Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - the story of Gary's RV-10 continues

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

the story of Gary's RV-10 continues
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

rv10flyer(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 3:28 pm Post subject: the story of Gary's RV-10 continues

http://macsblog.com/2011/08/when-a-kit-aircraft-is-not-a-kit-aircraft/ 

   [quote][b]

dave.saylor.aircrafters(a
Guest

Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:10 pm Post subject: the story of Gary's RV-10 continues

Greg doesn't deserve this.  Changes, yes, but I've seen alot worse.

Greg's changes are well considered, and he seems to understand and

accept the compromises he made.  From Greg's earlier posts he seems to

have learned a lot from the attention he received.



I have a huge respect for Van.  He's one of my heros and I understand

his point.  It's just that--his point.



I've flown heavy RVs and modified RVs.  Lighter is better.  Sometimes

mods don't work out.  I don't think I'd hesitate to fly in Greg's

plane, in the manner he intends to use it.  It's not one of the bad

ones.



I don't think any of us want to be bound by rules put forth by the

manufacturer of the kit, unless we get something for it--fewer

restrictions, or some other guarantee, but that seems to be where this

is headed.  Abide or else.



I think EAA has done Greg a disservice by honoring him with a

complimentary write-up and yanking the rug out from under him.  I

wouldn't want that attention.  I think EAA owes him an apology, and

I'm going to tell them so.  Rod Hightower needs to show some

leadership and explain how it is that EAA could change course so

abruptly in regards to the treatment Greg has received.



I hope Greg sees this as an opportunity for others to learn something

and can somehow see a positive side.  His last post here seemed kind

of regretful, and that's too bad.  His craftsmanship should never have

been rewarded with what he got.



Hang in there, Greg.  Enjoy your plane.



Dave Saylor

AirCrafters

140 Aviation Way

Watsonville, CA 95076

831-722-9141 Shop

831-750-0284 Cell



On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Pascal <rv10flyer(at)verizon.net> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   http://macsblog.com/2011/08/when-a-kit-aircraft-is-not-a-kit-aircraft/

pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:47 pm Post subject: the story of Gary's RV-10 continues

I agree with Dave.  I looked at Greg's airplane at OSH and was impressed

with the workmanship.  I was a bit surprised to see that he had doubled the

fuel capacity, but I feel that 60 gallons is a pretty minimal fuel load for

such an airplane so I can understand why he chose to increase it.  Is this

an unproven change?  Of course it is.  These are EXPERIMENTAL aircraft.  It

is incumbent on us, the builders, to do sufficent testing (that's what the

25 or 40 hour pahse I periodi is for) to prove that our aircraft are safe.

If that means flutter testing then so be it.



I resent EAA hiring Mac MacLellan to write for Sport Aviation.  I didn't

like his writing for FLYING magazine, and always felt that he only wanted to

talk to people with turbine powered aircraft.  He knows absolutely nothing

about homebuilt aircraft, kitplanes or plans-built.  Until he (or Rod

Hightower for that matter) has built an aircraft with his own hands, I don't

feel that he has anything useful to offer.



Jack Phillips

#40610  Wings (still)

Raleigh, NC



--

jeff(at)westcottpress.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:50 pm Post subject: the story of Gary's RV-10 continues

thumbs up Dave

do not archive

On Aug 18, 2011, at 5:06 PM, Dave Saylor wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 >

 Greg doesn't deserve this.  Changes, yes, but I've seen alot worse.

 Greg's changes are well considered, and he seems to understand and

 accept the compromises he made.  From Greg's earlier posts he seems to

 have learned a lot from the attention he received.

 I have a huge respect for Van.  He's one of my heros and I understand

 his point.  It's just that--his point.

 I've flown heavy RVs and modified RVs.  Lighter is better.  Sometimes

 mods don't work out.  I don't think I'd hesitate to fly in Greg's

 plane, in the manner he intends to use it.  It's not one of the bad

 ones.

 I don't think any of us want to be bound by rules put forth by the

 manufacturer of the kit, unless we get something for it--fewer

 restrictions, or some other guarantee, but that seems to be where this

 is headed.  Abide or else.

 I think EAA has done Greg a disservice by honoring him with a

 complimentary write-up and yanking the rug out from under him.  I

 wouldn't want that attention.  I think EAA owes him an apology, and

 I'm going to tell them so.  Rod Hightower needs to show some

 leadership and explain how it is that EAA could change course so

 abruptly in regards to the treatment Greg has received.

 I hope Greg sees this as an opportunity for others to learn something

 and can somehow see a positive side.  His last post here seemed kind

 of regretful, and that's too bad.  His craftsmanship should never have

 been rewarded with what he got.

 Hang in there, Greg.  Enjoy your plane.

 Dave Saylor

 AirCrafters

 140 Aviation Way

 Watsonville, CA 95076

 831-722-9141 Shop

 831-750-0284 Cell

 On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Pascal <rv10flyer(at)verizon.net> wrote:

> http://macsblog.com/2011/08/when-a-kit-aircraft-is-not-a-kit- 

> aircraft/

>

pilotmelch(at)omnav.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:21 pm Post subject: the story of Gary's RV-10 continues

Add to Mac's blog on this

(http://macsblog.com/2011/08/when-a-kit-aircraft-is-not-a-kit-aircraft/).  I

just added my three cents.  Don't know if it will have an effect, but

perhaps if everyone writes something right on his Blog post (for all to see)

he'll take note.



John Melchert

--

rv10flyer(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:52 pm Post subject: the story of Gary's RV-10 continues

Not much more I can add to what you wrote. You pretty much nail what I 

thought before I read your article. I'll add to this however. I think what 

Rick and you have commented on is right on on how many of us are feeling 

these days about the EAA. Great organization, but Peter Garrison should have 

come over not Wallace and Mac.



--

Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:51 am Post subject: the story of Gary's RV-10 continues

The question this raises in my mind is; what kind of liability concerns 

have kit makers had to deal with?  Are they being routinely sued like 

aircraft manufacturers when their aircraft are in accidents?  If they 

are being sued, are they settling or winning?  If they aren't, how are 

they protecting themselves?



We're all playing in this kit plane/experimental aircraft space where as 

builders, each of us  has a great deal of freedom to do whatever we want 

with the only real liability being the souls we have on board.  I just 

don't understand how that freedom plays out on the kit makers' side.  

Can anyone knowledgeably comment?



Bill "thinking the door should be better designed as I consider pencil 

whipping my gross to 3200lbs" Watson

dave.saylor.aircrafters(a
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:21 am Post subject: the story of Gary's RV-10 continues

Well...I have a little experience in the liability department.  A few

years ago I got a subpoena to give information to the court about a

Lancair accident.  I had nothing to do with the plane, or the

customer, or anyone on board.  The court needed information about how

the planes are built, so it called me.  For free, but that's a

different gripe.



Lancair was being sued because someone thought they might be

responsible for "producing" a faulty kit, which then somehow led to

the accident.  So, manufacturers, at least Lancair, have had some

exposure and they will try to limit their exposure by insisting that

builders not change the kit.  I'm don't think that currently they can

enforce it but they'll try.



I don't know if Lancair won or lost.  The CEO at the time was a lawyer

and I got an earful about his legal expenses--he didn't represent

himself--so it was surely painful even if he won.



The trend is for better and better kits.  We all know how good the 10

is.  It seems to me that the better some kits get, the more they pull

the market up with them.  They have to get better to compete.  I think

that eventually we'll see a "not-as-light sport" category that further

reduces our ability to make changes, and I think that would be fine as

long as AB remains.



I hope logic prevails and relieves the kit provider from liability

when changes are made.  I don't think any builder would expect their

changes to be guaranteed by the kit producer.  But I guess judges and

juries do the unexpected.



Dave Saylor

AirCrafters

140 Aviation Way

Watsonville, CA 95076

831-722-9141 Shop

831-750-0284 Cell



On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 The question this raises in my mind is; what kind of liability concerns have

 kit makers had to deal with? Â Are they being routinely sued like aircraft

 manufacturers when their aircraft are in accidents? Â If they are being sued,

 are they settling or winning? Â If they aren't, how are they protecting

 themselves?



 We're all playing in this kit plane/experimental aircraft space where as

 builders, each of us Â has a great deal of freedom to do whatever we want

 with the only real liability being the souls we have on board. Â I just don't

 understand how that freedom plays out on the kit makers' side. Â Can anyone

 knowledgeably comment?



 Bill "thinking the door should be better designed as I consider pencil

 whipping my gross to 3200lbs" Watson

rv10(at)colohan.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:58 am Post subject: the story of Gary's RV-10 continues

As an engineer, I have to be pedantic.  So I apologise if my response is overly-pedantic...

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Jack Phillips <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net (pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net)> wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  --> RV10-List message posted by: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net (pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net)>

  

 I agree with Dave.  I looked at Greg's airplane at OSH and was impressed

 with the workmanship.  I was a bit surprised to see that he had doubled the

 fuel capacity, but I feel that 60 gallons is a pretty minimal fuel load for

 such an airplane so I can understand why he chose to increase it.  Is this

 an unproven change?  Of course it is.  These are EXPERIMENTAL aircraft.  It

 is incumbent on us, the builders, to do sufficent testing (that's what the

 25 or 40 hour pahse I periodi is for) to prove that our aircraft are safe.

 If that means flutter testing then so be it.

	




Testing does not prove a design is safe.  It simply proves, that at the test points tested, under limited repetitions, the design did not fail.  It adds some confidence that a design was correctly manufactured, and also that the original design calculations were correct.

 



Before testing can do any of this, you need a proper design.  This may include structural analysis, computer simulation, failure testing, etc.  For an unmodified kit, you are trusting that Van's has done this for you.  If you modify the kit, it is up to the builder to decide how much additional design work is required.  For simple, non-safety-critical things you can eyeball it.  For significant changes, you would probably be better off redoing the analysis and simulation work, as it may help catch corner cases which testing is likely to miss (or save you from a catastrophic test failure).

 



When I read Van's article, I simply read it as: "hey, if you modify our design this much you need to redo some of the design work to be safe.  Please either do the design work, or don't modify this much!"

 



Testing is rarely a good substitute for design.

 

Chris

(FWIW, I think the EAA has come down _way_ too hard on Greg.  But the resulting discussion this has spawned has been very interesting, and educational for me.)

 

  [quote][b]

dave.saylor.aircrafters(a
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:29 am Post subject: the story of Gary's RV-10 continues

What Chris wrote is exactly right.  I think the biggest issue is how

EAA, or SportAviation, seemed to throw Greg under the bus after

featuring him so prominently.  Publishing Van's article kind of said

"What were you thinking?", without letting Greg respond.  McClellan's

article kind of did the same thing, calling Van's response "one of the

most important commentaries on amateur-built and kit aircraft in many

years".  Really?  Like I said before, my respect for Van is enormous

and clearly he's protecting his product, and pointing out some gotchas

for future builders, but "one of the most important commentaries"?  I

don't think so.

Dave Saylor

AirCrafters

140 Aviation Way

Watsonville, CA 95076

831-722-9141 Shop

831-750-0284 Cell

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Chris Colohan <rv10(at)colohan.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   As an engineer, I have to be pedantic. Â So I apologise if my response is

 overly-pedantic...

 On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Jack Phillips <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>

 wrote:

>

> 

>

> I agree with Dave. Â I looked at Greg's airplane at OSH and was impressed

> with the workmanship. Â I was a bit surprised to see that he had doubled

> the

> fuel capacity, but I feel that 60 gallons is a pretty minimal fuel load

> for

> such an airplane so I can understand why he chose to increase it. Â Is this

> an unproven change? Â Of course it is. Â These are EXPERIMENTAL aircraft.

> Â It

> is incumbent on us, the builders, to do sufficent testing (that's what the

> 25 or 40 hour pahse I periodi is for) to prove that our aircraft are safe.

> If that means flutter testing then so be it.

 Testing does not prove a design is safe. Â It simply proves, that at the test

 points tested, under limited repetitions, the design did not fail. Â It adds

 some confidence that a design was correctly manufactured, and also that the

 original design calculations were correct.

 Before testing can do any of this, you need a proper design. Â This may

 include structural analysis, computer simulation, failure testing, etc. Â For

 an unmodified kit, you are trusting that Van's has done this for you. Â If

 you modify the kit, it is up to the builder to decide how much additional

 design work is required. Â For simple, non-safety-critical things you can

 eyeball it. Â For significant changes, you would probably be better off

 redoing the analysis and simulation work, as it may help catch corner cases

 which testing is likely to miss (or save you from aÂ catastrophicÂ test

 failure).

 When I read Van's article, I simply read it as: "hey, if you modify our

 design this much you need to redo some of the design work to be safe.

 Â Please either do the design work, or don't modify this much!"

 Testing is rarely a good substitute for design.

 Chris

 (FWIW, I think the EAA has come down _way_ too hard on Greg. Â But the

 resulting discussion this has spawned has been very interesting, and

 educational for me.)

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2872

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:39 am Post subject: the story of Gary's RV-10 continues

Chris, I was going to respond basically with the same idea, but

you said it far better than I could.  I don't think there is

a right side or a wrong side in this debate, but that both

viewpoints have validity.  But as you noted, just because

you fly 25 or 40 hours with something it isn't something I'd

consider as a valid test for any airframe change.  Even with

good avionics, I felt that 100 hours was about right before

I'd trust the avionics and software....but truthfully, without

a real engineering analysis, a person hasn't even begun to

do the proper homework for a major change.  And, if they want

to go by hours of flight as a data point for success of a

change, you really need thousands and thousands of hours

by a bunch of airframes before you can draw a conclusion.

What is structurally OK after 20 hours may not be after 200

or 2000, and without proper engineering analysis, I don't

think you can just call it good or successful without

thousands of airframe hours.



In fact, right now, with 300+ RV-10's flying, we STILL don't

have enough data to really prove without a doubt that the

airframe has had it's weak areas weeded out.  There may

be some stress point that proves a problem but we don't

find out until we get some RV-10's with 5,000 hours on

the airframe.  I'm not saying that what Greg did isn't

ok for him....it's just not something that Van's can ever

realistically be OK with.  The good side is that Greg has

the choice, at least in today's environment.



I do agree with those who think that the EAA and Sport

Aviation went to far, and especially that dope Mac who's

now writing for them. I loved Flying magazine and he fit

in well there....but I just don't think he fits his role

at the EAA.  They do us all a disservice by putting him

in that spot.  If I were the EAA, I'd tell him to pick up

a rivet gun and build an RV wing, and then get out there

and fly 100 hours in a variety of homebuilts before you

come write for us. He simply doesn't have the perspective

needed for that job.  It's apparent when you read that

ridiculous rehash of Greg's plane that is all just

written regurgitation, and see how he says that OTHER

pilots he knows say RV's fly nice.  Get off your butt and

fly in some of them Mac...



So I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either side, just

pointing out again that really, both have realistic

viewpoints for the most part...but that said, you can't

say that the changes were "engineered" properly or that

the have had the requisite amount of testing needed to

really prove that without a doubt they aren't additional

failure points.  People take "testing" too lightly

I think sometimes.  I laugh my butt off when I see someone

post that "I've flown with this now for 25 hours and

it appears that the software issue is fixed and it's now

rock solid".  "Rock Solid" is something that is unlikely

anyway...but 25 hours doesn't make anything rock solid.



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD



On 8/19/2011 9:55 AM, Chris Colohan wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   As an engineer, I have to be pedantic.  So I apologise if my response is

 overly-pedantic...



 On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Jack Phillips <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net

 <mailto:pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>> wrote:



     

     <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net <mailto:pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>>



     I agree with Dave.  I looked at Greg's airplane at OSH and was impressed

     with the workmanship.  I was a bit surprised to see that he had

     doubled the

     fuel capacity, but I feel that 60 gallons is a pretty minimal fuel

     load for

     such an airplane so I can understand why he chose to increase it.

       Is this

     an unproven change?  Of course it is.  These are EXPERIMENTAL

     aircraft.  It

     is incumbent on us, the builders, to do sufficent testing (that's

     what the

     25 or 40 hour pahse I periodi is for) to prove that our aircraft are

     safe.

     If that means flutter testing then so be it.

 Testing does not prove a design is safe.  It simply proves, that at the

 test points tested, under limited repetitions, the design did not fail.

   It adds some confidence that a design was correctly manufactured, and

 also that the original design calculations were correct.



 Before testing can do any of this, you need a proper design.  This may

 include structural analysis, computer simulation, failure testing, etc.

   For an unmodified kit, you are trusting that Van's has done this for

 you.  If you modify the kit, it is up to the builder to decide how much

 additional design work is required.  For simple, non-safety-critical

 things you can eyeball it.  For significant changes, you would probably

 be better off redoing the analysis and simulation work, as it may help

 catch corner cases which testing is likely to miss (or save you from

 a catastrophic test failure).



 When I read Van's article, I simply read it as: "hey, if you modify our

 design this much you need to redo some of the design work to be safe.

   Please either do the design work, or don't modify this much!"



 Testing is rarely a good substitute for design.

 Chris



 (FWIW, I think the EAA has come down _way_ too hard on Greg.  But the

 resulting discussion this has spawned has been very interesting, and

 educational for me.)



 *

 *

msausen

Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Posts: 559
Location: Appleton, WI USA

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:54 am Post subject: the story of Gary's RV-10 continues

In addition to the public flogging, I am very disappointed that you now have to have a Facebook account to leave comments.  And yes, there are still people holding out from Facebook.  



Michael



--

msausen

Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Posts: 559
Location: Appleton, WI USA

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:56 am Post subject: the story of Gary's RV-10 continues

Doh!  Never mind.



--

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2872

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:12 am Post subject: the story of Gary's RV-10 continues

 I'm one too Michael...we're maybe some of the last

ones left.



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD

do not archive

On 8/19/2011 10:51 AM, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 Sausen)"<rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>

  And yes, there are still people holding out from Facebook.

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2872

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:38 am Post subject: the story of Gary's RV-10 continues

True, it's text messages for all the quick stuff.

But, I'm not interested in the privacy/identity theft and many other

risks that are coming from some of the vulnerabilities of these

social media sites.



http://windowssecrets.com/top-story/privacy-smackdown-facebook-versus-google/



The above is worth reading, but here's an interesting

clip:



"Right now, if an advertiser bids on the AdWord phrase auto insurance 

price quotes and someone clicks on a Google-generated link to the 

advertiser’s site, the advertiser pays U.S. $54.91. For one click. No, 

that isn’t a typo. Bid on the phrase consolidate graduate student loans, 

get a click, and it’ll cost $44.28. Alcohol rehab center runs $33.59. 

Cord blood bank goes for $27.80. WordStream has an excellent quick 

overview of the way Google AdWords works, listing the going rate for top 

phrases."



I'm not interested in being heavily marketed to, either:



http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2011-07-27-new-technolgies-for-marketing-to-kids_n.htm



I personally believe that while these social media sites are

great for some of the interpersonal connecting, if people

really knew what's being shared by them and what's happening

to their data, they would choose to pay DOLLARS for a site

that does NOT do this stuff.  Make no mistake...the reason

these sites are cheap or free is because you, your identity,

your habits, and your data are things that other people

are willing to PAY for...and I'd like to contribute

as little as I can to those companies databases.



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD

do not archive

On 8/19/2011 11:17 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Don't tell me you guys still rely on e-mail?  That's gone the way of the

 pony express!



 Phil

Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 9:23 am Post subject: the story of Gary's RV-10 continues

To Mac's credit, he didn't pretend to know more than he did - he just 

regurgitated what he had heard and reasoned based on some trusted 

sources.  Given the state of public discourse, that's not bad.



I was checking closely because I too liked Mac over at Flying and agree 

that the EAA seems like a misfit.  Corporate shakeups too often  badly 

shuffle the talent.



Bill



On 8/19/2011 11:37 AM, Tim Olson wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Aviation went to far, and especially that dope Mac who's

 now writing for them. I loved Flying magazine and he fit

 in well there....but I just don't think he fits his role

 at the EAA.  They do us all a disservice by putting him

 in that spot.  If I were the EAA, I'd tell him to pick up

 a rivet gun and build an RV wing, and then get out there

 and fly 100 hours in a variety of homebuilts before you

 come write for us. He simply doesn't have the perspective

 needed for that job.  It's apparent when you read that

 ridiculous rehash of Greg's plane that is all just

 written regurgitation, and see how he says that OTHER

 pilots he knows say RV's fly nice.  Get off your butt and

 fly in some of them Mac...

rv10flyer(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:05 pm Post subject: the story of Gary's RV-10 continues

I have a daughter and the media has done a great job putting fear about 

pedophiles finding young lads on Facebook.

Needless to say no Facebook, twitter or other.

If I need an account to give my feedback than I question if they really 

care.

I'm with you Michael!

Pascal



--

pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:11 pm Post subject: the story of Gary's RV-10 continues

I left a comment without logging on to Facebook.  All the way at the 

bottom of the comments is an entry form.

Linn



On 8/19/2011 4:01 PM, Pascal wrote:

[quote] 



 I have a daughter and the media has done a great job putting fear 

 about pedophiles finding young lads on Facebook.

 Needless to say no Facebook, twitter or other.

 If I need an account to give my feedback than I question if they 

 really care.

 I'm with you Michael!

 Pascal



 --

Kelly McMullen

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 1188
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:31 pm Post subject: the story of Gary's RV-10 continues

Me too....refuse to let Van's or anyone else tell me that I have to communicate via Macebook, Twooter, or Linkdpin. They may think their information is better, but IMHO the RVator was a better communications medium.

 

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com (Tim(at)myrv10.com)> wrote:

[quote] --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com (Tim(at)myrv10.com)>

 



  I'm one too Michael...we're maybe some of the last

 ones left.

 

 Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD



 do not archive

 

 

 On 8/19/2011 10:51 AM, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		   -->  RV10-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael

 Sausen)"<rvbuilder(at)sausen.net (rvbuilder(at)sausen.net)>

 	


  And yes, there are still people holding out from Facebook.  

 

 ====================================

 arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 ====================================

 http://forums.matronics.com

 ====================================

 le, List Admin.

 ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ====================================

 

 

 

 



[b]

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD

philperry9(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:18 pm Post subject: the story of Gary's RV-10 continues

I can appreciate and tend to agree with nearly 100% the reasoning.  But I also have a dose of the real-world syrum to inject into the mix.

 

The world is going to go on and there is nothing we can do about it.  We can hold off as long as we want.  That's like saying you refuse to use debit cards, or make purchases online, or do online banking, or to interact with an ATM machine.  At one point we all were skeptical and stood our ground in those areas, but the world we live in pulled us along.

  

I refused to use Facebook, Twitter, or MySpace too.  But at some point you have to come to the realization that no matter how determined you are, you aren't going to change the world and you're simply going to be pulled along by the currents of the world.

  

So you might as well learn to swim now.  It's comnig.

 

It's just the world we live in today.....

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

 On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com (Tim(at)myrv10.com)> wrote:

[quote] --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com (Tim(at)myrv10.com)>

 



 True, it's text messages for all the quick stuff.

 But, I'm not interested in the privacy/identity theft and many other

 risks that are coming from some of the vulnerabilities of these

 social media sites.

 

 http://windowssecrets.com/top-story/privacy-smackdown-facebook-versus-google/

 

 The above is worth reading, but here's an interesting

 clip:

 

 "Right now, if an advertiser bids on the AdWord phrase auto insurance price quotes and someone clicks on a Google-generated link to the advertiser’s site, the advertiser pays U.S. $54.91. For one click. No, that isn’t a typo. Bid on the phrase consolidate graduate student loans, get a click, and it’ll cost $44.28. Alcohol rehab center runs $33.59. Cord blood bank goes for $27.80. WordStream has an excellent quick overview of the way Google AdWords works, listing the going rate for top phrases."

  

 I'm not interested in being heavily marketed to, either:

 

 http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2011-07-27-new-technolgies-for-marketing-to-kids_n.htm

  

 I personally believe that while these social media sites are

 great for some of the interpersonal connecting, if people

 really knew what's being shared by them and what's happening

 to their data, they would choose to pay DOLLARS for a site

 that does NOT do this stuff.  Make no mistake...the reason

 these sites are cheap or free is because you, your identity,

 your habits, and your data are things that other people

 are willing to PAY for...and I'd like to contribute

 as little as I can to those companies databases.

 

 Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD

 do not archive

 

 



 On 8/19/2011 11:17 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		   Don't tell me you guys still rely on e-mail?  That's gone the way of the

 pony express!

 

 Phil

 

 

 	
 

 

 

 ====================================

 arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 ====================================

 http://forums.matronics.com

 ====================================

 le, List Admin.

 ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ====================================

 

 

 

 



[b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum