Airspace Privacy over your house !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Eric Miller wrote:
My take on entertainers and celebrities, whether they're actors, athletes,
musicians or whatever is...

They're not paid to think, they're paid to entertain us.
They certainly have no business spouting off on political issues.
They're trained monkeys.
So shut up and do what you're paid to do!
Dance for me, monkey, dance!

I presume that goes for Charlton Heston as well? Ahnooold? Ronnie? Or just
the ones whose positions on issues disagree with your own?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Rich Ahrens | Homepage: http://www.visi.com/~rma/ |
|-----------------------------------------------|
|"In a world full of people only some want to fly - isn't that crazy?" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 21:40:49 -0600, Rich Ahrens wrote:

:Eric Miller wrote:
: My take on entertainers and celebrities, whether they're actors, athletes,
: musicians or whatever is...
:
: They're not paid to think, they're paid to entertain us.
: They certainly have no business spouting off on political issues.
: They're trained monkeys.
: So shut up and do what you're paid to do!
: Dance for me, monkey, dance!
:
:I presume that goes for Charlton Heston as well?

Charlton Heston spoke out on one particular topic (gun ownership) that
he had a lifelong interest in and was VERY well informed on. On that
topic, I listened to him the same way I'd listen to anyone else - with
an open mind. I didn't think he was correct just because he was in
"Omega Man."

:Ahnooold?

The jury is still out on Arnold. He may be fine. He may be awful.
No matter what, he'll be better than the walking disaster we had
before. Any trained monkey would be. YOU would be, no matter who you
are. A random number generator would be a better gov. than Davis.

:Ronnie?

He worked his way up. 16 years as president of a large, powerful
union before he ran for office. Popular governor, successful
President (unless you think the end of communism was a bad thing.)
Awful actor. Not a major star, as far as I'm concerned. No more than
Fred "Gopher" Grandy.

Performers *can* make good politicians. So can lawyers, doctors,
carpenters, salesmen, writers and auto mechanics. But before they run
for office, why should we listen to actors more than any of the
others?

:Or just
:the ones whose positions on issues disagree with your own?

I don't think Bruce Willis OR Cher should have a significant influence
on public policy.

"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
isi.com...
Eric Miller wrote:
My take on entertainers and celebrities, whether they're actors,
athletes,
musicians or whatever is...

They're not paid to think, they're paid to entertain us.
They certainly have no business spouting off on political issues.
They're trained monkeys.
So shut up and do what you're paid to do!
Dance for me, monkey, dance!

I presume that goes for Charlton Heston as well? Ahnooold? Ronnie? Or just
the ones whose positions on issues disagree with your own?

Correct, Rich... ALL of them!

As my friend is fond of saying.. .even a dead dog is right twice a day.

Eric

"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
isi.com...
Eric Miller wrote:
My take on entertainers and celebrities, whether they're actors,
athletes,
musicians or whatever is...

They're not paid to think, they're paid to entertain us.
They certainly have no business spouting off on political issues.
They're trained monkeys.
So shut up and do what you're paid to do!
Dance for me, monkey, dance!

I presume that goes for Charlton Heston as well? Ahnooold? Ronnie? Or just
the ones whose positions on issues disagree with your own?

Correct, Rich... ALL of them!

As my friend is fond of saying.. .even a dead dog is right twice a day.

Eric

On 06 Dec 2003 06:40 PM, Rich Ahrens posted the following:
Eric Miller wrote:
My take on entertainers and celebrities, whether they're actors,
athletes, musicians or whatever is... They're not paid to think,
they're paid to entertain us. They certainly have no business
spouting off on political issues. They're trained monkeys. So shut up
and do what you're paid to do! Dance for me, monkey, dance!

I presume that goes for Charlton Heston as well? Ahnooold? Ronnie? Or
just the ones whose positions on issues disagree with your own?

That sounds like a fair trade.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

Eric Miller wrote:
My take on entertainers and celebrities, whether they're actors, athletes,
musicians or whatever is...

They're not paid to think, they're paid to entertain us.
They certainly have no business spouting off on political issues.
They're trained monkeys.
So shut up and do what you're paid to do!
Dance for me, monkey, dance!

I presume that goes for Charlton Heston as well? Ahnooold? Ronnie? Or just
the ones whose positions on issues disagree with your own?

|Rich Ahrens
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi stranger,

Haven't you been in 'hibernation' from rah since the
end of February 2002? You're awakened by this
little skirmish?

Don't you think the mighty Capt Zoom is gonna
feel terribly slighted if he ever gets wind of this? g


Barnyard BOb -- nothing but questions

Fitzair4 wrote:

Streisand's Silly Suit Sings Sour Song
Judge Throws Out Suit Against Pilot

Singer Barbra Streisand's lawsuit against a helicopter pilot
accusing him of violating her privacy was thrown out of court
Wednesday. Not only that, but she's going to have to pay Ken
Adelman's legal fees -- estimated somewhere in the six-figure
range.

Sweet.

"It was a clean sweep," Adelman (with wife and pilot
Gabrielle, above) said after the ruling. "We didn't win just
on a technicality, but on all the substantive issues. The judge
ruled that what we did was free speech and not an infringement of
privacy."

Adelman, a 39-year old Silicon Valley millionaire, takes the
pictures while his wife, Gabrielle, flies the R-44. The helicopter
was flown southeast-bound along the coast at altitudes ranging from
150 to 2000ft, but typically 500-700ft, depending on the terrain,
detail, and air traffic control constraints. The port-side rear
door was removed, giving the photographer an unobstructed view of
the coast.

Streisand sued Adelman for $50 million May
20th, after his website, which photographically traces
the California coast, published an aerial photograph of her estate.
The photographs were among about 12,700, many of which highlight
overdevelopment along the water's edge.

The lawsuit "sought to reaffirm that everyone should have the
right to retain their privacy, in their home, even in this
technologically invasive age," according to Streisand lawyer John
Gatti.

After the ruling, Adelman attorney Richard Kendall said Superior
Court Judge Allan Goodman sent a message: Environmental activists
have a right to fly where they want in public airspace and take
pictures of whatever they want. To have ruled any other way, said
Kendall, would have given the likes of Streisand "ownership" of
vistas and making them off-limits to photographers -- even from
several hundred feet above.

"That seemed absurd," Kendall said. "Many people familiar with
privacy law agreed with us that the case was not well-founded."

Wow. A lawyer with
common sense.

Gatti said Judge Goodman's ruling was a tentative one. "The
court's tentative decision found that intrusion occurred. But the
court failed to accord Ms. Streisand a remedy."

He said Streisand would wait to see the final ruling before
deciding whether to appeal. If she decides to continue the suit,
Judge Goodman ruled she would first have to reimburse Adelman for
his big-time legal expenses.

Here's the funny part: Streisand's suit actually caused her
mansion more exposure than if she'd just left the whole thing
alone. Since the suit was filed, Adelman's site got hundreds of
thousands of hits, whereas it was relatively obscure to the general
public before.

Does this mean Adelman has to send a thank-you note?

Adelman says he'll use the legal reimbursement to expand his
site. Already, he's posted thousands of aerial shots from the
1970s. He plans to fly the entire length of California again,
taking pictures to provide comparisons, sort of a then-and-now view
of the coastline. And, yeah, you can bet he'll shoot Streisand's
ranch again.
www.californiacoastline.org


Does anyone know what website her house photo is located?
Phil ..

"Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club" wrote
in :

Fitzair4 wrote:

Streisand's Silly Suit Sings Sour Song
Judge Throws Out Suit Against Pilot

Singer Barbra Streisand's lawsuit against a helicopter pilot
accusing him of violating her privacy was thrown out of court
Wednesday. Not only that, but she's going to have to pay Ken
Adelman's legal fees -- estimated somewhere in the six-figure
range.

Sweet.

"It was a clean sweep," Adelman (with wife and pilot
Gabrielle, above) said after the ruling. "We didn't win just
on a technicality, but on all the substantive issues. The judge
ruled that what we did was free speech and not an infringement of
privacy."

Adelman, a 39-year old Silicon Valley millionaire, takes the
pictures while his wife, Gabrielle, flies the R-44. The helicopter
was flown southeast-bound along the coast at altitudes ranging from
150 to 2000ft, but typically 500-700ft, depending on the terrain,
detail, and air traffic control constraints. The port-side rear
door was removed, giving the photographer an unobstructed view of
the coast.

Streisand sued Adelman for $50 million May
20th, after his website, which photographically traces
the California coast, published an aerial photograph of her estate.
The photographs were among about 12,700, many of which highlight
overdevelopment along the water's edge.

The lawsuit "sought to reaffirm that everyone should have the
right to retain their privacy, in their home, even in this
technologically invasive age," according to Streisand lawyer John
Gatti.

After the ruling, Adelman attorney Richard Kendall said Superior
Court Judge Allan Goodman sent a message: Environmental activists
have a right to fly where they want in public airspace and take
pictures of whatever they want. To have ruled any other way, said
Kendall, would have given the likes of Streisand "ownership" of
vistas and making them off-limits to photographers -- even from
several hundred feet above.

"That seemed absurd," Kendall said. "Many people familiar with
privacy law agreed with us that the case was not well-founded."

Wow. A lawyer with
common sense.

Gatti said Judge Goodman's ruling was a tentative one. "The
court's tentative decision found that intrusion occurred. But the
court failed to accord Ms. Streisand a remedy."

He said Streisand would wait to see the final ruling before
deciding whether to appeal. If she decides to continue the suit,
Judge Goodman ruled she would first have to reimburse Adelman for
his big-time legal expenses.

Here's the funny part: Streisand's suit actually caused her
mansion more exposure than if she'd just left the whole thing
alone. Since the suit was filed, Adelman's site got hundreds of
thousands of hits, whereas it was relatively obscure to the general
public before.

Does this mean Adelman has to send a thank-you note?

Adelman says he'll use the legal reimbursement to expand his
site. Already, he's posted thousands of aerial shots from the
1970s. He plans to fly the entire length of California again,
taking pictures to provide comparisons, sort of a then-and-now view
of the coastline. And, yeah, you can bet he'll shoot Streisand's
ranch again.
www.californiacoastline.org


Does anyone know what website her house photo is located?
Phil ..




y'r kidding right??? look up :-) as in up above your message.... not
very far either

--
ET


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 05:02:41 GMT, ET wrote:

Adelman says he'll use the legal reimbursement to expand his
site. Already, he's posted thousands of aerial shots from the
1970s. He plans to fly the entire length of California again,
taking pictures to provide comparisons, sort of a then-and-now view
of the coastline. And, yeah, you can bet he'll shoot Streisand's
ranch again.
www.californiacoastline.org


Does anyone know what website her house photo is located?
Phil ..


y'r kidding right??? look up :-) as in up above your message.... not
very far either
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Say ET....
It's perfectly OK to trim things down to a worthy...
rather than wordy, weighty and repetitive historic size.


Barnyard BOb -

RR Urban wrote in news:lkq2tvot4fff9vmlc7aq5jmdarafjp9li6@
4ax.com:

It's perfectly OK to trim

Barnyard BOb -


Uooops.... I knew better too.... :-(


--
ET


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams