He claims (in his main article about the Thunder Over Michigan) that there was whining on internet sites that some of the listed aircraft were no-shows at Thunder. He goes on to say that the "majority of internet malcontents know little about real aircraft," also saying of the internet crowd that "they certainly do not have funds" to own such planes or donate to museums, claiming "most probably barely have a pot to piss in."
I guess this means if you discuss warbirds on the internet, you're one step away from living in a cardboard box on the streets. Oh, those poor huddled masses who can't afford their own Spitfire...they should realize their opinions are worthless.
The one-page editorial about the CWH Lancaster then reads like a one-page whining session about how AC didn't get to make a photo flight with the Lancaster (and were refused such in air-to-air communications) and how the Lancaster was static display only during the show (somehow neglecting to mention the photo passes the bomber did on Sunday before departure). He also complains the Lancaster set up tours of their bomber shortly after arrival, taking in "lots" of money ("...all in American dollars"). Then he ends his argument by stating that if foreign organizations won't play ball, we should keep "American dollars south of the border" and "get more American aircraft to Thunder..."