Is Dan Gryder the biggest asset to aviation on youtube?

Status
Not open for further replies.
FlightofTwo said:
He's not often right, but he's never in doubt.

Classic narcissist like an abusive spouse who spouts off stuff like it's fact, then when faced with the proof that he's wrong, that's either not what he said, not what he meant, it's your fault, or it doesn't matter if he's wrong on that because he's still right after all.
Click to expand...

I think you mean he or she :)
 
I thought abusive spouses were referred to as 'it.'
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Its not. I spoke to an attorney and he said what they all say. "You will likely win but it will cost you money" So I pulled it.

I basically made a video talking about oil analysis and how important it is but also we should be doing analysis on more than just oil.
I used Josh Flower's tail number (with his permission) so as not to skew my real oil results and simulated drawing my own blood, getting a urine sample, and a few other odd ones.
"Sent" them to the oil analysis company and read back their analysis responses.

The owner of the company emailed me stating "We are getting phone calls with people asking if you really sent in samples" And "Please remove the video. We don't want people getting bad ideas"
I said "No thank you". Then he said "I notice it is still up. When are you planning on removing it?" I said "I am not. I never mentioned your company." He responded that the reports I mocked up looked very similar to there's and if I didn't take it down, he would send a cease and desist and keep going down this path until something gets it removed. I grew tired of it and didn't want to have to pay money so I just deleted it.
Click to expand...
Thanks Bryan, I remember that video, but didn't realize you took it down. The guy sounds like another tool. I don't blame you for not wanting to take the chance with him. I doubt he got any calls.
 
over/under on whether this has a chilling effect on his online footprint? I don't think the plaintiff is gonna collect much, but I think this could have enough material impact to muzzle DG's online hobby for good.
 
hindsight2020 said:
over/under on whether this has a chilling effect on his online footprint? I don't think the plaintiff is gonna collect much, but I think this could have enough material impact to muzzle DG's online hobby for good.
Click to expand...
I'm more interested in seeing how this impacts the other pending legal actions. Sounds like this may just be the tip of the iceberg for lawsuits against him.

Be interesting to know the details behind the 'permanent restraining order' against him.
 
Ok, so now I'm curious. Was this thread just an observation, was it predictive, or maybe it was causal? To test, I suggest someone start a similar thread with a different person, and we wait a couple of years to see if they end up losing a large lawsuit. Let's not do the silly one, though.
 
There is a simple and often overlooked solution to all your dilemmas … don’t watch his videos if you don’t like his content.
 
Warmi said:
There is a simple and often overlooked solution to all your dilemmas … don’t watch his videos if you don’t like his content.
Click to expand...

I don't think that would have been much of a solution for the guy that sued him...

Imagine losing thousands of dollars of revenue because of defamatory statements made by some rando online...
 
Warmi said:
There is a simple and often overlooked solution to all your dilemmas … don’t watch his videos if you don’t like his content.
Click to expand...
I only watched them because everyone said he was such a jerk. :)
 
Albany Tom said:
Ok, so now I'm curious. Was this thread just an observation, was it predictive, or maybe it was causal? To test, I suggest someone start a similar thread with a different person, and we wait a couple of years to see if they end up losing a large lawsuit. Let's not do the silly one, though.
Click to expand...

Jerry is still tooling along and has his own thread.
 
TCABM said:
Jerry is still tooling along and has his own thread.
Click to expand...
Jerry is just wrong. He's free to be wrong. It's defamation to make knowing false statements about another. When you accuse them of committing a crime and certain moral indecencies, it rises to the level of libel per se, which means they don't even have to show actual tangible damage to prevail.
 
hindsight2020 said:
over/under on whether this has a chilling effect on his online footprint? I don't think the plaintiff is gonna collect much, but I think this could have enough material impact to muzzle DG's online hobby for good.
Click to expand...

"muzzle DG's online hobby for good." - in more ways than one...
 
TCABM said:
AOPA seemed quite gracious considering the hose job he did on them.

www.aopa.org

Texas court orders YouTuber to pay for defamation

Online allegations found false by a Texas court have left YouTube personality Dan Gryder with a seven-figure judgement he now owes to a Texas pilot and airport owner.
www.aopa.org
Click to expand...

They graciously allowed Gryder to dig himself even deeper into his hole by publishing his email response.
 
hindsight2020 said:
over/under on whether this has a chilling effect on his online footprint? I don't think the plaintiff is gonna collect much, but I think this could have enough material impact to muzzle DG's online hobby for good.
Click to expand...
One can only hope.....
 
Warmi said:
Well none of you got slandered, you are just bitching about a guy having, however uninformed and bias, opinion .
Click to expand...
Maybe not slandered, but some of us (including me personally) have been on the receiving end of Dan's texts. I have received threatening texts from Dan similar to what he sent Mr Cook. But unlike Mr Cook, I used to actually be a friend of Dan's if that gives you an idea of the kind of person he is...
 
Why his lawyers withdrew . “His lawyers later sought to withdraw from the case, telling the judge that, pursuant to Texas law, continuing to represent Gryder "will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the Movant or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by Defendant, Daniel W. Gryder."”
From an AOPA Story
 
X3 Skier said:
Why his lawyers withdrew . “His lawyers later sought to withdraw from the case, telling the judge that, pursuant to Texas law, continuing to represent Gryder "will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the Movant or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by Defendant, Daniel W. Gryder."”
From an AOPA Story
Click to expand...
That is taken directly from the disciplinary rule that allows an attorney to withdraw against his client's wishes. And it's disjunctive, so it doesn't tell us the specific reason. The lawyers would have provided the court more information in camera. Clients often fail to cooperate, timely provide information, fail to show up for meetings, don't pay their bills, etc. There are other provisions that allow withdrawal if the client does something truly nefarious.
 
Warmi said:
Well none of you got slandered, you are just bitching about a guy having, however uninformed and bias, opinion .
Click to expand...
It’s not his opinion that is the problem. It is his statement of things as facts that are not facts, which then harm other people’s reputation, business, memory, whatever, that is the problem. Where do you start? The lawsuit spells out a bunch of falsehoods. He claimed the guy was diabetic, had no records on an airplane, all sorts of stuff the guy was able to prove were lies. On the warbirds crash, he claimed the Air Boss was just there because of his dad and wasn’t trained, but that’s not how that works. The FAA was there and he had to be properly credentialed to even be there. He claimed the T-6 pilot had 200 hours and didn’t belong in the plane. She had at least triple that time, and went about transitioning from a year in a BT-13 which is about the most ideal way to transition to a T-6 that exists. He makes up ****, those aren’t his opinions, they are jumped-to-incorrect-facts-conclusions, also known as lies, and just not watching them doesn’t solve the problem. Maybe about a dozen lawsuits would.
 
Albany Tom said:
Ok, so now I'm curious. Was this thread just an observation, was it predictive, or maybe it was causal?
Click to expand...
Seer of Seers, Sage of Sages, Prognosticator of Prognosticators, and [Aviation]-Prophet Extraordinary.
 
FlightofTwo said:
It’s not his opinion that is the problem. It is his statement of things as facts that are not facts, which then harm other people’s reputation, business, memory, whatever, that is the problem. Where do you start? The lawsuit spells out a bunch of falsehoods. He claimed the guy was diabetic, had no records on an airplane, all sorts of stuff the guy was able to prove were lies. On the warbirds crash, he claimed the Air Boss was just there because of his dad and wasn’t trained, but that’s not how that works. The FAA was there and he had to be properly credentialed to even be there. He claimed the T-6 pilot had 200 hours and didn’t belong in the plane. She had at least triple that time, and went about transitioning from a year in a BT-13 which is about the most ideal way to transition to a T-6 that exists. He makes up ****, those aren’t his opinions, they are jumped-to-incorrect-facts-conclusions, also known as lies, and just not watching them doesn’t solve the problem. Maybe about a dozen lawsuits would.
Click to expand...
I understand that and I won’t comment on the actual settlement because I have no idea who is right and who is wrong - it is funny to me though that people here are almost clamoring to have him essentially canceled ( thats the modern term for it I guess ) cause they don’t like him and what he is saying ..
 
Warmi said:
I understand that and I won’t comment on the actual settlement because I have no idea who is right and who is wrong - it is funny to me though that people here are almost clamoring to have him essentially canceled ( thats the modern term for it I guess ) cause they don’t like him and what he is saying ..
Click to expand...
It's not about disliking him. He is a con artist.
 
Warmi said:
I understand that and I won’t comment on the actual settlement because I have no idea who is right and who is wrong - it is funny to me though that people here are almost clamoring to have him essentially canceled ( thats the modern term for it I guess ) cause he committed defamation and nearly ruined a man's life.
Click to expand...

FIFY
 
Warmi said:
I understand that and I won’t comment on the actual settlement because I have no idea who is right and who is wrong - it is funny to me though that people here are almost clamoring to have him essentially canceled ( thats the modern term for it I guess ) cause they don’t like him and what he is saying ..
Click to expand...
I don't want him canceled. I just want people to know that everything he says is rank speculation at best and made-up ******** at worst. He should still be allowed to say it.
 
FlightofTwo said:
He makes up ****, those aren’t his opinions, they are jumped-to-incorrect-facts-conclusions, also known as lies, and just not watching them doesn’t solve the problem. Maybe about a dozen lawsuits would.
Click to expand...
Deja vu, in spades. The problem being is that nothing, really, can stop the lies. Judges are reluctant to impose permanent gag orders, and the defendant can hide assets/declare bankruptcy as needed. Then there's the money needed to actually file a suit; it's good that Cook was able to afford it because he probably isn't going to get a penny from the settlement.

Take my case. I was called a "dupe of terrorists" in his magazine, and Campbell told others that I was being investigated by the FBI. With my security clearances, it triggered an investigation on me at work.

Sue him? He lived in a rented house, the magazine's assets consisted of just some old computers, and his only real asset was registered in another state. I was in my thirties, married, wage slave, etc. Didn't have the $10,000 or so that would have been needed to even START legal action. And he took the magazine into bankruptcy not long after.

Ron
 
wanttaja said:
Deja vu, in spades. The problem being is that nothing, really, can stop the lies. Judges are reluctant to impose permanent gag orders, and the defendant can hide assets/declare bankruptcy as needed. Then there's the money needed to actually file a suit; it's good that Cook was able to afford it because he probably isn't going to get a penny from the settlement.

Take my case. I was called a "dupe of terrorists" in his magazine, and Campbell told others that I was being investigated by the FBI. With my security clearances, it triggered an investigation on me at work.

Sue him? He lived in a rented house, the magazine's assets consisted of just some old computers, and his only real asset was registered in another state. I was in my thirties, married, wage slave, etc. Didn't have the $10,000 or so that would have been needed to even START legal action. And he took the magazine into bankruptcy not long after.

Ron
Click to expand...
I know that life isn’t fair, and I don’t expect it to be. But sometimes….

A lot of times if you’re patient enough, the truth comes out about a person eventually. But still.
 
I don’t care if he wants to speculate on crashes most of the time, as everyone does that on crash threads anyway. I don’t want him necessarily “cancelled”, other than the fact he shouldn’t have the right to smear everyone else on a personal level, which he does repeatedly, with no recourse. I do want him accountable for what he posts, and outed for his behavior. The lawsuit pretty much spelled out who was right vs wrong in that one instance. There are more. Maybe they too will come to light.
 
FlightofTwo said:
I know that life isn’t fair, and I don’t expect it to be. But sometimes….

A lot of times if you’re patient enough, the truth comes out about a person eventually. But still.
Click to expand...
The problem is, most of us in aviation are professional people, even if we aren't employed as pilots. We're in fields that require education, discipline, and some degree of social skills (except for engineers, of course :) ).

Most of us don't routinely resort to lies (other than the little white lies that are essentially social lubricant), Mostly we don't make up stories about the sexual peccadilloes of those in our social circles, we don't call other folks' employers if we disagree with them, or even the police on trumped-up claims. We don't threaten people with lawsuits at the first flash of disagreement.

So we're majorly, MAJORLY at a disadvantage when we meet people who do. Which means, for the most part, the bad guys win, because the situation is so abhorrent to our normal existence that we extricate ourselves from the situation as best we can.

"What goes around comes around" is a nice thought, but doesn't really hold true. Unless someone is caught directly in a criminal offense, no real consequences exist for any amount of uncivil behavior. Lawsuit judgements can be shed in a number of ways, Youtube channels and web pages are cheap. In the old days, people would pay money to tour insane asylums and prod at the inmates with sticks. These days, plenty of people will do their prodding with clicks, instead. Cheap entertainment.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top