Be careful what you post.

Status
Not open for further replies.
wanttaja said:
Ever since I was (unsuccessfully) sued over stuff I posted online, I've been cautious....

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

And yet you still post with your full name?
 
kyleb said:
He no longer points out blatantly dishonest braggarts who use their platform to promote dishonesty and attack upstanding people.

Some of those people will sue you.

And lose.
Click to expand...

Huh?
 
James331 said:
Huh?
Click to expand...

Once upon a time, there was a guy who claimed to be a multi thousand hour pilot, claimed to have graduated from the National Test Pilot School, and claimed an aviation resume a mile long. He engaged in heated debates on Usenet and got butthurt to the point of suing the people who called him out.

http://www.ousterhout.net/zoom.html
 
Last edited:
kyleb said:
Once upon a time, there was a guy who claimed to me a multi thousand hour pilot who graduated from the National Test Pilot School and claimed an aviation resume a mile long. He engaged in heated debates on Usenet and got butthurt to the point of suing the people who called him out.

http://www.ousterhout.net/zoom.html
Click to expand...

Lol

What’s wrong with people!
 
wanttaja said:
Ever since I was (unsuccessfully) sued over stuff I posted online, I've been cautious....

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

Can you give any info on this? I am curious....

Tim
 
James331 said:
wanttaja said:
Ever since I was (unsuccessfully) sued over stuff I posted online, I've been cautious....
Click to expand...
And yet you still post with your full name?
Click to expand...

Inertia, I think. :)

I started out online in the very early days of ARPAnet. My first email address was wanttaja@ssc-vax... no .com, no .gov, no .edu.

In that era we all used our real names. And when the ruckus got going ~10 years later, I was still posting under my own name.

I'm glad I did, and I'm good with continuing to do so. Some of the anonymous posters of that era were "outed" using an unsigned subpoena submitted to their ISP (e.g., not signed by a judge). I think I came across better, all through it, using my real name. It helped make me cautious; made me consider what I posted carefully, and ensure I had data to back up what I said. I heard a lot of cooooollll stories back then, but never passed them on, publicly or privately. No way to prove them.

The ironic thing was the blowback against what today is called "fake news". Nowadays people believe that Fox or CNN distort the news.

Back then? No one believed it could happen. Me, and other folks, were castigated because we dared to suggest that a news outlet could be less than 100% truthful. Here's the response I gave to someone who complained that we were being too hard on the "press".

http://www.ousterhout.net/zoom/zoom-faq.html

Go about halfway down the page to see my direct response to the specific complaint about unfairness to the media. I think it would have been far less effective if I had posted it anonymously.

The Zoomland link has already been posted, and that summarizes a lot of the stuff going on. Some day, I'll have to write a history of that whole shindig.

Just as a final note, when I was sued, I was accused of making anonymous posts far more severe than what I had *actually* said. So by-name or anonymous really didn't make much difference....

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Back then? No one believed it could happen. Me, and other folks, were castigated because we dared to suggest that a news outlet could be less than 100% truthful. Here's the response I gave to someone who complained that we were being too hard on the "press".

http://www.ousterhout.net/zoom/zoom-faq.html

Go about halfway down the page to see my direct response to the specific complaint about unfairness to the media. I think it would have been far less effective if I had posted it anonymously.

The Zoomland link has already been posted, and that summarizes a lot of the stuff going on. Some day, I'll have to write a history of that whole shindig.
Click to expand...

There's more? :eek:

I've read a fair amount of that before, and my personal encounters with Zoomy-zoom have only made him look worse...

But, looking at that again, today, made me realize that Zoom has a bright future as the President of the United States. :eek: :rofl:
 
VPN, annonymous email. Accounts on FB and Linkedin, but only for anti-hijacking, no posting.

I do post "naked" here, not using VPN or other countermeasures, and other casual sites.
 
Pilawt said:
Typical of the Requests for Production that insurance defense lawyers send out ...

1. Please produce ********’s electronic devices, including, but not limited to, cell phone(s), computer(s), cameras, iPod(s) and/or iPad(s) to forensic expert [name, address redacted] for evaluation, identification, examination, collection and preservation of all digital evidence contained on ********’s cell phone(s), computer(s), iPad(s) and/or iPod(s).

2. Please produce a copy of ********'s electronic device records, including but not limited to, cell phone records for any and all cell phones identified in response to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4 and 7 including, but not limited to, any and all text messages received or sent by ******** on any phone from the date of the accident to the present date.

3. Please produce ********’s electronic devices, including, but not limited to, cell phone(s), camera, iPods, iPad(s) and/or computers he used from the date of the accident to the current date.

4. Please produce an electronic copy/.PST file of ********’s personal and/or work Outlook files/folders, including, but not limited to, calendars and emails (inbox, sent, deleted and/or archived).

5. If you have a Facebook account, please provide a complete zip file of your Facebook information. This can be accomplished on the Facebook website by going to Account, selecting Account Settings, and then clicking the "learn more" link on the line that states "Download Your Information." Follow the directions contained on that page and provide the resulting zip file via e-mail, CD/DVD, or thumb drive, as you prefer. If you choose one of the latter options for production and would like a CD/DVD or thumb drive provided to you, please advise and one will be provided by the undersigned.​

One of the partners in our law firm was formerly an insurance defense attorney. Going to the claimants' FB page first thing was S.O.P. in his former practice, and for the insurance companies he worked for. They want to harvest whatever they can online as soon as possible, in case the claimant later starts deleting things.
Click to expand...


A true reproduction of someone's digital intestines as requested in Pilawt's sample interrogatory would probably cause serious damage to anyone's attempt to prevail in a lawsuit.

Most people can't resist the urge to jabber about everything they are doing, and I can just imagine a Facebook post saying "Well, I didn't tell this to the attorney at the deposition, but after I was released from the ER we went to Six Flags, rode all the rides, then went dancing and drinking. I got home at 5 AM, my neck and back weren't hurting at all".

:D :D
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
There's more? :eek:

I've read a fair amount of that before, and my personal encounters with Zoomy-zoom have only made him look worse...

But, looking at that again, today, made me realize that Zoom has a bright future as the President of the United States. :eek: :rofl:
Click to expand...

The links Ron and others posted lead to pages and pages of the best entertainment on the internet.

If you read it all, you'll have insight on the guy's crackpot "mission".

Then, every time you get bored you can go to Aero-News.net, read just one editorial, and laugh for fifteen minutes.

The use of the royal "We" and claims of Knights of the Round Table adventure and the search for truth and justice are effing hilarious.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
Not expressing an opinion about this specific person, but there is such a thing as the editorial "we" as well.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/editorial+we
Click to expand...
True. There's also the question whether he can turn if off....
------------------------------------------
From the transcript to case 99-799-Civ-T-26C, "James R. Campbell and Aero Media USA Inc. vs. Sun-N-Fun EAA Fly In Inc."

THE COURT: He asks the questions, you give an answer. Do not editorialize, do not characterize.

THE WITNESS [Campbell]: Oops. It's my job. Sorry, sir.

THE COURT: You know, Mr. Campbell, maybe it hasn't dawned on you, but you're in a Federal Courtroom now.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I understand that.

THE COURT: Okay, and you're going to conduct yourself accordingly.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
THE COURT: Okay, and you're going to conduct yourself accordingly.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

It would have been funnier if the judge had said "govern yourself accordingly" which was one of the standard lines (preceded by legal threats) Campbell used to try and shut down people who disagreed with him or challenged him.
 
Last edited:
3393RP said:
Then, every time you get bored you can go to Aero-News.net, read just one editorial, and laugh for fifteen minutes.
Click to expand...

I don't go there. Don't want to even support him by giving his web site a single hit.

OK, so I couldn't resist watching the train wreck that was the Cirrus debacle, but most of those "articles" were reposted elsewhere.
 
Pilawt said:
Typical of the Requests for Production that insurance defense lawyers send out ...

1. Please produce ********’s electronic devices, including, but not limited to, cell phone(s), computer(s), cameras, iPod(s) and/or iPad(s) to forensic expert [name, address redacted] for evaluation, identification, examination, collection and preservation of all digital evidence contained on ********’s cell phone(s), computer(s), iPad(s) and/or iPod(s).

2. Please produce a copy of ********'s electronic device records, including but not limited to, cell phone records for any and all cell phones identified in response to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4 and 7 including, but not limited to, any and all text messages received or sent by ******** on any phone from the date of the accident to the present date.

3. Please produce ********’s electronic devices, including, but not limited to, cell phone(s), camera, iPods, iPad(s) and/or computers he used from the date of the accident to the current date.

4. Please produce an electronic copy/.PST file of ********’s personal and/or work Outlook files/folders, including, but not limited to, calendars and emails (inbox, sent, deleted and/or archived).

5. If you have a Facebook account, please provide a complete zip file of your Facebook information. This can be accomplished on the Facebook website by going to Account, selecting Account Settings, and then clicking the "learn more" link on the line that states "Download Your Information." Follow the directions contained on that page and provide the resulting zip file via e-mail, CD/DVD, or thumb drive, as you prefer. If you choose one of the latter options for production and would like a CD/DVD or thumb drive provided to you, please advise and one will be provided by the undersigned.​

One of the partners in our law firm was formerly an insurance defense attorney. Going to the claimants' FB page first thing was S.O.P. in his former practice, and for the insurance companies he worked for. They want to harvest whatever they can online as soon as possible, in case the claimant later starts deleting things.
Click to expand...


Makes me want to delete permanently my FB page now before anything ever arises. It helps that they're becoming the PC Nazies of the internet.
 
So this makes me think of something I'd been reading about where companies would ask for one's FB login credentials at an interview. Unless this has changed, FB and just about every online service always has a line in the terms of service that nobody reads about not sharing your password with anyone. My stock answer should anyone ever ask would be that I could friend them but they can't have my password because it would be a violation of the TOS.

Nobody has ever asked of course, but maybe something for others to keep in the back of their mind.
 
I don’t spend too much time on FB and really only post goofy sht. I have to come to PoA to get serious.
 
Lance F said:
One of the best aviation forums out there is BeechTalk. One of the things that’s makes it so good is that the use of real names is required. IMHO most forums , including this one, would be better with this rule.
Click to expand...
Why?

There is some real a-holes committing acts of douche-baggery on Beech Talk.

Requiring people to use their ‘real names’ does nothing to stop those people.

As long as people can run their mouths without any actual face to face interaction, the internet will always be full of jack wagons like that.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Why?

There is some real a-holes committing acts of douche-baggery on Beech Talk.

Requiring people to use their ‘real names’ does nothing to stop those people.

As long as people can run their mouths without any actual face to face interaction, the internet will always be full of jack wagons like that.
Click to expand...
Because it does reduce it. Does not eliminate it.
And BT has degraded over the years. While POA seems to have become much more actively moderated which has cleaned up a lot of it.

Tim

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
 
Fearless Tower said:
Why?

There is some real a-holes committing acts of douche-baggery on Beech Talk.

Requiring people to use their ‘real names’ does nothing to stop those people.

As long as people can run their mouths without any actual face to face interaction, the internet will always be full of jack wagons like that.
Click to expand...
Face to face interactions are full of jack wagons like that.
 
Remember back when the CB radio got suddenly popular due to a movie and the dill holes that ran their mouths and illegal equipment just to irritate others?
 
wanttaja said:
Inertia, I think. :)

I started out online in the very early days of ARPAnet. My first email address was wanttaja@ssc-vax... no .com, no .gov, no .edu.

In that era we all used our real names. And when the ruckus got going ~10 years later, I was still posting under my own name.

I'm glad I did, and I'm good with continuing to do so. Some of the anonymous posters of that era were "outed" using an unsigned subpoena submitted to their ISP (e.g., not signed by a judge). I think I came across better, all through it, using my real name. It helped make me cautious; made me consider what I posted carefully, and ensure I had data to back up what I said. I heard a lot of cooooollll stories back then, but never passed them on, publicly or privately. No way to prove them.

The ironic thing was the blowback against what today is called "fake news". Nowadays people believe that Fox or CNN distort the news.

Back then? No one believed it could happen. Me, and other folks, were castigated because we dared to suggest that a news outlet could be less than 100% truthful. Here's the response I gave to someone who complained that we were being too hard on the "press".

http://www.ousterhout.net/zoom/zoom-faq.html

Go about halfway down the page to see my direct response to the specific complaint about unfairness to the media. I think it would have been far less effective if I had posted it anonymously.

The Zoomland link has already been posted, and that summarizes a lot of the stuff going on. Some day, I'll have to write a history of that whole shindig.

Just as a final note, when I was sued, I was accused of making anonymous posts far more severe than what I had *actually* said. So by-name or anonymous really didn't make much difference....

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
wanttaja said:
Inertia, I think. :)

I started out online in the very early days of ARPAnet. My first email address was wanttaja@ssc-vax... no .com, no .gov, no .edu.

In that era we all used our real names. And when the ruckus got going ~10 years later, I was still posting under my own name.

I'm glad I did, and I'm good with continuing to do so. Some of the anonymous posters of that era were "outed" using an unsigned subpoena submitted to their ISP (e.g., not signed by a judge). I think I came across better, all through it, using my real name. It helped make me cautious; made me consider what I posted carefully, and ensure I had data to back up what I said. I heard a lot of cooooollll stories back then, but never passed them on, publicly or privately. No way to prove them.

The ironic thing was the blowback against what today is called "fake news". Nowadays people believe that Fox or CNN distort the news.

Back then? No one believed it could happen. Me, and other folks, were castigated because we dared to suggest that a news outlet could be less than 100% truthful. Here's the response I gave to someone who complained that we were being too hard on the "press".

http://www.ousterhout.net/zoom/zoom-faq.html

Go about halfway down the page to see my direct response to the specific complaint about unfairness to the media. I think it would have been far less effective if I had posted it anonymously.

The Zoomland link has already been posted, and that summarizes a lot of the stuff going on. Some day, I'll have to write a history of that whole shindig.

Just as a final note, when I was sued, I was accused of making anonymous posts far more severe than what I had *actually* said. So by-name or anonymous really didn't make much difference....

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
News is a business - selling ads for cars, trucks, cell phones, beer, pantyliners, etc. The idea of a higher calling is great in the abstract, but mostly romantic nonsense. Some outlets have middling ethics, and most would like to avoid the bad image of irresponsibility, or being flat-out wrong. But they don't invest much more than cursory effort in being spot on.

Most major newspaper front pages are "feature" heavy - broadcast news is without depth or context - I've had first hand knowledge, as an on-scene witness, of some newsworthy events, all of which were reported with significant and fundamental errors; not just getting a name wrong stuff - but getting what happened wrong, as well as the why.
 
Sundancer said:
News is a business - selling ads for cars, trucks, cell phones, beer, pantyliners, etc. The idea of a higher calling is great in the abstract, but mostly romantic nonsense. Some outlets have middling ethics, and most would like to avoid the bad image of irresponsibility, or being flat-out wrong. But they don't invest much more than cursory effort in being spot on.

Most major newspaper front pages are "feature" heavy - broadcast news is without depth or context - I've had first hand knowledge, as an on-scene witness, of some newsworthy events, all of which were reported with significant and fundamental errors; not just getting a name wrong stuff - but getting what happened wrong, as well as the why.
Click to expand...
Most of the time, it's deadline pressure rather than deliberate bias. Most folks, even reporters, don't want to look stupid. They'll try to get it right, but are under too much pressure to get a story out. I'm a firm believer in the old adage, "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity."

There are those who go into the process looking to confirm their existing biases. Standing in front of a Ferrari-red Sequoia Falco at a museum show about 25 years back, the TV reporter asked me whether those kinds of hot rods attract people who take risks. I pointed out that the Falco in question took the owner eleven years to build; hardly a sign of an impulsive pilot....

As pilots we see a lot of idiotic reporting, but people in other fields... medicine, lawyers, etc...report the same sort of issues with accuracy in reporting.

Ron Wanttaja
 
I dunno - print media seems to bring a lot of willful bias to the front page; then again, my local paper is the Washington Post, so maybe that's setting the bar pretty low.
 
Sundancer said:
I dunno - print media seems to bring a lot of willful bias to the front page; then again, my local paper is the Washington Post, so maybe that's setting the bar pretty low.
Click to expand...
Not as low as The Washington Times!
 
Palmpilot said:
Not as low as The Washington Times!
Click to expand...
Easily about the same now, actually. . .the Times has grown more measured, the Post more strident. Each at their own pole, of course, but no measurable diffrence in the degree of slant, perjorative phrasing, both overt and subtle, and the constant pounding of their political agendas.

My wife subscribes to both, and it's entertaining to compare the front pages each morning; the Post has the credibility of being long established in DC, but no objective observor would judge the Post as anything but left leaning and a promoter of that agenda. The Times has a smaller circulation, and the stigma of it's former editorial control by the Moonies, and it serves the right with a zeal to match the Post's service to the left.
 
Last edited:
After MC review, this thread will remain closed, with the reminder that politics and political bickering is off-limits.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top