gandalph

ATTENTION! The assembly will come to order. Those boys in the back - Stop talking! The following boys will report to the Headmaster's office immediately after assembly for a jolly good flogging: 1. OSCAR for failing failing to ring Mr Ungerman and thus failing to save the world as the Headmaster directed in his proclamation to the a unwashed # 753 2. GANDALPH for not doing something he boasted about having the skills to do several months ago and thus not saving the world. Proclamation # 753 refers. The rest of the assembly will stay back after class and write 1000 times: "Headmaster is great! Headmaster is good! We must not dispute the proclamations of The Dear Leader." That is all!

"Poo Bah - Lord high everything else" syndrome?

Ah Turbs, you're being unusually harsh on yourself there pal. You sometimes have useful and sensible things to say.

FT Show me where I have alleged CASA breached the law. Please DO TRY to get your facts straight before you sound off otherwise some might think you a fool or simply a shite stirrer

Well as a recent poster in this thread said..... FT It seems reasonable that if you're asking others to provide proof, you should do the same. Or am I being overly optimistic ?

Gee Bex! I know you've been talking about some delays getting the engine into production, but 2000 years!? C'mon!

Ho Hum. F.T. Quiet night?

The final paragraph gives some hope that positive changes are coming.

Russ, P.M. Oscar. I think I read on here somewhere that he had trailered his from Sydney to Toowoomba and back with good results.

No Mate, I'm not dyslexic. I thought you were saying you were. Sorry if you were confused.

Please.

I like your new motto Turbs. It's nice to see the light of honest self assessment shining at last from the hall of the mountain king.

Yes. Understood. I really don't understand why you're still banging on about it. I asked if you had inside information. You've said you don't. Everyone's happy that you're not holding anything back. End of story. As for the new engine, yes, I'll be very interested to see how it performs. I hope for the sake of Aus aviation that that it's a winner. CAE engines are free of the instrument's restrictions so fingers crossed for the 2210. My aircraft is not yet ready to fly so I am less affected by CASA's actions than some here. But that doesn't mean I don't feel their pain. And that's why I asked if you had any information to share. No sinister motive behind it and no need to get defensive about it.

Isn't that what we finally agreed? There was nothing there? Chill Mate. Have a calming ale or something.

I suspect that must be me in the middle then.

So Turbs, it would appear that your very long answer to to the simple question in #681: Do you have "inside " information? is No. That makes the second question: would you care to share? irrelevant. All the rest is noise. It took a while to get there but we made it. Note to Oscar: Our seconds can sleep in.

Maybe Tex, but the phrase can have several meanings. The Collins Dictionary says: (interjection) (archaic) an expression of intense disgust or aversion for someone. So it could well be that Oscar was expressing, somewhat floridly as he sometimes does, his aversion and disgust for those he called "the denigrators". You could interpret it as him expressing a personal view of their antics without personalising it by naming them. The Free Dictionary on the web says: A curse on someone or something! (Old. Now usually jocular.) The emphasis is mine. So perhaps Oscar was just signing off with a jocular riposte. I guess it all depends on HOW people want to interpret it. Lets not be too harsh on the old bloke. Even though you might think his language a little robust for such a genteel site as this, He's only just returned from Ian's Virtual Siberia and we wouldn't want him ejected again for a little archaic cursing would we?

Ad hominem? I didn't think Oscar's response was attacking anyone's character, did you? As for the Pox comment, perhaps he meant to type: interjection. He was probably looking through the wrong half of his bifocals again. Still, it's nice to know that we now have three grammarians onboard. I'm sure Dazza was feeling the strain.

Well OME, that is a suprice!

Wrong about what Turbs? You said: (bolding is added by me) I asked you, because it seemed that you might have inside information that would be of benefit to your fellow aviators: Your response: You either misread my question or attempted to divert attention away from your earlier post by iimplicating Facthunter. Others asked; Your reply appears to reinforce the expectation that you do have inside information but for whatever reason want to keep it to yourself. Jet asked again: And the best you come up with is to say I am "wrong again". Wrong to ask you to share? why would that be wrong? Wrong to read into your post #680 that you might have data not known to others here? Well that was the reason for post #681 asking if you did have such information of if you were, as many here have done before you, simply speculating that CASA was holding back. But you chose to take your usual route of deflection and distraction rather than answer the question. Wrong to think that you might put the promotion of the interests of recreational aviation above the promotion of your sense of self importance? Well, perhaps I was overly hopeful there. Wrong to believe you have anything useful, informative or truthful to add to this discussion? Yes I accept that I was wrong. Wrong to invest any time is seeking clarification from you? Yes I was wrong again. Wrong to think that you might perhaps take the opportunity to restore your crumbling credibility here? Guilty as charged. And you still refuse to answer the thrust of the initial question: Do you know something we don't about the data CASA has? You go and testify under oath mate. We are all waiting with bated breath!

Well Turbs, how unlike you to offer diversion, misdirection and obsfuscation! You've been asked by not only me but by others here to do more than coyly hint at what you know but you continue to play the primary school game of "I know a secret and you don't" . Hiding your lack of credibility behind weasel words, threats and attempts to intimidate. How sad that you put your ego ahead of the welfare of your fellow aviators. But why did we expect anything different? Stew in my own juice? Good one smeagol!

Perhaps John, you should redirect your angst from the Board of the RAA and focus on those who have intimated that they know more about the CASA secret documents than anyone else here, but despite repeated invitations and exhortations to reveal all have declined. If he/they were to divulge whatever information he/they have on the horrendous data that CASA has based their action on we would all be the wiser and the Board would be off the hook.

John, I understand your sentiments but Oscar does have a point in that IF the RAA was given access to CASA's secret file (for however time limited that access that might have been) on the understanding that the Board did not make it public then, the RAA was, and still is in my opinion, bound to keep to that agreement. The question then becomes: Should the RAA have agreed to that conditional access? That's where the determination of something or some act being "in the best interests of the members" comes into play. Let's not get into the can of worms that is: how does someone determine what is in the best interest of the members (all of the members? Some of the members? The most vocal of the members - read through the recent posts re magazine access for some idea of the size and complexity of that conundrum). Was it in the best interests of members to have the board sight the CASA data so that it had some idea of how to respond? Or should it have told CASA to shove it and gone it alone on the assumption that the Board had all the relevant information already? That would have been, again in my opinion, a brave but foolhardy decision. To suggest that the RAA Board should tell CASA to put up or shut up would likely lead CASA to say: We'll shut up thanks and just renew the flight restrictions for an indefinite period. Thanks for your input." RAA has no standing or power to direct CASA to do or provide anything. That power rests with the legislature or the Courts. To think otherwise is to dream.

Was there ever any doubt?