How is the post about Dan Gryder not a personal attack???

Half Fast said:
Those who post under their own names are public figures. Those of us who use screen names, like Salty or Half Fast, are not. Lucky us; we get to take pot shots at the public figures.
:biggrin:
Click to expand...
Using that logic insulting "salty" isn't insulting me, right, because that's not my name, so no infraction.
 
Salty said:
Using that logic insulting "salty" isn't insulting me, right, because that's not my name, so no infraction.
Click to expand...

doesn't matter, it's still fun to do :happydance: ORANGE MAN, ORANGE MAN
 
Half Fast said:
Those who post under their own names are public figures. Those of us who use screen names, like Salty or Half Fast, are not. Lucky us; we get to take pot shots at the public figures.
:biggrin:
Click to expand...
That's why I use six papa Charlie. I don't want anyone to know my true identity.
 
Salty said:
Using that logic insulting "salty" isn't insulting me, right, because that's not my name, so no infraction.
Click to expand...

That’s really in the space of cyber smear, which like libel, slander, and defamation is state law issues. All generally require a false statement was made negligently and that false statement damaged the target of the statement.

Note that most states treat public figures differently; first understand a public figure is usually a government official or someone who put themselves in the eyes of public at the forefront of issues. DG clearly falls into the public figure category. For those types of people, the false statement made about them must also be malicious; deliberately done to intentionally cause harm to the harm. Call it pre-meditated.

Having said that, in the forum spaces, ad hominems are just a corollary to Godwin’s law; the accusations just show up earlier than the Nazi declaration.
 
Half Fast said:
Those who post under their own names are public figures. Those of us who use screen names, like Salty or Half Fast, are not. Lucky us; we get to take pot shots at the public figures.
:biggrin:
Click to expand...
Hmmmmf. In 40 years online, I've never posted under an alias or avatar.

The time I got sued, the inference was that I'd posted the alleged defamatory statements anonymously (other than being named as a defendant, my name didn't appear in the lawsuit). The plaintiff said that because my co-defendants were posting in a public forum, we were public figures. He claimed he was NOT a public figure and was deserving of protection... despite being publisher and managing editor of a magazine and web page which printed the attacks (under his byline) on me and my co-defendants.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Hmmmmf. In 40 years online, I've never posted under an alias or avatar.

The time I got sued, the inference was that I'd posted the alleged defamatory statements anonymously (other than being named as a defendant, my name didn't appear in the lawsuit). The plaintiff said that because my co-defendants were posting in a public forum, we were public figures. He claimed he was NOT a public figure and was deserving of protection... despite being publisher and managing editor of a magazine and web page which printed the attacks (under his byline) on me and my co-defendants.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

So how did it turn out?
 
Half Fast said:
So how did it turn out?
Click to expand...
It was a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), it was intended to scare us, but not actually take us to trial. One of our group was an attorney who had filed the original lawsuit against he-who-shall-not-be-named. The countersuit claimed "Conspiracy to Defame" and listed the lawyer and a 14-man sample of people who had participated in the online discussions (including myself). Some of them were well-known, others were just average joes. It was intended to silence us. It didn't have the intended result.

I was dismissed over improper service. Law required an officer of the court to provide service, and dip****'s lawyer hired a private detective. There were 15 co-defendants. Several were served at Sun-N-Fun, and the word quickly got out to the rest. Service was attempted on a half-dozen of us, I think it was completed on only ~five or so. Not even attempted on most, and the word got out early. Those that WANTED to avoid service had plenty of opportunity to do so.

Not long after that, a threat on the President's life was made on an online forum. It had been done under the name of Tony, our attorney, but charged to dip****'s corporate credit card. Guys in suits got out of black Suburbans in front of Tony's house and came a'knocking. They were polite enough. Tony had just moved into this house, and invited them into his den where he was putting up his various collections and qualifications.

They were a bit concerned when they observed one aspect of Tony's collection... bayonets. Then Tony lifted a framed certificate and hung it on the wall. It was a certificate that showed that Tony was authorized to plead cases at the US Supreme Court. He said the atmosphere got a lot lighter after that.....

I *really* should write this all up, some day.

Ron Wanttaja
 
YouTube recommended a DG video to me within the last couple of days. I decided not to view it.

Previously, I found his explanation of recent evidence about the identity of "DB Cooper" quite plausible, except for the parts where he made what seemed like wild accusations against the FBI.
 
I have no more interest in Dan Gryder's videos than any other armchair aviation analyst regardless of the number of epaulets they wear on their shirt, so I'm not in a posItion to comment on whether he puts out disinformation or not. I'll still call things as I see them.

The pivotal question is whether the ROC applies to non-members. Has the Supreme Council rendered a ruling yet?
 
It isn’t about non-members, it’s about public figures.
 
They have already ruled that calling someone Dan Gryder is not a personal attack.
The sky is the limit now in terms of using that to our advantage when disagreeing with each other. What a bunch of Gryders!!
 
wanttaja said:
I was dismissed over improper service.
Click to expand...
I should clarify this (funny how stuff comes back). I was dismissed over improper service, but the bearded dolt was given six months to re-serve me. I was not re-served.

Also, under Florida legal procedure, I (and most of my fellow co-defendants) couldn't be added to an existing lawsuit WITHOUT THE JUDGE'S PERMISSION. He could countersue the man who sued HIM, but couldn't add the other 14 people without getting approval from the court. So he would have had to get permission before having me re-served. He didn't.

More indications the suit was intended solely for harassment, not addressing a legitimate grievance.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Only Dans (wipes a tear) that's rich.
Can we all agree that he isn't hawking ridge wallets with fire extinguishers strapped to his legs, so maybe he has lost the title?
Any way you slice it the content he posts is malicious, inaccurate and clearly intended to offend. I don't see how calling a spade a shovel constitutes personal attacks beyond perhaps the title of the post. Change the title to "fluffy bunnies" if you want. He's earned his reputation.
 
wanttaja said:
It was a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), it was intended to scare us, but not actually take us to trial. One of our group was an attorney who had filed the original lawsuit against he-who-shall-not-be-named. The countersuit claimed "Conspiracy to Defame" and listed the lawyer and a 14-man sample of people who had participated in the online discussions (including myself). Some of them were well-known, others were just average joes. It was intended to silence us. It didn't have the intended result.

I was dismissed over improper service. Law required an officer of the court to provide service, and dip****'s lawyer hired a private detective. There were 15 co-defendants. Several were served at Sun-N-Fun, and the word quickly got out to the rest. Service was attempted on a half-dozen of us, I think it was completed on only ~five or so. Not even attempted on most, and the word got out early. Those that WANTED to avoid service had plenty of opportunity to do so.

Not long after that, a threat on the President's life was made on an online forum. It had been done under the name of Tony, our attorney, but charged to dip****'s corporate credit card. Guys in suits got out of black Suburbans in front of Tony's house and came a'knocking. They were polite enough. Tony had just moved into this house, and invited them into his den where he was putting up his various collections and qualifications.

They were a bit concerned when they observed one aspect of Tony's collection... bayonets. Then Tony lifted a framed certificate and hung it on the wall. It was a certificate that showed that Tony was authorized to plead cases at the US Supreme Court. He said the atmosphere got a lot lighter after that.....

I *really* should write this all up, some day.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
This guy's initials wouldn't be JC, would they?
 
Who TF is hoover?
 
darthanubis said:
The Pilot Debrief guy on YT

Click to expand...
Never seen that channel. Surprising considering I watch most of the aviation content on YT (or so i thought). Their algorithm seems stupid.
 
flyingmedic said:
Hoover’s a tool.
Click to expand...
Some of his presentation is clickbait-y ("Stay tuned for the shocking reason...") and his voice sometimes comes across as a little strident, but if you can filter that out his technical commentary is usually thoughtful. Unlike many other YT aviation content creators, Hoover actually has professional experience in (military) aviation safety. He's not just repeating what the NTSB report says, or recounting the sequence of events, but offers suggestions on how to make better decisions, and he also highlights where folks made good decisions or used good habits, too.
 
Jim_R said:
Some of his presentation is clickbait-y ("Stay tuned for the shocking reason...") and his voice sometimes comes across as a little strident, but if you can filter that out his technical commentary is usually thoughtful. Unlike many other YT aviation content creators, Hoover actually has professional experience in (military) aviation safety. He's not just repeating what the NTSB report says, or recounting the sequence of events, but offers suggestions on how to make better decisions, and he also highlights where folks made good decisions or used good habits, too.
Click to expand...

Sometimes. Other times, he picks a detail and focuses on it at the expense of other factors that may have contributed to the crash. I like him sometimes, but the more of him I watch, the less I like.
 
Is Hoover an AI creation by DG? Not a real person?

I haven’t watched and I’m just trying to be funny, don’t get mad.
 
Jim_R said:
Some of his presentation is clickbait-y ("Stay tuned for the shocking reason...") and his voice sometimes comes across as a little strident, but if you can filter that out his technical commentary is usually thoughtful. Unlike many other YT aviation content creators, Hoover actually has professional experience in (military) aviation safety. He's not just repeating what the NTSB report says, or recounting the sequence of events, but offers suggestions on how to make better decisions, and he also highlights where folks made good decisions or used good habits, too.
Click to expand...
But he has no GA experience and focuses on GA accidents. He kept saying in one video that the student pilot should have been in the right seat. It was weird.
 
dmspilot said:
But he has no GA experience and focuses on GA accidents. He kept saying in one video that the student pilot should have been in the right seat. It was weird.
Click to expand...
His voice reminds me a little bit of TNFlygirl.
 
Lndwarrior said:
I sent the following communication to the moderators this morning:

"Is Dan Gryder the biggest tool on aviation Youtube?"

I've been a member of this forum for a long time and I've never seen a post like this.

How is this NOT a personal attack according to the forum rules? Including the part about "on or off the forum".

"Personal attacks are prohibited. This specifically means any text/post that is blatantly attacking another person, on or off the forum, especially in a personal way. Make your point without calling names or casting aspersions on others."

Many people believe DG is doing something important for GA, myself included. In fact, he is the only public personality I know that is actively trying to improve aviation safety. AND he is doing it for no monetary benefit!

What kind of aviation forums allows such a personal attack on someone that is just trying to help all pilots and calling the FAA to task for not doing their jobs?

I find this entire thread, and especially the title, disturbing.

How can this NOT be interpreted under the forum rules as a "personal attack"?

I would like to see this thread deleted in accordance with the forum rules.
Click to expand...
I think they let the post stand to keep the petty people happy and unfortunately there seems to be a lot of them on this forum.
 
Last edited:
Sock Puppet said:
Well, I'm here to say that Geoffrey Thorpe's videos are the most useful and educational videos I have ever seen. And, I am sick and tired of those who are constantly running him down and making personal attacks because he presents content that is consistent with the laws of physics instead of simply parroting "common knowledge" that is, for all practical purposes, based on fairy tales. For example, how many times have you been told that blowing over a piece of paper demonstrates Bernoulli's principle? Well, it turns out that this actually has nothing to do with Bernoulli.

Clearly, the moderators only allow this to continue because they are envious of his incredibly good looks.

Click to expand...

Well, thank you Mr. Puppet. I'm glad that someone appreciates all the work I put into these videos in to educate the flying public spite of the meager return and comments from those who seem to think that I should be making videos for the sheer joy of being called an ******* in the comments instead of making a couple of bucks (Seriously - the above referenced video has earned me less than $4).

And, yes, you are right about how handsome I am. In fact, just the other day, Fabio came up to me and said "Sir, it is a real shame that the two of us get so much grief simply because we are such 'Babe Magnets'. But haters gotta hate, so all we can do is soldier on."
 
Last edited:
RyanShort1 said:
I believe that like a certain FAA individual I used to talk to, he really believes he's on a mission that he's called to.
Click to expand...
So did the Manson Family.
aftCG said:
This guy's initials wouldn't be JC, would they?
Click to expand...
Yup. And not the JC with millions of believers, but the aviation one who makes Gryder look like a saint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top