Is that you Dan?
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 ..
You are bordering here on being funny ... still on the wrong side of that border because you are trying too hard - the good news is that is a common problem , the bad news is that it won’t get better … you either have it or you don’t.Of course it is not DG. Warmi is just a sweet old man who doesn't understand modern terms like 'cancel' and is very moderate and non-judgemental. Note his "I have no idea who is right and who is wrong" text. See how even an non-judgmental he is. Absolutely nothing like DG. And because of this, we should all take his advice and back off and welcome DG and sing his praises. After all, isn't Warmi such a voice of reason?*
*Yeah, I'm not buying it either.
You are bordering here on being funny ... still on the wrong side of that border because you are trying too hard - the good news is that is a common problem , the bad news is that it won’t get better … you either have it or you don’t.
I'm trying to cancel him. I'm old, so I remember when it was called "accountability" instead of "canceled". But being held accountable is part of life and sometimes it comes to the tune of a million bucks. Not sure why that became out of fashion lately.I don't see anyone trying to cancel anyone.
Re Mr. Gryder: His videos on preventing stall/spin accidents with FlightChops and Aviation101 were excellent material. His kneejerk accident analysis is very problematic and in my observation often mere speculation. He was just nailed with a $1mm defamation judgment the other day for falsely reporting that someone was primarily responsible for a accident at a private airfield when that person was not in the area. Gryder interviewed a disaffected individual who also was not there, and did no verification of the information. Thus, the problem: the nuggests that are good suggestions get hidden in the smoke of bad information, lecturing, and, often false, blame laid with regard to these incidents. He started off well and has gone downhill since.
The first couple of times watching him is funny or interesting but after awhile it gets to be a bit much. But at the end of the day we are all intelligent enough to form our own conclusions.I don't see anyone trying to cancel anyone. we're (most of us are) merely pointing out what a tool he is (whether he is numero uno tool or not was the debate). you're more than welcome to watch him or whoever you want. but to claim he isn't a tool, leaving a wake of shenanigans wherever he goes, with whomever he meets, has been proven over and over to be incorrect. PROVEN......you know, FACTS, not what you THINK of him.
Briefly. He was a very long standing wide-body FO. Upgraded to Captain on the DC-9 and flew the old Northwest -9s for maybe a year until Delta retired them. IIRC, he was offered a Captain spot on the MD-88 but he chose to take an early retirement.Hard to believe DG was once a Delta captain. Or was he?
FIFY. He literally just lost a lawsuit about his "calling it what it was" that was actually just a whole lot of lies tied up under the bow of "I'm a Youtube Expert". Just because some of the stuff he said turns out to be true does not give him the right to pull stuff out of his donkey and claim it's the truth. I'm not saying he never gets it right, but even a broken clock is right two times a day....Quite frankly most of his content makes me cringe, BUT…. That being said, the man DOESN'T call it usually like it is and that’s too much salt for some folks wounds. Is he an a--wagon at times? Yea…. Doesn’t change the fact that he isn’t scared to just call it like WHAT HE THINKS IT is.
If only he’d also be right about what he claimsHe’s the Alex Jones of the aviation world. Quite frankly most of his content makes me cringe, BUT…. That being said, the man calls it usually like it is and that’s too much salt for some folks wounds. Is he an asswagon at times? Yea…. Doesn’t change the fact that he isn’t scared to just call it like it is.
FIFY. He literally just lost a lawsuit about his "calling it what it was"
Incorrect. The initial judgement was a default. Then he showed up to defend himself after losing his legal team and lost a second time....True statement. However, he was defaulted, which means that there was no trial or disposition by the court based on a factual determination that the allegations were true. The allegations are just judicially assumed to be true.
The second time didn't examine the facts either, it was procedural to decide whether to vacate the original judgement. So it's still a default.Incorrect. The initial judgement was a default. Then he showed up to defend himself after losing his legal team and lost a second time....
That was his choice. He also effectively defaulted on his own motion for new trial. And the plaintiff still had to prove damages.True statement. However, he was defaulted, which means that there was no trial or disposition by the court based on a factual determination that the allegations were true. The allegations are just judicially assumed to be true.
I’m not defending the fella, but I disagree with how wrong you guys think he is all the time. The court case is one thing and he’s been slipping more lately, but still.
I don't feel strongly enough to engage on it publicly.I haven't been paying close attention to this. Can you explain what you believe the court got wrong, and why it was wrong?
I mean, even if we believe Dan's version of the story and he didn't know about the case until the default judgement (and his track record is such that believing him seems questionable), he still had a second chance. He went to court and had a judge that seemed inclined to vacate but hadn't done the homework necessary to be prepared.I do hope the case can be tried on its merits, and this default judgement nonsense to stand down.
I just watched part of a video where Gryder was boasting about his legal prowess. So I'm not sure what your issue with the courts are (malapropisms notwithstanding). He chose to not appear and answer the petition. That's on him. He chose to not be represented at the hearing on his motion for new trial. And he chose to not argue it. He's responsible for his choices, not the courts and not anyone else. Gryder was treated the same as anyone represented by a lawyer would be. I know you won't take my word for it, but represented parties get defaulted all the time. And lose MNTs. I haven't read the record because Tarrant county sucks, but if the reporting is at all accurate, and the final judgment accurately records the case history, I honestly have no idea what DG's appeal points will be on liability. He might have arguments that the damages are excessive, but I don't know what evidence was presented.I don't feel strongly enough to engage on it publicly.
I do hope the case can be tried on its merits, and this default judgement nonsense to stand down. I think he'd be an idiot to represent himself pro se on a full up trial, not because I disagree with the premise, but because I believe the courts reprise against the pro se (the anecdotes that inform my opinion on that matter are independent of the Gryder anecdote). I'd need a lawyer to prove that in a court of law of course, which rests my case. The irony does not escape me.
The Georgia appeal was an interesting read, and again I think gives a glimpse on the angle that could be forthcoming from ol' AQP danny in the Texas appeal. It's not completely without merit from my chair and gavel here in front of my Honorable Keyboard.
He bragged on YT that he had presented no evidence. He represented that his entire case to vacate is based on having not presented any evidence so the appeals court has no choice but to vacate and give him a new trial.He might have arguments that the damages are excessive, but I don't know what evidence was presented.