Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: lml
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 12:53:33 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-1848606@logan.com>
From: Brent Regan <Brent@regandesigns.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: More information on V-8 crash
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Rick and Doug. Gentlemen, I would remind you that the people that 
monitor this list are sharper than average and that when you make 
statements that are not based in, or are contrary to, fact your  only 
accomplishment is to diminish your own credibility.

There is not enough information available to form the conclusion that 
the apparent stopped prop was the result of a failure of an experimental 
engine component. Fuel starvation, engine instrument failure, electrical 
supply failure or pilot error could be to blame. We do not know as yet. 
Information extortion doesn't earn you any points either.

Just the facts, Ma'am.

On the topic of slander, this always seems to be the first bastion of 
the legally uninformed. In order to prevail in a slander case the 
plaintiff must prove (legal proof, not conjecture) three things; that 
the facts presented were false, that the person accused KNEW they were 
false AND that this false information caused documented financial harm 
to the injured party. The law varies from state to state but the basics 
are comparable. It is very difficult (read expensive) and rare to 
prevail in a slander case.

Waving an empty shotgun it initially impressive but in the end you will 
appear more rabid then reasoned.

Two men have died. Out of respect and for the sake of your own 
reputations, let us keep only to the known facts.

Regards
Brent Regan