Cessna's response to negative feedback on Skycatcher being builtin China

Gig601XLBuilder wrote in
:

Rich Ahrens wrote:
Gig601XLBuilder wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Morgans writes:

Prisoners in the US are there for good reason, and most all are
multiple offenders, or else major felony offenders.

Eighty percent of U.S. prisoners are in prison on drug charges.

That 80% number while technically either true or close to true also
include a metric-butt load of people that the drug offense was
secondary to another offense non-drug related offense. Which pretty
much proves the point that that drugs cause crime in general.

Hardly. Keep repeating this mantra: correlation does not prove
causation.

But it doesn't disprove it either.


You can't disprove that there isn't a giant walnut shell full of aliens who
all look like Barney Fife circling the earth with an eye towards conquest
either.
They couldn't do a worse job than Bush, BTW.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Gig601XLBuilder wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Yeah, but I don't post pics of it ordinarily.
I sold one iu had for years a while back, but just bought a Citabria
(
also not qualified for LSA)
I had a Luscombe, but I don;t think I'd have bothered with LSA
certification even if I had kept it. Not aq lot of advantage for me.
I
did most of the maintenance myself anyway so it would have saved me
nothing.

On the Luscombe you wouldn't have had to bother with any additional
certification issues and still wouldn't. Just don't fail a medical and
keep your BFR and drivers license up to date. Fly till you can't fly
anymore.



Well, I kinda need my medical anyway, so that isn't an issue either. I
see the benifits, but I'm a bit worried about the probable abuses.
I might be talking apples and oranges here,but a few years ago I was
visiting someone who had a two place ultralight. Sort of a Breezy type
thing. Parasol, open in front. Rotax 582 pusher. Can;'t remember the
type. Anyhow, we went out to see this thing and it was parked outside
for one thing. harldy flown at all. It had amphib floats and it had to
be waaaay overweight. It was corroded and had been tied down with a rope
halfway up the strut and the wind had bent the strut slightly. Needless
to say I wouldn't fly it ( actually I don;t fly lawn furniture anyway,
so probably wouldn't have even if it was perfect) Iasked them why they
had gotten involvd in this thing in the first place. Why hadn't they
bought a cub? Well, the reasons they gave me were "nah, you gotta get a
licence for that, you gotta have it inspected every year, all that happy
horse****, so we got this" Now, at the time, a Cub was cheaper to buy
anyway, so I siad, "right, you want me to go up in an airplane that has
had no maintenance and is in rag order in any case, and is flown by a
guy who couldn't be bothered to learn to fly properly. Right".
Still haven't been up in one of those things.
I fear that having seen this and also having seen all sorts of abuses(
some by me!) in "traditional" light aviation the potential for abuse in
LSA is large..
Having said that.there are some ultralights and LSAs I would love to
try.

Bertie



One of the good things about LSA is that it will move aircraft exactly
like the one you mentioned into a more regulated environment. If it was
a two seater it was illegal except for training. I always thought the
FAA dropped the ball on regulating those. Hopefully LSA regs will fix
the problem.

Gig601XLBuilder wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Gig601XLBuilder wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Yeah, but I don't post pics of it ordinarily.
I sold one iu had for years a while back, but just bought a
Citabria
(
also not qualified for LSA)
I had a Luscombe, but I don;t think I'd have bothered with LSA
certification even if I had kept it. Not aq lot of advantage for
me.
I
did most of the maintenance myself anyway so it would have saved me
nothing.

On the Luscombe you wouldn't have had to bother with any additional
certification issues and still wouldn't. Just don't fail a medical
and keep your BFR and drivers license up to date. Fly till you can't
fly anymore.



Well, I kinda need my medical anyway, so that isn't an issue either.
I see the benifits, but I'm a bit worried about the probable abuses.
I might be talking apples and oranges here,but a few years ago I was
visiting someone who had a two place ultralight. Sort of a Breezy
type thing. Parasol, open in front. Rotax 582 pusher. Can;'t remember
the type. Anyhow, we went out to see this thing and it was parked
outside for one thing. harldy flown at all. It had amphib floats and
it had to be waaaay overweight. It was corroded and had been tied
down with a rope halfway up the strut and the wind had bent the strut
slightly. Needless to say I wouldn't fly it ( actually I don;t fly
lawn furniture anyway, so probably wouldn't have even if it was
perfect) Iasked them why they had gotten involvd in this thing in the
first place. Why hadn't they bought a cub? Well, the reasons they
gave me were "nah, you gotta get a licence for that, you gotta have
it inspected every year, all that happy horse****, so we got this"
Now, at the time, a Cub was cheaper to buy anyway, so I siad, "right,
you want me to go up in an airplane that has had no maintenance and
is in rag order in any case, and is flown by a guy who couldn't be
bothered to learn to fly properly. Right". Still haven't been up in
one of those things. I fear that having seen this and also having
seen all sorts of abuses( some by me!) in "traditional" light
aviation the potential for abuse in LSA is large..
Having said that.there are some ultralights and LSAs I would love to
try.

Bertie



One of the good things about LSA is that it will move aircraft exactly
like the one you mentioned into a more regulated environment.

Good point.

If it
was a two seater it was illegal except for training. I always thought
the FAA dropped the ball on regulating those. Hopefully LSA regs will
fix the problem.


Hmm, true, I hadn't thought of it like that. This thing was illegal in
so many ways it was ridiculous. I'm sure they could get around the two
seat thing by claiming it was being used for training at any given
moment.

They sold it after my lecture, anyway!

Bertie

"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
use.com...
Gig601XLBuilder wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Morgans writes:

Prisoners in the US are there for good reason, and most all are multiple offenders,
or else major felony offenders.

Eighty percent of U.S. prisoners are in prison on drug charges.

That 80% number while technically either true or close to true also include a
metric-butt load of people that the drug offense was secondary to another offense
non-drug related offense. Which pretty much proves the point that that drugs cause
crime in general.

Hardly. Keep repeating this mantra: correlation does not prove causation.

A significant portion of the drug offenders who got prison time were the result of the
"tough on crime and drugs" movement of the 1980s and the ensuing mandatory sentencing
laws. Addicts whose only crime was possession (and maybe a count of petty larceny) got
the book thrown at them, as if that would help them or scare drug abusers into stopping.
We're wasting millions by incarcerating people who neither deserve such harsh sentences
nor will benefit from them. Meanwhile, many prisons are bulging beyond capacity which in
turn means that they don't have the resources to provide internal security against crime,
clamp down on criminal gangs, or provide meaningful rehabilitation. They've become
warehouses keeping their inmates in cesspool conditions, much like the "insane asylums" of
the past. This in turn opened the door for private enterprise prisons because the goal no
longer is justice and rehabilitation, but warehousing all those perps at the lowest unit
cost.

Gig601XLBuilder wrote:
Thomas Borchert wrote:
Gig601XLBuilder,

How else do you expect us to deal with non-uniformed combatants in a
combat zone?


That's not what is done at Gitmo. Come on now, nobody can follow the
news and be that naive.


That is exactly who is at Gitmo. Unless you are one of those nit-wits
that think they are sending people there after grabbing people off the
streets for holding up and anti-Bush poster.

Once again ignoring the fact the Pentagon itself acknowledged that more
than 20 percent of them were innocent of charges and should be released.
But still held onto them.

Jay Honeck schrieb:

POWs are rarely charged with crimes. They are merely held until the war is
over.

War? What war? The "war on terror" war? Or has there been another war
declared (formally, you know ... according to all the rules [don't play
unfair only because others play unfair])

In this case, that could be a life sentence.

But don't worry. In another year we'll have a whole new set of attorneys
arguing the case.

case? what case?

#m

Once again ignoring the fact the Pentagon itself acknowledged that more
than 20 percent of them were innocent of charges and should be released.
But still held onto them.

Cite?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
Once again ignoring the fact the Pentagon itself acknowledged that
more than 20 percent of them were innocent of charges and should be
released. But still held onto them.

Cite?

You can find articles from last spring (as I said) with five seconds of
effort on Google. Wikipedia quotes one:

"More than a fifth of the approximately 385 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, have been cleared for release but may have to wait months or years
for their freedom because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly
difficult to line up places to send them..." (Source: 82 Inmates Cleared
but Still Held at Guantanamo, by Craig Whitlock, Washington Post, April
29, 2007.)

Martin Hotze opined

Jay Honeck schrieb:

POWs are rarely charged with crimes. They are merely held until the war
is over.

War? What war? The "war on terror" war? Or has there been another war
declared (formally, you know ... according to all the rules [don't play
unfair only because others play unfair])

You know the one, the one UBL declared.

In this case, that could be a life sentence.

But don't worry. In another year we'll have a whole new set of attorneys
arguing the case.

case? what case?

#m


-ash
Cthulhu in 2008!
Vote the greater evil.

and in those same articles it mentions that some of the prisoners don't want
to go back to their country of origin due to fear for their lives and some
of the countries don't want them back either. but I guess that does not fit
with your argument so you ignore those facts.
"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
ouse.com...
Jay Honeck wrote:
Once again ignoring the fact the Pentagon itself acknowledged that more
than 20 percent of them were innocent of charges and should be released.
But still held onto them.

Cite?

You can find articles from last spring (as I said) with five seconds of
effort on Google. Wikipedia quotes one:

"More than a fifth of the approximately 385 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, have been cleared for release but may have to wait months or years
for their freedom because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly
difficult to line up places to send them..." (Source: 82 Inmates Cleared
but Still Held at Guantanamo, by Craig Whitlock, Washington Post, April
29, 2007.)