"Juan Jimenez" wrote:

"Paul Tomblin" wrote
In a previous article, "Juan Jimenez" said:
"Paul Tomblin" wrote

I did. You said I should "limit your comments to subject in which you
have at least an inkling of knowledge".

Exactly.

But the fact remains that every single thing I said in my post was 100%
factual.

About as factual as the rumblings of dip**** couch potato armchair
quarterbacks. You don't know squat about BD-5's, squat about BD-5J's and
certainly squat about my aircraft, seeing as you have never even bothered to
asked me. What you posted are not facts, they are opinions, which like
assholes, usually stink. You want to be shown up as a fool on wikipedia, go
right ahead! You go, boi. Just remember that audience is orders of magnitude
larger than this one.

So yeah, it speaks for itself. It's a prime example of how you attack the
messenger when you can't find fault in the message.

Bzzzt! Wrong answer. Bring more quarters the next time.

Funny how Juan actually goes out of his way to prove your premise.

He counters facts with nothing more than blathering and insults. On
the (very) rare occasion when he can actually refute another post
(such as details on his airworthiness certificate), he lists plenty of
information.

So it's really trivial to determine when a r.a.h. post about Zoom
and/or Juan is irrefutable. If the reply contains nothing but
insults, obscenity and flippant comments, the original post can be
admitted as certified gospel.

In essence, Juan is a truth detector with the bulbs wired backward.

And the sad thing is, he honestly believes that he's defending himself
and his reputation with nonsense like he types above. Or maybe it's
just ironic, I dunno... hard to apply the term "sad" to someone who's
doing it to himself on purpose.

Mark "facts is facts" Hickey