Threatened by Dennis Fetter

Jim Logajan wrote:
Dennis Fetters wrote:

Dan Camper wrote:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:19:10 -0700, Poultry in Motion wrote:


Morgans wrote:

"Dan Camper" wrote


You don't know me from **** except for the fact that I am kicking
your egomaniacal ass all over the place in this thread.
I'm no Dennis fan. Far from it, but.....

There you go again. I don't see anyone's ass getting kicked,
except in
your head.
Dennis Fetters has kicked his own ass, it's done. He not-so-cleverly
posted from his Google "planeman" account to glowingly praise Dennis
Fetters.
The posts, with IP addresses, are archived. A couple examples out of
the bunch:

http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec...t/msg/47ed484e
4cd0e2f8?dmode=source "In this detailed analysis, it can be seen
that all accidents are a result of pilot error or a
maintenance/assembly problem aggravated by pilot error... "

http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec...t/msg/16c98f09
2f6ef3da?dmode=source "I just read the complete Mini-500 accident
report and found it to be overwhelming in completeness. I can't
recall any kit manufacturer that has made such a complete report as
these people did."

Got it. He's an assclown.
This has happened more than once, but as soon as anyone agrees with
me, the same old people say it's me behind it with a fictitious name.

I have said it before, I have enough balls to post with my own name,
and I have never used another name to post under, although there have
been people use my name to make posts. I have no need to play such
games.

Are you saying you made none of the posts that were referenced above? Not
even the ones claiming to be from you?

(It takes a fair bit of knowledge of network protocols, effort, and luck
to spoof an IP address or "steal" a DHCP leased IP address. Seems
unlikely.)

From what I've read, it takes talent and luck to pull it off even once.
It's hit or miss, usually miss. And yet "planeman" was posting articles
repeatedly, always from Fetters' IP address.

The charade began with the "planeman" puppet, an apparent rotorcraft
newbie asking the group for advice about purchasing Mini-500 stuff. He
inexplicably blew up at friendly replies he got from everyone. It was
just weird.

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:28:11 -0700, Dennis Fetters wrote:

Dan Camper wrote:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:19:10 -0700, Poultry in Motion wrote:

Morgans wrote:

"Dan Camper" wrote


You don't know me from **** except for the fact that I am kicking your
egomaniacal ass all over the place in this thread.

I'm no Dennis fan. Far from it, but.....

There you go again. I don't see anyone's ass getting kicked, except in
your head.

Dennis Fetters has kicked his own ass, it's done. He not-so-cleverly
posted from his Google "planeman" account to glowingly praise Dennis
Fetters.
The posts, with IP addresses, are archived. A couple examples out of the
bunch:

http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec.aviation.rotorcraft/msg/47ed484e4cd0e2f8?dmode=source
"In this detailed analysis, it can be seen that all accidents are a
result of pilot error or a maintenance/assembly problem aggravated by
pilot error... "

http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec.aviation.rotorcraft/msg/16c98f092f6ef3da?dmode=source
"I just read the complete Mini-500 accident report and found it to be
overwhelming in completeness. I can't recall any kit manufacturer that
has made such a complete report as these people did."

Got it. He's an assclown.

This has happened more than once, but as soon as anyone agrees with me,
the same old people say it's me behind it with a fictitious name.

It's Usenet, AssClown, grab a a life or get the **** out.

I have said it before, I have enough balls to post with my own name,

And my name is Sherlock Fruitart.

AssClown.

and
I have never used another name to post under, although there have been
people use my name to make posts. I have no need to play such games.

*yawn*
--
http://tr.im/1f9p

Dennis Fetters wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
Dennis Fetters wrote:


Dan Camper wrote:

On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:19:10 -0700, Poultry in Motion wrote:



Morgans wrote:


"Dan Camper" wrote



You don't know me from **** except for the fact that I am kicking
your egomaniacal ass all over the place in this thread.

I'm no Dennis fan. Far from it, but.....

There you go again. I don't see anyone's ass getting kicked,
except in your head.

Dennis Fetters has kicked his own ass, it's done. He
not-so-cleverly posted from his Google "planeman" account to
glowingly praise Dennis Fetters.
The posts, with IP addresses, are archived. A couple examples out of
the bunch:

http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec...t/msg/47ed484e
4cd0e2f8?dmode=source "In this detailed analysis, it can be seen
that all accidents are a result of pilot error or a
maintenance/assembly problem aggravated by pilot error... "

http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec...t/msg/16c98f09
2f6ef3da?dmode=source "I just read the complete Mini-500 accident
report and found it to be overwhelming in completeness. I can't
recall any kit manufacturer that has made such a complete report as
these people did."


Got it. He's an assclown.

This has happened more than once, but as soon as anyone agrees with
me, the same old people say it's me behind it with a fictitious name.

I have said it before, I have enough balls to post with my own name,
and I have never used another name to post under, although there have
been people use my name to make posts. I have no need to play such
games.


Are you saying you made none of the posts that were referenced above?
Not even the ones claiming to be from you?

(It takes a fair bit of knowledge of network protocols, effort, and
luck to spoof an IP address or "steal" a DHCP leased IP address. Seems
unlikely.)

Jim, I am saying that this person calling himself planeman was not me,
as some people like to think. I have never posted under a false name.

If you were being honest all along, you would have quickly told Jim that
you made *none* of the posts that were referenced above, not even the
ones claiming to be from you. That's what Jim was fishing for.
But no, you continue to deny that "planeman" was you, and that's all.

Jim is a clever guy. He knows that the two posts referenced above were
typed at the same computer, and he gave you a fair opportunity to plant
doubt in his mind. Do you need a full explanation of why you just
failed, Dennis, or can you figure it out yourself?

Poultry in Motion wrote:
Jim is a clever guy.

Such flattery!

He knows that the two posts referenced above were
typed at the same computer

Actually I know nothing of the sort. There are many possibilities and there
is insufficient evidence to rule many of them out. For example, Fetter's
computer or one on his local network may have been compromised with a
trojan program, allowing someone else remote access. Nor is it clear who
has physical access to the computer he uses or the network it is on. (He
appears to be operating behind a NAT firewall that may have more than one
machine on it.) And so on.

When people die, their friends and loved ones would (in my very humble
opinion) seem to me to be the ones most probable to become emotionally
obsessive, less so the target of their wrath.

But most important from my own pragmatic point of view is that none of the
posts in dispute appear to have any relevance to the underlying issues
pertaining to the aircraft's safety record. I'm unclear how the inclusion
of the disputed posts can have any affect on the analysis of the causes of
any of the crashes.

Jim Logajan wrote:
Poultry in Motion wrote:
Jim is a clever guy.

Such flattery!

He knows that the two posts referenced above were
typed at the same computer

Actually I know nothing of the sort. There are many possibilities and there
is insufficient evidence to rule many of them out. For example, Fetter's
computer or one on his local network may have been compromised with a
trojan program, allowing someone else remote access.

Uh, right. rolls eyes

Nor is it clear who has physical access to the computer he uses or the network it is on. (He
appears to be operating behind a NAT firewall that may have more than one
machine on it.) And so on.

When people die, their friends and loved ones would (in my very humble
opinion) seem to me to be the ones most probable to become emotionally
obsessive, less so the target of their wrath.

But most important from my own pragmatic point of view is that none of the
posts in dispute appear to have any relevance to the underlying issues
pertaining to the aircraft's safety record.
I'm unclear how the inclusion of the disputed posts can have any affect on the analysis of the causes of
any of the crashes.

I don't want you to be unclear.
Fetters' self-produced and overwhelmingly complete Mini500 accident
analysis has tremendous relevance to the underlying issues. Case closed,
look no deeper, nothing else to see here. It satisfied "planeman" handily!

It was to be an example for all rec.aviation.rotorcraft readers to
follow. Fetters used "planeman" to steer public opinion.

Google obscures email addresses by truncating them and throwing ellipses
in there. The actual Yahoo! email address that Fetters got for
"planeman" was planemanman_at_yahoo.com, funny huh? I guess the dope was
in a hurry and planeman was already taken.

Poultry in Motion wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
Poultry in Motion wrote:
Jim is a clever guy.

Such flattery!

He knows that the two posts referenced above were
typed at the same computer

Actually I know nothing of the sort. There are many possibilities and
there is insufficient evidence to rule many of them out. For example,
Fetter's computer or one on his local network may have been
compromised with a trojan program, allowing someone else remote
access.

Uh, right. rolls eyes

Who started this thread by bringing it from another forum to Usenet?
Which of the two people involved was that obsessed?
One would have engage in "special pleading" to ignore the information
provided by the answers to those questions.

It was to be an example for all rec.aviation.rotorcraft readers to
follow. Fetters used "planeman" to steer public opinion.

Uh, right. rolls eyes

And the poster who started this thread wasn't trying to steer public
opinion? Looks like you're engaging in special pleading again to me.

Google obscures email addresses by truncating them and throwing
ellipses in there. The actual Yahoo! email address that Fetters got
for "planeman" was planemanman_at_yahoo.com, funny huh? I guess the
dope was in a hurry and planeman was already taken.

So explain why Fetters start a thread using a sock puppet to ask:

"I see Mini-500 helicopters selling on eBay, but much less these days.
Is there someone in the marketplace that can sell me parts if I was
compelled to buy the incomplete one selling now?"

And why Fetters would wait almost a full day to post a response that
included this:

"As for the guy that originally asked the question about places to buy
Mini-500 parts, no, there is nowhere to purchase parts. I might add that
this is a good thing. Even if you could buy parts, the Mini-500 should
not be flown without a factory that continues to flight test and keeps
track of ongoing issues common to all helicopters operating."

Jim Logajan wrote:
Poultry in Motion wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
Poultry in Motion wrote:
Jim is a clever guy.
Such flattery!

He knows that the two posts referenced above were
typed at the same computer
Actually I know nothing of the sort. There are many possibilities and
there is insufficient evidence to rule many of them out. For example,
Fetter's computer or one on his local network may have been
compromised with a trojan program, allowing someone else remote
access.
Uh, right. rolls eyes

Who started this thread by bringing it from another forum to Usenet?
Which of the two people involved was that obsessed?

We're about to see, Jim.

One would have engage in "special pleading" to ignore the information
provided by the answers to those questions.

Looked to me like Fetters rather belligerently strode into someone
else's discussion at that other forum. Did you even read there?

1) Monk, who brought the issue here, began a thread there with a simple
question about UltraSport helicopters.

2) It was "thesultanofscud", hardly an hour later, who first uttered the
name Mini-500.

3) It was a full week after that when Monk recalled the troubles, and
death, that his friend Gil Armbruster suffered from his experience with
the Mini.

4) Couple hours later, the bombastic Fetters is there pounding his
"facts" into Monk.
"You know Bryan, these are really quite reckless and misleading comments...
... pack of unfounded lies and misconceptions."

So give the discussion
http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19577
an unbiased read and decide,
Was Monk obsessed in event 3) above?
Was Fetters obsessed in event 4) above?

It was to be an example for all rec.aviation.rotorcraft readers to
follow. Fetters used "planeman" to steer public opinion.

Uh, right. rolls eyes

And you think that's as far-fetched as your scenario where Fetters'
computer was controlled by a hacker?

And the poster who started this thread wasn't trying to steer public
opinion? Looks like you're engaging in special pleading again to me.

Of course he was trying to steer opinion. So am I, and so are you.
But Monk wasn't trying to deceive anyone, nor am I.

Google obscures email addresses by truncating them and throwing
ellipses in there. The actual Yahoo! email address that Fetters got
for "planeman" was planemanman_at_yahoo.com, funny huh? I guess the
dope was in a hurry and planeman was already taken.

So explain why Fetters start a thread using a sock puppet to ask:

"I see Mini-500 helicopters selling on eBay, but much less these days.
Is there someone in the marketplace that can sell me parts if I was
compelled to buy the incomplete one selling now?"

He started the thread so he could answer his own question. And the
puppet would then extend his appreciation to Mr. Wonderful for everyone
to see.

And why Fetters would wait almost a full day to post a response that
included this:

"As for the guy that originally asked the question about places to buy
Mini-500 parts, no, there is nowhere to purchase parts. I might add that
this is a good thing. Even if you could buy parts, the Mini-500 should
not be flown without a factory that continues to flight test and keeps
track of ongoing issues common to all helicopters operating."

Almost a full day, eh? He could have replied to his own puppetpost the
next minute, but that would smell funny.

What do you think of "planeman"'s reaction to the other replies? He
acted very hurt and offended by the group. Did that make any sense?

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:23:14 -0700, Dennis Fetters
wrote:

Poultry in Motion wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
It was to be an example for all rec.aviation.rotorcraft readers to
follow. Fetters used "planeman" to steer public opinion.

Actually, I don't want any person to "steer" public opinion concerning
the Mini-500 helicopter. I only want the facts to steer public opinion,
and that is why we spent the time to compile all FAA accident reports
along with what we knew about the case, and put together one of the most
complete accident analyses reports even done on a kit-built aircraft.


Dennis.

In your defense...
I don't believe most folks know how to take you to task because they
don't have a clue about the facts and how the FAA determines them...
just like you lament.

For my money, every death in a Mini-500 was preventable had the
pilot exercised proper judgment, caution and treated the Miin-500
as the lethal weapon I personally believe it to be.

In my opinion, everyone that died in a Mini-500 had no one to
blame but themselves. They all made mistakes where there is
almost no margin for error if you want to see the sun rise the
next day.

Do I endorse the Mini-500 as an inherently safe chopper?
Not on your friggin' life!!!!! [Literally]


Barnyard BOb - 55 years of licensed powered flight

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:23:14 -0700, Dennis Fetters wrote:

Actually, I don't want any person to "steer" public opinion concerning
the Mini-500 helicopter.

snipped quickly scanned bull****

So you posted 345 pages of self-supporting bull****?

Do you realize what a ****tard you look like?
--
http://tr.im/1f9p

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:02:11 -0700, Poultry in Motion wrote:

Jim is a clever guy. He knows that the two posts referenced above were
typed at the same computer, and he gave you a fair opportunity to plant
doubt in his mind. Do you need a full explanation of why you just
failed, Dennis, or can you figure it out yourself?

He ain't that clever, no one is.
--
http://tr.im/1f9p