What's new

Temporary Injunction against USAPA filed today

I've just got a feeling that the Judge has a few other cases going on that need his attention as well. He'll rule when he's ready and the ruling will determine if it's a slam dunk or not. How long did it take for USAPA to get their "time out" ruling from the 9th?

Jim

My point was/is that it is a difficult case with a lot of possible repercussions. I think some expected it to be so cut and dried that a ruling would be issued within the day on Monday. I've said from the beginning that it is a slippery slope when you start dictating taxi speeds and maintenance write ups.

I don't exactly understand the correlation between an appeal and a request for an injunction but I'm no lawyer.

Driver B)
 
Ah, but your used "novices" to address those who said the West might be carrying minor discrepancies to maintenance bases. If your opinion of those who do that is that they are novices, and other easties say things like...well, let me just quote one:



then the logical extension is that east pilots were novices before they all just coincidentally decided to stop doing it the same day. Now I know that logic is a foreign concept for some east posters, but try hard to follow along.

Shooting the barn from inside is harder than this (or maybe shooting an airplane from it's cockpit is more appropriate), but not necessarily more fun... :lol:

Jim


You make no sense at all. Just bunch of twists and turns that go nowhere.
 
So those easties claiming that the increase in write-ups is at least partially due to easties having decided to follow the FAR's instead of carrying minor write-ups to a maintenance base means easties are novices.... :lol:

Jim


What a sad retirement you earned.
 
You make no sense at all. Just bunch of twists and turns that go nowhere.
And here I thought illogical twists and turns that go nowhere was just the kind of thing that appealed to USAPA supporters. Don't tell me you have decided to venture out into the world of cognitive reasoning and sound logic. That will only cause you to see USAPA for what is really is, namely an organization that fails on a daily basis to accomplish anything of value for anyone who is not on FPL. :lol:
 
So your point is that the courts are bogged down and it takes a little more time to get a ruling?

Yes, although I don't know that I'd use "bogged down" since that indicates a greater delay than normal to me. I'd just say that the Judges are busy enough that a few business days, a week or two or three isn't that much. It's not like the judge had nothing else to do but this case since the company filed in July.

I think the point here is that the West boys pronounced judgement as of last Friday, and they were wrong.

Any that predicted a ruling on the last day of the hearing were obviously wrong and foolish to predict that. Heck, USPAP's last filing was 2 or 3 days after the hearing. My guess is that the Judge's mind was 50-75% made up from the testimony but reviewing the precedent cited by both sides and all the filings would either change his mind or fill in the remaining 25-50%. A significant number were filed the week of the trial. Real life isn't like TV.

Jim
 
Hypocrisy is a human trait and it is not valid to ascribe such a cognitive behavior it to an inanimate object, idea or teaching. Can a rock be morally good or morally bad? Can an orange behave badly? Of course not and the teachings of the Bible about Christianity cannot be ontologically hypocritical since truths and teachings cannot pretend to say one thing but then act in a different manner altogether. That would be a logical absurdity akin to a "square circle" or a four-wheeled tricycle.

Now, we see people all the time who say one thing and then do the exact opposite. This would be a correct description of hypocrisy. All people, Christians included, are likely to be hypocritical at one time or another because we are imperfect beings. We know what we want to do or what we should do according to moral standards, but then we fail because our conscious, moral mind does not always have command of our entire being. For example, I might tell myself 100 times a day that I will never let a profane word come out of my mouth, but then I hit my thumb with a hammer and before my mind can remind me of what I didn't want to do, the filthy word already has already passed over my tongue.

Of course there are no shortage of people, professing Christians included, who know full well what the right and God-honoring thing to do is and then make the fully cognitive choice to do the opposite anyway. This obviously reveals a weakness of their character and quite possibly the genuineness of their faith in Christ, but it does not modify the unchanging standard of conduct revealed to us in Scripture. The problem is not with the teachings or with the divine truths, but with the imperfect people and their penchant for fulfilling their selfish, self-serving desires in opposition to what they know is expected of them.

One of the biggest fallacies people make is that when someone professes faith in Christ, that God suddenly makes them perfect and incapable of sin. This is not the case and Scripture does not teach that we should expect this kind of transformation. What is described is a lifelong struggle to yield more and more of our selfish nature to the will of God so that we become more and more like Christ. Anyone who claims Christians are or should expect to be morally perfect here in this life are ignorant of what the Bible teaches.

To sum it up, you can only be a hypocrite if you are trying to live by a set of morals/laws. If there is no creator then there would be no right or wrong, so whats the use in trying to do good. The conscience by its nature shows the internal opposition as you say above. The problem is some people have conditioned their conscience to justify actions that they internally knew were wrong at one time. When those people expect more out of others than they demand of themselves, and do it in the name of religion their living message outweighs their spoken one.
 
I'm not sure you understand the meaning of reprehensible, but I guess you clarified it with your second adjective so I get the point.

The choice is yours to be offended since no one can force that conditioned response upon you. Your reaction to the words and actions of others is entirely an internal matter to you. If you decide the color blue is offensive, then you will choose to be offended when you see that color. The color blue wasn't inherently offensive; you made it that way by your own choice in defining what is personally offensive to you.

Likewise, you can choose not to be offended by the words and actions of others. For example, you can say you hate me or hate my believes or call me names or claim that I am the most ignorant person in the world and I will not be offended at that because I refuse to be offended by by the actions of others. Your personal beliefs are yours to retain or discard as you see fit.

Of course beyond the pejoratives if you claim something that is false to be true or visa versa, I may respond to you by way or correction, but that is not out of a feeling of personal offense. So if you offer your opinion about me, I will accept that without offense. But if you claim God does not exist, I will more than likely respond with the irrefutable and logical facts that prove that He does exist, not to offend you but to correct your false statement of fact.

ever read Hitchiker's guide to the Galaxy?
 
I'm not sure you understand the meaning of reprehensible, but I guess you clarified it with your second adjective so I get the point.

The choice is yours to be offended since no one can force that conditioned response upon you. Your reaction to the words and actions of others is entirely an internal matter to you. If you decide the color blue is offensive, then you will choose to be offended when you see that color. The color blue wasn't inherently offensive; you made it that way by your own choice in defining what is personally offensive to you.

Likewise, you can choose not to be offended by the words and actions of others. For example, you can say you hate me or hate my believes or call me names or claim that I am the most ignorant person in the world and I will not be offended at that because I refuse to be offended by by the actions of others. Your personal beliefs are yours to retain or discard as you see fit.

Of course beyond the pejoratives if you claim something that is false to be true or visa versa, I may respond to you by way or correction, but that is not out of a feeling of personal offense. So if you offer your opinion about me, I will accept that without offense. But if you claim God does not exist, I will more than likely respond with the irrefutable and logical facts that prove that He does exist, not to offend you but to correct your false statement of fact.

Just remember that God answers ALL prayers it's just sometimes the answer is NO....
.....so goes the NIC

NICDOA
NPJB
 
So your point is that the courts are bogged down and it takes a little more time to get a ruling?

I think the point here is that the West boys pronounced judgement as of last Friday, and they were wrong.

breeze
Nothing wrong with a little guessing, right breeze. Point is it's coming and soon. If he rules against the company you'll have your chance to shine.
 
Workplace restrictions notwithstanding, you can pray for anything your heart desires. The real question is your prayer done in faith and in seeking for the Father's will to be done rather than your own?

Jesus instructs us to pray as follows:....


What is motivating you to cast your pearls in this pig pen?
 
Nothing wrong with a little guessing, right breeze. Point is it's coming and soon. If he rules against the company you'll have your chance to shine.

Hey......afterbirth......all the court rulings in the world won't force a YES
vote on anything conaining the NIC........you upgrade in 20.......now... before start checklist
please!!!!!.....and one and one when you can!!!!

NICDOA
NPJB
 
So those easties claiming that the increase in write-ups is at least partially due to easties having decided to follow the FAR's instead of carrying minor write-ups to a maintenance base means easties are novices.... :lol:

Jim

So Jim, you never carried minor write ups? i don't believe anyone who says this. At least Cleardirect had the balls to admit that no aircraft he flies would leave the ground if minor stuff wasn't nursed. I have never flown with anyone who insisted on writing every little thing up every time no exceptions. What is it the west is accusing the east of then, if this is what they do all the time. You are a liar and so are all these other fools claiming the same practice, ball-less liars.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top