Just Bought A Plane? STAY OUT OF FLORIDA !

Jay Maynard wrote:
On 2008-04-03, BobR wrote:
No credible publication should be accepted when used as a personal
vehicle for attacking ones perceived enemy's in print for public use
without providing the victims a venue for debate or to counter the
story. Campbell has used his printed magazine and now his web based
publication for just that purpose for a long time. When people
started using the usenet to counter some of his lies, he tried to
silence them with lawsuits and threats of lawsuits.

So if people here don't seem to accept anything he prints, it is not
without justification.

All of this would be relevant if it was just Zoom. It's not just Zoom.
--

And nobody is arguing that point. Only Zoom has tied it to Sun-N-Fun
as justification for ending that even. The response from EAA and AOPA
were both printed after the story from Zoom and I suspect in response
to concerns raised by that story. The story was previously reported
without reference to Sun-N-Fun and with little concern almost a year
ago and was drug out only to use as an excuse to attack Sun-N-Fun yet
again.

I also have to wonder why you are putting such effort into defending
Zoom's story when admittedly you have never even read the story. If
you don't know the tone and scope of his report and how he used it to
try and throw a shadow over a great flyin...why the defense? Is it
your contention that any publication can print anything they want as
long as there is some element of fact in the story?



Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
Jay Maynard wrote:
On 2008-04-03, BobR wrote:
No credible publication should be accepted when used as a personal
vehicle for attacking ones perceived enemy's in print for public use
without providing the victims a venue for debate or to counter the
story. Campbell has used his printed magazine and now his web based
publication for just that purpose for a long time. When people
started using the usenet to counter some of his lies, he tried to
silence them with lawsuits and threats of lawsuits.

So if people here don't seem to accept anything he prints, it is not
without justification.

All of this would be relevant if it was just Zoom. It's not just Zoom.


Here's how this all played out.

1. Fl DOF writes a poorly worded website designed to read by FLORIDA
aircraft brokers and dealers.

2. Zoom publishes his story that the sky is falling.

3. Lots of people read that the sky is falling.

4. A subset of the people mentioned in 3 are AOPA and EAA members so
they call/e-mail AOPA and EAA to see if the sky is falling.

5. The EAA and AOPA look outside and see that the sky is not falling but
need conformation from the FL DOF to prove the sky is not falling.

6. The FL DOF being the same bunch of idiots that produced the poorly
worded website to begin with are, as mentioned above idiots, and won't
come out and say that they have no power to tax someone that has no
connection with Florida other than flying an airplane there because it
is the FL DOF job to drag in as much money as they possible can and they
might some day figure out how to do just that. But they so have the gust
to at least say they aren't going to be camped out at SNF.

Now let's look at the chain and see what could have been removed and
there be no problem.

#1 No, sure they could have written the page better but it is correct if
read by the people it is aimed at.

#3. No, that's what the Internet is for.

#4 & #5 No, that's what the EAA & AOPA is for.

#6 No, They are state employees.

That leaves #2.

Well Said!

On 2008-04-03, BobR wrote:
All of this would be relevant if it was just Zoom. It's not just Zoom.
And nobody is arguing that point.

Then why are folks saying "Zoom first told the story, so it must be bogus"?

I also have to wonder why you are putting such effort into defending
Zoom's story when admittedly you have never even read the story. If
you don't know the tone and scope of his report and how he used it to
try and throw a shadow over a great flyin...why the defense? Is it
your contention that any publication can print anything they want as
long as there is some element of fact in the story?

No. I'm just trying to get people to look past the originator of the story
to the substance. Far too many folks are arguing that it must be BS because
Zoom reported it to try to slam SnF. That's simply not relevant. It became
irrelevant the moment AOPA reported it - unless you're arguing that,
somehow, Zoom led them and EAA down the garden path and they did no checking
on their own. In effect, the detractors are slamming AOPA and EAA's
credibility because of Zoom, and that's totally unwarranted.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

Jay Maynard wrote:
I'm just trying to get people to look past the originator of the
story to the substance.

But I have looked past the originator of the story.

There appeared to me to be no substance to the claims and implications in
the original or subsequent stores that there were large numbers of non-
Floridian owners being hit with sales tax. It cited only one possibly
verified instance. (Due to someone who purchased their plane in Florida,
took it out of the state, and returned to Florida in it within 6 months of
purchase.)

How many other cases are you aware of that I am not?

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:04:18 -0500, Jim Logajan
wrote:

Jay Maynard wrote:
I'm just trying to get people to look past the originator of the
story to the substance.

But I have looked past the originator of the story.

There appeared to me to be no substance to the claims and implications in
the original or subsequent stores that there were large numbers of non-
Floridian owners being hit with sales tax. It cited only one possibly
verified instance. (Due to someone who purchased their plane in Florida,
took it out of the state, and returned to Florida in it within 6 months of
purchase.)

The Meridian was not purchased in Florida, it was purchased in one of
the Carolinas. Even if he took delivery in Florida and stayed for the
5 day SimCom initial he still would have had 3 or 4 days of the 10
day sales-tax exempt affadavit he would have filled out to leave the
state and not get taxed. It would be interesting to understand more
about why he supposedly gave up persuing the matter. Didn't someone
post that they knew his attorney and was going to see if they could
find out?

In article ,
Jay Maynard wrote:

On 2008-04-03, BobR wrote:
All of this would be relevant if it was just Zoom. It's not just Zoom.
And nobody is arguing that point.

Then why are folks saying "Zoom first told the story, so it must be bogus"?

Past repeated performance?

On 2008-04-04, Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
Jay Maynard wrote:
On 2008-04-03, BobR wrote:
All of this would be relevant if it was just Zoom. It's not just Zoom.
And nobody is arguing that point.
Then why are folks saying "Zoom first told the story, so it must be bogus"?
Past repeated performance?

Aw, cmon. Nobody's perfect. Not even Zoom is perfectly wrong.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

On Apr 3, 9:59*pm, Jay Maynard wrote:
On 2008-04-04, Steve Hix wrote:

In article ,
*Jay Maynard wrote:
On 2008-04-03, BobR wrote:
All of this would be relevant if it was just Zoom. It's not just Zoom.
And nobody is arguing that point.
Then why are folks saying "Zoom first told the story, so it must be bogus"?
Past repeated performance?

Aw, cmon. Nobody's perfect. Not even Zoom is perfectly wrong.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC * * * * * * * * *http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com* * *http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) * * * * * * * * * * * *(Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

You are RIGHT! Zoom is just like a broken clock...right twice a day
but otherwise useless. The only problem is that unless you know
exactly when he is right, what the hell good does it do?

He isn't always wrong... kind of like a broken clock... only right twice
a day...

His problem is that too many of us have seen him lie and fabricate too
many times to ever believe him again.

John

Jay Maynard wrote:
On 2008-04-04, Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
Jay Maynard wrote:
On 2008-04-03, BobR wrote:
All of this would be relevant if it was just Zoom. It's not just Zoom.
And nobody is arguing that point.
Then why are folks saying "Zoom first told the story, so it must be bogus"?
Past repeated performance?

Aw, cmon. Nobody's perfect. Not even Zoom is perfectly wrong.

Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
Jay Maynard wrote:


On 2008-04-03, BobR wrote:

All of this would be relevant if it was just Zoom. It's not just Zoom.

And nobody is arguing that point.

Then why are folks saying "Zoom first told the story, so it must be bogus"?


Past repeated performance?


Like Jim says,

Credibility is always about credibility...


Richard
--
(remove the X to email)

Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
John Wayne