Hal, imo, not a "snide" comment but a fair one given that I'm puzzled(others I'm sure) why the 2nd largest sport aviation/pilots organization has not responded publicly in any manner almost 1 week after the story broke.Originally Posted by Hal Bryan
BTW, the tents as a singular subject is not an issue for me, it's mentioned as context and nuance only. I do appreciate feedback from the advocacy dept.
As I said, the question *was* a fair one; the suggestion that we haven't published anything about this story because we're "...too busy thinking about pricing for those 2013 AV VIP tents" was the comment I was referring to. That kind of thing just isn't going to be tolerated around here anymore.
Hal Bryan
EAA Lifetime 638979
Vintage 714005 | Warbirds 553527
Managing Editor
EAA—The Spirit of Aviation
Hey the EAA has opened themselves up to the criticism.
Ryan Winslow
EAA 525529
Stinson 108-1 "Big Red", RV-7 under construction
Questions and constructive criticism are fine - necessary, even. That's why I fight regularly to keep these forums open.
Hal Bryan
EAA Lifetime 638979
Vintage 714005 | Warbirds 553527
Managing Editor
EAA—The Spirit of Aviation
It makes you come across as a jerk. If that was your intention, congratulations.
Ron Wanttaja
Ab-so-gol-darn-lutely. But how does the tent issue connect to the issue regarding the overzealous cops? Shouldn't they be discussed separately?
Ron Wanttaja
Whoooooooooo baby, I didn't expect that kind of ruthless response. In my initial reply to you, I thought I was perfectly clear in knowing the comment you were referring to. I think you didn't(or won't) understand what I said.
Hal, I think you need to re-read your own post from Aug. 3, 2012 entitled EAA Forums- My Long Winded Thoughts on the Culture, Etc. In fact, I think everybody on this forum should do that. Because there's some serious hypocracy now going on here. I re-read it just to be sure. I thought (and you wrote) that rude comments and personal attacks would not be tolerated(and that's fair and agreed to). Now you've arbitrarily extended the definition of intolerance to include satire and sarcasm. That's very autocratic and despotic and undemocratic of you. So EAA will no longer tolerate satire or dare I say dissent. Is that the new "Love Us or Leave Us" secretive initiative? Hal, when did the rules change, I didn't get the memo. And who said you could change the rules in the middle of the game.
Sorry Hal, I was civil and respectful and did not provide a rude or personal attack(unlike Ron Wanttaja above-hey, how about a sanction there-again I refer to your Aug. post). An organization that puts itself above satirical comment is arrogant and self-righteous. Your newly acquired intolerance does not jive with "That's why I fight to keep these forums open." If this is THE NEW EAA, then.......you fill in the rest!
Last edited by Floatsflyer; 01-21-2013 at 09:24 PM.
Actually, you're making a common newbie mistake.
Human communications is visual as well as aural. Let's assume you meant the phrase, "Must be too busy thinking about pricing for those 2013 AV VIP tents" as sarcasticly or satirically. If you were speaking it to someone, you would have provided visual cues that you weren't being strictly literal... like arch your eyebrows, grin a bit, wink, etc. In that way, witnesses to your statement know you're kidding, know you didn't mean it 100% seriously.
But what happens when the visual cues are removed? You probably made the same sorts of gestures while you were typing "Must be too busy thinking about pricing for those 2013 AV VIP tents" into your computer...but of COURSE, it doesn't come across. You *know* you were kidding....but no one reading the bare words knows that.
News flash, laddie: If you want people to understand you, you can't just transcribe what you might say verbally. You have to provide other cues as to context.
That's how "emoticons" came about. The "Smiley" :-) started out as a way to indicate that the writer was not totally serious. In fact, back in the dawn o' time when I joined the Internet, it wasn't a "smiley." It was "tongue in cheek" symbol. Other emoticons were developed, until the whole practice had been watered down.
If you had typed, "Must be too busy thinking about pricing for those 2013 AV VIP tents :-)" or even "Must be too busy thinking about pricing for those 2013 AV VIP tents, ha ha," people would have known that you were kidding, like you indicated in a later post. But you didn't.
The other factor is, of course, your use of a handle. I have no objection to folks using a handle vs. their real names. There are good reasons to do so. However, when you chose to attack EAA...or anyone else...behind the anonymity of a handle, in my opinion, you don't deserve any respect. I've never used a handle; even after I got sued over things I said online (oooh, there's Hal's hand quivering over the "delete post" command again :-).
The fact is, based on how you phrased your post, I don't believe you were civil to EAA or to Hal. That's my opinion, if you don't like it, well, that's your right. If you were kidding when you claimed EAA was ignoring the issue in favor of finding new ways to get money from rich folks, you certainly didn't make that clear.
I'm figuring it was just a newbie mistake. But, of course, since you don't use your name, there's no way of telling.
So, for those who have hung on so far: What should EAA's response to the police action be?
Ron Wanttaja
Thanks for the linguistics lesson Fly Baby. I filed it under "G". I had no idea that a polyglot was on the forum. FYI, that's not a bad word, but you'll probably have to look it up. You must go stark raving apoplectic when reading books, newspapers, and periodicals without pictures, illustrations and emoticons. I'm sympathetic...must set off a lot of anxiety not to know when an author is being satirical without actually having to shout it out.
"Newbie mistake"? I don't think so...but you just keep "figuring".
So you've gone from calling me a "jerk" to calling me "laddie". Without the requisite "emoticon" as you say Fly Baby, I can only conclude that you are a rude and uncivil person.....with your lesson how could I do anything but.
How many times have you been sued for libel? Inquisitive minds would like to know.
Last edited by Floatsflyer; 01-21-2013 at 11:16 PM.
Actually, authors of books, newspapers, and periodicals *know* there are no non-verbal cues, and know they have to spell out exactly the points they want to make. If they don't, editors don't buy their work and they don't get published. So I have little trouble keeping track of what the authors mean.
That's the difference between "writing" and engaging in discussions on the Internet. Most internet discussions are merely written versions of what a person might say verbally in response to another person's comments. And that's where the problems occur, with the loss of the non-verbal nuances. This works fine, in most cases in the informal context of the Internet. It's just sometimes folks lose track of what they're saying vs. what they mean, and, as in your case, don't understand why.
I've been online for almost 30 years; my original Internet email address didn't have a dot-anything ("wanttaja@ssc-vax"). I'm guessing you came around well after Eternal September.
My apologies, ma'am. But had I been kidding, I would have added an emoticon.
Not libel per se, but "Conspiracy to Defame." It was a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, basically just harassment to try to silence me and some other folks). For some reason, the guy who sued me thought I was irritating. One of my co-defendants was a lawyer. Dismissed quickly, didn't cost me a dime.
So, now that the pleasantries are out of the way, what SHOULD the EAA do about Sheriff Bubba?
Should the Experimental Aircraft Association should do anything at all? Note that I deliberately spelled out the organization's name... what does the problem described have to do with promoting or operating Experimental Aircraft? Whether the aircraft had an experimental certificate had nothing to do with the incident.
Definitely, this is an overall aviation advocacy issue. However, from other comments on the Forums, there's a lot of opposition towards EAA extending its activities beyond building and certifying homebuilt aircraft. EAA has only a certain amount of money available for Government Advocacy. How much of their budget should they spend going after Sheriff Bubba, vs. fighting the very real threats the federal organizations pose to the homebuilt aircraft movement?
Would it more worthwhile making Sheriff Bubba's face even redder, or to fight the fact that the NTSB wants to have homebuilt aircraft airworthiness certificates cancelled whenever the plane is sold?
Then again, maybe if EAA sold a chalet or two extra next summer, they could do both....:-)
One also gets to the practical issues. What *can* EAA do? There are no legal charges, so it's not like they could help the man in court. The pilot waived his right to sue (though some discussion say it couldn't really stick). So other than publicly wring its hands, what can EAA do in this case? Is this whole controversy over EAA not saying, "Oh, that's awful" fast enough?
Ron Wanttaja
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote