> Take Home Message: if you think some hapless aircraft designer is
>> underhand, peculiar or sneaky, you never studied Wilbur and Orville.
>>
>> Think twice before venting your spleen. Be kind - it's a thankless task.
>> You have heard how to make a million in aviation - by starting with five
>> million. So show some gratitude for people who have tried - successful or
>> unsuccessful - like the Wright designers. Bury the hatchet.
>>
>> Then the people who know a couple of things, like Barnaby, like the plane
>> electronics man, like several others, might feel they can contribute
>> without feeling undermined and threatened.
>>
>> There. I said it. Have at it.
>>
>> Brian Whatcott Altus OK
>> (Don't tell ME I'm a sock-puppet)
>
> Brian: There is more than a little truth in what you say.

Of course there is. That is a common quality of the commonplace and
cliché. Brian has regurgitated the obvious for us.

Contrary to Brian's romantic story of dogged determination and spirit,
Dennis Fetters was not bold enough to design a helicopter. He was bold
enough to rip off one Augusto Cicare's work.

A series of Cicare's helicopters evolved over several years.

The Mini-500 went from nothing to ready in under a year. Dennis took
what he wanted, and sent his ex-business buddy Cicare packing. The
helicopter that Dennis has referred to in the past as his Mini-500
Prototype was Cicare's CH-6.

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:37:47 -0700, Poultry in Motion
> wrote:


>Contrary to Brian's romantic story of dogged determination and spirit,
>Dennis Fetters was not bold enough to design a helicopter. He was bold
>enough to rip off one Augusto Cicare's work.
>
>A series of Cicare's helicopters evolved over several years.
>
>The Mini-500 went from nothing to ready in under a year. Dennis took
>what he wanted, and sent his ex-business buddy Cicare packing. The
>helicopter that Dennis has referred to in the past as his Mini-500
>Prototype was Cicare's CH-6.

if that were really the case wouldnt Cicare have sued him for a patent
breach? Cicare's control system is a patented design.



in line with the original poster's comments Mignet was flying the Flea
during the fatal accident period in england, but flying more
conservatively. he never died in a flea while others less conservative
did. Mignet never encountered the fatal tuck despite flying his flea
for many hours and even crossing the english channel in one.

I think a lot of people are as dumb as dog**** when it comes to
aircraft. there seems to be little actual appreciation of the
difference between an experimental design and a certified design.
sometimes they die finding out.

it pays to remember that the designer may never have encountered the
fault in an experimental design.
Stealth Pilot

Stealth Pilot wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:37:47 -0700, Poultry in Motion
> > wrote:
>
>
>> Contrary to Brian's romantic story of dogged determination and spirit,
>> Dennis Fetters was not bold enough to design a helicopter. He was bold
>> enough to rip off one Augusto Cicare's work.
>>
>> A series of Cicare's helicopters evolved over several years.
>>
>> The Mini-500 went from nothing to ready in under a year. Dennis took
>> what he wanted, and sent his ex-business buddy Cicare packing. The
>> helicopter that Dennis has referred to in the past as his Mini-500
>> Prototype was Cicare's CH-6.
>
> if that were really the case wouldnt Cicare have sued him for a patent
> breach? Cicare's control system is a patented design.

Cicare is in Argentina, what's he going to do? Especially when Fetters
beat him to the punch and obtained his own patent first?

Ask Dennis to identify *the Mini-500 prototype* for you.

> in line with the original poster's comments Mignet was flying the Flea
> during the fatal accident period in england, but flying more
> conservatively. he never died in a flea while others less conservative
> did. Mignet never encountered the fatal tuck despite flying his flea
> for many hours and even crossing the english channel in one.
>
> I think a lot of people are as dumb as dog**** when it comes to
> aircraft. there seems to be little actual appreciation of the
> difference between an experimental design and a certified design.
> sometimes they die finding out.

Fetters hawked the thing to the entry-level Popular Mechanics crowd, as
a cheap time builder, requiring only 40-60 hours to go from the box into
the air. And he blamed them for their inexperience and for his company's
failure. They were naive to believe that Fetters could issue ADs, and
decree that his factory upgrades for their machines were mandatory.

> it pays to remember that the designer may never have encountered the
> fault in an experimental design.

Dennis may not have encountered faults in *the Mini-500 prototype*

> Stealth Pilot

BTW, it's so damned cute how Brian renamed this thread! An exact fit,
but not how he imagined.

This is an open challenge, and request to Mr. Agusto Cicare, so will
someone in touch please let him know;

I have all the personal correspondence between Mr. Cicare and myself,
where we are begging him to comply with our agreements, and I have all
of his responses in response. These correspondence include the fact that
he cut a parallel deal with someone else at the same time he was dealing
with us, and show that he was the one procrastinating and asking to
change our deal. This correspondence proves my side of the all following
accounts below.

Mr. Cicare, I formally request that you email me a scanned and signed
letter giving me permission to release our private correspondence to the
world, so that this matter can be concluded, and history set straight.

I have not posted it before, even at great cost to me personally,
because I am an honorable person that would not stoop to the level of
publishing private correspondence without permission. So, now I want to
finally give my side of this account the proof, so give me permission.

>

I also give you permission to release all private correspondence you may
have from me, as well.

Dennis Fetters


Now, will that be enough to convince you all? He will not accept the
challenge, because it will prove him wrong.


Poultry in Motion wrote:
> Of course there is. That is a common quality of the commonplace and
> cliché. Brian has regurgitated the obvious for us.
>
> Contrary to Brian's romantic story of dogged determination and spirit,
> Dennis Fetters was not bold enough to design a helicopter. He was bold
> enough to rip off one Augusto Cicare's work.
>
> A series of Cicare's helicopters evolved over several years.
>
> The Mini-500 went from nothing to ready in under a year. Dennis took
> what he wanted, and sent his ex-business buddy Cicare packing. The
> helicopter that Dennis has referred to in the past as his Mini-500
> Prototype was Cicare's CH-6.

But now, to answer this false allegation;

This a fabricated bunch of bull, nothing even close to being the truth.

First, I was never alone 5 minutes with the Cicare prototype. Even then,
I never seen the inside of anything. Now, if anyone thinks that I can
take a tape measure and in moments sneaking around in the dark take down
enough information from the Cicare prototype to turn around an built the
Mini-500 within one year.......

then that is about the greatest compliments of an engineering feat that
can be bestowed on an individual. I thank you from the deepest part of
my heart for thinking I would be good or smart enough to accomplish
this, but I do not deserve such a compliment.

Lets be realistic, for just a moment at least..

1. I never was alone with the Cicare prototype to do this.

2. How would I have opened up the transmissions and other complex parts
to see them to copy during the dark of night, and without Cicare
noticing the next morning?

3. It was more than 2 years before I flew the first Mini-500.

4. We had a flood in 1993 where we lost everything.

5. It was a year after that until I shipped the first customers machine.

Honestly, anyone that has looked at a Cicare machine, such as the CH-7,
can see that there is little in common of the two designs. If you think
so, you are either an idiot, a liar or you have never been close enough
to see the differences. Which of these are you?

Do you choose to ignore the fact that it was ordered in a court in his
own country of Argentina that the control systems and aircraft were
different, and not in violation of each other?

Do you choose to ignore the fact that after the court ruling Mr. Cicare
also published the same thing himself, admitting the systems and
aircraft were different and were not violating each others rights?

I posted this on another forum;
"Its a shame that you don't tell the story like it really happened. I
was the one that invested all the money with Cicare to bring him, his
wife and prototype to the USA to demo in Oshkosh. We made a deal, I
lived up to every part of that deal, only to have Cicare not live up to
his part, and then to make contacts in the USA from my expense and end
up cutting another deal with someone else parallel to the one he had
with me. How dirty is that? Wait, it gets worse. He makes a deal with my
Italian Mini-500 distributor, and all along I don't know so I'm still
sending that distributer interested people that saw my advertising for
the next year, that I paid for, and then converting them over to Cicare
customers. Yea, who got ripped off here? Me."

It's already been posted here before, but now that you brought up the
subject again, here is the history about what happened, for those new
people that would like to know the real truth, and not what some
big-mouth blow-hard makes up;

Cicare and the Mini-500:

I also posted this of the account:
"There is no secret about the dealings I had with Mr. Cicare. Even
though it’s all documented facts, some people try to make it sound like
a big conspiracy that RHCI is trying to cover up. That’s not the case at
all, but naturally we no longer place the information about our early
involvement in present day brochures. I’ll explain what took place,
while making the story as brief as possible. As many of you know, before
I started RHCI, I had a company called Air Command and produced the
Commander gyroplanes. Then, Air Command sold 97% of all gyroplanes being
built in the world, and shipped 1100 aircraft. I was already a
commercial rated helicopter pilot, and gaining and interest in designing
a helicopter. In the fall of 1989 I received a call from a man in
California called Hugo Zucarelli, who explained to me that he had a
friend in Argentina that had built a small helicopter, and he was doing
him a favor by looking for someone to build them. Finally, I received a
video of the Cicare prototype flying, and it gained my attention. After
many phone conversations with Mr. Cicare, my wife Laura and I traveled
to Argentina in the spring or 1990 to see his machine. I flew the
prototype, and with my evaluation informed Mr. Cicare that I would be
interested to build them, but only if we redesigned it by improving the
design in many areas, and enclosing it with a cabin. He then agreed to a
deal as to where I would buy the prototype, sell my present company Air
Command and start a new company to build the helicopter. In this new
company Mr. Cicare would own part of it, and be paid a commission for
every helicopter shipped. His part would be to provide his prototype,
rights to his Argentine patent on his control system, and come to the
USA to help me redesign the helicopter and put it into production. All
was agreed to. Next, to my surprise, Mr. Zucarelli called me and asked
for a large commission for setting us up to make a deal! So much for
doing a friend a favor, and he never mentioned anything like that
before. Both Mr. Cicare and I turned him down. I came back to the USA,
and started with what I could do. First we needed money, and I needed to
find an investor to help us out. We also wrote the contract for the deal
we had agreed to and sent it to him to sign. Now the 1990 Oshkosh was
coming up fast, so I paid for the prototype to be sent here so I could
fly it in the show. This would help bring an investor to the table and
allow us to raise the money to pay the $30,000 for the prototype and all
the expenses for the development. After the air show, we put the
prototype into a storage building, and Mr. Cicare had the only key. We
never had access after that to the prototype. The air show did the job,
and I was able to find some people ready to jump. Now came the trouble.
First, Mr. Cicare would not sign the contract, and none of the investors
would do anything until that happened. Next, Mr. Cicare was supposed to
come to the USA and help me in the design of the new helicopter, which
he never did. This also made the development of the Mini-500 take much
longer without his help or the prototype. Add to that, I had to invest
my own personal finances to get Revolution going. I couldn’t get outside
investors, because time after time we would lose any potential investors
from the reluctance of Mr. Cicare to sign the contract. He wanted to now
change the deal after he saw the response from Oshkosh, which I was
reluctant to do since I was putting all of the investment and work into
the deal. Next, we found out that Mr. Cicare was dealing behind our back
with a separate deal with a company then called Helicraft. He was
selling them the plans and rights to his previous design of the CH-5!
This was competition we didn’t count on, and a direct conflict of
interest. I was in trouble. I sold my only source of making a living,
Air Command, and put my personal money into the Mini-500, and because of
the contract and conflict of interest situation, no more people were
interested in investing. I then gave Mr. Cicare an ultimatum......
Cancel the deal with Helicraft, and sign the contract by January 15,
1991, or I would have to do the project without him. Simply, the
deadline came and went with only the comment from him that I could not
do it on my own. The deal was off, and I was on my own with a helicopter
project that I not only financed and designed all by myself, but without
the benefit of the prototype to even look at. Later, I even redesigned
and improved the control system to the point that it was different
enough to merit it’s own patent #5,163,815, issued Nov. 17, 1992. This
is not the end of the story. We found out later that Mr. Hugo Zucarelli
was visiting Italy, and noticed an ad from our distributor there, Mr.
Barbero of Ellisport. Mr. Zucarelli approached them and convinced them
to make a deal with Mr. Cicare and build their own helicopter, the CH-7.
Well, as you know this is what did happen. After, Mr. Cicare applied for
a patent on his control design and was issued #5,165,854 on Nov. 24,
1992. I found out later that the original idea for this control system
was not invented by Mr. Cicare! It was, and is being used on the Kaman
helicopters. The difference is that on the Kaman, the controls operate
trim tabs on the tips of the rotors. Still, there was enough difference
between all three that they all merited their own patents. Later, I
received another call followed by a fax from Mr. Zucarelli asking me to
reconsider a deal with Mr. Cicare, because the deal was falling apart in
Italy. Come to find out, Mr. Zucarelli hit them up for a commission for
setting the deal up, and the Barbero’s took offense to it in a big way.
Also, they told Mr. Cicare that unless he stopped RHCI from building the
Mini-500, they would stop their deal with him. After he finished helping
them put the CH-7 into production, they did just that, and to this day
Mr. Cicare has only got the money for the prototype and nothing more
from Ellisport. The rest is history. I still respect Mr. Cicare for his
own accomplishments. I truly wish it would have worked out with him, I
could have finished the project much faster and with a lot less of my
money invested. Deals come and go, there’s nothing new about that. It
was out of my hands to make him sign, so I continued with the project
rather than go bankrupt because he changed his mind."

Poultry in Motion wrote:
>> > wrote:
>> if that were really the case wouldnt Cicare have sued him for a patent
>> breach? Cicare's control system is a patented design.
>
> Cicare is in Argentina, what's he going to do? Especially when Fetters
> beat him to the punch and obtained his own patent first?

As said in another post, Cicare did sue, and lost, in his own country.

I quote:

"Do you choose to ignore the fact that it was ordered in a court in his
own country of Argentina that the control systems and aircraft were
different, and not in violation of each other?"

"Do you choose to ignore the fact that after the court ruling Mr. Cicare
also published the same thing himself, admitting the systems and
aircraft were different and were not violating each others rights?"

So I guess that shoots what you said all the hell.

> Fetters hawked the thing to the entry-level Popular Mechanics crowd, as
> a cheap time builder, requiring only 40-60 hours to go from the box into
> the air. And he blamed them for their inexperience and for his company's
> failure. They were naive to believe that Fetters could issue ADs, and
> decree that his factory upgrades for their machines were mandatory.

Well, I'm sorry to say that mostly that was the fact. Sure, as I said I
did make some design mistakes, but I provided the fix. The rest were
assembly mistakes of the owners.

Lets not forget about the majority of Mini-500 that were assembled well,
and many still flying even today.

>> it pays to remember that the designer may never have encountered the
>> fault in an experimental design.
>
>
> Dennis may not have encountered faults in *the Mini-500 prototype*

Ohhh, Plenty of faults. It was a learning experience. Changed a lot of
stuff. The first ones out the door had what we thought was a workable
design. But, like all helicopters, we found out that some changes were
needed, and we provided these changes for free, or at our direct cost.

> BTW, it's so damned cute how Brian renamed this thread! An exact fit,
> but not how he imagined.

Isn't it about time that someone makes the motion that I must be Brian
posting for myself under another name? I though that was standard SOP?

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> Poultry in Motion wrote:
>>> > wrote:
>>> if that were really the case wouldnt Cicare have sued him for a patent
>>> breach? Cicare's control system is a patented design.
>>
>> Cicare is in Argentina, what's he going to do? Especially when Fetters
>> beat him to the punch and obtained his own patent first?
>
> As said in another post, Cicare did sue, and lost, in his own country.
>
> I quote:
>
> "Do you choose to ignore the fact that it was ordered in a court in his
> own country of Argentina that the control systems and aircraft were
> different, and not in violation of each other?"
>
> "Do you choose to ignore the fact that after the court ruling Mr. Cicare
> also published the same thing himself, admitting the systems and
> aircraft were different and were not violating each others rights?"
>
> So I guess that shoots what you said all the hell.

"what's he going to do?" can be shot anywhere you want. It's good to
know that Cicare tried anyway.

So,
"Ask Dennis to identify *the Mini-500 prototype* for you."
Remember?

>> Fetters hawked the thing to the entry-level Popular Mechanics crowd,
>> as a cheap time builder, requiring only 40-60 hours to go from the box
>> into the air. And he blamed them for their inexperience and for his
>> company's failure. They were naive to believe that Fetters could issue
>> ADs, and decree that his factory upgrades for their machines were
>> mandatory.
>
> Well, I'm sorry to say that mostly that was the fact. Sure, as I said I
> did make some design mistakes ...

Wherever you left The Fetters Touch on a CH-6 became design mistakes.
...

>> Dennis may not have encountered faults in *the Mini-500 prototype*
>
> Ohhh, Plenty of faults. It was a learning experience. Changed a lot of
> stuff. The first ones out the door had what we thought was a workable
> design. But, like all helicopters, we found out that some changes were
> needed, and we provided these changes for free, or at our direct cost.

This is as clear as I can make it:
"Ask Dennis to identify *the Mini-500 prototype* for you."

>> BTW, it's so damned cute how Brian renamed this thread! An exact fit,
>> but not how he imagined.
>
> Isn't it about time that someone makes the motion that I must be Brian
> posting for myself under another name? I though that was standard SOP?

Brian didn't type his post on your computer. "planeman" did.

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> This is an open challenge, and request to Mr. Agusto Cicare, so will
> someone in touch please let him know;

Try Glenn Ryerson
http://www.3cats.com/helicopter/
He knows both you and Cicare well.
...
>> Contrary to Brian's romantic story of dogged determination and spirit,
>> Dennis Fetters was not bold enough to design a helicopter. He was bold
>> enough to rip off one Augusto Cicare's work.
>>
>> A series of Cicare's helicopters evolved over several years.
>>
>> The Mini-500 went from nothing to ready in under a year. Dennis took
>> what he wanted, and sent his ex-business buddy Cicare packing. The
>> helicopter that Dennis has referred to in the past as his Mini-500
>> Prototype was Cicare's CH-6.
>
> But now, to answer this false allegation;
>
> This a fabricated bunch of bull, nothing even close to being the truth.

"I came back to the USA, and started with what I could do. First we
needed money, and I needed to find an investor to help us out. We also
wrote the contract for the deal we had agreed to and sent it to him to
sign. Now the 1990 Oshkosh was coming up fast, so I paid for the
prototype to be sent here so I could fly it in the show. This would help
bring an investor to the table and allow us to raise the money to pay
the $30,000 for the prototype and all the expenses for the development.
After the air show, we put the prototype into a storage building, and
Mr. Cicare had the only key. We never had access after that to the
prototype."
<http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec.aviation.rotorcraft/msg/e6653542c044a2ef>

> First, I was never alone 5 minutes with the Cicare prototype. Even then,
> I never seen the inside of anything. Now, if anyone thinks that I can
> take a tape measure and in moments sneaking around in the dark take down
> enough information from the Cicare prototype to turn around an built the
> Mini-500 within one year.......

You had lots of time. And you took Cicare's CH-6 away on a trailer after
the airshow. He retrieved it later.

Poultry in Motion wrote:
> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>
>> This is an open challenge, and request to Mr. Agusto Cicare, so will
>> someone in touch please let him know;
>
>
> Try Glenn Ryerson
> http://www.3cats.com/helicopter/
> He knows both you and Cicare well.

Yes, indeed Mr. Ryerson knows him well, he was the first one to publish
on his website the letter where Mr. Cicare admitted that the two designs
were different.

Boob Boob again!

> "I came back to the USA, and started with what I could do. First we
> needed money, and I needed to find an investor to help us out. We also
> wrote the contract for the deal we had agreed to and sent it to him to
> sign. Now the 1990 Oshkosh was coming up fast, so I paid for the
> prototype to be sent here so I could fly it in the show. This would help
> bring an investor to the table and allow us to raise the money to pay
> the $30,000 for the prototype and all the expenses for the development.
> After the air show, we put the prototype into a storage building, and
> Mr. Cicare had the only key. We never had access after that to the
> prototype."
> <http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec.aviation.rotorcraft/msg/e6653542c044a2ef>

So what's your point? This is exactly what I said. You just backed up my
side of the event?

>> First, I was never alone 5 minutes with the Cicare prototype. Even
>> then, I never seen the inside of anything. Now, if anyone thinks that
>> I can take a tape measure and in moments sneaking around in the dark
>> take down enough information from the Cicare prototype to turn around
>> an built the Mini-500 within one year.......
>
>
> You had lots of time. And you took Cicare's CH-6 away on a trailer after
> the airshow. He retrieved it later.

Yes, but I also took Cicare and his wife away from the airshow with it.
His prototype was never left alone in our hands.

I paid for the shipping and airline tickets, Cicare and his wife
traveled from Argentina with it, and when it arrived Cicare unboxed it
and assembled it. We even let him padlock our shop after hours with his
own lock, and unlock it every morning. And after the airshow and before
he left, he rented a building at a storage facility and put his
prototype in it himself, and locked it with his own padlock, and he only
had the key. After the deadline he failed to meet, he came back and took
the prototype himself and boxed it up and shipped it to Italy.

So now, again you are full of holes, or something else..

Poultry in Motion wrote:
> This is as clear as I can make it:
> "Ask Dennis to identify *the Mini-500 prototype* for you."

Ok, ask me. What do you want to know about the "Mini-500 prototype". It
was the first Mini-500 I built, so it was a prototype. What point are
you trying to make? Please just spell it out so we don't have to be
guessing. I'm not afraid to answer.

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> Poultry in Motion wrote:
>> This is as clear as I can make it:
>> "Ask Dennis to identify *the Mini-500 prototype* for you."
>
> Ok, ask me. What do you want to know about the "Mini-500 prototype". It
> was the first Mini-500 I built, so it was a prototype.

It's already known, I quoted your own words about it from an older post.
Your Mini-500 prototype was Cicare's CH-6.

> What point are you trying to make? Please just spell it out so we don't have to be
> guessing. I'm not afraid to answer.

This is simple -

"so I paid for the prototype to be sent here so I could fly it in the show"

"After the air show, we put the prototype into a storage building"

You're afraid to call Cicare's CH-6 your prototype any more.

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> Poultry in Motion wrote:
>> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>>
>>> This is an open challenge, and request to Mr. Agusto Cicare, so will
>>> someone in touch please let him know;
>>
>>
>> Try Glenn Ryerson
>> http://www.3cats.com/helicopter/
>> He knows both you and Cicare well.
>
> Yes, indeed Mr. Ryerson knows him well, he was the first one to publish
> on his website the letter where Mr. Cicare admitted that the two designs
> were different.

Never seen that. Did see pictures of you and your pal Glenn together.
Even a picture of you seated in "Miss Nina", Glenn's CH-7 Angel. Yes, he
owned your competitor's helicopter, not one of yours. But he was an
enthusiastic supporter of them all, including Mimi-500s.

Then suddenly, all articles and pictures of Mini-500s, the entire
section, was pulled from the site. Replaced by a note that, due to
threats received, ( *UNMENTIONABLE* ) helicopters could no longer appear
on the site.



> Boob Boob again!
>
>> "I came back to the USA, and started with what I could do. First we
>> needed money, and I needed to find an investor to help us out. We also
>> wrote the contract for the deal we had agreed to and sent it to him to
>> sign. Now the 1990 Oshkosh was coming up fast, so I paid for the
>> prototype to be sent here so I could fly it in the show. This would help
>> bring an investor to the table and allow us to raise the money to pay
>> the $30,000 for the prototype and all the expenses for the development.
>> After the air show, we put the prototype into a storage building, and
>> Mr. Cicare had the only key. We never had access after that to the
>> prototype."
>> <http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec.aviation.rotorcraft/msg/e6653542c044a2ef>
>
>
> So what's your point? This is exactly what I said. You just backed up my
> side of the event?

Point ---> Cicare's CH-6 helicopter was the Mini-500 prototype.

>>> First, I was never alone 5 minutes with the Cicare prototype. Even
>>> then, I never seen the inside of anything. Now, if anyone thinks that
>>> I can take a tape measure and in moments sneaking around in the dark
>>> take down enough information from the Cicare prototype to turn around
>>> an built the Mini-500 within one year.......
>>
>>
>> You had lots of time. And you took Cicare's CH-6 away on a trailer
>> after the airshow. He retrieved it later.
>
> Yes, but I also took Cicare and his wife away from the airshow with it.
> His prototype was never

Not his prototype, yours. His helicopter was your Mini-500 prototype.

> left alone in our hands.

It was shipped here for YOU to fly at Oshkosh, you already said so! And
now you claim you were never alone 5 minutes with it, and never saw the
inside of it?

> So now, again you are full of holes, or something else.

I'm full of questions.

Poultry in Motion wrote:
> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>
>> Poultry in Motion wrote:
>>
>>> This is as clear as I can make it:
>>> "Ask Dennis to identify *the Mini-500 prototype* for you."
>>
>>
>> Ok, ask me. What do you want to know about the "Mini-500 prototype".
>> It was the first Mini-500 I built, so it was a prototype.
>
>
> It's already known, I quoted your own words about it from an older post.
> Your Mini-500 prototype was Cicare's CH-6.
>
>> What point are you trying to make? Please just spell it out so we
>> don't have to be guessing. I'm not afraid to answer.
>
>
> This is simple -
>
> "so I paid for the prototype to be sent here so I could fly it in the show"
>
> "After the air show, we put the prototype into a storage building"
>
> You're afraid to call Cicare's CH-6 your prototype any more.

Oh that one, I guess you need to read!

That was what we were going to use as a prototype, but as I said Cicare
didn't do what he agreed, so even after I advertised we were going to
use his CH-6 as a prototype, that was when I assumed he was going to
live up to his part of the deal. He didn't, and I ended up having to
design the Mini-500 all by myself without the use of Cicares' help or
his CH-6, so the CH-6 never was used as the prototype after all. So the
first Mini-500 prototype turned out to be the first one I built.

Its that simple, and I wrote that before, as I said you just have to read.

Poultry in Motion wrote:
> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>> Yes, indeed Mr. Ryerson knows him well, he was the first one to
>> publish on his website the letter where Mr. Cicare admitted that the
>> two designs were different.
>
>
> Never seen that. Did see pictures of you and your pal Glenn together.
> Even a picture of you seated in "Miss Nina", Glenn's CH-7 Angel. Yes, he
> owned your competitor's helicopter, not one of yours. But he was an
> enthusiastic supporter of them all, including Mimi-500s.

Sorry you didn't pay more attention. I guess it you would have been more
informed of the real facts, you would not have showed everyone here on
the newsgroup how very little you know about everything you have talked
about related to me or the Mini-500. They all know now!

> Then suddenly, all articles and pictures of Mini-500s, the entire
> section, was pulled from the site. Replaced by a note that, due to
> threats received, ( *UNMENTIONABLE* ) helicopters could no longer appear
> on the site.

I don't run Glenns' website, he does, and I'm not privy to the reasons
why he does what he does.

>> So what's your point? This is exactly what I said. You just backed up
>> my side of the event?
>
>
> Point ---> Cicare's CH-6 helicopter was the Mini-500 prototype.

Answered on your other post;

"Oh that one, I guess you need to read!
That was what we were going to use as a prototype, but as I said Cicare
didn't do what he agreed, so even after I advertised we were going to
use his CH-6 as a prototype, that was when I assumed he was going to
live up to his part of the deal. He didn't, and I ended up having to
design the Mini-500 all by myself without the use of Cicares' help or
his CH-6, so the CH-6 never was used as the prototype after all. So the
first Mini-500 prototype turned out to be the first one I built.
Its that simple, and I wrote that before, as I said you just have to read."

> I'm full of questions.

As we are showing here, that's not all...

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> Poultry in Motion wrote:
>> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>>
>>> Poultry in Motion wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is as clear as I can make it:
>>>> "Ask Dennis to identify *the Mini-500 prototype* for you."
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, ask me. What do you want to know about the "Mini-500 prototype".
>>> It was the first Mini-500 I built, so it was a prototype.
>>
>>
>> It's already known, I quoted your own words about it from an older
>> post. Your Mini-500 prototype was Cicare's CH-6.
>>
>>> What point are you trying to make? Please just spell it out so we
>>> don't have to be guessing. I'm not afraid to answer.
>>
>>
>> This is simple -
>>
>> "so I paid for the prototype to be sent here so I could fly it in the
>> show"
>>
>> "After the air show, we put the prototype into a storage building"
>>
>> You're afraid to call Cicare's CH-6 your prototype any more.
>
> Oh that one, I guess you need to read!
>
> That was what we were going to use as a prototype, but as I said Cicare
> didn't do what he agreed, so even after I advertised we were going to
> use his CH-6 as a prototype, that was when I assumed he was going to
> live up to his part of the deal. He didn't, and I ended up having to
> design the Mini-500 all by myself...

.... and golly gosh what a coincidence, it came out almost just like a
CH-6 but I really designed it all by myself really.



Two helicopters came out of the CH-6:

The CH-7, a winner by all accounts.
Anyone not seen the picture of one lifting off carrying two more people
standing outside on the skids? Anyone like to?
I've seen two videos of them crashing, one appeared to be of a pilot
performing low-level idiocy and running way short of the bottom half of
a loop before the ground came up and smashed him. He walked away,
likewise the other CH-7 video crasher.

The Mini-500, a botched effort.
A small jockey-size pilot was hired to demo flight it at shows.
Factory's "PEP" pipe was effort to wring adequate performance out of
this dog.
Same Rotax engine, but necessary styling dictated that the engine be
enclosed. Famous for seizing.
Frame cracked under heavy vibes, so factory solution was to weld more
metal onto frame.

"Poultry in Motion" > wrote

> Factory's "PEP" pipe was effort to wring adequate performance out of this dog.

How about running the engine over 100% for normal operations. That's gotta be
good on it, don't 'cha think?

Oh, I know, you-know-who has an answer for that one, too.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
>
> "Poultry in Motion" > wrote
>
>> Factory's "PEP" pipe was effort to wring adequate performance out of
>> this dog.
>
> How about running the engine over 100% for normal operations. That's
> gotta be good on it, don't 'cha think?

Why, yes. Stuff it into stifling hot compartment, add a Fetters
re-engineered cooling system, Fetters' pipe, Fetters' carb jetting, nail
the throttle, and it's all good.

Remember, Rotax's 100% isn't Fetters' 100%, those are two different
100%s. In fact, Rotax had to ask Dennis Fetters to please help them
design their engine. Dennis himself said that, so we know it is true.

> Oh, I know, you-know-who has an answer for that one, too.

Hmm. You mean planemanman, man?

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> Poultry in Motion wrote:
>> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>>> Yes, indeed Mr. Ryerson knows him well, he was the first one to
>>> publish on his website the letter where Mr. Cicare admitted that the
>>> two designs were different.
>>
>>
>> Never seen that. Did see pictures of you and your pal Glenn together.
>> Even a picture of you seated in "Miss Nina", Glenn's CH-7 Angel. Yes,
>> he owned your competitor's helicopter, not one of yours. But he was an
>> enthusiastic supporter of them all, including Mimi-500s.
>
> Sorry you didn't pay more attention. I guess it you would have been more
> informed of the real facts, you would not have showed everyone here on
> the newsgroup how very little you know about everything you have talked
> about related to me or the Mini-500. They all know now!
>
>> Then suddenly, all articles and pictures of Mini-500s, the entire
>> section, was pulled from the site. Replaced by a note that, due to
>> threats received, ( *UNMENTIONABLE* ) helicopters could no longer
>> appear on the site.
>
> I don't run Glenns' website, he does, and I'm not privy to the reasons
> why he does what he does.

Of course you are. You threatened him. He was your friend and defender,
but you dumped the friendship because he was too honest for you to deal
with. He spoke what was on his mind. He was direct in his criticism of
the Italians who built his CH-7, and that was after he'd been their
guest. Glenn got to know all the players personally, didn't he? You
needed to shut him up before he learned more about you.

>>> So what's your point? This is exactly what I said. You just backed up
>>> my side of the event?
>>
>>
>> Point ---> Cicare's CH-6 helicopter was the Mini-500 prototype.
>
> Answered on your other post;
>
> "Oh that one, I guess you need to read!
> That was what we were going to use as a prototype, but as I said Cicare
> didn't do what he agreed, so even after I advertised we were going to
> use his CH-6 as a prototype, that was when I assumed he was going to
> live up to his part of the deal. He didn't, and I ended up having to
> design the Mini-500 all by myself without the use of Cicares' help or
> his CH-6, so the CH-6 never was used as the prototype after all. So the
> first Mini-500 prototype turned out to be the first one I built.
> Its that simple, and I wrote that before, as I said you just have to read."
>
>> I'm full of questions.
>
> As we are showing here, that's not all...

Yes, insight too.

On Mar 31, 12:15*am, Poultry in Motion > wrote:
> Dennis Fetters wrote:
> > Poultry in Motion wrote:
> >> Dennis Fetters wrote:
> >>> Yes, indeed Mr. Ryerson knows him well, he was the first one to
> >>> publish on his website the letter where Mr. Cicare admitted that the
> >>> two designs were different.
>
> >> Never seen that. Did see pictures of you and your pal Glenn together.
> >> Even a picture of you seated in "Miss Nina", Glenn's CH-7 Angel. Yes,
> >> he owned your competitor's helicopter, not one of yours. But he was an
> >> enthusiastic supporter of them all, including Mimi-500s.
>
> > Sorry you didn't pay more attention. I guess it you would have been more
> > informed of the real facts, you would not have showed everyone here on
> > the newsgroup how very little you know about everything you have talked
> > about related to me or the Mini-500. They all know now!
>
> >> Then suddenly, all articles and pictures of Mini-500s, the entire
> >> section, was pulled from the site. Replaced by a note that, due to
> >> threats received, ( *UNMENTIONABLE* ) helicopters could no longer
> >> appear on the site.
>
> > I don't run Glenns' website, he does, and I'm not privy to the reasons
> > why he does what he does.
>
> Of course you are. You threatened him. He was your friend and defender,
> but you dumped the friendship because he was too honest for you to deal
> with. He spoke what was on his mind. He was direct in his criticism of
> the Italians who built his CH-7, and that was after he'd been their
> guest. Glenn got to know all the players personally, didn't he? You
> needed to shut him up before he learned more about you.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> So what's your point? This is exactly what I said. You just backed up
> >>> my side of the event?
>
> >> Point ---> Cicare's CH-6 helicopter was the Mini-500 prototype.
>
> > Answered on your other post;
>
> > "Oh that one, I guess you need to read!
> > That was what we were going to use as a prototype, but as I said Cicare
> > didn't do what he agreed, so even after I advertised we were going to
> > use his CH-6 as a prototype, that was when I assumed he was going to
> > live up to his part of the deal. He didn't, and I ended up having to
> > design the Mini-500 all by myself without the use of Cicares' help or
> > his CH-6, so the CH-6 never was used as the prototype after all. So the
> > first Mini-500 prototype turned out to be the first one I built.
> > Its that simple, and I wrote that before, as I said you just have to read."
>
> >> I'm full of questions.
>
> > As we are showing here, that's not all...
>
> Yes, insight too.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ask him who else he threatened in rotaryforum.com He was warned about
threatening people there a few times by the mods.

in limbo wrote:
> On Mar 31, 12:15 am, Poultry in Motion > wrote:
>> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>>> Poultry in Motion wrote:
>>>> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>>>>> Yes, indeed Mr. Ryerson knows him well, he was the first one to
>>>>> publish on his website the letter where Mr. Cicare admitted that the
>>>>> two designs were different.
>>>> Never seen that. Did see pictures of you and your pal Glenn together.
>>>> Even a picture of you seated in "Miss Nina", Glenn's CH-7 Angel. Yes,
>>>> he owned your competitor's helicopter, not one of yours. But he was an
>>>> enthusiastic supporter of them all, including Mimi-500s.
>>> Sorry you didn't pay more attention. I guess it you would have been more
>>> informed of the real facts, you would not have showed everyone here on
>>> the newsgroup how very little you know about everything you have talked
>>> about related to me or the Mini-500. They all know now!
>>>> Then suddenly, all articles and pictures of Mini-500s, the entire
>>>> section, was pulled from the site. Replaced by a note that, due to
>>>> threats received, ( *UNMENTIONABLE* ) helicopters could no longer
>>>> appear on the site.
>>> I don't run Glenns' website, he does, and I'm not privy to the reasons
>>> why he does what he does.
>> Of course you are. You threatened him. He was your friend and defender,
>> but you dumped the friendship because he was too honest for you to deal
>> with. He spoke what was on his mind. He was direct in his criticism of
>> the Italians who built his CH-7, and that was after he'd been their
>> guest. Glenn got to know all the players personally, didn't he? You
>> needed to shut him up before he learned more about you.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> So what's your point? This is exactly what I said. You just backed up
>>>>> my side of the event?
>>>> Point ---> Cicare's CH-6 helicopter was the Mini-500 prototype.
>>> Answered on your other post;
>>> "Oh that one, I guess you need to read!
>>> That was what we were going to use as a prototype, but as I said Cicare
>>> didn't do what he agreed, so even after I advertised we were going to
>>> use his CH-6 as a prototype, that was when I assumed he was going to
>>> live up to his part of the deal. He didn't, and I ended up having to
>>> design the Mini-500 all by myself without the use of Cicares' help or
>>> his CH-6, so the CH-6 never was used as the prototype after all. So the
>>> first Mini-500 prototype turned out to be the first one I built.
>>> Its that simple, and I wrote that before, as I said you just have to read."
>>>> I'm full of questions.
>>> As we are showing here, that's not all...
>> Yes, insight too.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Ask him who else he threatened in rotaryforum.com He was warned about
> threatening people there a few times by the mods.

Dennis, who else???

Fetters once threatened (and sued) a Mini-500 customer, Joe Rinke,
because Rinke began solving the Mini's problems. Rinke's activities
would have upset the RHCI business model, which relied on keeping
customers tightly controlled and dependent on Fetters alone for all
support. They were permitted to have helicopters only as good as Fetters
was willing, or able, to make them. No outside development, no outside
parts allowed. Fetters told them what to buy, and told them when it
would be mandatory.

in limbo wrote:

> Ask him who else he threatened in rotaryforum.com He was warned about
> threatening people there a few times by the mods.

Why don't you ask me?

Someone on our forum was being an a-hole and mouthy to me. You know,
basically just like you brain-dead a-holes' do.

I didn't threaten him. I promised him that when I seen him I was going
to give him a good old fashion, and well deserved punch in the nose. You
know, like someone deserves when they are antagonizing someone. But, I
did it on the forum where everyone could see my intentions, and not
sneaking behind everyone with private emails. If I believe in something
I don't hide the fact that I do.

Since then, that person has calmed down and got off my back, and we have
been having very pleasant and constructive conversations on the forum,
and I read what he has to say in his posts with great interest.

In article >,
Dennis Fetters > wrote:

> I didn't threaten him. I promised him that when I seen him I was going
> to give him a good old fashion, and well deserved punch in the nose. You
> know, like someone deserves when they are antagonizing someone. But, I
> did it on the forum where everyone could see my intentions, and not
> sneaking behind everyone with private emails. If I believe in something
> I don't hide the fact that I do.

I have basically no interest in the subject matter covered in this
thread, but this paragraph makes absolutely no sense. Saying that you
will carry out a harmful action against someone, such as punching them
in the nose, is the very DEFINITION of a threat.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

"Dennis Fetters" > wrote in message
...
> in limbo wrote:
>
>> Ask him who else he threatened in rotaryforum.com He was warned about
>> threatening people there a few times by the mods.
>
> Why don't you ask me?
>
> Someone on our forum was being an a-hole and mouthy to me. You know,
> basically just like you brain-dead a-holes' do.
>
> I didn't threaten him. I promised him that when I seen him I was going to
> give him a good old fashion, and well deserved punch in the nose. You
> know, like someone deserves when they are antagonizing someone. But, I did
> it on the forum where everyone could see my intentions, and not sneaking
> behind everyone with private emails. If I believe in something I don't
> hide the fact that I do.
>
> Since then, that person has calmed down and got off my back, and we have
> been having very pleasant and constructive conversations on the forum, and
> I read what he has to say in his posts with great interest.

Geez guys, get a room.

You're clearly the only ones that give a **** about this tiny bit of world
history, why can't you just email each other.

Dennis Fetters wrote:
<snip>
> I didn't threaten him. I promised him that when I seen him I was going
> to give him a good old fashion, and well deserved punch in the nose. You
> know, like someone deserves when they are antagonizing someone.

Now that is childish.

I'm no lawyer, but isn't conveying a threat on line a federal felony?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Maxwell wrote:
> "Dennis Fetters" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>in limbo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ask him who else he threatened in rotaryforum.com He was warned about
>>>threatening people there a few times by the mods.
>>
>>Why don't you ask me?
>>
>>Someone on our forum was being an a-hole and mouthy to me. You know,
>>basically just like you brain-dead a-holes' do.
>>
>>I didn't threaten him. I promised him that when I seen him I was going to
>>give him a good old fashion, and well deserved punch in the nose. You
>>know, like someone deserves when they are antagonizing someone. But, I did
>>it on the forum where everyone could see my intentions, and not sneaking
>>behind everyone with private emails. If I believe in something I don't
>>hide the fact that I do.
>>
>>Since then, that person has calmed down and got off my back, and we have
>>been having very pleasant and constructive conversations on the forum, and
>>I read what he has to say in his posts with great interest.
>
>
> Geez guys, get a room.
>
> You're clearly the only ones that give a **** about this tiny bit of world
> history, why can't you just email each other.

Speeeest! Maxwell..... Just in case you don't realize it, I'm not the
one asking the questions.... I'm just the one answering the questions.

It you don't like the questions being asked, then discuss that with the
ones asking the questions.

What? You guys around here so busy with this dyeing newsgroups that your
lacking band-width?????? LOL!

Poultry in Motion wrote:
>> That was what we were going to use as a prototype, but as I said
>> Cicare didn't do what he agreed, so even after I advertised we were
>> going to use his CH-6 as a prototype, that was when I assumed he was
>> going to live up to his part of the deal. He didn't, and I ended up
>> having to design the Mini-500 all by myself...
>
>
> ... and golly gosh what a coincidence, it came out almost just like a
> CH-6 but I really designed it all by myself really.

Any moron with half a brain can plainly see that there is a world of
difference between the Mini-500 and the CH-6 if they have seen both of
the workings and designs of each aircraft. Why can't you see that?

Cicare says they are different, and I say they are different. Now both
designers say they are different, so why is that such a leap for your
pea-brain to wrap itself around??

> Two helicopters came out of the CH-6:
>
> The CH-7, a winner by all accounts.
> Anyone not seen the picture of one lifting off carrying two more people
> standing outside on the skids? Anyone like to?
> I've seen two videos of them crashing, one appeared to be of a pilot
> performing low-level idiocy and running way short of the bottom half of
> a loop before the ground came up and smashed him. He walked away,
> likewise the other CH-7 video crasher.

The CH-7 is a fine helicopter.

> The Mini-500, a botched effort.
> A small jockey-size pilot was hired to demo flight it at shows.

I guess people with a brain can watch this and decide for themselves;

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4ZnR4SGabA>

> Factory's "PEP" pipe was effort to wring adequate performance out of
> this dog.

You really don't know what you are talking about. We didn't develop the
PEP for more power. But, for the problem the PEP cured, id did make more
power available, but that didn't mean you had to use it, nor did it hurt
if you did. Here is what I posted about the PEP before;

"Cold seizures in a Mini-500 have only happened when the pilot starts
the engine cold, and immediately lift into a climbing departure, and
then the engine will seize within 100 feet or so and not restart until
later after the piston cooled enough to allow it to do so. It plainly
states in the Pilots Operating Handbook to allow the engine temperature
to be sufficient enough to prevent this. If they allow it to happen,
it's Pilot error and was completely avoidable.

Some people at Rotax that were not familiar with helicopters and the
special demands misdiagnosed a Mini-500 engine seizure as a cold
seizure. In fact, the real problem was the exhaust system. By adding the
PEP system, we discovered that it reduced the exhaust back pressure. The
normal Rotax exhaust system was creating to much back pressure for
helicopter use, which made the need for summer and winter jet changing.
With the PEP, we only needed to jet it once, and there were no more
issues of people seizing the engine for simply forgetting to change from
summer to winter jetting. The point is, you need the PEP system. Before
the PEP exhaust system became mandatory for the Mini-500, the major
problem of seizing the Rotax could have completely been avoided.
Although most all the seizures were due to customers not changing the
jets, needles and needle jets to convert the engine to helicopter use,
it was the Rotax exhaust system that was causing the engine to be too
sensitive to the need of proper jetting. We discovered that the normal
jets that come with the engine for propeller use would not work for
helicopter use. It was explained why the jets needed to be converted
many times, but it is unbelievable how many owners refused to change the
jetting, which would definitely seize the engine. It got to the point
where we opened the Rotax box and removed the jetting, so that the
owners would have to apply the proper jetting. After doing that, the
engine seizures were reduced to only people refusing to change from
winter to summer jetting. The mandatory PEP did salve this, and there
were no more seizures after it was installed, except for people that
refused to follow the mandatory AD to add the PEP and its proper
jetting, or flew on the old pipe. It is untrue to say that the Mini-500
has suffered from cold seizures, except for the few cases where the
pilot simply ignored operational procedures.

The CH-7 Angel did not go to the trouble of fabricating their own
exhaust, but since it was basically a factory built flying aircraft,
they would install the proper jets and needles themselves, and test
flies the aircraft. Also the Angel was so expensive, that the only
customers that could afford them were already accomplished helicopter
pilots with more skills, and flying a factory built aircraft already set
up properly after construction, compared to the Mini-500 owners where
76% of them were not helicopter pilots, and/or had less than 50 hours in
helicopters when building and flying their Mini-500."


> Same Rotax engine, but necessary styling dictated that the engine be
> enclosed. Famous for seizing.

You REALLY don't know what you are talking about. Here is what I posted
about the Mini-500 Cooling System:

"The Mini-500 uses a fan powered directly off the engine, not the rotor
drive system, so in that way it will not rob power during an
autorotation. The cooling system absorbs only 1.7hp at hover to cool the
engine. The Mini-500 cooling system is one of the most efficient in any
other helicopter that I know of. In fact, on an 80F day it will hover
indefinitely and the water temperature will never exceed 160F. If you
load the aircraft down with enough weight where it will not lift off,
and hold full power, you can do so indefinitely and the water
temperature will never exceed 180F. On an 110F day with a tank of fuel
and a 200 pound pilot, the Mini-500 can hover indefinitely, and the
water temperature will never exceed 180F. In fact, during any of these
events, or during the entire flight of the Mini-500, you can remove the
pressure cap and the coolant will never boil out.

These are all proven facts and demonstrated countless times at air shows
around the world. The Mini-500 has never had a cooling problem of its
582 engine, even being fully enclosed, and runs cooler than other kit
helicopters, even though they are lighter, due to our superior cooling
systems design and ability to use the air off the cooling fan to blow
the air over the exhaust system to remove hot air from the engine
compartment. It is untrue to say the Mini-500 has a cooling problem."


> Frame cracked under heavy vibes, so factory solution was to weld more
> metal onto frame.

Again, here is what I said about the frame crack, as if a helicopter
never had a frame crack before:

"We conducted a complete resonance frequency test of the Mini-500. Each
assembly was checked for its frequency where it would naturally want to
oscillate, and this information was recorder. Afterwards, we could do a
complete spectrum analyses on any Mini-500, and look for peeks of
unacceptable vibrations. By knowing the RPM and natural frequency of
each component, we could determine problems before failure. It just so
happens that the mast assembly would resonate around 312 RPM’s, so we
issued a warning to owners not to dwell at that RPM and move on up to
90% RPM for the secondary warm-up period. The next RPM where the mast
assembly wanted to resonate was well above the operational 104% RPM, so
there were never any concerns.

(All diagrams deleted)

The Mini-500 was suffering from frame cracking that was occurring behind
the transmission. Please take a look at the first drawing, and you will
see that location marked with a green X.

What we finally discovered was that there were two different forces at
work causing the problem;

First, was the two-per-rev that was being produced in forward flight in
a motion that tended to rock the rotor system, mast and transmission
unit back and forward, as seen in the first drawing at letter “A”. This
action was occurring about 1100 times a minute and was transmitted down
the mast following the blue line, and then horizontally out to the two
arrows pointing up and down on each side of the transmission, which
indicates the direction of force translated on the frame in those areas.
This is not normally a problem, but in the case of the Mini-500, I
designed the frame improperly where this load was focused on the green X
in the first drawing, where the load was being translated into the
center of a tube. Notice that there is a bracket on that tube tying it
into another tube, but this just transmitted the loads to be expelled at
letter “C” in the center of another unsupported tube.

Second, we discovered that with each firing of an engine piston, the
drive belt was pulling down on the transmission large sprocket, as seen
in the first drawing with red lines and letter ”B”. This was hammering
at around 13200 a minute, and that force too was transmitted through the
transmission, and then through the frame and unloading on the area
marked by the green X.

That is way the frame was cracking. Now it needs to be fixed, but the
problem is that there are over 300 Mini-500 shipped that all need a fix.
We were shipping 5 to 6 complete Mini-500 kits a week. Designing and
building a new frame to send to everyone was out of the question,
because I could only build one frame a day, and that was just enough to
keep up with production.

Sure, I could have taken a month and duplicated my welding fixtures and
doubled my welding staff, and built two frames and day. But then owners
would have to wait up to a year and a half before we could send out over
300 frames. No, I needed to come up with something that didn't cost the
customer $4800 and took over a year to receive, and whatever it was it
had to work and solve all problems at one time.

That is when I came up with a system that would take the loads from the
two-per-rev, capture the force where it was generated, and distribute
those loads into the hard point in the frame that was all supported
through triangulation. This can be seen on the second drawing following
the blue lines. Notice that the blue line that represent the direction
of force across the tube where the green x was is no longer there. I was
successful to take all strain away from the problem area entirely. The
engine pulsing vibration was also handled the same way, along with an
added rubber isolation system on the transmission and up inside the mast
support, and with a new idler arm that was spring loaded.

By coming up with this fix, it not only solved all the problems, but
improved overall balancing of the rotor system, and the fix could be
manufactured fast and affordable. Although this was a major problem that
took some time to identify the cause, dream up the best solution,
prototype and test and finally produce and ship, before or after, no
Mini-500 had crashed due to a cracked frame."

Ok, so there was the problem, and that was my solution. Why do you still
bellyache about an old problems that was solved? Its not the first time
a helicopter had a design flaw that needed fixed. So all the Mini-500
owners and I got over it, why was it your problem, and why are you
complaining about it?

Keep those questions coming!! Its great you are helping me get the real
facts out there!

Morgans wrote:
> How about running the engine over 100% for normal operations. That's
> gotta be good on it, don't 'cha think?
>
> Oh, I know, you-know-who has an answer for that one, too.

You bet I do, after all, I know what I'm doing, and done it a lot.

I don't run the engine at 100% power. I run the engine at 100% RPM, that
different. So does ALL rotax powered helicopters. Here is what I posted
about that;
Rotax 582 for power:

"The Rotax 582 aircraft engine does not run “full bore” in a Mini-500.
That engine comes from a snowmobile, where it could run at 10,000rpm and
put out 110hp. It is de-rated by Rotax only by lowering the RPM for
aircraft use. So long as it is cooled to 180F and has proper jetting, it
will run even at full bore for hundreds and hundreds of hours. At this
reduced power level, this engine is designed to continuously operate at
that power level, and in some cases does so.

I have never had a Rotax two stroke engine just quite due to over
exertion out of nearly 2000 aircraft I have delivered. Those that did
failed, failed from mainly two reasons. Even after the owner fixed the
engine, the same failure would occur time and time again, because it was
not a problem with the engine, but the installation. 98% of all Rotax
engine failures are due to improper customer installation. The other 2%
are due to improper maintenance.

The Mini-500, as well as all helicopters that use any reciprocating
engine, run at full RPM, but that is not full bore, since a helicopter
reduces or increases its power setting to operate."

Keep the questions coming!

Poultry in Motion wrote:

> Morgans wrote:
>
>>
>> "Poultry in Motion" > wrote
>>
>>> Factory's "PEP" pipe was effort to wring adequate performance out of
>>> this dog.
>>
>>
>> How about running the engine over 100% for normal operations. That's
>> gotta be good on it, don't 'cha think?
> Why, yes. Stuff it into stifling hot compartment, add a Fetters
> re-engineered cooling system, Fetters' pipe, Fetters' carb jetting, nail
> the throttle, and it's all good.

Answered in last post to Morgans.

> Remember, Rotax's 100% isn't Fetters' 100%, those are two different
> 100%s. In fact, Rotax had to ask Dennis Fetters to please help them
> design their engine. Dennis himself said that, so we know it is true.

Yes they did. Rotax sent me the first water cooled 532 in the world, and
I was the first to get it to fly. Even after, I was the one that was
making the Rotax water cooled engines work the best and coolest.

My cooling systems were working so well, and other manufacturers were
having so much trouble that Rotax started having them call me to help
diagnose their problems. Later, Rotax changed its cooling methods and
temps to run the engine to the same as mine, which I had been doing two
years earlier.

So what's your point?

Poultry in Motion wrote:
>> I don't run Glenns' website, he does, and I'm not privy to the reasons
>> why he does what he does.
>
>
> Of course you are. You threatened him. He was your friend and defender,
> but you dumped the friendship because he was too honest for you to deal
> with. He spoke what was on his mind. He was direct in his criticism of
> the Italians who built his CH-7, and that was after he'd been their
> guest. Glenn got to know all the players personally, didn't he? You
> needed to shut him up before he learned more about you.

You should write BS fiction stories.

Ok, if you don't get off this newsgroup I'm going to threaten you.

Lets see how good that really works. LOL!

>>> I'm full of questions.

>> As we are showing here, that's not all...

> Yes, insight too.

Keep guessing.... Insight has the four letter we're all looking for, so
your getting warm.

Keep the questions coming!

Poultry in Motion wrote:
>> Ask him who else he threatened in rotaryforum.com He was warned about
>> threatening people there a few times by the mods.
>
>
> Dennis, who else???
>
> Fetters once threatened (and sued) a Mini-500 customer, Joe Rinke,
> because Rinke began solving the Mini's problems. Rinke's activities
> would have upset the RHCI business model, which relied on keeping
> customers tightly controlled and dependent on Fetters alone for all
> support. They were permitted to have helicopters only as good as Fetters
> was willing, or able, to make them. No outside development, no outside
> parts allowed. Fetters told them what to buy, and told them when it
> would be mandatory.

Well, here is the real reasons I sued that little man for lying and
breach of contract. Besides, where is Joe Rinke today? Where is the
little savior? He went bust all the way around without a single working
prototype finished. What a bigmouth looser he turned out to be. I posted
this years ago;

> Revolution Helicopter Report: Joe Rinke’s False Statements.
> Greetings Newsgroup participants,
> Joe Rinke has made several false statements concerning Revolution Helicopter
> corp. to this Newsgroup, and in the information presently on his webpage for
> Rinke Aerospace.
>
> I feel it necessary to post the facts and prove his statements are false with
> the evidence presented here in this report I compiled. What these people are
> saying is being done to benefit themselves and they’re own cause through
> slandering RHCI, and telling you, the public, lies.
>
> I’m not here to badmouth or discredit anyone. I will simply let the evidence
> speak for it’s self. I will not lower myself to the level that my detractors
> have gone. I have no need to use profanity and name calling to defend myself.
> I am a professional, and feel that I have always portrayed myself as one to
> this news group. Any of the evidence I present can be checked and verified
> with little effort. All of the quotes in this post are copied out of the
> newsgroups, or I had permission to post.
>
> Some of the Mini-500 detractors are trying to make Joe Rinke look like the
> saver of the Mini-500, and this is far from the truth.
>
>>> Joe Rinke wrote:
>> And if it's quality you're worried about, PLEASE DON'T BE!!! Our
>> manufacturing capabilities are housed in a 21,225 sq. ft. facility with
>> state-of-the-art machinery that currently manufacturers aircraft parts for,
>> among others, Allison Engine, General Dynamics, General Electric, Numatics,
>> Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, Rockwell International, Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical,
>> Textron-Lycoming, United Technologies, Williams International, as well as a
>> host of automotive companies and others.
>
> In reality, there is no such thing as a Rinke Aerospace as he is portraying
> it to be. Joe Rinke makes a living with an excavating business. Tinkering
> with his Mini-500 is a part time hobby. The facilities he mentions is a place
> where he has some machine work done. He doesn’t own these places as he leads
> you to believe. He does a little business with them, but to say “our” is not
> correct.
>
> Further more, when you take a look at his Webpage, he tries to lead us all to
> believe that the building shown in the picture is Rinke Aerospace. I attached
> the picture at the bottom of this report, and you can clearly see that the
> sign “Rinke Aerospace” is pasted onto the picture by computer.
> Two other people that are guilty of deceiving this Newsgroup are Chuck Van
> Thomme and Ed Randolph. They posted statements to these newsgroups that were
> designed to mislead us all, for the benefit of Joe Rinke and to fool you into
> feeling at ease to send him money, as if he was an established business in the
> aerospace field.
>
>>> Ed Randolph wrote:
>> I made a trip to Joe's shop = looks impressive but awfully noisy( hard on this
>> old mans ears as I didn't on headset or earmuffs).
>>> Chuck Van Thomme wrote:
>> I was at their shop and they had 3 machines in already for conversions. Their
>> tool shop is unbelievable, estimated 10.5 million dollars worth of tool and
>> machines.It put Revolutions shop to shame.”
>>> Chuck Van Thomme wrote:
>> HI RALPH I'm glad you took the time to go too Rinke's shop. NOW you know
>> what I'm talking about. When you see other gear boxes setting around that THAT
>> shop builds for the military YOU know its FIRST CLASS..”
>>> Chuck Van Thomme wrote:
>> Ralph, If DF should ever go out of business,Rinke Aerospace can manufacture
>> ANY part of that helicopter and do a very high quality job at it. I believe
>> you were one of the guys that visited his shop, did'nt you?? I may be
>> wrong,but I thought you did. In the past there have been dozens of people that
>> have flown out to see his shop,and without a doubt ,I think everyone was
>> impressed.
>
> In a post made by Ralph Raser, he told the truth about Joe Rinke’s aerospace
> company. He went there and saw it, and said the word “ available”, which makes
> all the difference in the world.
>
>>> Ralph Raser wrote:
>> That's correct. Joe has a nice shop available to him.
>
> It has been said that Joe Rinke is a liar by others in this Newsgroup. I can’t
> disagree after having to deal with him, and when reading some of the ludicrous
> claims he makes.
>
>>> Joe Rinke wrote:
>> And regarding the amendment, obviously I know about this since, I was in court
>> that day with Dennis, when the Judge demanded that modifications be allowed to
>> the Mini since it is proven "unairworthy" in its original state! There is now
>> a precedent set in the Courts, requiring that since I am allowed to modify my
>> aircraft and fly it, in its modified state, that others be allowed to do so
>> too. Case law having been set, DF had no choice but to allow others to modify
>> their Minis. It's humorous, though, that after all this time and effort, DF
>> comes out and tries to look like it was his idea and that he's a "nice guy" by
>> allowing individuals to modify their Minis...funny!”
>
> That entire statement was a lie. Joe Rinke takes credit for having forced
> RHCI into giving our builders an amendment to allow them to modify they’re
> Mini-500s. I sent this email to Mr. Dave Martin, editor of KitPlanes
> magazine, and asked him to tell the world where I got the idea for the
> contract modification. I made this amendment available so as to defuse Joe
> Rinke’s attempts to scare people into a class action lawsuit. Now, proof of
> the first part of his lie:
>
>>> Dave Martin wrote:
>> 26 Oct 1998
>> Dennis:
>> You have asked me to confirm that after the Dallas meeting on the Mini-500, I
>> suggested that you provide your customers relief from the threat of lawsuits
>> if they made modifications to their Revolution helicopter kits. The Dallas
>> meeting made clear that people were delighted with their Mini-500s except for
>> the technical problems they had experienced--and the restriction in their
>> sales contracts that precluded changes including those related to safety. I
>> noted that you and I had known each other a long time, that I don't normally
>> give business advice, but that I thought your company was at risk unless you
>> improved relations with your customers in this area.
>> Soon after our phone conversation, you confirmed that you were adopting the
>> idea and would be contacting your customers relating to changes to their
>> Mini-500s.
>> The idea was mine, and I was pleased with your positive response to it. You
>> have my permission to make this known.
>> Dave Martin, editor, KITPLANES
>
> Next part of his lie: Joe Rinke stated that “the Judge demanded that
> modifications be allowed to the Mini since it is proven "unairworthy" in its
> original state.” As a matter of fact, this is the only thing the Judge said:
> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
> WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
> WESTERN DIVISION
> REVOLUTION HELICOPTER CORP. )
> INC., )
> )
> Plaintiff )
> )
> v. ) No. 98-0060-CV-W-9
> )
> JOSEPH P. RINKE, et al., )
> )
> Defendants. )
> ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
> FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
> On January 16, 1998, and February 27, 1998, hearings were held before this
> court on the plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order against
> defendant.
> For the reasons stated at the February 27, 1998, hearing, and pursuant to
> Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C.L. Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981),
> the balance of equities so favors the plaintiff that justice requires the
> court to intervene to preserve the status quo until plaintiff’s request for
> preliminary and permanent relief can be decided.
> Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
> 1) defendants Joseph Rinke and Rinke Aerospace Corporation are restrained
> until further order of this court from modifying any Mini-500 aircraft owned
> by them or anyone else;
> 2) defendants Joseph Rinke and Rinke Aerospace Corporation are restrained
> until further order of this court from flying or otherwise operating any
> modified Mini-500 aircraft owned by them or anyone else;
> 3) defendants are restrained until further order of this court from soliciting
> business from Mini-500 aircraft owners for the purpose of selling kits for the
> modification of any Mini-500 aircraft;
> 4) defendants are restrained until further order of this court from exhibiting
> or displaying any modified Mini-500 aircraft;
> 5) defendants are restrained until further order of this court from
> advertising any modification to a Mini-500 aircraft or attempting to induce
> any owner of a Mini-500 aircraft to modify the aircraft;
> 6) plaintiff shall post with the Clerk of the Court a cash bond or a bond
> with a surety approved by this court in the amount of $50,000 conditioned as
> required by Rule 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and
> 7) on or before March 6, 1998, the parties shall file a Proposed Scheduling
> Order suggesting a deadline for the close of pretrial discovery, the filing
> of dispositive motions, a proposed time for a hearing on preliminary and
> permanent injunctive relief and an estimate of the court time needed for this
> hearing.
> Signature, D. Brook Bartlett
> United States District Judge
> Kansas City, Missouri
> March 3, 1998.
>
> Let’s read that again;
> “the balance of equities so favors the plaintiff that justice
> requires the court to intervene to preserve the status quo
> until plaintiff’s request for preliminary and permanent relief
> can be decided.”
>
> As a matter of fact, this case never went to court. It was turned over to a
> “Mediator” to try and bring both parties to an agreement so that it wouldn’t
> need to go to court. The Mediator has no power to make any decisions or
> judgments of any kind. What Joe Rinke said about the judge ordering RHCI to
> make contract amendments, or Case law being set was a whopping lie. The
> entire event that Joe Rinke described above never happened........... funny,
> all right.
> RHCI made Joe Rinke sign an agreement to satisfy our relief. We did so in a
> way that would still allow him to fly his mini-500, but not to market his
> unproved and untested components that he was trying to sell to unwary
> Mini-500 owners, that thought he really had an Aerospace business.
> These people have said that I’m “sue-happy”. In reality, I am not at all. You
> have seen these detractors slam RHCI, the Mini-500 and myself on many
> occasions, even to the point of telling obvious lies and the year long
> fueling of a Mini- 500 hate campaign. Yet, with all of this, I have not sued
> any of them for these attacks. They admit they enjoy what they do, and seek
> the largest audience possible in their attempts to damage us. They will
> praise anyone that supports their cause, and condemn anyone sympathetic to
> the point that drives them away. They even support Flygyros!! ;
>
>>> Charles Greene wrote:
>> I doubt that those of us who go on & on about the Mini 500 want to go through
>> this. Besides, we want to have a large audience, influence public opinion,
>> boost our egos.
>>> Ed Randoff wrote:
>> Esteban, Keep right on posting to this news group. This is America = Freedom
>> of speech for all . They know where the on /off switch is on their computer.
>> Ed #005”
>
>
> We have proven with this evidence that Joe Rinke has lied and deceived this
> Newsgroup on a number of occasions, and is presently misrepresenting his
> business status and abilities. Both Joe Rinke and Fred Stewart said that I
> stole ideas and designs from Rinke Aerospace. I will soon give evidence in a
> new report that these statements are also false.
> I hope that this report will give people the insight of what has really been
> happening here. Thank you for your attention, and please remember to come to
> the official Mini-500 builders meeting here at Revolution Helicopter Corp.,
> February 6 and 7, 1999
> Most sincerely,
> Dennis Fetters
> President
> Revolution Helicopter Corp.

On Mar 30, 9:00*pm, Poultry in Motion > wrote:>
> Two helicopters came out of the CH-6:
>
> The CH-7, a winner by all accounts.
> Anyone not seen the picture of one lifting off carrying two more people
> standing outside on the skids? Anyone like to?
> I've seen two videos of them crashing, one appeared to be of a pilot
> performing low-level idiocy and running way short of the bottom half of
> a loop before the ground came up and smashed him. He walked away,
> likewise the other CH-7 video crasher.
>
> The Mini-500, a botched effort.
> A small jockey-size pilot was hired to demo flight it at shows.
> Factory's "PEP" pipe was effort to wring adequate performance out of
> this dog.
> Same Rotax engine, but necessary styling dictated that the engine be
> enclosed. Famous for seizing.
> Frame cracked under heavy vibes, so factory solution was to weld more
> metal onto frame.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The results say it all.

CH7 = "good machine".

Mini500 = "not so good", many people died. with additional $20k in
mods might be upgraded to "so so". Would you bet your ass on it?
Let's hope you don't lose that bet.

Do a search for Dennis Fetters and or mini500 here and on rotaryforum
and you'll see for yourself. This guy has admitted here that he has
threatened peolpe. I do believe that he threatened Mr. Ryerson.

I tried to email you PoultryInMotion, but it came back bounced. email
me at mini500 at hushmail.com

On Mar 31, 12:15*am, Poultry in Motion > wrote:
> Dennis Fetters wrote:
> > Poultry in Motion wrote:
> >> Dennis Fetters wrote:
> >>> Yes, indeed Mr. Ryerson knows him well, he was the first one to
> >>> publish on his website the letter where Mr. Cicare admitted that the
> >>> two designs were different.
>
> >> Never seen that. Did see pictures of you and your pal Glenn together.
> >> Even a picture of you seated in "Miss Nina", Glenn's CH-7 Angel. Yes,
> >> he owned your competitor's helicopter, not one of yours. But he was an
> >> enthusiastic supporter of them all, including Mimi-500s.
>
> > Sorry you didn't pay more attention. I guess it you would have been more
> > informed of the real facts, you would not have showed everyone here on
> > the newsgroup how very little you know about everything you have talked
> > about related to me or the Mini-500. They all know now!
>
> >> Then suddenly, all articles and pictures of Mini-500s, the entire
> >> section, was pulled from the site. Replaced by a note that, due to
> >> threats received, ( *UNMENTIONABLE* ) helicopters could no longer
> >> appear on the site.
>
> > I don't run Glenns' website, he does, and I'm not privy to the reasons
> > why he does what he does.
>
> Of course you are. You threatened him. He was your friend and defender,
> but you dumped the friendship because he was too honest for you to deal
> with. He spoke what was on his mind. He was direct in his criticism of
> the Italians who built his CH-7, and that was after he'd been their
> guest. Glenn got to know all the players personally, didn't he? You
> needed to shut him up before he learned more about you.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> So what's your point? This is exactly what I said. You just backed up
> >>> my side of the event?
>
> >> Point ---> Cicare's CH-6 helicopter was the Mini-500 prototype.
>
> > Answered on your other post;
>
> > "Oh that one, I guess you need to read!
> > That was what we were going to use as a prototype, but as I said Cicare
> > didn't do what he agreed, so even after I advertised we were going to
> > use his CH-6 as a prototype, that was when I assumed he was going to
> > live up to his part of the deal. He didn't, and I ended up having to
> > design the Mini-500 all by myself without the use of Cicares' help or
> > his CH-6, so the CH-6 never was used as the prototype after all. So the
> > first Mini-500 prototype turned out to be the first one I built.
> > Its that simple, and I wrote that before, as I said you just have to read."
>
> >> I'm full of questions.
>
> > As we are showing here, that's not all...
>
> Yes, insight too.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

To see what Glen has to say about Dennis just look at this vid.
UTubeGlennAR is Mr. Glenn Ryerson. He has removed his harsher
comments of Dennis F.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvHd97648mE

Mike Ash wrote:

> In article >,
> Dennis Fetters > wrote:
>
>
>>I didn't threaten him. I promised him that when I seen him I was going
>>to give him a good old fashion, and well deserved punch in the nose. You
>>know, like someone deserves when they are antagonizing someone. But, I
>>did it on the forum where everyone could see my intentions, and not
>>sneaking behind everyone with private emails. If I believe in something
>>I don't hide the fact that I do.
>
>
> I have basically no interest in the subject matter covered in this
> thread, but this paragraph makes absolutely no sense. Saying that you
> will carry out a harmful action against someone, such as punching them
> in the nose, is the very DEFINITION of a threat.

I'm just terrible to be the first and only one to ever do that, I know.

I'm sure the people I did punch in the nose felt I was terrible too, but
they did at least regret opening their big-mouth and apologized afterwards.

People have to be held responsible for their actions when they slam
someone over the internet, and if you cause trouble with someone, don't
be surprised when someday that trouble is repaid, sometimes painfully.

I'm a brut, I know it, and I'm sorry. Children, even big ones, seem to
respect and remember the consequence of a good-old fashion whoop'en.

Dan wrote:

> Dennis Fetters wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> I didn't threaten him. I promised him that when I seen him I was going
>> to give him a good old fashion, and well deserved punch in the nose.
>> You know, like someone deserves when they are antagonizing someone.
>
>
> Now that is childish.
>
> I'm no lawyer, but isn't conveying a threat on line a federal felony?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Go for it;

FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Call (202) 324-3000 or write to the following address:
Federal Bureau of Investigation
J. Edgar Hoover Building
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20535-0001

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>
>> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I didn't threaten him. I promised him that when I seen him I was
>>> going to give him a good old fashion, and well deserved punch in the
>>> nose. You know, like someone deserves when they are antagonizing
>>> someone.
>>
>>
>> Now that is childish.
>>
>> I'm no lawyer, but isn't conveying a threat on line a federal felony?
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Go for it;
>
> FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
> Call (202) 324-3000 or write to the following address:
> Federal Bureau of Investigation
> J. Edgar Hoover Building
> 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
> Washington, D.C. 20535-0001

Just as a matter of curiosity does it make you feel like a man or
make what the other person said any less correct if you hit him? I'm not
saying the other guy was right or wrong in saying what he did, but
hitting him only proves you are unable to prove your point. As I said
before, it's childish and no different from any thug who shoots someone
for disrespecting him.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan wrote:

> Just as a matter of curiosity does it make you feel like a man or make
> what the other person said any less correct if you hit him? I'm not
> saying the other guy was right or wrong in saying what he did, but
> hitting him only proves you are unable to prove your point. As I said
> before, it's childish and no different from any thug who shoots someone
> for disrespecting him.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

You know dan, it blows me away to see you acting like some righteous
person here. You got one of the biggest blow-hard mouths I've ever seen.
You have verbally victimized so many people here it can't be counted.

Go sell crazy somewhere else.

I've been punched in my nose before too, and deservedly so I might add.

Holy cow, you throwing rocks around?

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> Mike Ash wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Dennis Fetters > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I didn't threaten him. I promised him that when I seen him I was
>>> going to give him a good old fashion, and well deserved punch in the
>>> nose. You know, like someone deserves when they are antagonizing
>>> someone. But, I did it on the forum where everyone could see my
>>> intentions, and not sneaking behind everyone with private emails. If
>>> I believe in something I don't hide the fact that I do.
>>
>>
>> I have basically no interest in the subject matter covered in this
>> thread, but this paragraph makes absolutely no sense. Saying that you
>> will carry out a harmful action against someone, such as punching them
>> in the nose, is the very DEFINITION of a threat.
>
> I'm just terrible to be the first and only one to ever do that, I know.
>
> I'm sure the people I did punch in the nose felt I was terrible too, but
> they did at least regret opening their big-mouth and apologized afterwards.

Beating an apology out of someone tends to invalidate the apology,
doesn't it?

>
> People have to be held responsible for their actions when they slam
> someone over the internet, and if you cause trouble with someone, don't
> be surprised when someday that trouble is repaid, sometimes painfully.

Yes, people have to be held responsible for their actions. It's a
shame no one has held you responsible for yours and had you arrested for
battery. Perhaps you only like to beat on those who won't fight back. I
can only hope you wind up in jail or meet someone who will fight back.

>
> I'm a brut, I know it, and I'm sorry. Children, even big ones, seem to
> respect and remember the consequence of a good-old fashion whoop'en.

I'm not surprised you support child abuse. Maybe you will wind up in
a cell with a big man named Bubba who thinks you have a pretty mouth.

Fetters, I have take no side with you or against you over your
company's failure or your product. Your debate methods tend to convince
me you don't have the courage of your convictions sufficient to debate
point to point. I have seen you resort to verbal abuse and you admit to
physical abuse. These aren't the behaviours of a mature adult.

You seem to have made a lot of enemies. Your product may have been
the best ever produced, but the reason for your failures and enemies
will be easy to see next time you look in a mirror.

If I have offended you feel free to come punch me in the nose. All
you will have accomplished is to have assaulted a 100% disabled vet who
has no problem at all with pressing charges. There are men in the county
jail here who will be happy to see you.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dennis Fetters wrote:

<snip>

> You have verbally victimized so many people here it can't be counted.
>

You lie.

> I've been punched in my nose before too, and deservedly so I might add.

Didn't solve anything, did it?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> Poultry in Motion wrote:
>
>> Morgans wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Poultry in Motion" > wrote
>>>
>>>> Factory's "PEP" pipe was effort to wring adequate performance out of
>>>> this dog.
>>>
>>>
>>> How about running the engine over 100% for normal operations. That's
>>> gotta be good on it, don't 'cha think?
>> Why, yes. Stuff it into stifling hot compartment, add a Fetters
>> re-engineered cooling system, Fetters' pipe, Fetters' carb jetting,
>> nail the throttle, and it's all good.
>
> Answered in last post to Morgans.
>
>> Remember, Rotax's 100% isn't Fetters' 100%, those are two different
>> 100%s. In fact, Rotax had to ask Dennis Fetters to please help them
>> design their engine. Dennis himself said that, so we know it is true.
>
> Yes they did. Rotax sent me the first water cooled 532 in the world, and
> I was the first to get it to fly. Even after, I was the one that was
> making the Rotax water cooled engines work the best and coolest.
>
> My cooling systems were working so well, and other manufacturers were
> having so much trouble that Rotax started having them call me to help
> diagnose their problems. Later, Rotax changed its cooling methods and
> temps to run the engine to the same as mine, which I had been doing two
> years earlier.
>
> So what's your point?

Rotax did not WANT to be your engine supplier. They were coerced, you
threatened them.

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>
>> Just as a matter of curiosity does it make you feel like a man or
>> make what the other person said any less correct if you hit him? I'm
>> not saying the other guy was right or wrong in saying what he did, but
>> hitting him only proves you are unable to prove your point. As I said
>> before, it's childish and no different from any thug who shoots
>> someone for disrespecting him.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> You know dan, it blows me away to see you acting like some righteous
> person here. You got one of the biggest blow-hard mouths I've ever seen.
> You have verbally victimized so many people here it can't be counted.
>
> Go sell crazy somewhere else.
>
> I've been punched in my nose before too, and deservedly so I might add.
>
> Holy cow, you throwing rocks around?


Dan? Blowhard?

Well, as Bugs would say, "Whadda maroon"...

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> Morgans wrote:
>> How about running the engine over 100% for normal operations. That's
>> gotta be good on it, don't 'cha think?
>>
>> Oh, I know, you-know-who has an answer for that one, too.
>
> You bet I do, after all, I know what I'm doing, and done it a lot.

Sock puppetry?

> not a problem with the engine, but the installation. 98% of all Rotax
> engine failures are due to improper customer installation...

.... into the wrong helicopter. The same engine was okay when installed
into a CH-7


> The Mini-500, as well as all helicopters that use any reciprocating
> engine, run at full RPM, but that is not full bore, since a helicopter
> reduces or increases its power setting to operate."
>
> Keep the questions coming!

The PEP pipe narrowed the powerband, and when the engine "falls off" the
pipe, it ain't coming back again. Lawn Dart time.

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> Poultry in Motion wrote:
>>> That was what we were going to use as a prototype, but as I said
>>> Cicare didn't do what he agreed, so even after I advertised we were
>>> going to use his CH-6 as a prototype, that was when I assumed he was
>>> going to live up to his part of the deal. He didn't, and I ended up
>>> having to design the Mini-500 all by myself...
>>
>>
>> ... and golly gosh what a coincidence, it came out almost just like a
>> CH-6 but I really designed it all by myself really.
>
> Any moron with half a brain can plainly see that there is a world of
> difference between the Mini-500 and the CH-6 if they have seen both of
> the workings and designs of each aircraft. Why can't you see that?

CH-6 was open cockpit, open engine bay, wide open for your inspection.
The half-brained will be fooled by the MD500 styling, which was your
contribution.

> Cicare says they are different, and I say they are different. Now both
> designers say they are different, so why is that such a leap for your
> pea-brain to wrap itself around??
>
>> Two helicopters came out of the CH-6:
>>
>> The CH-7, a winner by all accounts.
>> Anyone not seen the picture of one lifting off carrying two more
>> people standing outside on the skids? Anyone like to?

Don't be bashful.
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/5565/augwest.jpg

>> I've seen two videos of them crashing, one appeared to be of a pilot
>> performing low-level idiocy and running way short of the bottom half
>> of a loop before the ground came up and smashed him. He walked away,
>> likewise the other CH-7 video crasher.
>
> The CH-7 is a fine helicopter.

Yes, well, it doesn't have your fingerprints on it.

> By adding the
> PEP system, we discovered that it reduced the exhaust back pressure.

That makes no sense. You decided to change the pipe for no apparent
reason, and then discovered the effect?

> normal Rotax exhaust system was creating to much back pressure for
> helicopter use,

How did you already know that? You discovered the PEP reduced back
pressure after you added it, so what were you trying to accomplish by
changing pipes to begin with?

> With the PEP, we only needed to jet it once, and there were no more
> issues of people seizing the engine for simply forgetting to change from
> summer to winter jetting. The point is, you need the PEP system. Before
> the PEP exhaust system became mandatory for the Mini-500, the major
> problem of seizing the Rotax could have completely been avoided.

Could have been avoided by Rotax's refusal to supply you engines.

> We discovered that the normal
> jets that come with the engine for propeller use would not work for
> helicopter use.

Jeezus, you ****head. Cicare could have told you that and saved you the
exercise of killing customers.

It was explained why the jets needed to be converted
> many times, but it is unbelievable how many owners refused to change the
> jetting, which would definitely seize the engine. It got to the point
> where we opened the Rotax box and removed the jetting, so that the
> owners would have to apply the proper jetting. After doing that, the
> engine seizures were reduced to only people refusing to change from
> winter to summer jetting. The mandatory PEP did salve this, and there
> were no more seizures after it was installed, except for people that
> refused to follow the mandatory AD to

There was no mandatory PEP and no mandatory AD. You know that.

> The CH-7 Angel did not go to the trouble of fabricating their own
> exhaust, but since it was basically a factory built flying aircraft,
> they would install the proper jets and needles themselves, and test
> flies the aircraft.

Your story makes no sense. Obviously no POS PEP was ever necessary.

> Also the Angel was so expensive, that the only
> customers that could afford them were already accomplished helicopter
> pilots with more skills, and flying a factory built aircraft already set
> up properly after construction, compared to the Mini-500 owners where
> 76% of them were not helicopter pilots, and/or had less than 50 hours in
> helicopters when building and flying their Mini-500."

You always knew who you were selling to.

>> Same Rotax engine, but necessary styling dictated that the engine be
>> enclosed. Famous for seizing.
>
> You REALLY don't know what you are talking about. Here is what I posted
> about the Mini-500 Cooling System:
>
> "The Mini-500 uses a fan powered directly off the engine, not the rotor
> drive system, so in that way it will not rob power during an
> autorotation.

So what? Cicare chose Fiat radiators and electric fans. Same Rotax
engine, and your installations were seizing, not his. Why was that?

...

> (All diagrams deleted)
>
> The Mini-500 was suffering from frame cracking that was occurring behind
> the transmission. Please take a look at the first drawing, and you will
> see that location marked with a green X.

Why don't you write answers that make sense? Do you think that
copy/paste with "All diagrams deleted" and then telling us to look at
that location marked with a green X means anything?

> What we finally discovered was that there were two different forces at
> work causing the problem;
>
> First, was the two-per-rev that was being produced in forward flight in
> a motion that tended to rock the rotor system, mast and transmission
> unit back and forward, as seen in the first drawing at letter “A”. This
> action was occurring about 1100 times a minute and was transmitted down
> the mast following the blue line, and then horizontally out to the two
> arrows pointing up and down on each side of the transmission, which
> indicates the direction of force translated on the frame in those areas.
> This is not normally a problem, but in the case of the Mini-500, I
> designed the frame improperly where this load was focused on the green X
> in the first drawing, where the load was being translated into the
> center of a tube. Notice that there is a bracket on that tube tying it
> into another tube, but this just transmitted the loads to be expelled at
> letter “C” in the center of another unsupported tube.
>
> Second, we discovered that with each firing of an engine piston, the
> drive belt was pulling down on the transmission large sprocket, as seen
> in the first drawing with red lines and letter ”B”. This was hammering
> at around 13200 a minute, and that force too was transmitted through the
> transmission, and then through the frame and unloading on the area
> marked by the green X.
>
> That is way the frame was cracking. Now it needs to be fixed, but the
> problem is that there are over 300 Mini-500 shipped that all need a fix.

No, the problem is that Cicare is gone now, you F**Ked up the frame to
fit the required styling, and your customers are already abandoning you.

> We were shipping 5 to 6 complete Mini-500 kits a week. Designing and
> building a new frame to send to everyone was out of the question,
> because I could only build one frame a day, and that was just enough to
> keep up with production.

You were way over your head.

> Sure, I could have taken a month and duplicated my welding fixtures and
> doubled my welding staff, and built two frames and day. But then owners
> would have to wait up to a year and a half before we could send out over
> 300 frames. No, I needed to come up with something that didn't cost the
> customer $4800 and took over a year to receive, and whatever it was it
> had to work and solve all problems at one time.

Sounds desperate.

> That is when I came up with a system that would take the loads from the
> two-per-rev, capture the force where it was generated, and distribute
> those loads into the hard point in the frame that was all supported
> through triangulation. This can be seen on the second drawing following
> the blue lines. Notice that the blue line that represent the direction

Hello? Are you talking to us, or doodling pictures somewhere else?

> of force across the tube where the green x was is no longer there. I was
> successful to take all strain away from the problem area entirely. The
> engine pulsing vibration was also handled the same way, along with an
> added rubber isolation system on the transmission and up inside the mast
> support, and with a new idler arm that was spring loaded.
>
> By coming up with this fix, it not only solved all the problems, but
> improved overall balancing of the rotor system, and the fix could be
> manufactured fast and affordable. Although this was a major problem that
> took some time to identify the cause, dream up the best solution,
> prototype and test and finally produce and ship, before or after, no
> Mini-500 had crashed due to a cracked frame."
>
> Ok, so there was the problem, and that was my solution. Why do you still
> bellyache about an old problems that was solved? Its not the first time
> a helicopter had a design flaw that needed fixed. So all the Mini-500
> owners and I got over it, why was it your problem, and why are you
> complaining about it?
>
> Keep those questions coming!! Its great you are helping me get the real
> facts out there!

Amazing.

Dennis Fetters copy/paste:
...

Yeah planemanman, man, I like this part

>> I am a professional, and feel that I have
>> always portrayed myself as one to this news group.

OK, All the technical questions have been answered and the facts put
forth for those that wanted to know.

I looked over all the responses to my answers, and didn't find even one
single intelligent response that needed another answer. We are now down
to the few morons here that ran out of arguing with intelligent
responses or questions, and they are now fighting back with the only
real weapon they have ever had... meaningless insults flying out of
their big mouths.

Reminds me of a tribe of little pigmies frantically running around all
screaming at the top of their little lungs at the same time, and only
able to poke their spires at someone's ankles.

Most excitement these dying newsgroups have seen in years. I'm sure the
repercussions will last for even a day or so.

My work here is done. So long losers.

"Dennis Fetters" > wrote in message
...
>
> Speeeest! Maxwell..... Just in case you don't realize it, I'm not the one
> asking the questions.... I'm just the one answering the questions.
>
> It you don't like the questions being asked, then discuss that with the
> ones asking the questions.
>
> What? You guys around here so busy with this dyeing newsgroups that your
> lacking band-width?????? LOL!

No, we just bore easily with hearing empty heads like your rattle.

The history of the Mini 500 has been written. Right or wrong, neither of you
are going to change it, and your arguments just discredit your respective
positions to anyone still reading.

Both of you really need to get over it, or take it up on email.

Tim wrote:
> "Dennis Fetters" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Speeeest! Maxwell..... Just in case you don't realize it, I'm not the one
>> asking the questions.... I'm just the one answering the questions.
>>
>> It you don't like the questions being asked, then discuss that with the
>> ones asking the questions.
>>
>> What? You guys around here so busy with this dyeing newsgroups that your
>> lacking band-width?????? LOL!
>
> No, we just bore easily with hearing empty heads like your rattle.
>
> The history of the Mini 500 has been written. Right or wrong, neither of you
> are going to change it, and your arguments just discredit your respective
> positions to anyone still reading.
>
> Both of you really need to get over it, or take it up on email.
>
>
>

What's this "WE" stuff, Tim.

You have made exactly 4 posts (under this name)
and all 4 have ragged on somebody.

I doubt "WE" think of you as part of "US".

Richard

"cavelamb" > wrote in message
...
> Tim wrote:
>> "Dennis Fetters" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Speeeest! Maxwell..... Just in case you don't realize it, I'm not the
>>> one asking the questions.... I'm just the one answering the questions.
>>>
>>> It you don't like the questions being asked, then discuss that with the
>>> ones asking the questions.
>>>
>>> What? You guys around here so busy with this dyeing newsgroups that your
>>> lacking band-width?????? LOL!
>>
>> No, we just bore easily with hearing empty heads like your rattle.
>>
>> The history of the Mini 500 has been written. Right or wrong, neither of
>> you are going to change it, and your arguments just discredit your
>> respective positions to anyone still reading.
>>
>> Both of you really need to get over it, or take it up on email.
>>
>>
>>
>
> What's this "WE" stuff, Tim.
>
> You have made exactly 4 posts (under this name)
> and all 4 have ragged on somebody.
>
> I doubt "WE" think of you as part of "US".
>
> Richard

So what the **** is it to you, mouth? Are you going to tell US, you're
enjoying this ****?

Tim schreef:

> you're enjoying this ****?

No.
Ploink.

"jan olieslagers" > wrote in message
...
> Tim schreef:
>
>> you're enjoying this ****?
>
> No.
> Ploink.

Yeah, that's the solution, dumb ass.

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:25:58 -0700, Dennis Fetters wrote:

> Why don't you ask me?

Because you're a ****ing tool, assclown.
--
http://tr.im/1f9p

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:15:19 -0500, Dan wrote:

> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>> Mike Ash wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Dennis Fetters > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I didn't threaten him. I promised him that when I seen him I was
>>>> going to give him a good old fashion, and well deserved punch in the
>>>> nose. You know, like someone deserves when they are antagonizing
>>>> someone. But, I did it on the forum where everyone could see my
>>>> intentions, and not sneaking behind everyone with private emails. If
>>>> I believe in something I don't hide the fact that I do.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have basically no interest in the subject matter covered in this
>>> thread, but this paragraph makes absolutely no sense. Saying that you
>>> will carry out a harmful action against someone, such as punching them
>>> in the nose, is the very DEFINITION of a threat.
>>
>> I'm just terrible to be the first and only one to ever do that, I know.
>>
>> I'm sure the people I did punch in the nose felt I was terrible too, but
>> they did at least regret opening their big-mouth and apologized afterwards.
>
> Beating an apology out of someone tends to invalidate the apology,
> doesn't it?
>
>>
>> People have to be held responsible for their actions when they slam
>> someone over the internet, and if you cause trouble with someone, don't
>> be surprised when someday that trouble is repaid, sometimes painfully.
>
> Yes, people have to be held responsible for their actions. It's a
> shame no one has held you responsible for yours and had you arrested for
> battery. Perhaps you only like to beat on those who won't fight back. I
> can only hope you wind up in jail or meet someone who will fight back.
>
>>
>> I'm a brut, I know it, and I'm sorry. Children, even big ones, seem to
>> respect and remember the consequence of a good-old fashion whoop'en.
>
> I'm not surprised you support child abuse. Maybe you will wind up in
> a cell with a big man named Bubba who thinks you have a pretty mouth.
>
> Fetters, I have take no side with you or against you over your
> company's failure or your product. Your debate methods tend to convince
> me you don't have the courage of your convictions sufficient to debate
> point to point. I have seen you resort to verbal abuse and you admit to
> physical abuse. These aren't the behaviours of a mature adult.
>
> You seem to have made a lot of enemies. Your product may have been
> the best ever produced, but the reason for your failures and enemies
> will be easy to see next time you look in a mirror.
>
> If I have offended you feel free to come punch me in the nose. All
> you will have accomplished is to have assaulted a 100% disabled vet who
> has no problem at all with pressing charges. There are men in the county
> jail here who will be happy to see you.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Better hope that I die before I find you. I have been known to kick the
ever loving **** out of asstards.

On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:28:08 -0500, Tim wrote:

> "Dennis Fetters" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Speeeest! Maxwell..... Just in case you don't realize it, I'm not the one
>> asking the questions.... I'm just the one answering the questions.
>>
>> It you don't like the questions being asked, then discuss that with the
>> ones asking the questions.
>>
>> What? You guys around here so busy with this dyeing newsgroups that your
>> lacking band-width?????? LOL!
>
> No, we just bore easily with hearing empty heads like your rattle.
>
> The history of the Mini 500 has been written. Right or wrong, neither of you
> are going to change it, and your arguments just discredit your respective
> positions to anyone still reading.
>
> Both of you really need to get over it, or take it up on email.

Go **** yourself. Mr. NetKopp, the day I do what you tell me is the day
you spit your teeth out of your mouth.

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:10:55 -0700 (PDT), in limbo wrote:

> On Mar 31, 12:15*am, Poultry in Motion > wrote:
>> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>>> Poultry in Motion wrote:
>>>> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>>>>> Yes, indeed Mr. Ryerson knows him well, he was the first one to
>>>>> publish on his website the letter where Mr. Cicare admitted that the
>>>>> two designs were different.
>>
>>>> Never seen that. Did see pictures of you and your pal Glenn together.
>>>> Even a picture of you seated in "Miss Nina", Glenn's CH-7 Angel. Yes,
>>>> he owned your competitor's helicopter, not one of yours. But he was an
>>>> enthusiastic supporter of them all, including Mimi-500s.
>>
>>> Sorry you didn't pay more attention. I guess it you would have been more
>>> informed of the real facts, you would not have showed everyone here on
>>> the newsgroup how very little you know about everything you have talked
>>> about related to me or the Mini-500. They all know now!
>>
>>>> Then suddenly, all articles and pictures of Mini-500s, the entire
>>>> section, was pulled from the site. Replaced by a note that, due to
>>>> threats received, ( *UNMENTIONABLE* ) helicopters could no longer
>>>> appear on the site.
>>
>>> I don't run Glenns' website, he does, and I'm not privy to the reasons
>>> why he does what he does.
>>
>> Of course you are. You threatened him. He was your friend and defender,
>> but you dumped the friendship because he was too honest for you to deal
>> with. He spoke what was on his mind. He was direct in his criticism of
>> the Italians who built his CH-7, and that was after he'd been their
>> guest. Glenn got to know all the players personally, didn't he? You
>> needed to shut him up before he learned more about you.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> So what's your point? This is exactly what I said. You just backed up
>>>>> my side of the event?
>>
>>>> Point ---> Cicare's CH-6 helicopter was the Mini-500 prototype.
>>
>>> Answered on your other post;
>>
>>> "Oh that one, I guess you need to read!
>>> That was what we were going to use as a prototype, but as I said Cicare
>>> didn't do what he agreed, so even after I advertised we were going to
>>> use his CH-6 as a prototype, that was when I assumed he was going to
>>> live up to his part of the deal. He didn't, and I ended up having to
>>> design the Mini-500 all by myself without the use of Cicares' help or
>>> his CH-6, so the CH-6 never was used as the prototype after all. So the
>>> first Mini-500 prototype turned out to be the first one I built.
>>> Its that simple, and I wrote that before, as I said you just have to read."
>>
>>>> I'm full of questions.
>>
>>> As we are showing here, that's not all...
>>
>> Yes, insight too.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> To see what Glen has to say about Dennis just look at this vid.
> UTubeGlennAR is Mr. Glenn Ryerson. He has removed his harsher
> comments of Dennis F.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvHd97648mE

That's because he knows that I am capable of the worst nightmares on his
putrid body.

With all seriousness, I just want you to know that anybody who does
something like that to me would be in line for retribution with extreme
prejudice and without the slightest hesitation. I don't stop until I get
what I want when I'm motivated to be on the trail of anybody who stalks
me.

You see- I have, in reserve, my own tactics for getting back at people,
and many connections with people who will do things for me (and I for
them.)

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:15:19 -0500, Dan wrote:
>
>> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>>> Mike Ash wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> Dennis Fetters > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I didn't threaten him. I promised him that when I seen him I was
>>>>> going to give him a good old fashion, and well deserved punch in the
>>>>> nose. You know, like someone deserves when they are antagonizing
>>>>> someone. But, I did it on the forum where everyone could see my
>>>>> intentions, and not sneaking behind everyone with private emails. If
>>>>> I believe in something I don't hide the fact that I do.
>>>>
>>>> I have basically no interest in the subject matter covered in this
>>>> thread, but this paragraph makes absolutely no sense. Saying that you
>>>> will carry out a harmful action against someone, such as punching them
>>>> in the nose, is the very DEFINITION of a threat.
>>> I'm just terrible to be the first and only one to ever do that, I know.
>>>
>>> I'm sure the people I did punch in the nose felt I was terrible too, but
>>> they did at least regret opening their big-mouth and apologized afterwards.
>> Beating an apology out of someone tends to invalidate the apology,
>> doesn't it?
>>
>>> People have to be held responsible for their actions when they slam
>>> someone over the internet, and if you cause trouble with someone, don't
>>> be surprised when someday that trouble is repaid, sometimes painfully.
>> Yes, people have to be held responsible for their actions. It's a
>> shame no one has held you responsible for yours and had you arrested for
>> battery. Perhaps you only like to beat on those who won't fight back. I
>> can only hope you wind up in jail or meet someone who will fight back.
>>
>>> I'm a brut, I know it, and I'm sorry. Children, even big ones, seem to
>>> respect and remember the consequence of a good-old fashion whoop'en.
>> I'm not surprised you support child abuse. Maybe you will wind up in
>> a cell with a big man named Bubba who thinks you have a pretty mouth.
>>
>> Fetters, I have take no side with you or against you over your
>> company's failure or your product. Your debate methods tend to convince
>> me you don't have the courage of your convictions sufficient to debate
>> point to point. I have seen you resort to verbal abuse and you admit to
>> physical abuse. These aren't the behaviours of a mature adult.
>>
>> You seem to have made a lot of enemies. Your product may have been
>> the best ever produced, but the reason for your failures and enemies
>> will be easy to see next time you look in a mirror.
>>
>> If I have offended you feel free to come punch me in the nose. All
>> you will have accomplished is to have assaulted a 100% disabled vet who
>> has no problem at all with pressing charges. There are men in the county
>> jail here who will be happy to see you.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Better hope that I die before I find you. I have been known to kick the
> ever loving **** out of asstards.



You know, anyone who makes unwarranted threats of violence is a
bully and I have never yet met a bully who wasn't an insecure coward. If
it makes you feel like a man to threaten me feel free. I won't lose any
sleep over it, I'm simply not impressed.

I'm not sure what I ever said to you to justify such childish
behaviour on your part. I have the feeling you need some kind of
professional help.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:10:55 -0700 (PDT), in limbo wrote:
>
>> On Mar 31, 12:15 am, Poultry in Motion > wrote:
>>> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>>>> Poultry in Motion wrote:
>>>>> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, indeed Mr. Ryerson knows him well, he was the first one to
>>>>>> publish on his website the letter where Mr. Cicare admitted that the
>>>>>> two designs were different.
>>>>> Never seen that. Did see pictures of you and your pal Glenn together.
>>>>> Even a picture of you seated in "Miss Nina", Glenn's CH-7 Angel. Yes,
>>>>> he owned your competitor's helicopter, not one of yours. But he was an
>>>>> enthusiastic supporter of them all, including Mimi-500s.
>>>> Sorry you didn't pay more attention. I guess it you would have been more
>>>> informed of the real facts, you would not have showed everyone here on
>>>> the newsgroup how very little you know about everything you have talked
>>>> about related to me or the Mini-500. They all know now!
>>>>> Then suddenly, all articles and pictures of Mini-500s, the entire
>>>>> section, was pulled from the site. Replaced by a note that, due to
>>>>> threats received, ( *UNMENTIONABLE* ) helicopters could no longer
>>>>> appear on the site.
>>>> I don't run Glenns' website, he does, and I'm not privy to the reasons
>>>> why he does what he does.
>>> Of course you are. You threatened him. He was your friend and defender,
>>> but you dumped the friendship because he was too honest for you to deal
>>> with. He spoke what was on his mind. He was direct in his criticism of
>>> the Italians who built his CH-7, and that was after he'd been their
>>> guest. Glenn got to know all the players personally, didn't he? You
>>> needed to shut him up before he learned more about you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> So what's your point? This is exactly what I said. You just backed up
>>>>>> my side of the event?
>>>>> Point ---> Cicare's CH-6 helicopter was the Mini-500 prototype.
>>>> Answered on your other post;
>>>> "Oh that one, I guess you need to read!
>>>> That was what we were going to use as a prototype, but as I said Cicare
>>>> didn't do what he agreed, so even after I advertised we were going to
>>>> use his CH-6 as a prototype, that was when I assumed he was going to
>>>> live up to his part of the deal. He didn't, and I ended up having to
>>>> design the Mini-500 all by myself without the use of Cicares' help or
>>>> his CH-6, so the CH-6 never was used as the prototype after all. So the
>>>> first Mini-500 prototype turned out to be the first one I built.
>>>> Its that simple, and I wrote that before, as I said you just have to read."
>>>>> I'm full of questions.
>>>> As we are showing here, that's not all...
>>> Yes, insight too.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> To see what Glen has to say about Dennis just look at this vid.
>> UTubeGlennAR is Mr. Glenn Ryerson. He has removed his harsher
>> comments of Dennis F.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvHd97648mE
>
> That's because he knows that I am capable of the worst nightmares on his
> putrid body.
>
> With all seriousness, I just want you to know that anybody who does
> something like that to me would be in line for retribution with extreme
> prejudice and without the slightest hesitation. I don't stop until I get
> what I want when I'm motivated to be on the trail of anybody who stalks
> me.
>
> You see- I have, in reserve, my own tactics for getting back at people,
> and many connections with people who will do things for me (and I for
> them.)

You have been watching too many movies.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Dennis Fetters" > wrote in message
...

Gee Dennis, why does you IP address keep changing?

"Dennis Fetters" > wrote in message
...


Gee Dennis, why does you IP address keep changing?

Dan > wrote:
> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:10:55 -0700 (PDT), in limbo wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 31, 12:15 am, Poultry in Motion > wrote:
>>>> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>>>>> Poultry in Motion wrote:
>>>>>> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>>>>>>> Yes, indeed Mr. Ryerson knows him well, he was the first one to
>>>>>>> publish on his website the letter where Mr. Cicare admitted that
>>>>>>> the two designs were different.
>>>>>> Never seen that. Did see pictures of you and your pal Glenn
>>>>>> together. Even a picture of you seated in "Miss Nina", Glenn's
>>>>>> CH-7 Angel. Yes, he owned your competitor's helicopter, not one
>>>>>> of yours. But he was an enthusiastic supporter of them all,
>>>>>> including Mimi-500s.
>>>>> Sorry you didn't pay more attention. I guess it you would have
>>>>> been more informed of the real facts, you would not have showed
>>>>> everyone here on the newsgroup how very little you know about
>>>>> everything you have talked about related to me or the Mini-500.
>>>>> They all know now!
>>>>>> Then suddenly, all articles and pictures of Mini-500s, the entire
>>>>>> section, was pulled from the site. Replaced by a note that, due
>>>>>> to threats received, ( *UNMENTIONABLE* ) helicopters could no
>>>>>> longer appear on the site.
>>>>> I don't run Glenns' website, he does, and I'm not privy to the
>>>>> reasons why he does what he does.
>>>> Of course you are. You threatened him. He was your friend and
>>>> defender, but you dumped the friendship because he was too honest
>>>> for you to deal with. He spoke what was on his mind. He was direct
>>>> in his criticism of the Italians who built his CH-7, and that was
>>>> after he'd been their guest. Glenn got to know all the players
>>>> personally, didn't he? You needed to shut him up before he learned
>>>> more about you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> So what's your point? This is exactly what I said. You just
>>>>>>> backed up my side of the event?
>>>>>> Point ---> Cicare's CH-6 helicopter was the Mini-500 prototype.
>>>>> Answered on your other post;
>>>>> "Oh that one, I guess you need to read!
>>>>> That was what we were going to use as a prototype, but as I said
>>>>> Cicare didn't do what he agreed, so even after I advertised we
>>>>> were going to use his CH-6 as a prototype, that was when I assumed
>>>>> he was going to live up to his part of the deal. He didn't, and I
>>>>> ended up having to design the Mini-500 all by myself without the
>>>>> use of Cicares' help or his CH-6, so the CH-6 never was used as
>>>>> the prototype after all. So the first Mini-500 prototype turned
>>>>> out to be the first one I built. Its that simple, and I wrote that
>>>>> before, as I said you just have to read."
>>>>>> I'm full of questions.
>>>>> As we are showing here, that's not all...
>>>> Yes, insight too.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> To see what Glen has to say about Dennis just look at this vid.
>>> UTubeGlennAR is Mr. Glenn Ryerson. He has removed his harsher
>>> comments of Dennis F.
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvHd97648mE
>>
>> That's because he knows that I am capable of the worst nightmares on
>> his putrid body.
>>
>> With all seriousness, I just want you to know that anybody who does
>> something like that to me would be in line for retribution with
>> extreme prejudice and without the slightest hesitation. I don't stop
>> until I get what I want when I'm motivated to be on the trail of
>> anybody who stalks me.
>>
>> You see- I have, in reserve, my own tactics for getting back at
>> people, and many connections with people who will do things for me
>> (and I for them.)
>
> You have been watching too many movies.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

The post you replied to appears to have been forged. It didn't come from
the service provider or machine Dennis Fetters had been posting from.

Dan > wrote:
> You know, anyone who makes unwarranted threats of violence is [...]

.... probably being posted by someone trying a "Joe Job." The post you are
replying to is a forgery. Unlike Fetters posts, which come via prodigy.net
and contain a valid NNT-Posting-Host IP address somewhere near Irvine
California, the forged posts are (currently) coming by way of cnntp.org
with posting host 85dbfa94.read.cnntp.org. Not sure the host name is hex
for a valid IP address.

"Tim" <#__#@__.-> wrote:
> "Dennis Fetters" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> Gee Dennis, why does you IP address keep changing?

He also appears to have undergone a severe personality change. And a
geographic shift. One would almost think another person was posting under
his name, but we all know that no one would stoop to that and that has
never before happened on these newsgroups.

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Tim" <#__#@__.-> wrote:
>> "Dennis Fetters" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>> Gee Dennis, why does you IP address keep changing?
>
> He also appears to have undergone a severe personality change. And a
> geographic shift. One would almost think another person was posting under
> his name, but we all know that no one would stoop to that and that has
> never before happened on these newsgroups.

Yeah, the personality change is what tipped it for me, and was just trying
to save everyone a little grief.

Dennis Fetters wrote:

> Better hope that I die before I find you. I have been known to kick the
> ever loving **** out of asstards.

Gentleman, and I do use the word loosely,

There is another person pretending to be me on your newsgroups.

It's a shame people will lower themselves to this level, but this is
typical of what I have had to deal with and defined against, and the
same people that spread false statements against my machines and myself,
people with no ethics. These are the same type people many of you were
naive enough to believe.

But, I've seen many of you people do some mighty low stuff too, so I'm
sure none of you are surprised.

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:10:55 -0700 (PDT), in limbo wrote:
>
>
>>On Mar 31, 12:15 am, Poultry in Motion > wrote:
>>
>>>Dennis Fetters wrote:

> That's because he knows that I am capable of the worst nightmares on his
> putrid body.
>
> With all seriousness, I just want you to know that anybody who does
> something like that to me would be in line for retribution with extreme
> prejudice and without the slightest hesitation. I don't stop until I get
> what I want when I'm motivated to be on the trail of anybody who stalks
> me.
>
> You see- I have, in reserve, my own tactics for getting back at people,
> and many connections with people who will do things for me (and I for
> them.)

Actually, this impostor is not half-bad.

I do like some of what he says. I would love to be able to say that I
would like to see some people around here with their head on the sharp
end of a post, but I would never say that in public.

On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:33:18 -0700, Dennis Fetters wrote:

> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:10:55 -0700 (PDT), in limbo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 31, 12:15 am, Poultry in Motion > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dennis Fetters wrote:
>
>> That's because he knows that I am capable of the worst nightmares on his
>> putrid body.
>>
>> With all seriousness, I just want you to know that anybody who does
>> something like that to me would be in line for retribution with extreme
>> prejudice and without the slightest hesitation. I don't stop until I get
>> what I want when I'm motivated to be on the trail of anybody who stalks
>> me.
>>
>> You see- I have, in reserve, my own tactics for getting back at people,
>> and many connections with people who will do things for me (and I for
>> them.)
>
> Actually, this impostor is not half-bad.
>
> I do like some of what he says. I would love to be able to say that I
> would like to see some people around here with their head on the sharp
> end of a post, but I would never say that in public.

Ill take that back. I've said it and I will stand by it.

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:55:34 -0700, Poultry in Motion wrote:

> Dennis Fetters copy/paste:
> ...
>
> Yeah planemanman, man, I like this part
>
>>> I am a professional, and feel that I have
>>> always portrayed myself as one to this news group.

You really don't know what you are talking about. We didn't develop the
PEP for more power. But, for the problem the PEP cured, id did make more
power available, but that didn't mean you had to use it, nor did it hurt
if you did. Here is what I posted about the PEP before;

"Cold seizures in a Mini-500 have only happened when the pilot starts
the engine cold, and immediately lift into a climbing departure, and
then the engine will seize within 100 feet or so and not restart until
later after the piston cooled enough to allow it to do so. It plainly
states in the Pilots Operating Handbook to allow the engine temperature
to be sufficient enough to prevent this. If they allow it to happen,
it's Pilot error and was completely avoidable.

Some people at Rotax that were not familiar with helicopters and the
special demands misdiagnosed a Mini-500 engine seizure as a cold
seizure. In fact, the real problem was the exhaust system. By adding the
PEP system, we discovered that it reduced the exhaust back pressure. The
normal Rotax exhaust system was creating to much back pressure for
helicopter use, which made the need for summer and winter jet changing.
With the PEP, we only needed to jet it once, and there were no more
issues of people seizing the engine for simply forgetting to change from
summer to winter jetting. The point is, you need the PEP system. Before
the PEP exhaust system became mandatory for the Mini-500, the major
problem of seizing the Rotax could have completely been avoided.
Although most all the seizures were due to customers not changing the
jets, needles and needle jets to convert the engine to helicopter use,
it was the Rotax exhaust system that was causing the engine to be too
sensitive to the need of proper jetting. We discovered that the normal
jets that come with the engine for propeller use would not work for
helicopter use. It was explained why the jets needed to be converted
many times, but it is unbelievable how many owners refused to change the
jetting, which would definitely seize the engine. It got to the point
where we opened the Rotax box and removed the jetting, so that the
owners would have to apply the proper jetting. After doing that, the
engine seizures were reduced to only people refusing to change from
winter to summer jetting. The mandatory PEP did salve this, and there
were no more seizures after it was installed, except for people that
refused to follow the mandatory AD to add the PEP and its proper
jetting, or flew on the old pipe. It is untrue to say that the Mini-500
has suffered from cold seizures, except for the few cases where the
pilot simply ignored operational procedures.

The CH-7 Angel did not go to the trouble of fabricating their own
exhaust, but since it was basically a factory built flying aircraft,
they would install the proper jets and needles themselves, and test
flies the aircraft. Also the Angel was so expensive, that the only
customers that could afford them were already accomplished helicopter
pilots with more skills, and flying a factory built aircraft already set
up properly after construction, compared to the Mini-500 owners where
76% of them were not helicopter pilots, and/or had less than 50 hours in
helicopters when building and flying their Mini-500."


> Same Rotax engine, but necessary styling dictated that the engine be
> enclosed. Famous for seizing.

You REALLY don't know what you are talking about. Here is what I posted
about the Mini-500 Cooling System:

"The Mini-500 uses a fan powered directly off the engine, not the rotor
drive system, so in that way it will not rob power during an
autorotation. The cooling system absorbs only 1.7hp at hover to cool the
engine. The Mini-500 cooling system is one of the most efficient in any
other helicopter that I know of. In fact, on an 80F day it will hover
indefinitely and the water temperature will never exceed 160F. If you
load the aircraft down with enough weight where it will not lift off,
and hold full power, you can do so indefinitely and the water
temperature will never exceed 180F. On an 110F day with a tank of fuel
and a 200 pound pilot, the Mini-500 can hover indefinitely, and the
water temperature will never exceed 180F. In fact, during any of these
events, or during the entire flight of the Mini-500, you can remove the
pressure cap and the coolant will never boil out.

These are all proven facts and demonstrated countless times at air shows
around the world. The Mini-500 has never had a cooling problem of its
582 engine, even being fully enclosed, and runs cooler than other kit
helicopters, even though they are lighter, due to our superior cooling
systems design and ability to use the air off the cooling fan to blow
the air over the exhaust system to remove hot air from the engine
compartment. It is untrue to say the Mini-500 has a cooling problem."


> Frame cracked under heavy vibes, so factory solution was to weld more
> metal onto frame.

Again, here is what I said about the frame crack, as if a helicopter
never had a frame crack before:

"We conducted a complete resonance frequency test of the Mini-500. Each
assembly was checked for its frequency where it would naturally want to
oscillate, and this information was recorder. Afterwards, we could do a
complete spectrum analyses on any Mini-500, and look for peeks of
unacceptable vibrations. By knowing the RPM and natural frequency of
each component, we could determine problems before failure. It just so
happens that the mast assembly would resonate around 312 RPMÿs, so we
issued a warning to owners not to dwell at that RPM and move on up to
90% RPM for the secondary warm-up period. The next RPM where the mast
assembly wanted to resonate was well above the operational 104% RPM, so
there were never any concerns.

(All diagrams deleted)

The Mini-500 was suffering from frame cracking that was occurring behind
the transmission. Please take a look at the first drawing, and you will
see that location marked with a green X.

What we finally discovered was that there were two different forces at
work causing the problem;

First, was the two-per-rev that was being produced in forward flight in
a motion that tended to rock the rotor system, mast and transmission
unit back and forward, as seen in the first drawing at letter ´A¡. This
action was occurring about 1100 times a minute and was transmitted down
the mast following the blue line, and then horizontally out to the two
arrows pointing up and down on each side of the transmission, which
indicates the direction of force translated on the frame in those areas.
This is not normally a problem, but in the case of the Mini-500, I
designed the frame improperly where this load was focused on the green X
in the first drawing, where the load was being translated into the
center of a tube. Notice that there is a bracket on that tube tying it
into another tube, but this just transmitted the loads to be expelled at
letter ´C¡ in the center of another unsupported tube.

Second, we discovered that with each firing of an engine piston, the
drive belt was pulling down on the transmission large sprocket, as seen
in the first drawing with red lines and letter ¡B¡. This was hammering
at around 13200 a minute, and that force too was transmitted through the
transmission, and then through the frame and unloading on the area
marked by the green X.

That is way the frame was cracking. Now it needs to be fixed, but the
problem is that there are over 300 Mini-500 shipped that all need a fix.
We were shipping 5 to 6 complete Mini-500 kits a week. Designing and
building a new frame to send to everyone was out of the question,
because I could only build one frame a day, and that was just enough to
keep up with production.

Sure, I could have taken a month and duplicated my welding fixtures and
doubled my welding staff, and built two frames and day. But then owners
would have to wait up to a year and a half before we could send out over
300 frames. No, I needed to come up with something that didn't cost the
customer $4800 and took over a year to receive, and whatever it was it
had to work and solve all problems at one time.

That is when I came up with a system that would take the loads from the
two-per-rev, capture the force where it was generated, and distribute
those loads into the hard point in the frame that was all supported
through triangulation. This can be seen on the second drawing following
the blue lines. Notice that the blue line that represent the direction
of force across the tube where the green x was is no longer there. I was
successful to take all strain away from the problem area entirely. The
engine pulsing vibration was also handled the same way, along with an
added rubber isolation system on the transmission and up inside the mast
support, and with a new idler arm that was spring loaded.

By coming up with this fix, it not only solved all the problems, but
improved overall balancing of the rotor system, and the fix could be
manufactured fast and affordable. Although this was a major problem that
took some time to identify the cause, dream up the best solution,
prototype and test and finally produce and ship, before or after, no
Mini-500 had crashed due to a cracked frame."

Ok, so there was the problem, and that was my solution. Why do you still
bellyache about an old problems that was solved? Its not the first time
a helicopter had a design flaw that needed fixed. So all the Mini-500
owners and I got over it, why was it your problem, and why are you
complaining about it?

Keep those questions coming!! Its great you are helping me get the real
facts out there!

How do I know for a fact he is an imposter????




Dennis Fetters wrote:
> Dennis Fetters wrote:

> Actually, this impostor is not half-bad.

Jules > wrote:
> How do I know for a fact he is an imposter????

Simply disregard the entire thread and that conundrum vanishes. Unless you
think there is money in figuring it all out, in which case have at it....

Jules wrote:
> How do I know for a fact he is an imposter????

You can't.

Names and emails mean nothing.
Jim caught the wrong IP Address in the message headers, which means
highly likely an impostor. Or it could have been posted to a private
forum that mirrors newsgroups, with the forum's administrator
substituting his own gibberish into IP address fields. IP Addresses
don't have to be included at all in message headers.

The only thing that really means anything is when messages have the SAME
IP Address. Bingo, they originated from the same source.

>
>
>
>
> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>> Dennis Fetters wrote:
>
>> Actually, this impostor is not half-bad.

On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:50:59 -0700, Poultry in Motion wrote:

> Jules wrote:
>> How do I know for a fact he is an imposter????
>
> You can't.
>
> Names and emails mean nothing.
> Jim caught the wrong IP Address in the message headers, which means
> highly likely an impostor. Or it could have been posted to a private
> forum that mirrors newsgroups, with the forum's administrator
> substituting his own gibberish into IP address fields. IP Addresses
> don't have to be included at all in message headers.
>
> The only thing that really means anything is when messages have the SAME
> IP Address. Bingo, they originated from the same source.

As long as source = ISP.

On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:56:40 -0400, Dennis Fetters
> wrote:

>That's because he knows that I am capable of the worst nightmares on his
>putrid body.
>
>With all seriousness, I just want you to know that anybody who does
>something like that to me would be in line for retribution with extreme
>prejudice and without the slightest hesitation. I don't stop until I get
>what I want when I'm motivated to be on the trail of anybody who stalks
>me.
>
>You see- I have, in reserve, my own tactics for getting back at people,
>and many connections with people who will do things for me (and I for
>them.)

REALLY?

The day you closed up Revolution Helicopters forever in Excelsior
Springs, MO I still managed to make it through the only door that your
people didn't lock during what should have been normal business hours.

I had your gal at the front desk go back to your office and request
that you come out and speak with me.....

Guess what happened, Dennis?
NOTHING.
You wouldn't do it.

I'm not saying you're a coward, but it sure doesn't square with the
brag and bluster you wrote above. :-)


- Barnyard BOb -

The more people I meet,
the more I like my dog and
George Carlin humor.

"Barnyard BOb" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:56:40 -0400, Dennis Fetters
> > wrote:
>
>>That's because he knows that I am capable of the worst nightmares on his
>>putrid body.
>>
>>With all seriousness, I just want you to know that anybody who does
>>something like that to me would be in line for retribution with extreme
>>prejudice and without the slightest hesitation. I don't stop until I get
>>what I want when I'm motivated to be on the trail of anybody who stalks
>>me.
>>
>>You see- I have, in reserve, my own tactics for getting back at people,
>>and many connections with people who will do things for me (and I for
>>them.)
>
> REALLY?
>
> The day you closed up Revolution Helicopters forever in Excelsior
> Springs, MO I still managed to make it through the only door that your
> people didn't lock during what should have been normal business hours.
>
> I had your gal at the front desk go back to your office and request
> that you come out and speak with me.....
>
> Guess what happened, Dennis?
> NOTHING.
> You wouldn't do it.
>
> I'm not saying you're a coward, but it sure doesn't square with the
> brag and bluster you wrote above. :-)
>
>
> - Barnyard BOb -


I think you are replying to a forged post.

Barnyard BOb wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:56:40 -0400, Dennis Fetters
> > wrote:
>
>
>>That's because he knows that I am capable of the worst nightmares on his
>>putrid body.
>>
>>With all seriousness, I just want you to know that anybody who does
>>something like that to me would be in line for retribution with extreme
>>prejudice and without the slightest hesitation. I don't stop until I get
>>what I want when I'm motivated to be on the trail of anybody who stalks
>>me.
>>
>>You see- I have, in reserve, my own tactics for getting back at people,
>>and many connections with people who will do things for me (and I for
>>them.)
>
>
> REALLY?
>
> The day you closed up Revolution Helicopters forever in Excelsior
> Springs, MO I still managed to make it through the only door that your
> people didn't lock during what should have been normal business hours.
>
> I had your gal at the front desk go back to your office and request
> that you come out and speak with me.....
>
> Guess what happened, Dennis?
> NOTHING.
> You wouldn't do it.
>
> I'm not saying you're a coward, but it sure doesn't square with the
> brag and bluster you wrote above. :-)

You are answering an impostor, fool.

As you can imagine I was probably a little busy at the time and couldn't
waste it with you... Looks like I was right, and glad I didn't.

When some particular people were giving me so much grief about
out parasol, I hope I was never this big of a jerk...

Richard

On Apr 1, 5:48*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> "Tim" <#__#@__.-> wrote:
> > "Dennis Fetters" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Gee Dennis, why does you IP address keep changing?
>
> He also appears to have undergone a severe personality change.

Really? I hadn't noticed that. Seems like the same old DF to me only
with a little more guts because he can now claim that it wasn't him.
Planemanman, only now with stealth IP.

On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:36:54 -0500, "Tim" <#__#@__.-> wrote:


>>>You see- I have, in reserve, my own tactics for getting back at people,
>>>and many connections with people who will do things for me (and I for
>>>them.)
>>
>> REALLY?
>>
>> The day you closed up Revolution Helicopters forever in Excelsior
>> Springs, MO I still managed to make it through the only door that your
>> people didn't lock during what should have been normal business hours.
>>
>> I had your gal at the front desk go back to your office and request
>> that you come out and speak with me.....
>>
>> Guess what happened, Dennis?
>> NOTHING.
>> You wouldn't do it.
>>
>> I'm not saying you're a coward, but it sure doesn't square with the
>> brag and bluster you wrote above. :-)
>>
>>
>> - Barnyard BOb -
>
>
>I think you are replying to a forged post.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-

Heh,heh.

If I was actually replying to an imposter,
it is ABSOLUTELY IRONIC IN THE EXTREME!!!

In dealing with the real life Dennis Fetters, IMHO....
one was dealing at every turn with an IMPOSTER or
poser. I never viewed Dennis to be anything but one.

I could believe nothing where the Mini-500 was concerned.
Not from sales, not from engineering, not from ANYTHING!

Why did he go out of business?
IMHO, it was because he WAS a real life imposter! :-)

Hahahahahahaa...
WHAT SWEET FARKING IRONY!


Thanks for the heads up, Tim.
Be well.

Barnyard BOb

On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:00:55 -0500, Barnyard BOb wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:56:40 -0400, Dennis Fetters
> > wrote:
>
>>That's because he knows that I am capable of the worst nightmares on his
>>putrid body.
>>
>>With all seriousness, I just want you to know that anybody who does
>>something like that to me would be in line for retribution with extreme
>>prejudice and without the slightest hesitation. I don't stop until I get
>>what I want when I'm motivated to be on the trail of anybody who stalks
>>me.
>>
>>You see- I have, in reserve, my own tactics for getting back at people,
>>and many connections with people who will do things for me (and I for
>>them.)
>
> REALLY?
>
> The day you closed up Revolution Helicopters forever in Excelsior
> Springs, MO I still managed to make it through the only door that your
> people didn't lock during what should have been normal business hours.
>
> I had your gal at the front desk go back to your office and request
> that you come out and speak with me.....
>
> Guess what happened, Dennis?
> NOTHING.
> You wouldn't do it.
>
> I'm not saying you're a coward, but it sure doesn't square with the
> brag and bluster you wrote above. :-)
>
> - Barnyard BOb -
>
> The more people I meet,
> the more I like my dog and
> George Carlin humor.
A story for you.

I once had a crazy bitch, for NO REASON, try to run me off of the road
(in town) with her Cadillac. There wasn't the slightest doubt in my
mind that it was intentional, since she kept moving over into my lane
even though I was honking and yelling. When we stopped at the next
light, I kicked in her passenger door. She didn't even look at me while
I was doing it. Some idiots passing by thought they'd come to her aid,
but I whipped out my buck knife and backslapped it open. They moved on.
I was so ****ed that it took several pitchers of beer down at the local
tavern to calm me down.

Understand?

On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 09:11:04 -0400, Gezellig wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:50:59 -0700, Poultry in Motion wrote:
>
>> Jules wrote:
>>> How do I know for a fact he is an imposter????
>>
>> You can't.
>>
>> Names and emails mean nothing.
>> Jim caught the wrong IP Address in the message headers, which means
>> highly likely an impostor. Or it could have been posted to a private
>> forum that mirrors newsgroups, with the forum's administrator
>> substituting his own gibberish into IP address fields. IP Addresses
>> don't have to be included at all in message headers.
>>
>> The only thing that really means anything is when messages have the SAME
>> IP Address. Bingo, they originated from the same source.
>
> As long as source = ISP.

Mr. Knowitall, then tell me from which ISP I am now posting? Where am I
located, Einstein?

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 04:03:14 -0800 (PST), Marcus Aurelius wrote:

> On Feb 8, 8:32*pm, Monk > wrote:
>> I just got an email threat this afternoon from Dennis Fetter resulting
>> from our interchange in Rotary Froum. *Link to thread below.
>>
>> http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19577
>>
>> Monk
>
> Just run an ad in the classified for gay male seeking action,
> and refer his phone number. He'll either cuss or thank you.
> Either way, he'll be busy. Lol!
>
> Mark
> A kind word turneth away wrath

Outside of the fact that would be illegal, the amount of return grief I
could associate with a looser like this is substantial.

On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 08:33:21 -0400, Dennis Fetters wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 09:11:04 -0400, Gezellig wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:50:59 -0700, Poultry in Motion wrote:
>>
>>> Jules wrote:
>>>> How do I know for a fact he is an imposter????
>>>
>>> You can't.
>>>
>>> Names and emails mean nothing.
>>> Jim caught the wrong IP Address in the message headers, which means
>>> highly likely an impostor. Or it could have been posted to a private
>>> forum that mirrors newsgroups, with the forum's administrator
>>> substituting his own gibberish into IP address fields. IP Addresses
>>> don't have to be included at all in message headers.
>>>
>>> The only thing that really means anything is when messages have the SAME
>>> IP Address. Bingo, they originated from the same source.
>>
>> As long as source = ISP.
>
> Mr. Knowitall, then tell me from which ISP I am now posting? Where am I
> located, Einstein?

Here's what I know about you, not what you ask since what you ask is
impossible to know. You're Dan Camper, troll, of alt.kooks.xxx infamy,
where you posted as Oneidas The Mad Hatter and several other nyms. You
now post as hummingbird to alt.computer.freeware where you are as a
known drive-by homosexual. You also post there as No One, No Whan and
Thomas Stevens (on many newsgroups) including Kat on rec.music.beatles,
alt.music.led-zeppelin.

How am I doing? :0)

You have led little jelly beans which aren't to hard to follow wherever
you go, openly admitting to your sensationless trolling. Would you like
me to continue?

Not only are you a racist, you're anti-Semitic as seen by your constant
harassment of Jews in particular Kinky Friedman.

With a slight bit of doubt, I can report that you are actually Chris
Millbank of London (area) UK where you post frequently to
uk.politics.misc as acacari.

Not bad, huh?

I did get a chunk of help from CNNNT :0)

Any questions?

On Apr 2, 5:36*pm, "Tim" <#__#@__.-> wrote:
> "Barnyard BOb" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:56:40 -0400, Dennis Fetters
> > > wrote:
>
> >>That's because he knows that I am capable of the worst nightmares on his
> >>putrid body.
>
> >>With all seriousness, I just want you to know that anybody who does
> >>something like that to me would be in line for retribution with extreme
> >>prejudice and without the slightest hesitation. I don't stop until I get
> >>what I want when I'm motivated to be on the trail of anybody who stalks
> >>me.
>
> >>You see- I have, in reserve, my own tactics for getting back at people,
> >>and many connections with people who will do things for me (and I for
> >>them.)
>
> > REALLY?
>
> > The day you closed up Revolution Helicopters forever in Excelsior
> > Springs, MO I still managed to make it through the only door that your
> > people didn't lock during what should have been normal business hours.
>
> > I had your gal at the front desk go back to your office and request
> > that you come out and speak with me.....
>
> > Guess what happened, Dennis?
> > NOTHING.
> > You wouldn't do it.
>
> > I'm not saying you're a coward, but it sure doesn't square with the
> > brag and bluster you wrote above. *:-)
>
> > - Barnyard BOb -
>
> I think you are replying to a forged post.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That doesn't change the fact of what Barnyard Bob posted does it?

On Mar 25, 1:28*pm, Dennis Fetters >
wrote:
> Dan Camper wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:19:10 -0700, Poultry in Motion wrote:
>
> >>Morgans wrote:
>
> >>>"Dan Camper" > wrote
>
> >>>>You don't know me from **** except for the fact that I am kicking your
> >>>>egomaniacal ass all over the place in this thread.
>
> >>>I'm no Dennis fan. *Far from it, but.....
>
> >>> There you go again. *I don't see anyone's ass getting kicked, except in
> >>>your head.
>
> >>Dennis Fetters has kicked his own ass, it's done. He not-so-cleverly
> >>posted from his Google "planeman" account to glowingly praise Dennis
> >>Fetters.
> >>The posts, with IP addresses, are archived. A couple examples out of the
> >>bunch:
>
> >><http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec.aviation.rotorcraft/msg/47ed484e....>
> >>"In this detailed analysis, it can be seen that all accidents are a
> >>result of pilot error or a maintenance/assembly problem aggravated by
> >>pilot error... "
>
> >><http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec.aviation.rotorcraft/msg/16c98f09....>
> >>"I just read the complete Mini-500 accident report and found it to be
> >>overwhelming in completeness. I can't recall any kit manufacturer that
> >>has made such a complete report as these people did."
>
> > Got it. He's an assclown.
>
> This has happened more than once, but as soon as anyone agrees with me

No one agreed with you. Not Poultry, not Cicarre, not, BWB, Barnyard
Bob, not Jim L, not Jim M, not Dan, one single poster has ever agreed
with you except Planeman, and we all know that was you.

That's the only thing that every one agees on is that original
Planeman qith the same IP as yours is you.

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 04:03:14 -0800 (PST), Marcus Aurelius wrote:
>
>
>>On Feb 8, 8:32 pm, Monk > wrote:
>>
>>>I just got an email threat this afternoon from Dennis Fetter resulting
>>>from our interchange in Rotary Froum. Link to thread below.
>>>
>>>http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19577
>>>
>>>Monk
>>
>>Just run an ad in the classified for gay male seeking action,
>>and refer his phone number. He'll either cuss or thank you.
>>Either way, he'll be busy. Lol!
>>
>>Mark
>>A kind word turneth away wrath
>
>
> Outside of the fact that would be illegal, the amount of return grief I
> could associate with a looser like this is substantial.

This is the post of the impostor.

Dennis Fetters wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:00:55 -0500, Barnyard BOb wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:56:40 -0400, Dennis Fetters
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That's because he knows that I am capable of the worst nightmares on his
>>>putrid body.
>>>
>>>With all seriousness, I just want you to know that anybody who does
>>>something like that to me would be in line for retribution with extreme
>>>prejudice and without the slightest hesitation. I don't stop until I get
>>>what I want when I'm motivated to be on the trail of anybody who stalks
>>>me.
>>>
>>>You see- I have, in reserve, my own tactics for getting back at people,
>>>and many connections with people who will do things for me (and I for
>>>them.)
>>
>>REALLY?
>>
>>The day you closed up Revolution Helicopters forever in Excelsior
>>Springs, MO I still managed to make it through the only door that your
>>people didn't lock during what should have been normal business hours.
>>
>>I had your gal at the front desk go back to your office and request
>>that you come out and speak with me.....
>>
>>Guess what happened, Dennis?
>>NOTHING.
>>You wouldn't do it.
>>
>>I'm not saying you're a coward, but it sure doesn't square with the
>>brag and bluster you wrote above. :-)
>>
>>- Barnyard BOb -
>>
>>The more people I meet,
>>the more I like my dog and
>>George Carlin humor.
>
> A story for you.
>
> I once had a crazy bitch, for NO REASON, try to run me off of the road
> (in town) with her Cadillac. There wasn't the slightest doubt in my
> mind that it was intentional, since she kept moving over into my lane
> even though I was honking and yelling. When we stopped at the next
> light, I kicked in her passenger door. She didn't even look at me while
> I was doing it. Some idiots passing by thought they'd come to her aid,
> but I whipped out my buck knife and backslapped it open. They moved on.
> I was so ****ed that it took several pitchers of beer down at the local
> tavern to calm me down.
>
> Understand?

This is the post of the impostor.

Dennis Fetters wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 09:11:04 -0400, Gezellig wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:50:59 -0700, Poultry in Motion wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jules wrote:
>>>
>>>>How do I know for a fact he is an imposter????
>>>
>>>You can't.
>>>
>>>Names and emails mean nothing.
>>>Jim caught the wrong IP Address in the message headers, which means
>>>highly likely an impostor. Or it could have been posted to a private
>>>forum that mirrors newsgroups, with the forum's administrator
>>>substituting his own gibberish into IP address fields. IP Addresses
>>>don't have to be included at all in message headers.
>>>
>>>The only thing that really means anything is when messages have the SAME
>>>IP Address. Bingo, they originated from the same source.
>>
>>As long as source = ISP.
>
>
> Mr. Knowitall, then tell me from which ISP I am now posting? Where am I
> located, Einstein?

This is a post from the impostor.

On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:05:51 -0700, Dennis Fetters
> wrote:

>
>You are answering an impostor, fool.

The posts I've just inspected show you using Prodigy & Netscape 7.2.

Your imposter shows up as cnntp.org

Are these correct?

If calling me a fool makes you feel like a bigger man....
You don't have much of a life, son!. :-)

I'm a Johnny come lately and got blind sided.
So enjoy your moment of juvenile pseudo superiority.

>As you can imagine I was probably a little busy at the time and couldn't
>waste it with you... Looks like I was right, and glad I didn't.

Dennis, I imagine nothing. That would be YOUR bag!!!!!

You looked white as a sheet and scared to death to me.
If that's your idea of ' busy' and the only story you got...
stick with it, buddy.

Barnyard BOb