Liabilities of the A/HB builders

[Geico266]

Another point that hasn't been raised is when an experimental changes hands from someone other than the builder. The builder is still listed, but parties in between could have changed a thousand things, log none of it, and.... since it's an experimental they can do whatever.

If one of those changes post construction caused a problem that precipitated a lawsuit, now would the builder have to come in with comprehensive documentation showing every nut, bolt, screw, etc. that was installed when the aircraft left the shed?

Seems like a setup for a guilty until proven innocent. I'm sure the manufacturers have to do this all the time for illegal or post construction changes, but for them it's easy to document how the aircraft left the factory.

You might notice that once a design reaches production it often remains unchanged for the duration. Lawyers say that any change can be viewed as tacit admission that the prior design was found to be defective by the mfr and changed to a newer-better-slicker version. I don't know if that's universally true but heard many questions along those lines during a deposition after a robbery at one of our restaurants.

OMG ! Yes! Run for your lives! It's an experiemntal !

The lawyers have now targeted it as evil! No one can stop the carnage! Run for your lives.

 

[wabower]

Insofar as lives go, you might try getting one.

OMG ! Yes! Run for your lives! It's an experiemntal !

The lawyers have now targeted it as evil! No one can stop the carnage! Run for your lives.

 

[Geico266]

Another point that hasn't been raised is when an experimental changes hands from someone other than the builder. The builder is still listed, but parties in between could have changed a thousand things, log none of it, and.... since it's an experimental they can do whatever.

If one of those changes post construction caused a problem that precipitated a lawsuit, now would the builder have to come in with comprehensive documentation showing every nut, bolt, screw, etc. that was installed when the aircraft left the shed?

Seems like a setup for a guilty until proven innocent. I'm sure the manufacturers have to do this all the time for illegal or post construction changes, but for them it's easy to document how the aircraft left the factory.

Except in E-LSA.

While you are masturbating over the perceived liability increase maybe you should read the regulations and understand the kit manufacturer is still the " builder" . When you build an E-LSA you are a " Licensee" . Watch the lawyers here have a ****ing wet dream over that!

" Ladies and Gentle of the jury"; The plaintiff bought an "EXPERIMENTAL" aircraft, that did not meet FAA standards for "Certified" aircraft. The planiff knew this, knew the risk's, knew the meaning of the words..... 'EXPERIMENTAL" ....... aircraft, that they have a high rate of accidents, that they are flown by pilots who do over head breaks and ( seriously!,,, Don't file flight plan!,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ...... I would hope that reason and experience with those words would carry through in your deliberations.

 

[Alexb2000]

OMG ! Yes! Run for your lives! It's an experiemntal !

The lawyers have now targeted it as evil! No one can stop the carnage! Run for your lives.

It really was a serious question. When you repair these RV's do you document every single little thing you do. Every part, source, etc.? Seems like a massive amount of paper work. If not, then you're making my point.

 

[Geico266]

It really was a serious question. When you repair these RV's do you document every single little thing you do. Every part, source, etc.? Seems like a massive amount of paper work. If not, then you're making my point.

Nothing is serious in this thread. No one wants to look at reason, facts, statistics, or the future. Most of the comments are from a lawyer, and a FAA "employee" .

Run for your lives!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously! Even flying is now in jeopardy! Liabilty concerns have prevailed and grounded us all! Certified or experimental! Flying is dangerous and if you are hurt you will be a burden on the health care system!!!!! You are a danger to society if you have a PPL or SP!

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130902/NEWS02/309020035/?odyssey=nav|head&gcheck=1

The lawyers have won! Everyone now must turn in their PPL. They ( pilots's) have been deemed a danger to them themselves, their families, and society. 99% of pilots fail to file FLIGHT PLANS! 55% fly experimental aircraft where they can do their own MAINTAINANCE! WTF is this world coming to? They can burn auto gas in airplanes? Not Avgas? Who let them do that?

Oh the Humanity!

 

[wabower]

Geico has finally lost it for good. Somebody be sure to respond to these posts so they will be available when the psych ward wants to see them during the evaluation.

Except in E-LSA.

While you are masturbating over the perceived liability increase maybe you should read the regulations and understand the kit manufacturer is still the " builder" . When you build an E-LSA you are a " Licensee" . Watch the lawyers here have a ****ing wet dream over that!

" Ladies and Gentle of the jury"; The plaintiff bought an "EXPERIMENTAL" aircraft, that did not meet FAA standards for "Certified" aircraft. The planiff knew this, knew the risk's, knew the meaning of the words..... 'EXPERIMENTAL" ....... aircraft, that they have a high rate of accidents, that they are flown by pilots who do over head breaks and ( seriously!,,, Don't file flight plan!,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ...... I would hope that reason and experience with those words would carry through in your deliberations.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Nothing is serious in this thread. No one wants to look at reason, facts, statistics, or the future. Most of the comments are from a lawyer, and a FAA "employee" .

Run for your lives!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously! Even flying is now in jeopardy! Liabilty concerns have prevailed and grounded us all! Certified or experimental! Flying is dangerous and if you are hurt you will be a burden on the health care system!!!!! You are a danger to society if you have a PPL or SP!

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130902/NEWS02/309020035/?odyssey=nav|head&gcheck=1

The lawyers have won! Everyone now must turn in their PPL. They ( pilots's) have been deemed a danger to them themselves, their families, and society. 99% of pilots fail to file FLIGHT PLANS! 55% fly experimental aircraft where they can do their own MAINTAINANCE! WTF is this world coming to? They can burn auto gas in airplanes? Not Avgas? Who let them do that?

Oh the Humanity!

Larry,

One of the reasons you lack any credibility on anything is your constant and tiring use of innuendo and inane rants.

I'm a "former" FAA employee, but that doesn't matter now does it? Just like your rambling attacks on Wayne a while back when you kept accusing him of running a maintenance shop. Remember? Or shall I post the threads?

You fanaticism of the EAB is reminiscent of an Islamic extremist yelling "jihad!" because someone disagrees with your "religion".

Give it a rest.

 

[Alexb2000]

Nothing is sefious in this thread. No one wants to look at reason, facts, statistics, or the future.

This is an old article from the SMU law school, have you read it?

http://www.lopal.com/pdf/1995-Tort-Liability-Surrounding-Homebuilt-AC.pdf

Here's a good quote from it:

"A greater question of liability arises when a homebuilt aircraft is sold to another, because the only cause of action against the homebuilder would be in strict products liability. Since no insurance coverage is available to protect against this risk, n121 the personal assets of the homebuilder [*601] (e.g., his or her home or car) are significantly at risk. Despite the "stream of commerce" defense to strict liability causes of action under sections 402A and 402B, if a plausible case for negligence in the process of building the aircraft can be made, the amateur builder's personal assets could potentially be available to satisfy a judgment, because such an individual is unlikely to be incorporated for this purpose, and even if incorporated, piercing the corporate veil would be a viable possibility"

 

[wabower]

Just because the SMU law school is widely known as one of the top aviation law schools and annually hosts one of the most prestigious and widely attended seminars for that field doesn't mean you can use their stuff to argue with Geico on legal issues.

After all, he's built several RV's, is in the business of selling them and therefore has all the answers. Capiche?

This is an old article from the SMU law school, have you read it?

http://www.lopal.com/pdf/1995-Tort-Liability-Surrounding-Homebuilt-AC.pdf

Here's a good quote from it:

"A greater question of liability arises when a homebuilt aircraft is sold to another, because the only cause of action against the homebuilder would be in strict products liability. Since no insurance coverage is available to protect against this risk, n121 the personal assets of the homebuilder [*601] (e.g., his or her home or car) are significantly at risk. Despite the "stream of commerce" defense to strict liability causes of action under sections 402A and 402B, if a plausible case for negligence in the process of building the aircraft can be made, the amateur builder's personal assets could potentially be available to satisfy a judgment, because such an individual is unlikely to be incorporated for this purpose, and even if incorporated, piercing the corporate veil would be a viable possibility"

 

[Geico266]

I'm a "former" FAA employee, but that doesn't matter now does it?

Nope. Doesn't change a damn thing does it.

Run for your lives! Liability!Liability!!!!! Liability!!!!!!

The management council is right now debating to shut down POA due to the "liability" of promoting GA! It is dangerous! What if some one reading this forum decides to start flying an kills them selves!!!! They ( POA management) are personally liable! In fact, you persoannly could be held liable for promoting certified planes over experimentals!,,,

You have chosen one segment of aviation over the other, promoted it as safer!!! You are now ( or could be held) personally liable for that recommendation!!!!! You area doomed to a life of worry and hand wringing!

 

[wabower]

Save this one too, they will want to see all of them. Does anybody remember how Clousseau's boss looked near the end of the movie when he was shaking, blinking, twitching and couldn't make a sentence?

Nope. Doesn't change a damn thing does it.

Run for your lives! Liability!Liability!!!!! Liability!!!!!!

The management council is right now debating to shut down POA due to the "liability" of promoting GA! It is dangerous! What if some one reading this forum decides to start flying an kills them selves!!!! They ( POA management) are personally liable! In fact, you persoannly could be held liable for promoting certified planes over experimentals!,,,

You have chosen one segment over the other and are now ( or could be held) personally liable for that recommendation!!!!!

 

[vintage cessna]

This is an old article from the SMU law school, have you read it?

http://www.lopal.com/pdf/1995-Tort-Liability-Surrounding-Homebuilt-AC.pdf

Here's a good quote from it:

"A greater question of liability arises when a homebuilt aircraft is sold to another, because the only cause of action against the homebuilder would be in strict products liability. Since no insurance coverage is available to protect against this risk, n121 the personal assets of the homebuilder [*601] (e.g., his or her home or car) are significantly at risk. Despite the "stream of commerce" defense to strict liability causes of action under sections 402A and 402B, if a plausible case for negligence in the process of building the aircraft can be made, the amateur builder's personal assets could potentially be available to satisfy a judgment, because such an individual is unlikely to be incorporated for this purpose, and even if incorporated, piercing the corporate veil would be a viable possibility"

Interesting read. The author also said there was no case law to draw upon as to actions against the home builder. This article was written in 1995, and apparently there is still no case law to examine.

 

[weilke]

Interesting read. The author also said there was no case law to draw upon as to actions against the home builder. This article was written in 1995, and apparently there is still no case law to examine.

Yup, builders are still for the most part broke ('broke' in the area of product liability is less than 1mil of accessible assets).

 

[wabower]

IIRC, when I was in law school they said the only published case law precedents were those that had been through the appellate process. Is/was that true?

Interesting read. The author also said there was no case law to draw upon as to actions against the home builder. This article was written in 1995, and apparently there is still no case law to examine.

 

[weilke]

IIRC, when I was in law school they said the only published case law precedents were those that had been through the appellate process. Is/was that true?

I dont believe that that has changed.

 

[vintage cessna]

Yup, builders are still for the most part broke ('broke' in the area of product liability is less than 1mil of accessible assets).

Well, I would think many home builders own their own houses outright or posses other valuable property. Perhaps the risk is not so great. I mean really, you are buying an airplane put together in a garage by a layman, who may decide he knows better than the designer.What would any reasonable person expect. Caveat Emptor is probably the most important legal principle involved.

 

[vintage cessna]

IIRC, when I was in law school they said the only published case law precedents were those that had been through the appellate process. Is/was that true?

Someone is going to lose their house and everything they own and don't appeal? Evidently, the EAA, which has thousands of members, knows of no cases, appealed or not, of successful suits against a home builder.

 

[Alexb2000]

Well, I would think many home builders own their own houses outright or posses other valuable property. Perhaps the risk is not so great. I mean really, you are buying an airplane put together in a garage by a layman, who may decide he knows better than the designer.What would any reasonable person expect. Caveat Emptor is probably the most important legal principle involved.

I guess we're all different and our levels of risk tolerance reflect that. As much as I love flying, I'm not going to do it if I stand to lose my house and all of my personal property in some aspect of it. Since the article discusses the inability to insure for builders liability, I won't be building and selling. It's just the world we live in.

BTW- I just had jury duty a few weeks ago. Very few "Reasonable People" showed up that day IMO. :wink2:

 

[vintage cessna]

I guess we're all different and our levels of risk tolerance reflect that. As much as I love flying, I'm not going to do it if I stand to lose my house and all of my personal property in some aspect of it. Since the article discusses the inability to insure for builders liability, I won't be building and selling. It's just the world we live in.

BTW- I just had jury duty a few weeks ago. Very few "Reasonable People" showed up that day IMO. :wink2:

I'm with you in that regard, but how long have AB EXP"s been around and how many have crashed? And nothing on the record? No one can even come up with a home builder having settled before trial. Don't EAA members even want to talk about our crazy litigious society?

 

[weilke]

Well, I would think many home builders own their own houses outright or posses other valuable property.

In the setting of a lawsuit, the amount available to satisfy a judgement is often considerably lower than the net worth of the individual being sued:

-in some states, a home co-owned with a spouse is not accessible to satisfy a judgement,
- in other states retirement funds are not accessible to satisfy a judgement,
- ownership stakes in corporations or LLCs owned together with others are not directly accessible (only upon dissolution of the company, but it is hard to force the dissolution of a uninvolved company just to satisfy a judgement against one of the shareholders)

As there is no insurance available, assets is all that the hyenas can go after. And for a couple of used cars and the balance in your checking account, a plaintiffs lawyer won't get out of bed.

Perhaps the risk is not so great.

Experience to this point suggests that the risk is indeed low. Doesn't mean that it can't change tomorrow.
As I said earlier, to determine whether a liability exists, the absence of prior cases has little bearing. If someone could point to me to some appeals court case that states that no such liability exists for a crazy flying machine built in someones garage, it would be a bit different, but that precedent doesn't exist either.

I mean really, you are buying an airplane put together in a garage by a layman, who may decide he knows better than the designer.What would any reasonable person expect. Caveat Emptor is probably the most important legal principle involved.

Would the liability equation be different if the plane is a 1.5mil turboprop assembled under the 'builders' supervision by a professional crew in a completion facility ?

 

[vintage cessna]

In the setting of a lawsuit, the amount available to satisfy a judgement is often considerably lower than the net worth of the individual being sued:

-in some states, a home co-owned with a spouse is not accessible to satisfy a judgement,
- in other states retirement funds are not accessible to satisfy a judgement,
- ownership stakes in corporations or LLCs owned together with others are not directly accessible (only upon dissolution of the company, but it is hard to force the dissolution of a uninvolved company just to satisfy a judgement against one of the shareholders)

As there is no insurance available, assets is all that the hyenas can go after. And for a couple of used cars and the balance in your checking account, a plaintiffs lawyer won't get out of bed.

Experience to this point suggests that the risk is indeed low. Doesn't mean that it can't change tomorrow.
As I said earlier, to determine whether a liability exists, the absence of prior cases has little bearing. If someone could point to me to some appeals court case that states that no such liability exists for a crazy flying machine built in someones garage, it would be a bit different, but that precedent doesn't exist either.

Would the liability equation be different if the plane is a 1.5mil turboprop assembled under the 'builders' supervision by a professional crew in a completion facility ?

Whatever. It's like the Loch Ness monster. Despite all the controversy, it's either there are not there.

 

[Jim Logajan]

IIRC, when I was in law school they said the only published case law precedents were those that had been through the appellate process. Is/was that true?

I suspect you're thinking of West Publishing's case law books, which started by covering only those cases. I think more modern databases are more encompassing, but all require subscriptions.

 

[Alexb2000]

I'm with you in that regard, but how long have AB EXP"s been around and how many have crashed? And nothing on the record? No one can even come up with a home builder having settled before trial. Don't EAA members even want to talk about our crazy litigious society?

I don't know much, but when I was searching for information on this I kept getting 500 pages of nothing but aviation law firms. Tells me that there must be some money in it somewhere.

 

[weilke]

Whatever. It's like the Loch Ness monster. Despite all the controversy, it's either there are not there.

It'll still eat you, if it turns out to be real.

 

[vintage cessna]

I don't know much, but when I was searching for information on this I kept getting 500 pages of nothing but aviation law firms. Tells me that there must be some money in it somewhere.

Their job is to advise you of every possibility no matter how remote or unlikely, which is why the COZY may get hammered into ashtrays.

 

[vintage cessna]

It'll still eat you, if it turns out to be real.

True. But based on what I know of the possible existence of the monster, I wouldn't stay out of the water for fear of being eaten, but rather because the water is cold, stagnate, and sheep doo doo in it.

 

[wabower]

Insofar as risks are concerned, I revert to underwriting standards of disclosure for private offerings, a subject I was required to understand at the IB.

Based on the easily accessible published information from EAA, SMU and others who have already disclosed and discussed the risk, I have no doubt that the attorneys would require it in an offering. Whether it ever finds its way into the representations and warranties or indemnification/hold harmless sections of a purchase contract is a bit more difficult to predict.

True. But based on what I know of the possible existence of the monster, I wouldn't stay out of the water for fear of being eaten, but rather because the water is cold, stagnate, and sheep doo doo in it.

 

[Dav8or]

Nothing is serious in this thread. No one wants to look at reason, facts, statistics, or the future. Most of the comments are from a lawyer, and a FAA "employee" .

Run for your lives!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously! Even flying is now in jeopardy! Liabilty concerns have prevailed and grounded us all! Certified or experimental! Flying is dangerous and if you are hurt you will be a burden on the health care system!!!!! You are a danger to society if you have a PPL or SP!

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130902/NEWS02/309020035/?odyssey=nav|head&gcheck=1

The lawyers have won! Everyone now must turn in their PPL. They ( pilots's) have been deemed a danger to them themselves, their families, and society. 99% of pilots fail to file FLIGHT PLANS! 55% fly experimental aircraft where they can do their own MAINTAINANCE! WTF is this world coming to? They can burn auto gas in airplanes? Not Avgas? Who let them do that?

Oh the Humanity!

You're strange. I think your enthusiasm for EAB clouds your judgement and reason. No one here to my knowledge is against experimental aircraft, or their construction by ordinary people. I personally think it's great. However I think the topic of this thread is something that anybody considering building a plane should think about. "La-la-la-la, I can't hear you" isn't really consideration of the question.

Your notion that the legal system, judges and juries are always logical, rational and use common sense is ridiculously optimistic. History has shown this not to be the case, particularly with aviation. IMO, the only thing saving the home builders from ruin so far is shallow pockets.

So, I think it reasonable that anyone considering building a kit airplane, or a plans built airplane, or an airplane of their own design, think about their personal assets, the risks and life after the plane has been disposed of.

 

[vintage cessna]

You're strange. I think your enthusiasm for EAB clouds your judgement and reason. No one here to my knowledge is against experimental aircraft, or their construction by ordinary people. I personally think it's great. However I think the topic of this thread is something that anybody considering building a plane should think about. "La-la-la-la, I can't hear you" isn't really consideration of the question.

Your notion that the legal system, judges and juries are always logical, rational and use common sense is ridiculously optimistic. History has shown this not to be the case, particularly with aviation. IMO, the only thing saving the home builders from ruin so far is shallow pockets.

So, I think it reasonable that anyone considering building a kit airplane, or a plans built airplane, or an airplane of their own design, think about their personal assets, the risks and life after the plane has been disposed of.

You say his judgement is being clouded by enthusiasm, then you give an opinion that "shallow pockets" is the only thing that has saved a home builder from financial ruin.

That is an opinion based on nothing. This kind of discussion could drive anyone crazy.

 

[Dav8or]

That is an opinion based on nothing. This kind of discussion could drive anyone crazy.

Well, it's not based on absolutely nothing. I base it on the fact that the FAA puts the guy in his garage on record of being the builder and producer of the airplane. Vans, or Lancair is not listed. To me, this means that if anyone is going to make the argument that the airplane crashed do to poor workmanship, faulty design, or bad engineering, the blame falls at the doorstep of the builder on file with the FAA. The whole "experimental" labeling is a speed bump for the prosecution and that is why they won't bother unless there is money to be made. From what I've seen, there is no contract, or paperwork protection that can't be undone if there is enough money at stake.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Well, it's not based on absolutely nothing. I base it on the fact that the FAA puts the guy in his garage on record of being the builder and producer of the airplane. Vans, or Lancair is not listed. To me, this means that if anyone is going to make the argument that the airplane crashed do to poor workmanship, faulty design, or bad engineering, the blame falls at the doorstep of the builder on file with the FAA. The whole "experimental" labeling is a speed bump for the prosecution and that is why they won't bother unless there is money to be made. From what I've seen, there is no contract, or paperwork protection that can't be undone if there is enough money at stake.

Simply put, the AW Certificate list the plane as "Smith's RV20 Super Duper". The FAA is not concerned who made the kit, their concern is who built it.

 

[vintage cessna]

Well, it's not based on absolutely nothing. I base it on the fact that the FAA puts the guy in his garage on record of being the builder and producer of the airplane. Vans, or Lancair is not listed. To me, this means that if anyone is going to make the argument that the airplane crashed do to poor workmanship, faulty design, or bad engineering, the blame falls at the doorstep of the builder on file with the FAA. The whole "experimental" labeling is a speed bump for the prosecution and that is why they won't bother unless there is money to be made. From what I've seen, there is no contract, or paperwork protection that can't be undone if there is enough money at stake.

Ok. I said your opinion is based on nothing and you say it's not based on " absolutely nothing" . So let's say your opinion is not based on anything factual. After all these years, and all these aircraft have been built and sold, and all the subsequent carnage, there is just not enough dough for the blood sucking lawyers?

Come on, " where's the beef?"

 

[vintage cessna]

Well, it's not based on absolutely nothing. I base it on the fact that the FAA puts the guy in his garage on record of being the builder and producer of the airplane. Vans, or Lancair is not listed. To me, this means that if anyone is going to make the argument that the airplane crashed do to poor workmanship, faulty design, or bad engineering, the blame falls at the doorstep of the builder on file with the FAA. The whole "experimental" labeling is a speed bump for the prosecution and that is why they won't bother unless there is money to be made. From what I've seen, there is no contract, or paperwork protection that can't be undone if there is enough money at stake.

I guess if I was in the market for a home built I should visit the local homeless shelter. I did know one home builder. As I remember , his kids were real skinny. Probably was spending food money just so he could have his own stupid airplane.

 

[Geico266]

I guess we're all different and our levels of risk tolerance reflect that. As much as I love flying, I'm not going to do it if I stand to lose my house and all of my personal property in some aspect of it. Since the article discusses the inability to insure for builders liability, I won't be building and selling. It's just the world we live in.

BTW- I just had jury duty a few weeks ago. Very few "Reasonable People" showed up that day IMO. :wink2:

How many times has this happened? Zero?

Run for your lives!

 

[Geico266]

You're strange. I think your enthusiasm for EAB clouds your judgement and reason. No one here to my knowledge is against experimental aircraft, or their construction by ordinary people. I personally think it's great. However I think the topic of this thread is something that anybody considering building a plane should think about. "La-la-la-la, I can't hear you" isn't really consideration of the question.

Your notion that the legal system, judges and juries are always logical, rational and use common sense is ridiculously optimistic. History has shown this not to be the case, particularly with aviation. IMO, the only thing saving the home builders from ruin so far is shallow pockets.

So, I think it reasonable that anyone considering building a kit airplane, or a plans built airplane, or an airplane of their own design, think about their personal assets, the risks and life after the plane has been disposed of.

How is the liability risk of selling a certified plane different than selling a homebuilt?

Run for your lives!!!!!

 

[Geico266]

Simply put, the AW Certificate list the plane as "Smith's RV20 Super Duper". The FAA is not concerned who made the kit, their concern is who built it.

Wrong.

It depends on what is being built. E-LSA the builder is listed as the kit manufacturer. In the case if the RV-12 Vans Aircraft is listed as the builder. The person assembling the plane is a "licensee" of Van's Aircraft.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Wrong.

It depends on what is being built. E-LSA the builder is listed as the kit manufacturer. In the case if the RV-12 Vans Aircraft is listed as the builder. The person assembling the plane is a "licensee" of Van's Aircraft.

Keep twisting Larry. The discussion was EAB, not E-LSA.

 

[Geico266]

Keep twisting Larry. The discussion was EAB, not E-LSA.

So now E-LSA is not experiemental? You make a blanket statement, I present you with facts, and you think I'm twisting ?

Soon the lawyers will be along shortly to explain why E-LSA is not an experimental .

This is just too funny.

Run for your lives!!!!!! The sky is falling!

 

[Geico266]

No one here to my knowledge is against experimental aircraft, or their construction by ordinary people.

You haven't been paying attention much.

 

[RotorAndWing]

So now E-LSA is not experiemental?

Didn't say that. The discussion was EAB.

You make a blanket statement, I present you with facts, and you think I'm twisting ?

Since the discussion was EAB, then my comment was directed towards EAB.

This is just too funny.

Actually sad.

Run for your lives!!!!!! The sky is falling!

Actually you should be crying "Jihad!, Jihad!" as it fits your fanaticism.