Jim, you continue to take snips out of context, twist them into your own personal reality and then try and lay them on my doorstep. Sorry, that just won't work.
It's very difficult to "defend" oneself for statements that are just plain untrue to begin with. Obviously, if I should try, that means I accept the original untruth. Not going to happen.
I am not being offensive, defensive nor aggressive, Jim, just trying to point out for all to see the outright falsehoods that you would paint me with. Also to make you try to understand that such lies are libelous and slanderous.
Originally posted by Jim Branaum
Bill,
I am not sure exactly what your problem is or why you are being so offensive and aggressive. How we got here from 'earned memberships' is a function of your choices.
I can find no place in the AMA Safety Code rule #1 that allows for the CD to suspend the event so a brand new plane can be test flown. You indicated (again) that you could see where a CD might do that.
Here is a classic example, Jim. In NO place did I cite the Safety code in the way you would have folks believe. In NO place did I say that I could see where a CD could do....whatever you say. Please go back and read what I DID say, Jim, and please stop building untruths (lies?) from them. So you won't have to look, here it is (once again):
"OTOH, one COULD make the case (not that I would!) that suspending the contest in mid-stream like that was within the CD's rights."
Please show me where it says I "...could see where a CD might do.." that! As it DOES say, Jim, I would NOT (repeat: NOT!!) make that case.
I see that action as a clear, open and intentional violation of the AMA Safety Code. Worse yet, I see it as a violation by the very appointed representative of the AMA who is supposed to prevent such actions. I stand by that.
You have taken cheap shots at other folks for not screaming foul at a sanctioned event when they have seen something you determined was in violation of the rules and yet you see where a CD might hold a case for violating the stated rules. I find that confusing, but others better than you have called me stupid.
Cheap shots? Not at all! I asked a simple question and received a diatribe about doing whatever you want on private property in spite of it being sanctioned (and thence, insured) by AMA. And NEVER an answer to the question I asked! (Sorry to the other forum members, this all occurred on the usenet news groups.)
Since you have determined that I am wrong, please explain the dichotomy (different words for 'two faced') shown with your remarks of admonishment to Mr. Cain and your apparently casual acceptance of CD's violation AMA Safety Rule 1. I will be surprised you can do that and then demonstrate where the elected AMA official can possibly be more concerned about liability than "Joe Flightpack". No liable, simple question of your remarks that just don't seem to add up.
Again, Jim, one cannot defend what is not true in the first place. You have made up your own personal reality and then expect others to join you within it. When you finally face the truth, then perhaps we can discuss something, but until then, it is pointless to continue to illustrate your lies and libel when you speak of my "...casual acceptance of CD's violation AMA Safety Rule 1".
Since I made no allegations of any "conspiracy' you remarks about that make me wonder and worry about your health. I made a stated assumption that you are welcome to defend or debunk as your conscience directs.
Be well.
Jim Branaum
AMA LM 1428
Sheesh! I do NOT understand how you can say what you did in the above paragraph when your PREVIOUS post included THIS:
"Only I don't think it is that special. In fact it is fairly clear that you children are getting ready to run Dr. Frank for AMA President."
Conspiracy behind every bush, Jim. Try facing reality for a change.
And no need for YOU (of ALL people!) to worry about MY health, Jim. I am well, thank you.
Bill Lee