X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:21:54 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao12.cox.net ([68.230.241.27] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 995670 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:20:19 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.27; envelope-from=sportform@cox.net Received: from [10.0.1.3] (really [70.187.129.106]) by fed1rmmtao12.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20060223181604.HQKN17437.fed1rmmtao12.cox.net@[10.0.1.3]> for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:16:04 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed X-Original-Message-Id: <8a0208330fb751afcb41393e86ef3fd7@cox.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Barry Hancock Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Roseville Glasair crash X-Original-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 10:19:30 -0800 X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.623) Pete, On Feb 22, 2006, at 9:27 PM, Marvin Kaye wrote: > Posted for "Peter Field" : > > Barry (and all the rest of you who chafe at Jeff=92s commentary): > Breaking the rules is breaking the rules whether you do it in a=20= > high > speed pass or doing acrobatics over a populated area. You may think=20= > rules > don=92t apply to you or that it=92s OK to break them under certain > circumstances, but I think if you have a difficulty in following=20 > rules the > problem is with you yourself. For CRYING OUT LOUD! Go back and look at all of my posts....take the=20 time to ACTUALLY READ THEM, instead of knee-jerking. I have NEVER=20 NEVER NEVER advocated breaking rules. In fact, I have NEVER been=20 unsupportive Jeff's intent. I agree with his intent. I agree that=20 aviation rules, when they pertain to flying, are usually written in=20 blood. Peter, I run a 5-day event in the Warbird community stressing safety,=20 safety, safety. Actually, it's "Unity, Teamwork, Safety". To even=20 suggest that I somehow advocate circumventing our ignoring the rules is=20= simply uninformed and downright ignorant. There is room for all kinds in aviation. I don't know Jeff, other than=20= through his posts, and I assume he's a great guy. I have just seen his=20= approach tried and fail in other aviation communities and am only=20 suggesting there is a better way to deliver the message. A message can=20= be a pure diamond, but if nobody is there to listen because the same=20 guy has been chucking coal, it is worthless. Barry