Stop the noise

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

I thought the original message was well written and I didn't feel
the
poster was on a rampage.

If the facts presented are true, like the guy in a Pitts causing
injuries
to livestock and other low level buzz jobs, then we are shooting
ourselves
in our collective foot if we as a group cry foul when such
transgressions
happen and are brought out for discussion.

Acting like Campbell is why FAA no longer has any credibility in the
US
WRT
noise. It is much better to help fix the man's noise problem than
to
fight
a battle you can only lose.

Neither one of you clowns read the whole post. It is especially funny
to
hear Tarver talking about others lacking credibility, however.

It is very odd that you would write something so clueless Campbell,
especially after you went all the way to the FSDO to prove me correct
about
the POH being part of the Type Certificate of an airplane.

snip of nothing of substance

I strenuously object to your taking a few words out of context and
re-phrasing them to say something the exact opposite of what I
intended.
However, based on your previous posts, I certainly am not surprised.
You
are
idiots, no question about it. Worse, you have no integrity whatsoever.

I stated the true fact of the matter and you don't like it, but that is
not
my problem.



It is your problem if you lie about it, just as you are also lying about
my
going to the FSDO about the POH. I never did any such thing.

You posted up a letter from the FSDO on the subject at rai.

I don't even
remember arguing with you about the subject. It is not something that I
think I would care much about. Near as I can tell you are again
misrepresenting my views and actions.

The POH and icing limitations has been an ongoing debate at rai for some
years.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

It is your problem if you lie about it, just as you are also lying about
my
going to the FSDO about the POH. I never did any such thing.

You posted up a letter from the FSDO on the subject at rai.


Bet you can't show me that post.

I don't even
remember arguing with you about the subject. It is not something that I
think I would care much about. Near as I can tell you are again
misrepresenting my views and actions.

The POH and icing limitations has been an ongoing debate at rai for some
years.

I did post a letter about icing limitations, but it was not to prove that
the POH was "part of the type certificate," which is what you originally
asserted.