Chaos abounds (2nd law of thermodynamics in action)

[A***@vzavenue.net]

Wow. Just, wow.

Not only is one of our more infamous denizens confusing student pilots
the world around, now he's making trouble at the FAA too.

http://www.faafollies.com/?p=866

The writing looked familiar ... and a quick search turns up the
source:

http://unflight.atkielski.com/2008/09/new-orleans-baton-rouge-cessna-182rg-ii.html

[Michael Ash]

Post by A***@vzavenue.net
Wow. Just, wow.
Not only is one of our more infamous denizens confusing student pilots
the world around, now he's making trouble at the FAA too.
http://www.faafollies.com/?p=866
The writing looked familiar ... and a quick search turns up the
http://unflight.atkielski.com/2008/09/new-orleans-baton-rouge-cessna-182rg-ii.html

LOL. In the literal sense, truly laughing out loud.

Trolling the FAA has to be some sort of record. Nice find.

[terry]

Post by Michael Ash

Wow.  Just, wow.
Not only is one of our more infamous denizens confusing student pilots
the world around, now he's making trouble at the FAA too.
http://www.faafollies.com/?p=866
The writing looked familiar ... and a quick search turns up the
http://unflight.atkielski.com/2008/09/new-orleans-baton-rouge-cessna-...

LOL. In the literal sense, truly laughing out loud.
Trolling the FAA has to be some sort of record. Nice find.

Well , you cant blame Mxs for this. But I can sort of understand how
someone who wasnt familiar with Mxs and his delusions might think he
was a real pilot from reading his make believe blogs. In the vast
majority of his blogs he does not mention at all that he is playing
games, and he has quite a talent for using his imagination to give
some verisimilitude to his stories. Like the following little excerpt
for example.

"So I squeak back up and just barely slide in, with the runway
approach lights scraping rubber from my tires (not really!). Another
hard landing, but I made it okay. I taxied over to Signature, where
I'll have the aircraft examined with a fine-tooth comb"

Still the FAA clown should have done his research.

[Michael Ash]

Post by terry

Post by Michael Ash

Wow. ?Just, wow.
Not only is one of our more infamous denizens confusing student pilots
the world around, now he's making trouble at the FAA too.
http://www.faafollies.com/?p=866
The writing looked familiar ... and a quick search turns up the
http://unflight.atkielski.com/2008/09/new-orleans-baton-rouge-cessna-...

LOL. In the literal sense, truly laughing out loud.
Trolling the FAA has to be some sort of record. Nice find.

Well , you cant blame Mxs for this. But I can sort of understand how
someone who wasnt familiar with Mxs and his delusions might think he
was a real pilot from reading his make believe blogs. In the vast
majority of his blogs he does not mention at all that he is playing
games, and he has quite a talent for using his imagination to give
some verisimilitude to his stories. Like the following little excerpt
for example.
"So I squeak back up and just barely slide in, with the runway
approach lights scraping rubber from my tires (not really!). Another
hard landing, but I made it okay. I taxied over to Signature, where
I'll have the aircraft examined with a fine-tooth comb"
Still the FAA clown should have done his research.

It's convincing writing, I will give you that. But the "Unreal Flight" in
the title and "unflight" in the URL should be a dead giveaway. Even if
it's not, there's no excuse for failing to research the story a bit before
going on a witch hunt. Still, I can fully understand why he got taken in,
just not why he didn't later take himself back out.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Post by terry

Post by Michael Ash
Trolling the FAA has to be some sort of record. Nice find.

Well , you cant blame Mxs for this. But I can sort of understand how
someone who wasnt familiar with Mxs and his delusions might think he
was a real pilot from reading his make believe blogs. In the vast
majority of his blogs he does not mention at all that he is playing
games, and he has quite a talent for using his imagination to give
some verisimilitude to his stories. Like the following little excerpt
for example.
"So I squeak back up and just barely slide in, with the runway
approach lights scraping rubber from my tires (not really!). Another
hard landing, but I made it okay. I taxied over to Signature, where
I'll have the aircraft examined with a fine-tooth comb"
Still the FAA clown should have done his research.

Um, guys, this web site is our anti-FAA racist trolls site - anything that
shows up here is pretty much guaranteed to be fiction. This guy has even
less credibility than Anthony.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Um, guys, this web site is our anti-FAA racist trolls site - anything that
shows up here is pretty much guaranteed to be fiction.

I was made aware of this by a number of sources at the FAA several days before
it appeared on the Web site.

[Beauciphus]

Post by Michael Ash

Post by terry
Still the FAA clown should have done his research.

It's convincing writing, I will give you that. But the "Unreal Flight" in
the title and "unflight" in the URL should be a dead giveaway. Even if
it's not, there's no excuse for failing to research the story a bit before
going on a witch hunt. Still, I can fully understand why he got taken in,
just not why he didn't later take himself back out.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

I bet a good lawyer could make a defamation case for the controller on duty
at the time. Good thing for MrsManic he's broke.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Beauciphus
I bet a good lawyer could make a defamation case for the controller on duty
at the time.

You would lose that bet.

[Beauciphus]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Beauciphus
I bet a good lawyer could make a defamation case for the controller on duty
at the time.

You would lose that bet.

Seeing as nobody bothers suing beggars, we'll never find out.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Beauciphus
Seeing as nobody bothers suing beggars, we'll never find out.

There's nothing to sue the blogger for. There's nothing to sue anyone for,
unless the FAA actually disciplined someone based solely on the blog, which
apparently did not happen.

[D***@yahoo.com]

Post by Mxsmanic
There's nothing to sue the blogger for. There's nothing to sue anyone for,
unless the FAA actually disciplined someone based solely on the blog, which
apparently did not happen.

But one of these days someone is going to get hurt as a result
of your "information" and THEN...

Dan

[Maxwell]

<***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:a06dd364-73f6-4d8a-90c5-***@d32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
| On Nov 23, 5:58 pm, Mxsmanic <***@gmail.com> wrote:
|
| > There's nothing to sue the blogger for. There's nothing to sue anyone
for,
| > unless the FAA actually disciplined someone based solely on the blog,
which
| > apparently did not happen.
|
| But one of these days someone is going to get hurt as a result
| of your "information" and THEN...
|
| Dan
|

They will unfortunately have to one to sue, but a penny less moron.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by D***@yahoo.com
But one of these days someone is going to get hurt as a result
of your "information" and THEN...

No, that's not going to happen, either.

[Michael Ash]

Post by D***@yahoo.com

Post by Mxsmanic
There's nothing to sue the blogger for. There's nothing to sue anyone for,
unless the FAA actually disciplined someone based solely on the blog, which
apparently did not happen.

But one of these days someone is going to get hurt as a result
of your "information" and THEN...

I hate to defend MX, but anyone who gets life-or-death information off the
internet deserves whatever he gets. Any sane court will recognize this.

MX is many things, but legally or morally liable for fools acting on his
fantasy writings he is not.

[Beauciphus]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Beauciphus
Seeing as nobody bothers suing beggars, we'll never find out.

There's nothing to sue the blogger for. There's nothing to sue anyone for,
unless the FAA actually disciplined someone based solely on the blog, which
apparently did not happen.

Anyone can sue for anything they want. Winning is another matter. It would
cost someone fifteen dollars to file a $3000 defamation suit against you in
small claims court. When you don't show up, you lose.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Beauciphus
Anyone can sue for anything they want. Winning is another matter. It would
cost someone fifteen dollars to file a $3000 defamation suit against you in
small claims court. When you don't show up, you lose.

That's not going to happen.

[Beauciphus]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Beauciphus
Anyone can sue for anything they want. Winning is another matter. It would
cost someone fifteen dollars to file a $3000 defamation suit against you in
small claims court. When you don't show up, you lose.

That's not going to happen.

Your over-confidence is awe-inspiring.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Beauciphus
Your over-confidence is awe-inspiring.

It is not over-confidence in this case.

Odd that when I talk about aviation, people say that I'm not qualified, but
when others talk about law, they expect me to consider them experts.

[Viperdoc]

Anthony, you're not qualified to talk about either flying or law, and don't
even consider medicine.

Fact is, you don't know much about anything, which is why you're so
successful.

[Wolfgang Schwanke]

Post by Beauciphus

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Beauciphus
Anyone can sue for anything they want. Winning is another matter.
It

would

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Beauciphus
cost someone fifteen dollars to file a $3000 defamation suit
against you

in

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Beauciphus
small claims court. When you don't show up, you lose.

That's not going to happen.

Your over-confidence is awe-inspiring.

Not in this case. He's in a foreign country, so he can ignore whatever
a US court or other authority does or doesn't do. They have no
jurisdiction and no executive power where he is.

[Beauciphus]

Post by Wolfgang Schwanke
Not in this case. He's in a foreign country, so he can ignore whatever
a US court or other authority does or doesn't do. They have no
jurisdiction and no executive power where he is.

He can ignore it all he wants. That has no bearing on a verdict.

[Beauciphus]

Post by Wolfgang Schwanke
Not in this case. He's in a foreign country, so he can ignore whatever
a US court or other authority does or doesn't do. They have no
jurisdiction and no executive power where he is.

See Content Publication at the bottom of this page:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NTN/is_/ai_n13778757

But, as I wrote earlier, there would be no financial benefit to suing a
beggar.

[Wolfgang Schwanke]

Post by Beauciphus

Post by Wolfgang Schwanke
Not in this case. He's in a foreign country, so he can ignore whatever
a US court or other authority does or doesn't do. They have no
jurisdiction and no executive power where he is.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NTN/is_/ai_n13778757

What's so difficult to understand about the concept: Sueing a resident
of a foreign country is immaterial. The verdict will have absolutely no
effect on that person, unless he/she chooses to visit the country where
the verdict was spoken, which would be utterly stupid of him to do.

The article you quote is about a different situation: The "US
publications" being sued have branches in the countries where those
lawsuits takes place and can thus be subject to their government's
power in case of a verdict against them.

But Mxsmanic is not an international company. He has only one
residency, which is completely outside of US jurisdiction or police
force. A verdict of a US court is immaterial to him, unless he visits
there. Which apparently he's not able to do any time soon. :)

[Beauciphus]

There's nothing difficult about it. Although it may be a futile process, it
is possible.

Minimally, it would prevent him from ever returning to the US. That could
also include the possibility of messing with an inheretance.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Beauciphus

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Beauciphus
Seeing as nobody bothers suing beggars, we'll never find out.

There's nothing to sue the blogger for. There's nothing to sue anyone for,
unless the FAA actually disciplined someone based solely on the blog, which
apparently did not happen.

Anyone can sue for anything they want. Winning is another matter. It would
cost someone fifteen dollars to file a $3000 defamation suit against you in
small claims court. When you don't show up, you lose.

Small claims actions are for actual damages.

You would have to show an actual loss of $3000 before you could go to a
small claims court in the US.

Suing for defamation would require a full up civil trial and you would
have to convince a judge that reasonable grounds exist for a trial and
that the court has jurisdiction in the case.

[Beauciphus]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Beauciphus
Anyone can sue for anything they want. Winning is another matter. It would
cost someone fifteen dollars to file a $3000 defamation suit against you in
small claims court. When you don't show up, you lose.

Small claims actions are for actual damages.
You would have to show an actual loss of $3000 before you could go to a
small claims court in the US.
Suing for defamation would require a full up civil trial and you would
have to convince a judge that reasonable grounds exist for a trial and
that the court has jurisdiction in the case.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.

I don't have all of the facts, but a friend of a friend was sued in a NJ
small claims court for defamation after posting negative feedback on eBay.

From what I could see, NJ did not have jurisdiction, but the only thing he
could do was to show up in NJ and fight it. I'm know it cost him over $100
in gas alone.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Beauciphus

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Beauciphus
Anyone can sue for anything they want. Winning is another matter. It

would

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Beauciphus
cost someone fifteen dollars to file a $3000 defamation suit against you

in

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Beauciphus
small claims court. When you don't show up, you lose.

Small claims actions are for actual damages.
You would have to show an actual loss of $3000 before you could go to a
small claims court in the US.
Suing for defamation would require a full up civil trial and you would
have to convince a judge that reasonable grounds exist for a trial and
that the court has jurisdiction in the case.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.

I don't have all of the facts, but a friend of a friend was sued in a NJ
small claims court for defamation after posting negative feedback on eBay.
From what I could see, NJ did not have jurisdiction, but the only thing he
could do was to show up in NJ and fight it. I'm know it cost him over $100
in gas alone.

One would assume the friend prevailed as NJ small claims doesn't do
defamation, in which case the friend now has a legimate small claims
action in his local court for real expenses incurred in defending a
frivolous suit.

Re mx, there is also the small problem of getting a proper service.

[Beauciphus]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
One would assume the friend prevailed as NJ small claims doesn't do
defamation, in which case the friend now has a legimate small claims
action in his local court for real expenses incurred in defending a
frivolous suit.

I believe friend's brother (real lawyer) is working on that.

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
Re mx, there is also the small problem of getting a proper service.

Sounds like a great excuse to visit Paris.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Beauciphus
I don't have all of the facts, but a friend of a friend was sued in a NJ
small claims court for defamation after posting negative feedback on eBay.

That is completely unrelated to the situation under discussion.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Beauciphus
I don't have all of the facts, but a friend of a friend was sued in a NJ
small claims court for defamation after posting negative feedback on eBay.

That is completely unrelated to the situation under discussion.

Wrong, the situation currently under discussion is suing for defamation
in small claims court.

Have you ever heard of thread drift?

You should have since that is your usual tactic when backed against
a wall.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
Wrong, the situation currently under discussion is suing for defamation
in small claims court.
Have you ever heard of thread drift?

Remember that the next time you feel tempted to talk about this group being
only for student pilots and discussions of aviation.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
Wrong, the situation currently under discussion is suing for defamation
in small claims court.
Have you ever heard of thread drift?

Remember that the next time you feel tempted to talk about this group being
only for student pilots and discussions of aviation.

Your Alzheimer's is kicking in; I've never said any such thing.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
Your Alzheimer's is kicking in; I've never said any such thing.

I didn't say anything about the past.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
Your Alzheimer's is kicking in; I've never said any such thing.

I didn't say anything about the past.

Your post:

"Remember that the next time you.."

In English, the phrase "the next time" implies that the event has occured
before.

No wonder you are a pennyless English teacher; you don't speak English.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
In English, the phrase "the next time" implies that the event has occured
before.

So if it implies, it does not actually mean. Remember that the next time you
mention implication.

[Jim Logajan]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
In English, the phrase "the next time" implies that the event has
occured before.

So if it implies, it does not actually mean.

I must remember that, the next time I speak with Martians.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
In English, the phrase "the next time" implies that the event has occured
before.

So if it implies, it does not actually mean.

imply

To express or indicate indirectly

Take an English course.

[Michael Ash]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
In English, the phrase "the next time" implies that the event has occured
before.

So if it implies, it does not actually mean.

imply
To express or indicate indirectly
Take an English course.

It's really amazing, MX is so obsessed with winning the thread that he
throws away all concern for being right.

He really is a poor troll. Most trolls are much more careful not to make
such elementary errors.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
imply
To express or indicate indirectly

Yes, I know. So something implied is not said directly. "You may win"
implies that winning is possible, but it does not mean that winning will
occur.

So by pointing out that "next" can imply that something has occurred before,
you've admitted that it does not guarantee this (otherwise it would be more
than an implication), which invalidates the argument you were trying to
support.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
imply
To express or indicate indirectly

Yes, I know. So something implied is not said directly.

Yep, you've got it now and your implication was incorrect.

[Beauciphus]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Beauciphus
I don't have all of the facts, but a friend of a friend was sued in a NJ
small claims court for defamation after posting negative feedback on eBay.

That is completely unrelated to the situation under discussion.

You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.