Quack, quack! It's all about credibility you don't have, Duckboy!

In article , says...

:On the other hand my sympathies are with the victims he has sued. Yeah,
:he's a creep. I got a whiff of him once in the Murphy tent at Sun'n'Fun.
:The waddling goose came in honking like every face was supposed to turn his
:way. Besides that, he tried to interrupt the conversation. I noticed
:that Darryl and Robin turned their backs to him.

Hmmm is that anyway to treat the Great Waddling Goose of aviation??? turn their
back on him??? Don't they know who he is?? Don't they know that ANN is growing
so fast it's bursting at the seams?? Ask jaun!! You'd think they'd be begging
zoom to advertize with ANN.I'm surprised at their treatment of the GWG .At least
they'll talk to Duckboy ,they did honest...
But if ANN is growing so fast and making so much money why does their help
wanted ad say low wages?? Just wondering

See ya

Chuck (aka Duckboy,el POLLO Loco ,shakey Jake ,Jake 1776, Chas., Dad, Grampa.
bro#1 ,Hey you and Karol) S

In article , ChuckSlusarczyk
writes:


Hmmm is that anyway to treat the Great Waddling Goose of aviation??? turn
their
back on him??? Don't they know who he is?? Don't they know that ANN is
growing
so fast it's bursting at the seams?? Ask jaun!! You'd think they'd be begging
zoom to advertize with ANN.I'm surprised at their treatment of the GWG .At
least
they'll talk to Duckboy ,they did honest...
But if ANN is growing so fast and making so much money why does their help
wanted ad say low wages?? Just wondering

See ya

Chuck (aka Duckboy,el POLLO Loco ,shakey Jake ,Jake 1776, Chas., Dad, Grampa.
bro#1 ,Hey you and Karol) S


Anyone else notice that most of the advertisers in ANN are fairly new to the
industry and unlikely to know that much about his past dealings?


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

On 05 Dec 2003 17:14:42 GMT, osite (RobertR237) wrote:

Anyone else notice that most of the advertisers in ANN are fairly new to the
industry and unlikely to know that much about his past dealings?

Of the three advertisers named in Zoom's court documents who supposedly
will back up his claims that the guards at SnF were bad-mouthing him, two
were out of the business within a month of SnF. Zoom didn't even have a
current address for them ("Address to be supplied" is what he says in the
court documents).

The third advertiser has been around for a while, though the company name
is misspelled in Zoom's court documents. It's an accessory manufacturer,
not an airplane company.

Ron Wanttaja

In article , Ron Wanttaja says...
The third advertiser has been around for a while, though the company name
is misspelled in Zoom's court documents. It's an accessory manufacturer,
not an airplane company.

Bet that was on purpose.He probably promised free ads if they went along with
the scam.

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

On 5 Dec 2003 19:22:22 -0800, ChuckSlusarczyk
wrote:

In article , Ron Wanttaja says...
The third advertiser has been around for a while, though the company name
is misspelled in Zoom's court documents. It's an accessory manufacturer,
not an airplane company.

Bet that was on purpose.He probably promised free ads if they went along with
the scam.

Oh, I doubt that. I have a fairly positive take on human nature; I don't
think there are that many people who would commit perjury just for free
ads.

In any case, witnesses for either side don't get to tell their story and go
away. The opposition *does* cross-examine them, and I think any "fluffed
up" accounts will be whittled down pretty quick. You look at Tony's
cross-examination of Zoom in the bankruptcy case and Conn in the RAH-15
case and you'll see what I mean. Conn admitted that the judgement he got
in the '80s probably didn't apply to Chuck or his current company (make
sure your current attorney has the transcript, Chuck). Zoom's answers led
to the Bankruptcy Trustee's perjury lawsuit.

Tony was always real positive about SnF's attorney (Wendell), and from
reading the transcripts of the first SnF case, I think he'll do pretty good
during cross-examination on this case.

Ron Wanttaja

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 07:11:02 GMT, Ron Wanttaja wrote:

On 5 Dec 2003 19:22:22 -0800, ChuckSlusarczyk
wrote:

In article , Ron Wanttaja says...
The third advertiser has been around for a while, though the company name
is misspelled in Zoom's court documents. It's an accessory manufacturer,
not an airplane company.

Bet that was on purpose.He probably promised free ads if they went along with
the scam.

Oh, I doubt that. I have a fairly positive take on human nature; I don't
think there are that many people who would commit perjury just for free
ads.

I overedited the posting and left off a crucial comment: "We don't know,
*what*, exactly, this guy is going to testify about. He may just verify
that he saw Zoom's driver's license on the wall. So his appearance may end
up to be fairly innocuous."

Ron Wanttaja

In article , Ron Wanttaja says...
I overedited the posting and left off a crucial comment: "We don't know,
*what*, exactly, this guy is going to testify about. He may just verify
that he saw Zoom's driver's license on the wall. So his appearance may end
up to be fairly innocuous."

Ron Wanttaja

Your probably right,zoom has a tendency to overstate the facts.

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
In article , Ron Wanttaja says...

I overedited the posting and left off a crucial comment: "We don't know,
*what*, exactly, this guy is going to testify about. He may just verify
that he saw Zoom's driver's license on the wall. So his appearance may end
up to be fairly innocuous."

Ron Wanttaja


Your probably right,zoom has a tendency to overstate the facts.


Wow. I think I want to come to Ohio, sit around country stores, or
bars, or hangars, or wherever and listen to old-timers tell tall tales.
I figure it this way: You, Chuck, have gotta be some kinda benumbed
and habituated from listening to world class tall-taling if you call
what he does "a tendency to overstate the facts." So you musta cut your
teeth listening to some whoppers, that's what I figure.

B.S.

In article , Ben Sego says...

When I was a kid listening to the grown up's talking about "the War", "Cars I've
owned", "Fights I had" ,"Goils I knew" etc I used to think it was all true. Then
one day my dear old Dad told me that there are 2 kinds of story tellers .Liars
and Bullshi**ers ...never be a liar. zoom is a Liar :-)

Chuck (honestit really happened) S


Wow. I think I want to come to Ohio, sit around country stores, or
bars, or hangars, or wherever and listen to old-timers tell tall tales.
I figure it this way: You, Chuck, have gotta be some kinda benumbed
and habituated from listening to world class tall-taling if you call
what he does "a tendency to overstate the facts." So you musta cut your
teeth listening to some whoppers, that's what I figure.

B.S.

In article Z9Wyb.278857$ao4.989051@attbi_s51,
Juan..E.-Jimenez b*d&5^-@-*b(d)5+.!c#o$m wrote:
Don't forget, we're still waiting for the proof you'll never show, Duckboy!




Don't forget, we're *still* waiting for the proof that YOU'LL never show -- the
proof that you are *not* a liar and a fraud, yourself, Jimmy, baby.

You have repeatedly claimed that Chuck either:
A) Wasn't at SNF at all
B) Was there, but didn't have any vehicle there
C) Was there with a vehicle, but didn't own it.

You made the claim; the onus is on _you_ to provide proof.

If you don't have proof, you're a fraud.

If you're wrong, you're a liar.

Your ONGOING REFUSAL to address this issue goes to _your_ credibility.

At this point, you *don't* have ANY credibility on this issue, and as a
result of -that-, your credibility on _anything_else_ is also called into
question.

And the available evidence says that you're a LIAR AND A FRAUD.


Now, *prove*me*wrong*. If you _CAN_.

Show your proof.

If you can't/won't, you *are* _what_you_claim_ Chuck is.