Considering a last-minute invite. Of course it's late-late-late, no
surprise that the "preferred" hotels are all sold out. Ya have to wonder
about the two or three that still have vacancies ... advice?

> ... advice?
My advice is to tell us what the hell you're talking about!

"Brien K. Meehan"
>My advice is to tell us what the hell you're
>talking about!

Well, since you asked so nicely ...

I was talking about the Midland AIR SHOW next weekend. I've never been, but
from what I was told, it's one of the big ones. Perhaps I was misinformed. As I
said, nearly all the hotels are booked solid, and I was wondering if anyone
here had any experience with that show that might be willing to offer some
advice ... i.e., if the few hotels that still have vacancies are fit to sleep
in, are way too far from the show, or ??

But nevermind, since it's too much to trouble to even be civil.

XMnushaL8y wrote:

> But nevermind, since it's too much to trouble to even be civil.

Civility is a two-way street, old chum. You have to give half a clue
to the clueless (and rude) idiots like me if you're going to enable
anyone to give you any help.

Even after your second post, in which you gave no new information, I
had to use a search engine to find out what you're talking about - the
Confederate Air Force AIRSHO 2004, in Midland, Texas, October 2 and 3,
2004.

http://www.airsho.org

Don't worry about the questionable accomodations - it's Texas! The
worst it will be is "good". It'll probably be better.

"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote:
> Civility is a two-way street, old chum. You have to give half a clue
> to the clueless (and rude) idiots like me if you're going to enable
> anyone to give you any help.

What was it I said on this end that wasn't civil? I asked a question! If
you didn't know what I was talking about, you obviously didn't know the
answer!

> Even after your second post, in which you gave no new information, I
> had to use a search engine to find out what you're talking about - the
> Confederate Air Force AIRSHO 2004, in Midland, Texas, October 2 and 3,
> 2004.

You're right about "clueless" ... I mean, how much information do you
NEED? I *said* Midland AIR SHOW and asked about hotels that still have
vacancies less than a week before the show when all others are booked
solid. Since my question was OBVIOUSLY targeted at *someone who is
familiar with the show and the area that may also be kind enough to
share a little knowledge/experience*, I didn't think it was necessary to
post specifics about the show itself. The dates, location, and show
participants weren't my question. If someone was interested in that,
they could do just what you did ... use a search to find out, or just
ask.

Thanks anyway.

> wrote in message
...
> You're right about "clueless" ... I mean, how much information do you
> NEED? I *said* Midland AIR SHOW

Not in your first post you didn't, to which Brien replied. You provided NO
information whatsoever about what it was you were talking about.

Frankly, you're lucky you got a reply at all. Most people, including
myself, when they see a post that appears to be completely random and has no
information that could be used to form a reply, simply ignore the post
altogether. This includes people who actually know the answer to whatever
question you think you're asking, but which you failed to ask.

It's a pretty sure bet that someone so clueless as to "ask" a question
without actually providing any information about what question they are
asking are probably also so clueless as to take offense when someone points
out how clueless their first post was, rather than admitting that they
should have been more specific.

Your response is a perfect case in point. You've quite well demonstrated
why people shouldn't bother to reply to posts as clueless as your first post
was.

Pete

> >Xmnushal8y wrote:
> > You're right about "clueless" ... I mean, how much information do you
> > NEED? I *said* Midland AIR SHOW

"Peter Duniho" wrote:

> Not in your first post you didn't, to which Brien replied. You provided NO
> information whatsoever about what it was you were talking about.

Actually, my second post clarified what I was asking...that was the post
that Brien said I still provided no information whatsoever in.

> Frankly, you're lucky you got a reply at all. Most people, including
> myself, when they see a post that appears to be completely random
> and has no information that could be used to form a reply, simply
> ignore the post altogether.

Lucky? for that response?

It's a public message board ... people post, some get replies, some
don't. Even regular posters don't always provide enough detail that
*everyone* knows what they're talking about. But some do. If you know
the answer, you reply; if you don't, you don't ... simple, yes? I made
an incorrect assumption that, since this was a group of pilots and
Midland is *supposedly* one of the bigger shows (I admit, I don't know
if that's an accurate statement, but it must be fairly well attended for
all the major hotels to be booked solid) that at maybe someone might
have knowledge. In any case, there are other ways to say, "can you
provide a little more info" than "what the hell are you talking about?"
.... but that's just how some people communicate.

> It's a pretty sure bet that someone so clueless as to "ask" a question
> without actually providing any information about what question they are
> asking are probably also so clueless as to take offense when someone points
> out how clueless their first post was, rather than admitting that they
> should have been more specific.

I assumed there may be some pilots here who were familiar with the
annual Midland show. Anyone who is would have understood the first post.

> Your response is a perfect case in point. You've quite well demonstrated
> why people shouldn't bother to reply to posts as clueless as your first post
> was.

I couldn't agree more! ... if a person finds a question "clueless", why
bother answering just to be rude?

wrote:

> Lucky? for that response?

Yes. I was interested in helping when most people just skipped your
stupid question. I also bothered to look it up, and posted a link to a
website with information about accomodations.

You're welcome.

> ... but that's just how some people communicate.

In my part of the world (and most of the US), being fluffy-sweet polite
is considered to be indifferent and unfriendly. Being abrubt is a more
inclusive and affable form. I know this is not uncommon, and so do
you.

.... if a person finds a question "clueless", why
> bother answering just to be rude?

If you thought I was being rude, let me clarify: You're an asshole.
Now, why don't you just argue about it some more?

"Brien K. Meehan" wrote:
> Yes. I was interested in helping when most people just skipped your
> stupid question. I also bothered to look it up, and posted a link to a
> website with information about accomodations.

I'd done that much. That wasn't my question.

> You're welcome.

If you're implying that I didn't say "thanks", you're wrong...I DID,
albeit in the same tone that you used.

> In my part of the world (and most of the US), being fluffy-sweet polite
> is considered to be indifferent and unfriendly. Being abrubt is a more
> inclusive and affable form. I know this is not uncommon, and so do
> you.

Never said being abrupt wasn't common, but rude is still rude, common or
not. As for being polite being considered indifferent or unfriendly,
(asking in YOUR dialect so you can understand my question) where the
hell is your part of the world? "most of the U.S."? Your perception
doesn't make it so. It is possible to not be rude without being
fluffy-sweet.

> If you thought I was being rude, let me clarify: You're an asshole.

At least there are two of us then.

> Now, why don't you just argue about it some more?

What? You can keep arguing but I'm supposed to shut up?