Originally posted by pinball
Jim, I left the newsgroup rc.models.rc.air to avoid this kind of personal attack. The fact that you and I disagree does not give you the right to impugn my character. I have asked the moderator to remove your post.
Your analogy is not a good one. I never implied that totally uninvolved parties can be held liable. In this case the flier was an AMA modeler, and the AMA advertises that it insures its members. That sounds like a lot of involvement to me. A lot more than in this case, which put the association out of business: http://www.kkrlaw.com/changes/safety_standards.htm
Mr. "PINBALL"
Sorry it took so long for a response, I was out flying and instructing today.
Your quoted post is wrong on two counts.
The first point in error was your citation. The case YOU cited does not involve an insurance claim which was what was being spoken about. I think it is unreasonable to compare apples to grapes in the same manner as the relationship between swimming pool standards and insurance coverage that you cited. YOU write the review that makes the connections and possibly it will become clear.
The second error was the personal attack issue you have raised. None of my remarks were intended to be such but I clearly cannot control what you decide to interpret them as. However you are welcome to take whatever action you feel is necessary to control opposing comments. That is why you have left the newsgroup as is clearly indicated by your lack of a real name and or AMA number.
In the future I suggest you avoid the writing of fiction about the AMA and the reasons various actions are taken. If that bothers you, I suggest you provide some proofs to go with the stories to make them more interesting and to reduce the negative reviews. If you feel that suggestion impugns you and or your character, then so be it.
I stand by ALL of my remarks and opinions, but I do reserve the right to be educated.