X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 18:04:51 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from rwcrmhc14.comcast.net ([204.127.192.84] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with ESMTP id 1118914 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 18 May 2006 16:28:50 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.127.192.84; envelope-from=mjrav@comcast.net Received: from mark1 (c-24-91-12-165.hsd1.ma.comcast.net[24.91.12.165]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc14) with SMTP id <20060518202805m1400kk5r7e>; Thu, 18 May 2006 20:28:05 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <002801c67aba$95947cc0$a50c5b18@mark1> From: "Mark Ravinski" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: IVP Crash X-Original-Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 16:35:20 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807 Rienk, This discourse reminds me of another comparison. The advice not to mud wrestle a pig. Because, eventually you discover, the pig likes it. All your inflammatory arguments intended to stir controversy and generate publicity are at our and especially Marv's expense. Enough already. Mark Ravinski N360KB small tail and loving it. 1365 hrs. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rienk Ayers" To: "Lancair Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 10:41 AM Subject: [LML] Re: IVP Crash Chuck, Thanks for helping clarify my perspective about safety. Since my opinions may be perceived as biased, I asked Peter Garrison of "Flying" magazine to let us know what he thought. Here is a direct quote from him on my behalf...