If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
"RobertR237" wrote in message ... Funny, I have seen the signs and do not recalling Jim Campbell's name on any of those signs. Poor naive Bob, doesn't have a clue what the signs were about, and thinks everyone else thinks the same. Not. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
"Barnyard BOb --" wrote in message ... You will convince Jaun of nothing of which he is not already convinced. Pot. Kettle. Black. chuckle |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Chuck will not be further embarassed if he chooses not to make any more
derogatory comments about me and imply that I lie about him. And I don't even have to surmise that it might be worth a try... "Cy Galley" wrote in message news:76H6b.379889$YN5.252939@sccrnsc01... As a school teacher I always recommended that the teasing would stop if the person being teased ignored the teaser. They just like the attention that your response brings. Likewise Juan and Jim. Might be worth a try. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
"Eric Miller" wrote in message . net... Not taking sides, but there's generally no admission of wrong-doing when a settlement is reached. You still lose. Doesn't matter if admit it or not. You know that as well as I do. Something else to consider in regards to the "big" settlement is that they had liability insurance, therefore the insurance company was named as co-defendant, and they might have driven the decision to settle. shrug Doesn't change the end result. Better a known figure now which you can write off, than an unknown amount (for both defense and outcome) in the future. On a simple case of determining why an ultralight crashed? The plaintiff claims it was negligence in design and construction. The defense claims it was a stall just prior to landing. There were witnesses to the event, and expert witnesses are lined up to argue the plaintiff's evidence. A week before the pre-trial conf, the defense settles, in six figures. You can look at it in umpteenthousand ways. The conclusion is still the same. So it could be just as fair to say that the suit was successfully defended. No, it could be _rationalized_ that way. Quite a difference. As a disinterested third party, I also found Chuck to be very forthcoming about his past and current litigation, which is a far cry from catching him in a lie. Unhuh. It is pointed out that he's been successfully sued, and his comeback is to ask what that means. Forthcoming indeed. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
"Juan E Jimenez" wrote in message news:3ZS6b.386081$o%2.174316@sccrnsc02... "RobertR237" wrote in message ... No Jaun, the Steel Cojones Award was not missed by anyone but, anyone with half a brain also knows that it doesn't represent a compliment either. It was taken as a slam on Adam Aircraft which is obviously, in light of the editorial, the way it was intended. You're entitled to your own rationalizations. Unless you ask Jim himself, you don't have a damn clue what you're talking about. I've tried asking Jim... The typical result is a nasty response including the threat of legal action and a demand that I not e-mail ANN again. Kind of odd, given that I respond to articles in numerous publications maybe a half dozen times a year, and other than ANN I've never been threatened or instructed not to write back. KB |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message et... I've tried asking Jim... The typical result is a nasty response including the threat of legal action and a demand that I not e-mail ANN again. Kind of odd, given that I respond to articles in numerous publications maybe a half dozen times a year, and other than ANN I've never been threatened or instructed not to write back. KB I've seen the responses that Jim typically makes to email queries sent to him by readers (when I receive fwd's of reader inquiries about my articles, or about issues that ANN considers of interest to me), and I've never seen any threats of legal action. What was the content of your email (not your recollection, the actual text) and the content of the response (again, actual text, not your recollection)? Juan |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
"Juan E Jimenez" wrote in message news:w5T6b.385999$Ho3.58776@sccrnsc03... On a simple case of determining why an ultralight crashed? The plaintiff claims it was negligence in design and construction. The defense claims it was a stall just prior to landing. There were witnesses to the event, and expert witnesses are lined up to argue the plaintiff's evidence. A week before the pre-trial conf, the defense settles, in six figures. You can look at it in umpteenthousand ways. The conclusion is still the same. Juan, If you think that every out-of-court settlement is an admission of negligence or responsibility, you are an idiot. Maybe, your stupid peasant mentality can't comprehend how an individual or company could agree to a tremendous settlement. Screw it, I think that Juan is a helpless case. For the rest of you... For any of you that might have found logic in Juan's analysis that settlements imply guilt or responsibility, I'll share a personal story. I don't know enough about Chuck's settlements to offer a comparison, but I would dare to say that there are parallels to my story. In many, if not most cases, out-of-court settlements are acts of preservation. I'm not just talking self-preservation - I'm talking about preserving things that you value more than shallow moral victories - like your ability to support your family and the families of those you employ, people that have supported a company through their hard work and sacrifices made over their careers. Sometimes, you can't afford to take a chance. The risks are too great. In the not so distant past, a company owned by a relative of mine settled a case, out of court, for a tremendous sum of money, based on the advice of both their insurance company and lawyers. In this case, a truck driver lost control of his truck and attempted to jump out of the truck before it ran off the road into a rather steep ravine. The driver was killed in his foolish attempt to avoid injury or death, as the truck rolled over him. Had the driver been wearing his seatbelt, it is likely that he would have walked away without serious injury, as the cabin was undamaged. Before the same truck was driven off the crash site (after being put back on its wheels), the truck was inspected by both the DOT and Mine Safety inspectors. According to the DOT inspectors, the only things that would have kept the truck from passing an inspection to legal road-service were the crushed lights. Despite the overwhelming evidence that my relative's company was not at fault, the insurance company was not prepared to let a jury decide the case and settled the case for what almost any of us on this board would consider a tremendous amount of money. In the geographic area involved in this case, no insurance company had ever won a wrongful death suit. The evidence didn't matter. Nearing retirement, my relative could have risked the company and its assets by fighting the "good fight". His personal wealth would not have been impacted greatly by the company's bankruptcy or insolvency that a negative jury decision could have yielded. He took a bitter pill and along with the insurance company, settled the suit. Almost ten years later, twenty people still have their jobs, their homes, and their security. Chuck, don't let the *******s get you down. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
"Juan E Jimenez" wrote in message news:w5T6b.385999$Ho3.58776@sccrnsc03... "Eric Miller" wrote in message . net... Not taking sides, but there's generally no admission of wrong-doing when a settlement is reached. You still lose. Doesn't matter if admit it or not. You know that as well as I do. Something else to consider in regards to the "big" settlement is that they had liability insurance, therefore the insurance company was named as co-defendant, and they might have driven the decision to settle. shrug Doesn't change the end result. Better a known figure now which you can write off, than an unknown amount (for both defense and outcome) in the future. On a simple case of determining why an ultralight crashed? The plaintiff claims it was negligence in design and construction. The defense claims it was a stall just prior to landing. There were witnesses to the event, and expert witnesses are lined up to argue the plaintiff's evidence. A week before the pre-trial conf, the defense settles, in six figures. You can look at it in umpteenthousand ways. The conclusion is still the same. So it could be just as fair to say that the suit was successfully defended. No, it could be _rationalized_ that way. Quite a difference. As a disinterested third party, I also found Chuck to be very forthcoming about his past and current litigation, which is a far cry from catching him in a lie. Unhuh. It is pointed out that he's been successfully sued, and his comeback is to ask what that means. Forthcoming indeed. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Juan E Jimenez wrote: "Kyle Boatright" wrote in message et... I've tried asking Jim... The typical result is a nasty response including the threat of legal action and a demand that I not e-mail ANN again. Kind of odd, given that I respond to articles in numerous publications maybe a half dozen times a year, and other than ANN I've never been threatened or instructed not to write back. KB I've seen the responses that Jim typically makes to email queries sent to him by readers (when I receive fwd's of reader inquiries about my articles, or about issues that ANN considers of interest to me), and I've never seen any threats of legal action. What was the content of your email (not your recollection, the actual text) and the content of the response (again, actual text, not your recollection)? Juan Why do you guys keep bothering with Juan? If you do it for the fun of it fine. If you do it to try to get him to be reasonable you are wasting time. He is to stupid to see that the things he says about Chuck can also be applied to the moron zoomy. At least Chuck has what it takes to talk about the problem he had, Zoomy has never responded to the outrageous things he has said in print. Apparently Juan has not been around long enough to remember when zoom threats were posted right here for all to see. When you read the reports from SnF about Zoomy you have to wonder how anyone can read anything he says and think it is credible. Jerry |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
"Juan E Jimenez" wrote in message
news:w5T6b.385999$Ho3.58776@sccrnsc03... "Eric Miller" wrote in message . net... Not taking sides, but there's generally no admission of wrong-doing when a settlement is reached. You still lose. Doesn't matter if admit it or not. You know that as well as I do. Just what exactly do you lose (besides the time the litigation takes)? If you have liability insurance, you probably don't even pay an extra dime. Something else to consider in regards to the "big" settlement is that they had liability insurance, therefore the insurance company was named as co-defendant, and they might have driven the decision to settle. shrug Doesn't change the end result. It doesn't change the fact that money changed hands, but it changes the reason WHY. As I said before, just because money was exchanged doesn't mean anything about the merits of the suit. On a simple case of determining why an ultralight crashed? The plaintiff claims it was negligence in design and construction. The defense claims it was a stall just prior to landing. I'm sure that since the plaintiff built the UL he did NOT claim the construction was negligent. That would reek of personal responsibility, which is strictly verboten in this country. On the other hand, he was claiming brain damage, so who knows... So it could be just as fair to say that the suit was successfully defended. No, it could be _rationalized_ that way. Quite a difference. Using exactly the same amount of rationalization used to say it was successfully won. Unhuh. It is pointed out that he's been successfully sued, and his comeback is to ask what that means. Forthcoming indeed. As I read it, he listed his past and current litigation to show he WASN'T successfully sued. Eric |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Latest Pipistrel Motorglider Newsletter Uploaded | Michael Coates | Home Built | 1 | September 16th 03 06:04 PM |
so what is the latest word on Sport Pilot ??? | Gilan | Home Built | 12 | September 7th 03 11:14 PM |
Latest Ripon & Fisk (OSH) Updates | Jim Weir | Home Built | 4 | July 20th 03 10:59 PM |
Latest Newsletter | Michael Coates | Home Built | 3 | July 15th 03 10:04 PM |