Return-Path: Received: from pop3.olsusa.com ([63.150.212.2] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5b3) with ESMTP id 847231 for rob@logan.com; Mon, 06 Aug 2001 12:10:21 -0400 Received: from spknpop1.spkn.uswest.net ([207.108.48.1]) by pop3.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71866U8000L800S0V35) with SMTP id com for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 22:29:36 -0400 Received: (qmail 45684 invoked by uid 0); 6 Aug 2001 02:37:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ckrouse) (63.227.98.150) by spknpop1.spkn.uswest.net with SMTP; 6 Aug 2001 02:37:08 -0000 Message-ID: <001f01c11e21$2f92fa00$9662e33f@ckrouse> From: "C Krouse" To: References: Subject: Re: Fw: flight Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 19:40:41 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Jon, I have no problem with constructive critisism....and I would never try to discourage discussion and admonishment when due. Critisism is one thing. Insultive language is another. My original response was rather pointed at the statement made by Jeff Edwards: "Please, if not for your own sake and the sake of your passengers-- then for the rest of us, don't fly an airplane with a problem that renders it "unairworthy". I can't afford it." To suggest that other pilots make a decision based on everyones monetary risk is not sound advice. The PIC is responsible for deeming airworthiness....period. The FAR is rather clear about that. The following response by Jack Kane was down right insulting and arrogantly disrespectful. No gentleman who is interested in having an "available topic of discussion" would respond with statements which include: "Based on experience with the "experimental mindset", I feared that your advice might fall on too many deaf ears. And guess what: it took only 9 hours to produce the following moronic emission, suggesting that you had somehow committed an unforgivable betrayal, to wit:". And: "Too bad this guy couldn't make it beyond the first sentence of 91.7(b).". This is no discussion but rather arrogant drivel which circumvented the point that I was trying to make........ Discuss away....but don't insult in the process. Flaming, no matter how intellectual is still flaming and no honorable gentleman would participate in it. I challenge anyone to quote the part of any message where I indicated that the pilot made a "correct" decision. Good luck. I personally would not have made the same decision, but who am I to judge another PIC's decision when I am 1000's of miles away and don't have a clue. Curtis > C'mon. If someone can't point out that this was not the wisest of moves, > then what the heck _is_ an available topic of discussion? > > -Jon Carlson > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LML website: http://www.olsusa.com/mkaye/maillist.html LML Builders' Bookstore: http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>