Only those with bags of money to lose are morally allowed to speak?
The opposite. Those who have nothing to lose are free to wreak havoc, and only others suffer.
pointing out some facts, which on other sites are mentioned, but on this site it is not
What “facts”?
Why this hostility? I am merely pointing out some facts, which on other sites are mentioned, but on this site it is not. I am not attacking anyone, why do you think I am? I mean seriously.
Peter wrote:
Pure fantasy, available only to those who have no assets and who don’t care about trashing something of value to others.
That is purely your opinion. There are clear rules for what is speech and what is something else. One company trashing another company has nothing to do with freedom of speech for instance. And if what you say is true, then Facebook and Google and thousands of other companies offering services with ability to send reviews would be shut down by now. Anyway, what exactly do you mean by that? Only those with bags of money to lose are morally allowed to speak?
it probably would be utter chaos by now
That bit is true; the rest is gobbledygook. Try attacking the mods/admins on any of the big US aviation sites and you will be removed within the hour. Swiftly and silently. I’ve seen it done, to a pilot from Belgium. EuroGA is a model of democracy!
No one can sue you for doing that
Pure fantasy, available only to those who have no assets and who don’t care about trashing something of value to others.
Peter wrote:
LeSving, has it not occurred to you that EuroGA is moderated for good reasons
Irrelevant in this context. I was merely pointing out the obvious fact that this site is NOT a place for free speech. If it had, it probably would be utter chaos by now. In the real world there are real consequences for free speech, keeping things somewhat civilized, at least most of the time. On this site there are no consequences, not real ones, only rules. You have made the rules, you decide if they are broken, you decide what to do when they are broken. In the real world, this is a description for tyranny. No one would engage in real (eye to eye) conversations with such rules. On sites like this it is the norm, because a fist fight on the internet is not possible (lack of consequence). Nevertheless, the restriction of freedom of speech is just as real, and this is something to be aware of, not something to just hide under the rug.
Then you have Google and Facebook and the blogging sphere, which by nature are a bit more tightly connected to the real world, the actual person behind. There are rules to some extent, but nothing that isn’t already law. Talking about bad (or good) experiences from purchasing a product or service, isn’t against the law. No one can sue you for doing that. On this site it is not allowed, or liked or whatever.
I believe this is Adam’s Aero Commander “expert”:
Melvin Morris Kernick, of Oakland, CA, was sentenced in U.S. District Court in Oakland, CA for falsely certifying that maintenance he had done on a private plane was reviewed by a certified inspector. Kernick pleaded guilty August 13 to charges of falsely representing that an annual inspection had been performed on a privately owned Aerocommander aircraft, located in Danbury, CT, by signing the name of an FAA certified inspector in the plane’s logbook. He was sentenced to 3 years’ supervised probation and ordered to pay $5,870 in restitution.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Truth is always a defence to a defamation action
Eh, no. Pay the lawyer enough money and truth is buried. The UK legal system is a cabal, and what you pay generally gets you the desired result. Judges married to lawyers, married to barristers, married to advocates.
You may think that truth will always triumph, but it rarely, if ever, does.
How do you do a “background check” on somebody, legally?
A criminal records check is not legal in the UK, which means it is expensive – probably hundreds (I last looked into this many years ago).
Anyway I doubt most of the people in question will have a criminal record.
dublinpilot wrote:
From what you describe it seems that the guy took on the job without a lot of enthausiam (telling you what it would sit in the corner for 6 weeks before he did anything). Probably because he could see that it was a once off job for him, and once your own engineer got his paperwork sorted, you’d be back there. He has other customers that he wants to keep happy, and he’s not going to be late and upset them, to keep a once off customer happy (especially so if he feels that he only took on the job to do you a favour).
This is the most likely scenario and its perfectly understandable. I guess a 35 hour favour that turns into a 150 hour job could be seen as a pain. I think there’s only a couple of days work left in it, and I’m happy to wait to be fit into a gap. It’s the not knowing what’s going on that’s frustrating. I’ve only managed to fly 40 hours in 2 years since I got my license for various reasons so I’m twitchy to know when I can get back to it!
Good post, thanks.
Michael wrote:
Is that THE mechanic that had a felony conviction for fraud ?
I have no idea. Most of us don’t do full background checks on mechanics when they get recommended by a lot of people in the the type community.
