Legal forum?

[Let'sgoflying!]

I wonder if we could have a subforum to move all our legal discussions on POA. Or, as soon as they degenerate in that direction.

Or a rule to forbid any reference to the FARs or legal counsel, or administrators and the like, in our discussions!

It seems like whenever any question arises, it devolves into what is legal or not. Then someone quotes the far. Then someone brings up past cases and how various companies do it. How the various fsdos disagree on the topic. Soon we are talking about sending letters off to lawyers. Eventually it becomes heated and personal but in a subtle sort of way that does not strictly break POA rules. Soon everyone seems to be hating each other, we are so far from the original topic no one cares about it any longer. Plus, the OP doesnt get a useful answer because no one has posted a common-sense approach to the problem! But we have all stood our ground and by God, shown how our position is so defensible.

I can just skip such topics, but there is no way to know what you are getting into, til you delve.

 

[SkyHog]

I wonder if we could have a subforum to move all our legal discussions on POA. Or, as soon as they degenerate in that direction.

Or a rule to forbid any reference to the FARs or legal counsel, or administrators and the like, in our discussions!

It seems like whenever any question arises, it devolves into what is legal or not. Then someone quotes the far. Then someone brings up past cases and how various companies do it. How the various fsdos disagree on the topic. Soon we are talking about sending letters off to lawyers. Eventually it becomes heated and personal but in a subtle sort of way that does not strictly break POA rules. Soon everyone seems to be hating each other, we are so far from the original topic no one cares about it any longer. Plus, the OP doesnt get a useful answer because no one has posted a common-sense approach to the problem! But we have all stood our ground and by God, shown how our position is so defensible.

I can just skip such topics, but there is no way to know what you are getting into, til you delve.

It'd be easier to just ignore Roncachamp.

 

[Everskyward]

I wonder if we could have a subforum to move all our legal discussions on POA. Or, as soon as they degenerate in that direction.

Would that be a little bit like a legal Spin Zone? Personally I like hearing other people's opinions even if they don't agree with mine so I wouldn't use the term "degenerate". If we hide legal debate just like we hide political debate there will always be something else for people to debate, procedures for example, or whether certain words are insulting or not.... I think it would be boring if everyone agreed with each other. You learn more when you hear other people's opinions.

Or a rule to forbid any reference to the FARs or legal counsel, or administrators and the like, in our discussions!

I like to refer to the FARs or other documents because otherwise why should people beleive what I say is true? Why should I believe someone else?

 

[SCCutler]

I don't think we need a separate forum... we need forum participants to, when stating an opinion about an issue of safety and law, restrict themselves from issuing characterizations of other participants.

Example:

"My interpretation of this FAR is (states interpretation which is at odds with other guy's interpretation), because of (states plain-language reason, case cite, etc.)."

-instead of-

"You are wrong, because..." or "You are an idiot..." or "There you go again, you pilot-killing ultramaroon..."

Sell your ideas, instead of downselling the other guys', OK?

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Yeah. Scratch that idea, I wouldn't want to stifle any discussion. I will live with it. Thanks for listening.

 

[AdamZ]

Uh Yeah what esteemed counsel from Texas said.

 

[wabower]

Easy for you to say, since you've never had a good one, dog-vomit breath. What do you know about this anyway? This is the internet, doofus. Where is it written that civility should be part of the deal? We need adrenalin and blood pressure spikes (no pun intended) and "take that you &#(@)#&p$er" to make it all worthwhile. Who the hell ever got any real satisfaction by reasonably agreeing to disagree?

I don't think we need a separate forum... we need forum participants to, when stating an opinion about an issue of safety and law, restrict themselves from issuing characterizations of other participants.

Example:

"My interpretation of this FAR is (states interpretation which is at odds with other guy's interpretation), because of (states plain-language reason, case cite, etc.)."

-instead of-

"You are wrong, because..." or "You are an idiot..." or "There you go again, you pilot-killing ultramaroon..."

Sell your ideas, instead of downselling the other guys', OK?

 

[SCCutler]

Well, Wayne you got a point...