Below is what was published today on the moderated piloting group, "Pilots
of America". As you may recall, this is the piloting group that Dudley
Henriques, myself, and a host of others have switched to, now that the
cross-posting trolls have emasculated this once-hallowed group.

Over on P of A, off-topic posts are segregated to an area called "The Spin
Zone". Pretty much anything goes there (as opposed to the rest of the site,
which is purely about aviation), and it has been said that it is roughly the
equivalent of rec.aviation.piloting. Politics, crime, religion -- you name
it -- it's all fair game in the Spin Zone. Usually.

Lately, however, things have apparently gotten pretty out of hand there, to
the point where the moderators have taken the radical step of closing that
part of PofA down for a "cooling off" period. Below is the explanation the
moderating team has posted for all to read:

************************************************** *************************************************
Recently, the Management Council posted a general warning about the level of
offensive rhetoric in the Spin Zone. After dealing with five violations of
the Rules of Conduct in the Spin Zone in the last 12 hours, the Management
Council has concluded that too many participants did not take that warning
to heart. We have decided that a "time out" is necessary so that all Spin
Zone posters can reflect on whether or not they wish to play by the rules.
Therefore, the Spin Zone is closed for three days.

While the Spin Zone is closed, non-aviation related political, religious, or
otherwise potentially controversial topics posted in other forums in
violation of the rules for those forums will be deleted, and users who
persist in posting inappropriate material will be subject to full site
suspension.

If, when the Spin Zone reopens, all participants demonstrate a recommitment
to the principles of civil discourse upon which this this site was founded,
it will remain open. If this pervasive lack of self-discipline continues at
the current level, the Management Council will eliminate that forum
permanently because we are unwilling to continue spending the amount of time
required to manage the misbehavior of the small but significant number of
participants who do not abide by the rules.

Regards,

The Pilots of America Management Council
************************************************** *************************************************
If only something similar could be enforced here, this group would quickly
be restored to functionality. Since it can't, I heartily invite everyone
who is sick of the "Bertie-MX-Maxwell-Mikey-Rich Troll-o-rama Show" to c'mon
over to where the air is clean and fresh, and the management team knows how
to deal with children who can't play well with others.

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Sep 2, 11:18*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Below is what was published today on the moderated piloting group, "Pilots
> of America"...... (the rest snipped)

Jay, I appreciate the invitation and I may take ya'll up on it but in
my 15 + years of Usenet I have never seen a web-based forum that I
liked enough to stick with it. For various reasons ranging from
complexity to shallowness of participants to overly-strict moderators,
Usenet has grabbed a part of my heart that has yet to be satisfied
with anything web-based.

I do admit, at the moment RAP is full of the worst kind of immature,
childish nonsense, some regretfully from highly-experienced pilots. In
the 4 Usenet groups I've been heavily involved with over the years
this kind of thing comes & goes. The other 2 groups I'm involved with
are on the upswing from a 2-3 year period of childish garbage &
trolls. I have seen them both go bad then good then back again a
couple of times. Excellent, legendary, knowlegable posters have said;
"to hell with this" and quit, unable to use their filters or just
ignore the manure, which is almost always the way an attention-starved
troll leaves anyway, by being completely ignored. I don't even use the
same I.D. there that I do here for fear of ushering thumb-sucking
idiots from here to there. It seems to have gotten worse in recent
years, though across the Usenet board. I remember a time when Usenet
as a whole was much more civil, mature, respectful and meaningful.

However, the unmoderated freedom of Usenet is a real treasure for me &
the millions who use it as it should be used.
It's simple, direct, no-frills, unmoderated and legendary. I use
Google for access which sucks real bad at times but I do have Agent,
which just requires an hour or two of free time for me to get it
configured and strangle some info from my server/ISP. I don't have an
hour or two free right now & haven't for weeks.
I'm sure POA is wonderful and I may try it. At the moment life is too
busy for lots of Usenet (or internet for that matter), anyway, so
perhaps when I finish A&P school in Dec. & have more time online I'll
check out POA. Just got a job at L-3 BTW working on C-130s & P-3s with
incredible pay & benefits & a flying club w cheap rentals to boot!
Just like flying, an A&P is a licence to learn as I'm realizing almost
nothing in the last 2 years of school has prepared me for what I've
done the last week in my new career. I've learned an amazing amount in
just 1 week.

I'm glad ya'll seem to have a good group but I've heard criticism of
POA in the vein of web-based group problems I mentioned above. I hope
it flourishes and I'm sure I'll come over for a visit sometime in the
near future. If nothing else, it may be a breath of fresh air, It's
really stinky in here right now!

Ricky

Fjukktards like Jay Honeck are there.



Bertie

>I'm glad ya'll seem to have a good group but I've heard criticism of
>POA in the vein of web-based group problems I mentioned above. I hope
>it flourishes and I'm sure I'll come over for a visit sometime in the
>near future. If nothing else, it may be a breath of fresh air, It's
>really stinky in here right now!

Thanks for the thoughtful post, Ricky.

I, too, have loved rec.aviation for over a decade. I, too, have a hard time
giving up the ease and freedom of the Usenet interface. Web-based groups
invariably have more tools and shortcuts to use, which makes them more
complex, which often makes them a PIA to use (at first) -- and PofA is no
different. (Although, I must admit, some of those whiz-bang built-in tools
are very nice, once you figure the damned things out.)

I hear what you're saying about these things being cyclical, and we've seen
trolls before -- but never to this degree. The irrational bitterness, the
knee-jerk rancor, the personal attacks and downright meanness of posters
here is at an all-time high (low?). It is simply not possible to maintain a
thread of any kind here without devolving into the
"Bertie/Maxwell/MX/Mikey/Rich Troll-o-Rama Show", which -- after nearly a
year of this -- has left this group in shambles.

Which was their goal, of course.

So, I offer a great alternative to our friends who are still here. PofA is
far from perfect, but it's about FLYING and PILOTING, is chock-full of a
great bunch of pilots (many of whom you might know from here, from days gone
by), and the moderators keep a firm grip on the tiller when it comes to
children who won't play well with others.

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> here is at an all-time high (low?). It is simply not possible to maintain
a
> thread of any kind here without devolving into the
> "Bertie/Maxwell/MX/Mikey/Rich Troll-o-Rama Show", which -- after nearly a
> year of this -- has left this group in shambles.

It's kind of funny but the only one here lately who starts aviation-related
threads is Mx.

The rest of the traffic seems to be the same characters making fools of
themselves over and over again, desperately trying to prove he is wrong
often by pointing out some miniscule detail in one of his posts. It used to
be entertaining but now it's just tedious and sophomoric - I no longer read
anything that that cast of characters posts.

Try starting an aviation-related thread and see what happens. Sure, you can
expect the predictable responses from the few here who have a hard-on for
you for their own childish reasons, but it's so easy to just skip past all
that that I'm not sure why anyone here has a problem (or such a hard time)
with doing so.

"Tim" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
>> here is at an all-time high (low?). It is simply not possible to
>> maintain
> a
>> thread of any kind here without devolving into the
>> "Bertie/Maxwell/MX/Mikey/Rich Troll-o-Rama Show", which -- after nearly a
>> year of this -- has left this group in shambles.
>
> It's kind of funny but the only one here lately who starts
> aviation-related
> threads is Mx.
>
> The rest of the traffic seems to be the same characters making fools of
> themselves over and over again, desperately trying to prove he is wrong
> often by pointing out some miniscule detail in one of his posts. It used
> to
> be entertaining but now it's just tedious and sophomoric - I no longer
> read
> anything that that cast of characters posts.
>

That's because Mx has a long history with this group, and many of us can
assure you, he is not a productive member and feeding his threads do not pay
off in the long run. Quite the contrary.


> Try starting an aviation-related thread and see what happens. Sure, you
> can
> expect the predictable responses from the few here who have a hard-on for
> you for their own childish reasons, but it's so easy to just skip past all
> that that I'm not sure why anyone here has a problem (or such a hard time)
> with doing so.
>

I think you are absolutely right. I don't understand why people stop talking
aviation when the bull**** starts. It's easy to either skip or delete the
offending message, and keep posting the good stuff. When the honest
contributors go silent, there is nothing left but the nonsense.

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Fjukktards like Jay Honeck are there.
>
>
>
> Bertie

Just burns your butt when people find ways to avoid your nonsense, doesn't
it?

Now lie to us.

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Tim" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>>
>>> here is at an all-time high (low?). It is simply not possible to
>>> maintain
>> a
>>> thread of any kind here without devolving into the
>>> "Bertie/Maxwell/MX/Mikey/Rich Troll-o-Rama Show", which -- after nearly
>>> a
>>> year of this -- has left this group in shambles.
>>
>> It's kind of funny but the only one here lately who starts
>> aviation-related
>> threads is Mx.
>>
>> The rest of the traffic seems to be the same characters making fools of
>> themselves over and over again, desperately trying to prove he is wrong
>> often by pointing out some miniscule detail in one of his posts. It used
>> to
>> be entertaining but now it's just tedious and sophomoric - I no longer
>> read
>> anything that that cast of characters posts.
>>
>
> That's because Mx has a long history with this group, and many of us can
> assure you, he is not a productive member and feeding his threads do not
> pay off in the long run. Quite the contrary.
>
>
>> Try starting an aviation-related thread and see what happens. Sure, you
>> can
>> expect the predictable responses from the few here who have a hard-on for
>> you for their own childish reasons, but it's so easy to just skip past
>> all
>> that that I'm not sure why anyone here has a problem (or such a hard
>> time)
>> with doing so.
>>
>
> I think you are absolutely right. I don't understand why people stop
> talking aviation when the bull**** starts. It's easy to either skip or
> delete the offending message, and keep posting the good stuff. When the
> honest contributors go silent, there is nothing left but the nonsense.

....sez the biggest bull$hit monger of the NG.

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Fjukktards like Jay Honeck are there.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Just burns your butt when people find ways to avoid your nonsense, doesn't
> it?

You sure as hell don't. So how do you categorize your posts, Maxie? Do you
think they AREN'T nonsense? At least Bertie offers something substantive
now and again. You offer nothing BUT nonsense. In your case, that's
probably for the best. No doubt you discovered your flight sim knowledge
would only carry you so far without getting put in you place by actual
pilots like Bertie.

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Tim" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>>
>>> here is at an all-time high (low?). It is simply not possible to
>>> maintain
>> a
>>> thread of any kind here without devolving into the
>>> "Bertie/Maxwell/MX/Mikey/Rich Troll-o-Rama Show", which -- after
>>> nearly a year of this -- has left this group in shambles.
>>
>> It's kind of funny but the only one here lately who starts
>> aviation-related
>> threads is Mx.
>>
>> The rest of the traffic seems to be the same characters making fools
>> of themselves over and over again, desperately trying to prove he is
>> wrong often by pointing out some miniscule detail in one of his
>> posts. It used to
>> be entertaining but now it's just tedious and sophomoric - I no
>> longer read
>> anything that that cast of characters posts.
>>
>
> That's because Mx has a long history with this group, and many of us
> can assure you, he is not a productive member and feeding his threads
> do not pay off in the long run. Quite the contrary.
>
>
>> Try starting an aviation-related thread and see what happens. Sure,
>> you can
>> expect the predictable responses from the few here who have a hard-on
>> for you for their own childish reasons, but it's so easy to just skip
>> past all that that I'm not sure why anyone here has a problem (or
>> such a hard time) with doing so.
>>
>
> I think you are absolutely right. I don't understand why people stop
> talking aviation when the bull**** starts. It's easy to either skip or
> delete the offending message, and keep posting the good stuff. When
> the honest contributors go silent, there is nothing left but the
> nonsense.
>


That's what you do, isn't it?


Bwahahwahwhahwhahwhhawhhahwhahwhahwh!

Bertie
>
>
>
>

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Fjukktards like Jay Honeck are there.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Just burns your butt when people find ways to avoid your nonsense,
> doesn't it?


Nope.


I've been poasting regularly on POA.

Takes longer to troll, but the results are the same, the k00ks always shine
for me at the end of the day.
>
> Now lie to us.


OK,
You're an intelligent, erudite fellow of high moral standing.

Bwawhahwhahw!

Sorry, couldn't keep a straight face.


Bertie

On Sep 2, 10:18*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/

You think this place is better because they close down a forum and
give you a timeout, much like how a mother punishes her 3 year old?

The problem with most of these "moderated" web forums is that they
seem to focus their moderation on protecting the thin-skinned from
being offended by cuss words and insults, while they let the actual
discussions degrade into meaningless, (all though polite) trite crap.

For instance its very common to see a thread in a moderated forum
about a plane crash. But instead of the discussion being about the
actual crash, all you'll see is page after page of replies like "RIP",
"This is sad my prayers go out to the victims", "RIP :(", "this is sad
RIP:(", etc. Its nice that people are being supportive and polite, but
whats the point? Who wants to read that? If I were moderating, that is
the exact kind of thing I'd be removing. The same goes for when a
thread diverts off into a personal chit chat session between two
acquaintances.

So I guess if you're looking for a place where everybody holds hands
and sings kumbaya, then most moderated groups are for you.

buttman wrote:
> On Sep 2, 10:18 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>> http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/
>
> You think this place is better because they close down a forum and
> give you a timeout, much like how a mother punishes her 3 year old?
>
> The problem with most of these "moderated" web forums is that they
> seem to focus their moderation on protecting the thin-skinned from
> being offended by cuss words and insults, while they let the actual
> discussions degrade into meaningless, (all though polite) trite crap.
>
> For instance its very common to see a thread in a moderated forum
> about a plane crash. But instead of the discussion being about the
> actual crash, all you'll see is page after page of replies like "RIP",
> "This is sad my prayers go out to the victims", "RIP :(", "this is sad
> RIP:(", etc. Its nice that people are being supportive and polite, but
> whats the point? Who wants to read that? If I were moderating, that is
> the exact kind of thing I'd be removing. The same goes for when a
> thread diverts off into a personal chit chat session between two
> acquaintances.
>
> So I guess if you're looking for a place where everybody holds hands
> and sings kumbaya, then most moderated groups are for you.


Political Correctness-Tyranny with Manners

Remember the story of:

"The Rise of the White Male Sycophant"

Google it very interesting stuff. Political Correctness, the
belittling of white males and the praying before the Obama
God while white sycophants bow and chant "We are not worthy"
is the phenomenon known as "The Kissing the Black Ass"
syndrome driven by Marxist and Maoist demagogues.

STAND BY FOR THE KLAN/BIGOT/TOOTHLESS/INBRED/TRAILER
LIVIN/SISTER ****IN

Insults from weak and nimble minded PC fascists

Future history will show.....

2008 was "The Rise Of The White Male Sycophant"

With the rise of the left wing Marxist Obama movement along
with the rapid expansion of the homosexual acceptance
movement here in Rome(America) along with the rapid feminism
of America driven by
Chinese and Russian influence the white male sycophant has
risen to new heights on TV and in our American culture.

The white male sycophant is easy to spot. Pasty, pudgy,
mindless minions of weak soft white men. Gravitating behind
the anointed black messiah Obama like the flying
monkeys in the Wizard of Oz.

Take heed America for the 2008 campaign
has exposed a new destructive phenomenon.

The weak white male sycophant.

The white male sycophant gets his high from that false
feeling of white guilt suppression. He was programmed to
feel guilty about being white from constant mind programming
and bombardment from the use in Government schools of
Politically Correct history distortion and obfuscation tactics

His high is satisfied when he bows before the Obama God

As the weak shriveling minions of white male sycophants
follow behind the politically correct messiah Obama the
entire fabric of America is torn by the politically correct
forces of evil and tyranny

You can see them scurrying about like little rats blindly
following behind the politically correct lemmings and
feminist minions as they plunge over the political cliff
into the raging sea. Speak out against Obama and they
will swarm you like human piranhas calling you racist and
backwards and a Klan member

How dare you call our Black Messiah incompetent and
inexperienced and unqualified. He can't be!??! He's Black!!!

(Chorus of we're not worthy--we're not worthy from white
sycophants)

America will never be the same as the forces of politically
correct tyranny seek to weaken America by lessening the very
bedrock culture that built her. The strong white male men
of the west the types like John Wayne have been transformed
by the Marxist American media into a weak shriveling
sycophant minion servant of strong women and blacks on TV.

And the slow destruction of America continues driven by the
homosexual controlled American media

THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES

Jay Honeck schrieb:
> Below is what was published today on the moderated piloting group, "Pilots
> of America". As you may recall, this is the piloting group that Dudley
> Henriques, myself, and a host of others have switched to, now that the
> cross-posting trolls have emasculated this once-hallowed group.

This *here* is usenet. Whatever you say and how good your quoted article
is or might be: This was NOT a shameless and harmless plug, this was
pure advertisment for a (free) service and is intended to disturb (yeah,
I know ...) this group. Please refrain from doing so. Thank you.

As I don't intend to make this a broad discussion: please let it stay as
said, thus I set a f-up to poster. Thank you. :-)

#m

buttman > wrote in news:cbfc0b5f-cfbd-4067-ae6e-
:

> On Sep 2, 10:18*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>> http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/
>
> You think this place is better because they close down a forum and
> give you a timeout, much like how a mother punishes her 3 year old?
>
> The problem with most of these "moderated" web forums is that they
> seem to focus their moderation on protecting the thin-skinned from
> being offended by cuss words and insults, while they let the actual
> discussions degrade into meaningless, (all though polite) trite crap.

Myabe you could start a thread about how to kill yourself in an airplane.


It'd be a valuable public service


"buttman's how not do it daily tip"



Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> buttman > wrote in news:cbfc0b5f-cfbd-4067-ae6e-
> :
>
>> On Sep 2, 10:18 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/
>>
>> You think this place is better because they close down a forum and
>> give you a timeout, much like how a mother punishes her 3 year old?
>>
>> The problem with most of these "moderated" web forums is that they
>> seem to focus their moderation on protecting the thin-skinned from
>> being offended by cuss words and insults, while they let the actual
>> discussions degrade into meaningless, (all though polite) trite crap.
>
> Myabe you could start a thread about how to kill yourself in an airplane.
>
>
> It'd be a valuable public service
>
>
> "buttman's how not do it daily tip"
>
>
>
> Bertie

We don't need it. You make a bad example of yourself many times daily.

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> buttman > wrote in news:cbfc0b5f-cfbd-4067-ae6e-
>> :
>>
>>> On Sep 2, 10:18 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/
>>>
>>> You think this place is better because they close down a forum and
>>> give you a timeout, much like how a mother punishes her 3 year old?
>>>
>>> The problem with most of these "moderated" web forums is that they
>>> seem to focus their moderation on protecting the thin-skinned from
>>> being offended by cuss words and insults, while they let the actual
>>> discussions degrade into meaningless, (all though polite) trite
>>> crap.
>>
>> Myabe you could start a thread about how to kill yourself in an
>> airplane.
>>
>>
>> It'd be a valuable public service
>>
>>
>> "buttman's how not do it daily tip"
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> We don't need it. You make a bad example of yourself many times daily.
>


Awwww.. Maxwell getting cranky again?


Bertie

FREEDOM-OF-SPEECH wrote:
>
>THE EMPEROR

sad how far some folks sink under their own spooks.
this was slightly entertaining a couple of posts ago.
particularly how this sad fellow just loves the word "sycophant".
I've seen the tendency in the moderately to severely mentally retarded and
schizophrenic.

just pitiful now.

Been away for a while and I see it ain't got much better 'round these parts.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200809/1

On Sep 4, 3:27*am, FREEDOM-OF-SPEECH > wrote:
> Future history will show.....
>
> 2008 was "The Rise Of The White Male Sycophant"
>
> America will never be the same as the forces of politically
> correct tyranny seek to weaken America by lessening the very
> bedrock culture that built her. *The strong white male men
> of the west the types like John Wayne have been transformed
> by the Marxist American media into a weak shriveling
> sycophant minion servant of strong women and blacks on TV.
>
John Wayne! You mean Marion ( yeh Marion) Morrison. He was an actor
you idiot. That means he plays dress ups and pretends to be someone he
is not. Why dont use a real big white Texan like George Dubbya as
your shining example of white male supremacy and intellect.........on
second thoughts.

> This *here* is usenet. Whatever you say and how good your quoted article
> is or might be: This was NOT a shameless and harmless plug, this was pure
> advertisment for a (free) service and is intended to disturb (yeah, I know
> ...) this group. Please refrain from doing so. Thank you.
>
> As I don't intend to make this a broad discussion: please let it stay as
> said, thus I set a f-up to poster. Thank you. :-)

Martin, usually your English is quite good -- but I haven't had enough beer
to make any sense out those two paragraphs.

Try that again, please?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article <cXDvk.326662$yE1.310662@attbi_s21>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > This *here* is usenet. Whatever you say and how good your quoted article
> > is or might be: This was NOT a shameless and harmless plug, this was pure
> > advertisment for a (free) service and is intended to disturb (yeah, I know
> > ...) this group. Please refrain from doing so. Thank you.
> >
> > As I don't intend to make this a broad discussion: please let it stay as
> > said, thus I set a f-up to poster. Thank you. :-)
>
> Martin, usually your English is quite good -- but I haven't had enough beer
> to make any sense out those two paragraphs.

(if I may interject...)

well, it seems Martin's point is that plugging POA as an alternative
to rec.aviation.* contributes to the exodus of group contributers,
and that actually hurts the group.

As to the 2nd para, Martin occasionally utilizes the feature of
setting followups ("f-up") to the poster (Martin, in this case).

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

On Sep 3, 5:45*pm, terry > wrote:
> On Sep 4, 3:27*am, FREEDOM-OF-SPEECH > wrote:> Future history will show.....
>
> > 2008 was "The Rise Of The White Male Sycophant"
>
> > America will never be the same as the forces of politically
> > correct tyranny seek to weaken America by lessening the very
> > bedrock culture that built her. *The strong white male men
> > of the west the types like John Wayne have been transformed
> > by the Marxist American media into a weak shriveling
> > sycophant minion servant of strong women and blacks on TV.
>
> John Wayne! * You mean Marion ( yeh Marion) Morrison. He was an actor
> you idiot. That means he plays dress ups and pretends to be someone he
> is not. *Why dont use a real big white Texan like George Dubbya as
> your shining example of white male supremacy and intellect.........on
> second thoughts.

Well, Jimmy Stewart would be more suitable, as this is an aviation
forum.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:cXDvk.326662$yE1.310662@attbi_s21:

>> This *here* is usenet. Whatever you say and how good your quoted
>> article is or might be: This was NOT a shameless and harmless plug,
>> this was pure advertisment for a (free) service and is intended to
>> disturb (yeah, I know ...) this group. Please refrain from doing so.
>> Thank you.
>>
>> As I don't intend to make this a broad discussion: please let it stay
>> as said, thus I set a f-up to poster. Thank you. :-)
>
> Martin, usually your English is quite good



Better than your's obviously. Not to mention his usenet savvy.



Bertie

I really don't want to trim the original post, so I am making a special
exception in deciding to top-post.

IMHO, P.O.A definitely does NOT rock!

The interface appears tedious, looks silly with those identity logos on the
left side, and simply does not work as well as an NNTP server. Frankly,
P.O.A is just not worth the effort to search for content, much less sign up
and contribute, and if it was the only on-line choice; I would simply go
off-line.

Peter


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Deovk.270699$TT4.255150@attbi_s22...
> Below is what was published today on the moderated piloting group, "Pilots
> of America". As you may recall, this is the piloting group that Dudley
> Henriques, myself, and a host of others have switched to, now that the
> cross-posting trolls have emasculated this once-hallowed group.
>
> Over on P of A, off-topic posts are segregated to an area called "The Spin
> Zone". Pretty much anything goes there (as opposed to the rest of the
> site, which is purely about aviation), and it has been said that it is
> roughly the equivalent of rec.aviation.piloting. Politics, crime,
> religion -- you name it -- it's all fair game in the Spin Zone. Usually.
>
> Lately, however, things have apparently gotten pretty out of hand there,
> to the point where the moderators have taken the radical step of closing
> that part of PofA down for a "cooling off" period. Below is the
> explanation the moderating team has posted for all to read:
>
> ************************************************** *************************************************
> Recently, the Management Council posted a general warning about the level
> of offensive rhetoric in the Spin Zone. After dealing with five violations
> of the Rules of Conduct in the Spin Zone in the last 12 hours, the
> Management Council has concluded that too many participants did not take
> that warning to heart. We have decided that a "time out" is necessary so
> that all Spin Zone posters can reflect on whether or not they wish to play
> by the rules. Therefore, the Spin Zone is closed for three days.
>
> While the Spin Zone is closed, non-aviation related political, religious,
> or otherwise potentially controversial topics posted in other forums in
> violation of the rules for those forums will be deleted, and users who
> persist in posting inappropriate material will be subject to full site
> suspension.
>
> If, when the Spin Zone reopens, all participants demonstrate a
> recommitment to the principles of civil discourse upon which this this
> site was founded, it will remain open. If this pervasive lack of
> self-discipline continues at the current level, the Management Council
> will eliminate that forum permanently because we are unwilling to continue
> spending the amount of time required to manage the misbehavior of the
> small but significant number of participants who do not abide by the
> rules.
>
> Regards,
>
> The Pilots of America Management Council
> ************************************************** *************************************************
> If only something similar could be enforced here, this group would quickly
> be restored to functionality. Since it can't, I heartily invite everyone
> who is sick of the "Bertie-MX-Maxwell-Mikey-Rich Troll-o-rama Show" to
> c'mon over to where the air is clean and fresh, and the management team
> knows how to deal with children who can't play well with others.
>
> http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> Ercoupe N94856
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

"Bob Noel" > wrote
>
> well, it seems Martin's point is that plugging POA as an alternative
> to rec.aviation.* contributes to the exodus of group contributers,
> and that actually hurts the group.

How can it possibly hurt this group any further?

I loath the setup of POA, and find little to no enjoyment trying to read it.

That being said, all one can hope to do is to keep good people in touch with
each other, and POA is all that is left.

All one can hope at this point is that this group finish its flaming death
gasps, and later that it can possibly be reborn from the ashes.
--
Jim in NC

buttman writes:

> The problem with most of these "moderated" web forums is that they
> seem to focus their moderation on protecting the thin-skinned from
> being offended by cuss words and insults, while they let the actual
> discussions degrade into meaningless, (all though polite) trite crap.
>
> For instance its very common to see a thread in a moderated forum
> about a plane crash. But instead of the discussion being about the
> actual crash, all you'll see is page after page of replies like "RIP",
> "This is sad my prayers go out to the victims", "RIP :(", "this is sad
> RIP:(", etc. Its nice that people are being supportive and polite, but
> whats the point? Who wants to read that? If I were moderating, that is
> the exact kind of thing I'd be removing. The same goes for when a
> thread diverts off into a personal chit chat session between two
> acquaintances.

That's because you cannot have a meaningful discussion among people with
differences of opinion without the risk of controversy and conflict.

If the discussion forum is peaceful, it will also be boring, with no real
discussion of substance. If the discussion forum discusses real issues of
real interest, the intolerant among the participants will complain of being
offended and will rapidly resort to personal attacks.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Jay Honeck schrieb:
> Try that again, please?

What would you say if the bellboy from a hotel in your town shows up in
your lobby saying to your guests that they should come over to his place
(whatever the reason might be)?

You just did *exactly* the same here on usenet.

#m

Martin Hotze > wrote:
> Jay Honeck schrieb:
>> Try that again, please?
>
> What would you say if the bellboy from a hotel in your town shows up in
> your lobby saying to your guests that they should come over to his place
> (whatever the reason might be)?
>
> You just did *exactly* the same here on usenet.

What would you say if a fireman showed up in Jay's lobby saying his hotel's
roof is on fire and his guests should evacuate to another hotel?

And what if pigs had wings?

On Sep 4, 10:39*am, a > wrote:
> On Sep 3, 5:45*pm, terry > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 4, 3:27*am, FREEDOM-OF-SPEECH > wrote:> Future history will show.....
>
> > > 2008 was "The Rise Of The White Male Sycophant"
>
> > > America will never be the same as the forces of politically
> > > correct tyranny seek to weaken America by lessening the very
> > > bedrock culture that built her. *The strong white male men
> > > of the west the types like John Wayne have been transformed
> > > by the Marxist American media into a weak shriveling
> > > sycophant minion servant of strong women and blacks on TV.
>
> > John Wayne! * You mean Marion ( yeh Marion) Morrison. He was an actor
> > you idiot. That means he plays dress ups and pretends to be someone he
> > is not. *Why dont use a real big white Texan like George Dubbya as
> > your shining example of white male supremacy and intellect.........on
> > second thoughts.
>
> Well, Jimmy Stewart would be more suitable, as this is an aviation
> forum.- Hide quoted text -

Now there's a real American hero.

In article >, "Morgans" > wrote:

> > well, it seems Martin's point is that plugging POA as an alternative
> > to rec.aviation.* contributes to the exodus of group contributers,
> > and that actually hurts the group.
>
> How can it possibly hurt this group any further?

You are correct that rec.aviation.piloting has been damaged by vandals with
the maturity of a 10 year old. And those pilots are an embarrassment.
>
> I loath the setup of POA, and find little to no enjoyment trying to read it.

Yep, the user interface stinks.

>
> That being said, all one can hope to do is to keep good people in touch with
> each other, and POA is all that is left.
>
> All one can hope at this point is that this group finish its flaming death
> gasps, and later that it can possibly be reborn from the ashes.

That's the hope. However, I suspect that the trolls and vandals won't
grow up.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Anthony, the best attribute of POA is that you're not there, since it is a
forum for pilots. You can rationalize your non-participation all you want,
but the fact is that you simply don't have anything to contribute.

> If the discussion forum is peaceful, it will also be boring, with no real
> discussion of substance. If the discussion forum discusses real issues of
> real interest, the intolerant among the participants will complain of
> being
> offended and will rapidly resort to personal attacks.

Disagree 100%. There is no need or reason for anyone here to stoop to
personal attacks, at any time. That sort of crap doesn't forward any
conversation, ever.

Until the "Bertie-MX-Maxie-Rich-Mikey Troll-o-Rama Show" began, personal
attacks here were exceedingly rare. Even when they occurred, they were mild
by comparison to this group's every-day persona now, and (more importantly)
the regular posters in the group would quickly show their disdain for that
sort of behavior.

This kept trolls in check, even when potentially controversial off-topic
subjects were discussed. Now, even benign, on-topic subjects can't be
discussed here without the trolls rolling in the mud.

Discussions at P of A can be VERY boisterous, with all opinions voiced.
There is NO censorship until troll-ish behavior and personal attacks become
the focus of the discussion -- at which point it's GONE. The moderators are
(IMHO) extremely patient, but when the line is crossed there is no doubt
that the offenders will be swiftly dealt with. It's....refreshing.

P of A may not be perfect, but it's about pilots discussing flying. If
that's what you're looking for, check it out.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> The interface appears tedious, looks silly with those identity logos on
> the left side, and simply does not work as well as an NNTP server.
> Frankly, P.O.A is just not worth the effort to search for content, much
> less sign up and contribute, and if it was the only on-line choice; I
> would simply go off-line.

The interface is awkward to learn -- but that's only because it has many
powerful shortcuts built in. Once you learn some of the shortcuts, it makes
finding (for example) only new posts since your last visit a snap.

I kinda like the identity logos. We used to have a "Rogues Gallery" of
photos of regular posters here (in fact, it's still up. See it here:
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/rec_aviation.htm ) that served something of
the same function.

Wow, I just spent a couple of minutes exploring the old gallery. Imagine,
there once was a time when ALL those pilots felt so connected to this group
that they wanted their picture available for all of us to view. One by
one, the trolls have driven most of them away.

Hard to believe, or remember....

:-(
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>> What would you say if the bellboy from a hotel in your town shows up in
>> your lobby saying to your guests that they should come over to his place
>> (whatever the reason might be)?
>>
>> You just did *exactly* the same here on usenet.
>
> What would you say if a fireman showed up in Jay's lobby saying his
> hotel's
> roof is on fire and his guests should evacuate to another hotel?

Exactly.

I would LOVE to come here some morning and find that the trolls were gone,
and all the old regulars were coming back, one by one. In fact, the only
reason I'm still here at all is because I keep hoping to see some sign of
this happening.

Sadly, there is no indication that this will ever occur. If anything, the
number of trolls and their sock-puppets has continued to grow, and they now
virtually own the group. All you have to do is check out the recent thread
on "Father/son flying" -- a terrific topic -- to see what the trolls do with
even such an innocent, heart-warming subject.

The best we can hope for is that any student pilot who may stumble into this
group just as quickly moves on, lest they get the false impression that
aviation is chock-full of nuts.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:isSvk.327629$yE1.312486@attbi_s21:

>> The interface appears tedious, looks silly with those identity logos
>> on the left side, and simply does not work as well as an NNTP server.
>> Frankly, P.O.A is just not worth the effort to search for content,
>> much less sign up and contribute, and if it was the only on-line
>> choice; I would simply go off-line.
>
> The interface is awkward to learn -- but that's only because it has
> many powerful shortcuts built in. Once you learn some of the
> shortcuts, it makes finding (for example) only new posts since your
> last visit a snap.
>
> I kinda like the identity logos. We used to have a "Rogues Gallery"
> of photos of regular posters here (in fact, it's still up. See it
> here: http://www.alexisparkinn.com/rec_aviation.htm )


Spamming fjukktard


Bertie

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:JmSvk.327625$yE1.122780@attbi_s21:

>> If the discussion forum is peaceful, it will also be boring, with no
>> real discussion of substance. If the discussion forum discusses real
>> issues of real interest, the intolerant among the participants will
>> complain of being
>> offended and will rapidly resort to personal attacks.
>
> Disagree 100%. There is no need or reason for anyone here to stoop to
> personal attacks, at any time. That sort of crap doesn't forward any
> conversation, ever.
>
> Until the "Bertie-MX-Maxie-Rich-Mikey Troll-o-Rama Show" began,
> personal attacks here were exceedingly rare. Even when they occurred,
> they were mild by comparison to this group's every-day persona now,
> and (more importantly) the regular posters in the group would quickly
> show their disdain for that sort of behavior.
>
> This kept trolls in check, even when potentially controversial
> off-topic subjects were discussed. Now, even benign, on-topic
> subjects can't be discussed here without the trolls rolling in the
> mud.
>
> Discussions at P of A can be VERY boisterous, with all opinions
> voiced. There is NO censorship until troll-ish behavior and personal
> attacks become the focus of the discussion -- at which point it's
> GONE. The moderators are (IMHO) extremely patient, but when the line
> is crossed there is no doubt that the offenders will be swiftly dealt
> with. It's....refreshing.
>
> P of A may not be perfect, but it's about pilots discussing flying.

So what are you doing there, spamtard?


Bertie

Jay Honeck writes:

> There is no need or reason for anyone here to stoop to
> personal attacks, at any time. That sort of crap doesn't forward any
> conversation, ever.

Nevertheless, stupid people will routinely resort to personal attacks, often
very early in a conversation. It's extremely predictable and reliable.

> Until the "Bertie-MX-Maxie-Rich-Mikey Troll-o-Rama Show" began, personal
> attacks here were exceedingly rare.

They have always been common. I see examples of them again and again in
virtually every newsgroup on USENET, including this one.

> Even when they occurred, they were mild
> by comparison to this group's every-day persona now, and (more importantly)
> the regular posters in the group would quickly show their disdain for that
> sort of behavior.

Some of the worst offenders are regular posters in the group.

Anthony, did you ever stop to think that you and the nature of your posts
might have something to do with the responses they elicit?

Jim Logajan schrieb:
> What would you say if a fireman showed up in Jay's lobby saying his hotel's
> roof is on fire and his guests should evacuate to another hotel?

it is his job.

> And what if pigs had wings?

they'd fly I guess ...

#m

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> There is no need or reason for anyone here to stoop to
>> personal attacks, at any time. That sort of crap doesn't forward any
>> conversation, ever.
>
> Nevertheless, stupid people will routinely resort to personal attacks,
> often very early in a conversation. It's extremely predictable and
> reliable.
>
>> Until the "Bertie-MX-Maxie-Rich-Mikey Troll-o-Rama Show" began,
>> personal attacks here were exceedingly rare.
>
> They have always been common. I see examples of them again and again
> in virtually every newsgroup on USENET, including this one.

Now there's a surprise.


Bertie

> They have always been common. I see examples of them again and again in
> virtually every newsgroup on USENET, including this one.

That's because your entry to this group precipitated the worst troll
invasion ever seen here. I don't know why, exactly -- I find your postings
to be relatively harmless, occasionally amusing, and often on-topic -- and
perhaps it was coincidental -- but there is no doubt that your entrance here
occurred right before the entry of "Bertie" and his sock-puppets, and the
exit of so many regular posters.

> Some of the worst offenders are regular posters in the group.

Sadly, you're right. But only because so many of the good folks have left.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Sep 4, 1:15*pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> Anthony, did you ever stop to think that you and the nature of your posts
> might have something to do with the responses they elicit?

Actually, it's not the nature of his posts..... It's the nature of his
responses acting like playing with MSFS is like being in a real plane
in real air. The two simply doesn't intertwine.

I have never had leans on MSFS. I have never felt a botched landing
in MSFS. I have never felt positive or negative G's in MSFS. I have
never experienced the shear beauty of breaking out at minimums in
MSFS, or breaking out on top in MSFS.

Yet he will challenge me on what I am suppose to feel and do in a real
plane. I DON"T THINK SO. He has already claimed I am unsafe pilot on
using trends and expected reactions in IMC, yet he has never touched a
cloud behind the controls of an airplane that flies in the air in the
real world away from a computer.

SO I REPEAT AGAIN, it's is the tone of his responses that are the
problem in that simming is like real world.

But he will followup to my response with some antidotical (sp?)
response that doesn't address the issue that simming and flying a real
airplane are not the same and he will claim it is the same.

I do both, so I can talk from both sides of the coin.

He can't and doesn't belong in a group for pilots when there are
groups for simming that can answer his questions. And his questions
that pertain to rules, like following roads, he doesn't need us. FARS
provides all the answers for questions like that.

When I ask him direct questions, he doesn't answer and won't answer.
History already proves this.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:PyWvk.273117$TT4.19223@attbi_s22:

>> They have always been common. I see examples of them again and again
>> in virtually every newsgroup on USENET, including this one.
>
> That's because your entry to this group precipitated the worst troll
> invasion ever seen here. I don't know why, exactly -- I find your
> postings to be relatively harmless, occasionally amusing, and often
> on-topic -- and perhaps it was coincidental -- but there is no doubt
> that your entrance here occurred right before the entry of "Bertie"
> and his sock-puppets, and the exit of so many regular posters.


What sock puppets?


Bertie

Jay Honeck writes:

> That's because your entry to this group precipitated the worst troll
> invasion ever seen here. I don't know why, exactly -- I find your postings
> to be relatively harmless, occasionally amusing, and often on-topic -- and
> perhaps it was coincidental -- but there is no doubt that your entrance here
> occurred right before the entry of "Bertie" and his sock-puppets, and the
> exit of so many regular posters.

I'm not sure that there is a connection.

> Sadly, you're right. But only because so many of the good folks have left.

Which folks were those?

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> That's because your entry to this group precipitated the worst troll
>> invasion ever seen here. I don't know why, exactly -- I find your
>> postings
>> to be relatively harmless, occasionally amusing, and often on-topic --
>> and
>> perhaps it was coincidental -- but there is no doubt that your entrance
>> here
>> occurred right before the entry of "Bertie" and his sock-puppets, and the
>> exit of so many regular posters.
>
> I'm not sure that there is a connection.
>

You're not sure of anything.

Jay Honeck wrote:
There is no need or reason for anyone here to stoop to
> personal attacks, at any time.

Really.
Let me just fetch up...
"Given your known political stance, however, (somewhere to the left of
Hugo Chavez) it adds up..."

posted by one Jay Honeck, Sept 1, 2008 6:05 AM

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jay Honeck writes:
>>
>>> That's because your entry to this group precipitated the worst troll
>>> invasion ever seen here. I don't know why, exactly -- I find your
>>> postings
>>> to be relatively harmless, occasionally amusing, and often on-topic
>>> -- and
>>> perhaps it was coincidental -- but there is no doubt that your
>>> entrance here
>>> occurred right before the entry of "Bertie" and his sock-puppets,
>>> and the exit of so many regular posters.
>>
>> I'm not sure that there is a connection.
>>
>
> You're not sure of anything.
>
>
>

Everyone is sure about you, however.

Bertie

On Sep 4, 12:42*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> They have always been common. *I see examples of them again and again in
> virtually every newsgroup on USENET, including this one.

Anthony, honest, simple question. Were you around this group years
ago? 5 years ago? 7 years ago?
I suspect not. HOW can you say "they have always been common?"
Anthony, they have not always been common here!
You are wrong once again.

Ricky

In article >,
Stella Starr > wrote:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
> There is no need or reason for anyone here to stoop to
> > personal attacks, at any time.
>
> Really.
> Let me just fetch up...
> "Given your known political stance, however, (somewhere to the left of
> Hugo Chavez) it adds up..."
>
> posted by one Jay Honeck, Sept 1, 2008 6:05 AM

Nonetheless, Jay's point is correct. There is no need. Regardless
of whether or not people have done it, there is no value in personal attacks.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Bob Noel > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Stella Starr > wrote:
>
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>> There is no need or reason for anyone here to stoop to
>> > personal attacks, at any time.
>>
>> Really.
>> Let me just fetch up...
>> "Given your known political stance, however, (somewhere to the left
>> of Hugo Chavez) it adds up..."
>>
>> posted by one Jay Honeck, Sept 1, 2008 6:05 AM
>
> Nonetheless, Jay's point is correct. There is no need. Regardless
> of whether or not people have done it, there is no value in personal
> attacks.
>


There is one.


Entertainment.


Bertie

On Sep 3, 12:27*pm, FREEDOM-OF-SPEECH > wrote:
> Future history will show.....
>
> FREEDOM-OF-SPEECH HAS NO CLOTHES

Don't you have a toilet you need to drink from?

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Entertainment.
>
>
> Bertie

Yeah but the rest of us are real pilots, dumb ass. We are not here for
entertainment.

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Entertainment.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Yeah but the rest of us are real pilots, dumb ass. We are not here for
> entertainment.


Yeh, oh ouch.


Bertie

This is why POA sucks:

Here is an example of a 4 star thread:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23823

basically "hi welcome back" over and over again.

And here is an example of a 1 star thread:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23821

To me, this is the kind of thing that should be encouraged on online
discussion forums. Questioning widely-held perceptions in order to get
a better understanding the aviation profession. On POA, it'll get you
called a troll.

buttman > wrote in news:e350542c-ca3f-42c6-94e4-
:

> This is why POA sucks:
>
> Here is an example of a 4 star thread:
>
> http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23823
>
> basically "hi welcome back" over and over again.
>
> And here is an example of a 1 star thread:
>
> http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23821
>
> To me, this is the kind of thing that should be encouraged on online
> discussion forums. Questioning widely-held perceptions in order to get
> a better understanding the aviation profession. On POA, it'll get you
> called a troll.
>




You haven't got the brains to be called an elf, never mind a troll.


Bertie

buttman writes:

> This is why POA sucks:
>
> Here is an example of a 4 star thread:
>
> http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23823
>
> basically "hi welcome back" over and over again.
>
> And here is an example of a 1 star thread:
>
> http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23821
>
> To me, this is the kind of thing that should be encouraged on online
> discussion forums. Questioning widely-held perceptions in order to get
> a better understanding the aviation profession. On POA, it'll get you
> called a troll.

This pattern is typical of virtually all moderated forums. They essentially
become social clubs for a small group of regulars, and all interaction is
social, rather than intellectual. Anything that rocks the boat is rejected.
Unfortunately, debate by definition rocks the boat.

You can rationalize all you want- the bottom line is that you have nothing
to contribute to a forum that includes real pilots and discusses actual
flying.

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 07:45:04 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip did most oddly
state:
> buttman wrote:
>
>> This is why POA sucks:
>>
>> Here is an example of a 4 star thread:
>>
>> http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23823
>>
>> basically "hi welcome back" over and over again.
>>
>> And here is an example of a 1 star thread:
>>
>> http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23821
>>
>> To me, this is the kind of thing that should be encouraged on online
>> discussion forums. Questioning widely-held perceptions in order to get a
>> better understanding the aviation profession. On POA, it'll get you
>> called a troll.
>
> You haven't got the brains to be called an elf, never mind a troll.

Which sounds pretty dire for POA, I must say. Just an ongoing
circle-jerk there, then.

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; Chung Convict #28; Usenet Ruiner #5
Demon Lord of Confusion; Official Chung Demon; Top Asshole #3
Superfaggot; Wingnut's #1 World Class Coward (next to the French)
COOSN-029-06-71069; Most Hated Usenetizen of All Time #13; Lits Slut #16
Gutter Chix0r #17; BowTie's Spuriously Accused Pedo Photographer #4
AUK Psycho & Felon #21; Parrot & Zombie #2; AUK Hate Machine Cog #19
Anonymous Psycho Criminal #18
The posting nym is best removed from my posting address if your goal is
to speak with me in private.
Supreme High Overlord of rec.radio.*
"Atheists are people who have no invisible means of support"
Join my RuneScape clan!
http://z11.invisionfree.com/Holy_Pretzel_Cabal/index.php
Full name of clan: Cabal of the Holy International Discordian Internet
And Usenet Terrorist Pretzel

"A dog in the video I watched ****ed a human woman. The dog consented to
it and the woman consented to it. That is like one gay man consenting to
having sex with another. Do you approve of it?" -- Agamemnon watches
bestiality porn and compares it to gay sex. Message-ID:
>

"I know how you special busboys are.
You're crazy." -- John "special busboy" Wentzky, in Message-ID:
>

"Roe V Wade has zero bearing on my existence other than it affects it
adversely."
-- Johnny Wentzky never had much truck with "logic". Message-ID:
>

"F!ck moderation, free speech is a masculinist proverb and that's what
feminist manvagina's like yourself." -- posted
before finishing a thought, in MID:
om>

"Fredbot == SameAsB4 == TGOOS

"You are stalking me, even after I thrashed ya." -- PorchMonkey4Life,
a veritable combination of Sherlock Holmes and Doc Savage for the 21st
Century. No, really. Would I lie? MID: <zaUqh.2972$E35.415@trnddc02>

"He unleashes a fecal explosion he time he posts. He uses so many nyms
because he gets beaten so easily and so convincingly in flame wars and
tries to hide behind nyms in the hopes of getting a fresh start. To bad
for him that his lameness keep shining through like a beacon for all
tards (e.g., SameAs$B4, Demon Spawn, Barbara's Pus$y, FredBot,
TGOOS, ......, etc)" -- Monkey-man identifies <jitter> as me, among
others, in broken English, in MID: <Z_Xqh.3167$E35.215@trnddc02>

Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle
Trainer of the above k00k
http://www.screedbomb.info/porchie/

Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2008
Hammer of Thor, July 2008

"Q: What do you call someone in the White House who is honest, caring,
and well-read?
A: A tourist." -- Anonymous

"It would be offly hard for any of you to abuse me on usenet. Really. I
have the advantage. I could easily turn alt.usenet.kooks into a cesspool
of encoded posts. Bringing the noise ratio up so high as to make the
group worthless. Anybody who can code could do this, why nobody has
bothered before now is beyond me. The ultimate spamming engine..
'BAWAHAHA'" -- Dustbin "Outer Filth" K00k's delusions of grandeur
reached new heights, in Message-ID:
>
"Immorality: The morality of those who are having a better time." -- H.
L. Mencken

"Consider that language a moment. 'Purposefully and materially
supported hostilities against the United States' is in the eye of the
beholder, and this administration has proven itself to be astonishingly
impatient with criticism of any kind. The broad powers given to Bush by
this legislation allow him to capture, indefinitely detain, and refuse a
hearing to any American citizen who speaks out against Iraq or any other
part of the so-called 'War on Terror.'

"If you write a letter to the editor attacking Bush, you could be
deemed as purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the
United States. If you organize or join a public demonstration against
Iraq, or against the administration, the same designation could befall
you. One dark-comedy aspect of the legislation is that senators or House
members who publicly disagree with Bush, criticize him, or organize
investigations into his dealings could be placed under the same
designation. In effect, Congress just gave Bush the power to lock them
up." -- William Rivers Pitt

"It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American
people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the
president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq,
and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections,
the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly
worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect,
declare himself dictator." -- Frank Morales
http://www.uruknet.biz/?p=m27769&hd=0&size=1&l=e&fark

"Right you are correct. Someone hooked me. I do believe in building
relationships. That is what Christians are required to do. I am amoral.
I am sure you know what that means. So are Scorpios. I am being
'protected' by the Formosa Rule because of my 'mental illness'. I am not
targeting 'teh Mop Jockey'. You are and you are using me as a bait.
Please stop. I have my own fish to reel in. Leave me alone. It is my hope
that I will be able to catch a fish and reel it in for you. Once my
retired bishop thought I was fishing for him and he took the bait, alas
it wasn't me and that spelled the demise of our relationship. Have a
little bit more faith in me. An Eastern Orthodox bishop thought I was
fishing for him and willingly, proudly and defiantly took the bait on
public record, and it wasn't even me. Give me a break." -- Atlanta
Olympiada "Erica" Kane yammered in
Message-ID: >

"It does to a certain extant physically and theoretically
it holds even into the quantum but there observational confirmation is
limited or non existent. That's the problem and the major stumbling
block to field unification. For Dr. Einstein held out that a physical
based field theory should be sought out and not left to quantum
uncertainty of how the universe primly base works. Man made coordinate
systems are fine without knowing from where or what is the base essence
of what the space as deduced field is composed of, but not totally
satisfactory. Anomalies keep space cropping up and scientists have to
keep adjusting for these unexpected events. It's like a blind man that
has memorized his physical surroundings to a point he feels very
comfortable until that one new or unexpected event pops up and he's lost
and fumbling." -- nightbat, in one of his more lucid moments.
Message-ID: >

On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 23:49:28 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip did most oddly
state:
> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
>
>>> They have always been common. I see examples of them again and again
>>> in virtually every newsgroup on USENET, including this one.
>>
>> That's because your entry to this group precipitated the worst troll
>> invasion ever seen here. I don't know why, exactly -- I find your
>> postings to be relatively harmless, occasionally amusing, and often
>> on-topic -- and perhaps it was coincidental -- but there is no doubt
>> that your entrance here occurred right before the entry of "Bertie" and
>> his sock-puppets, and the exit of so many regular posters.
>
> What sock puppets?

Apparently, Jay is as clueless about headers and sockpuppetry as
Maxipad.

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; Chung Convict #28; Usenet Ruiner #5
Demon Lord of Confusion; Official Chung Demon; Top Asshole #3
Superfaggot; Wingnut's #1 World Class Coward (next to the French)
COOSN-029-06-71069; Most Hated Usenetizen of All Time #13; Lits Slut #16
Gutter Chix0r #17; BowTie's Spuriously Accused Pedo Photographer #4
AUK Psycho & Felon #21; Parrot & Zombie #2; AUK Hate Machine Cog #19
Anonymous Psycho Criminal #18
The posting nym is best removed from my posting address if your goal is
to speak with me in private.
Supreme High Overlord of rec.radio.*
"Atheists are people who have no invisible means of support"
Join my RuneScape clan!
http://z11.invisionfree.com/Holy_Pretzel_Cabal/index.php
Full name of clan: Cabal of the Holy International Discordian Internet
And Usenet Terrorist Pretzel

"A dog in the video I watched ****ed a human woman. The dog consented to
it and the woman consented to it. That is like one gay man consenting to
having sex with another. Do you approve of it?" -- Agamemnon watches
bestiality porn and compares it to gay sex. Message-ID:
>

"I know how you special busboys are.
You're crazy." -- John "special busboy" Wentzky, in Message-ID:
>

"Roe V Wade has zero bearing on my existence other than it affects it
adversely."
-- Johnny Wentzky never had much truck with "logic". Message-ID:
>

"F!ck moderation, free speech is a masculinist proverb and that's what
feminist manvagina's like yourself." -- posted
before finishing a thought, in MID:
om>

"Fredbot == SameAsB4 == TGOOS

"You are stalking me, even after I thrashed ya." -- PorchMonkey4Life,
a veritable combination of Sherlock Holmes and Doc Savage for the 21st
Century. No, really. Would I lie? MID: <zaUqh.2972$E35.415@trnddc02>

"He unleashes a fecal explosion he time he posts. He uses so many nyms
because he gets beaten so easily and so convincingly in flame wars and
tries to hide behind nyms in the hopes of getting a fresh start. To bad
for him that his lameness keep shining through like a beacon for all
tards (e.g., SameAs$B4, Demon Spawn, Barbara's Pus$y, FredBot,
TGOOS, ......, etc)" -- Monkey-man identifies <jitter> as me, among
others, in broken English, in MID: <Z_Xqh.3167$E35.215@trnddc02>

Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle
Trainer of the above k00k
http://www.screedbomb.info/porchie/

Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2008
Hammer of Thor, July 2008

"Q: What do you call someone in the White House who is honest, caring,
and well-read?
A: A tourist." -- Anonymous

"It would be offly hard for any of you to abuse me on usenet. Really. I
have the advantage. I could easily turn alt.usenet.kooks into a cesspool
of encoded posts. Bringing the noise ratio up so high as to make the
group worthless. Anybody who can code could do this, why nobody has
bothered before now is beyond me. The ultimate spamming engine..
'BAWAHAHA'" -- Dustbin "Outer Filth" K00k's delusions of grandeur
reached new heights, in Message-ID:
>
"Immorality: The morality of those who are having a better time." -- H.
L. Mencken

"Consider that language a moment. 'Purposefully and materially
supported hostilities against the United States' is in the eye of the
beholder, and this administration has proven itself to be astonishingly
impatient with criticism of any kind. The broad powers given to Bush by
this legislation allow him to capture, indefinitely detain, and refuse a
hearing to any American citizen who speaks out against Iraq or any other
part of the so-called 'War on Terror.'

"If you write a letter to the editor attacking Bush, you could be
deemed as purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the
United States. If you organize or join a public demonstration against
Iraq, or against the administration, the same designation could befall
you. One dark-comedy aspect of the legislation is that senators or House
members who publicly disagree with Bush, criticize him, or organize
investigations into his dealings could be placed under the same
designation. In effect, Congress just gave Bush the power to lock them
up." -- William Rivers Pitt

"It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American
people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the
president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq,
and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections,
the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly
worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect,
declare himself dictator." -- Frank Morales
http://www.uruknet.biz/?p=m27769&hd=0&size=1&l=e&fark

"Right you are correct. Someone hooked me. I do believe in building
relationships. That is what Christians are required to do. I am amoral.
I am sure you know what that means. So are Scorpios. I am being
'protected' by the Formosa Rule because of my 'mental illness'. I am not
targeting 'teh Mop Jockey'. You are and you are using me as a bait.
Please stop. I have my own fish to reel in. Leave me alone. It is my hope
that I will be able to catch a fish and reel it in for you. Once my
retired bishop thought I was fishing for him and he took the bait, alas
it wasn't me and that spelled the demise of our relationship. Have a
little bit more faith in me. An Eastern Orthodox bishop thought I was
fishing for him and willingly, proudly and defiantly took the bait on
public record, and it wasn't even me. Give me a break." -- Atlanta
Olympiada "Erica" Kane yammered in
Message-ID: >

"It does to a certain extant physically and theoretically
it holds even into the quantum but there observational confirmation is
limited or non existent. That's the problem and the major stumbling
block to field unification. For Dr. Einstein held out that a physical
based field theory should be sought out and not left to quantum
uncertainty of how the universe primly base works. Man made coordinate
systems are fine without knowing from where or what is the base essence
of what the space as deduced field is composed of, but not totally
satisfactory. Anomalies keep space cropping up and scientists have to
keep adjusting for these unexpected events. It's like a blind man that
has memorized his physical surroundings to a point he feels very
comfortable until that one new or unexpected event pops up and he's lost
and fumbling." -- nightbat, in one of his more lucid moments.
Message-ID: >

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:15:21 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip did most oddly
state:
> "Lonnie" wrote:
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote...
>>>
>>> Entertainment.
>>
>> Yeah but the rest of us are real pilots, dumb ass. We are not here for
>> entertainment.
>
> Yeh, oh ouch.

I guess Maxipad and some of the other RAP regs are being paid to post to
usenet. Hmmmm. Alexa should know about this.

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; Chung Convict #28; Usenet Ruiner #5
Demon Lord of Confusion; Official Chung Demon; Top Asshole #3
Superfaggot; Wingnut's #1 World Class Coward (next to the French)
COOSN-029-06-71069; Most Hated Usenetizen of All Time #13; Lits Slut #16
Gutter Chix0r #17; BowTie's Spuriously Accused Pedo Photographer #4
AUK Psycho & Felon #21; Parrot & Zombie #2; AUK Hate Machine Cog #19
Anonymous Psycho Criminal #18
The posting nym is best removed from my posting address if your goal is
to speak with me in private.
Supreme High Overlord of rec.radio.*
"Atheists are people who have no invisible means of support"
Join my RuneScape clan!
http://z11.invisionfree.com/Holy_Pretzel_Cabal/index.php
Full name of clan: Cabal of the Holy International Discordian Internet
And Usenet Terrorist Pretzel

"A dog in the video I watched ****ed a human woman. The dog consented to
it and the woman consented to it. That is like one gay man consenting to
having sex with another. Do you approve of it?" -- Agamemnon watches
bestiality porn and compares it to gay sex. Message-ID:
>

"I know how you special busboys are.
You're crazy." -- John "special busboy" Wentzky, in Message-ID:
>

"Roe V Wade has zero bearing on my existence other than it affects it
adversely."
-- Johnny Wentzky never had much truck with "logic". Message-ID:
>

"F!ck moderation, free speech is a masculinist proverb and that's what
feminist manvagina's like yourself." -- posted
before finishing a thought, in MID:
om>

"Fredbot == SameAsB4 == TGOOS

"You are stalking me, even after I thrashed ya." -- PorchMonkey4Life,
a veritable combination of Sherlock Holmes and Doc Savage for the 21st
Century. No, really. Would I lie? MID: <zaUqh.2972$E35.415@trnddc02>

"He unleashes a fecal explosion he time he posts. He uses so many nyms
because he gets beaten so easily and so convincingly in flame wars and
tries to hide behind nyms in the hopes of getting a fresh start. To bad
for him that his lameness keep shining through like a beacon for all
tards (e.g., SameAs$B4, Demon Spawn, Barbara's Pus$y, FredBot,
TGOOS, ......, etc)" -- Monkey-man identifies <jitter> as me, among
others, in broken English, in MID: <Z_Xqh.3167$E35.215@trnddc02>

Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle
Trainer of the above k00k
http://www.screedbomb.info/porchie/

Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2008
Hammer of Thor, July 2008

"Q: What do you call someone in the White House who is honest, caring,
and well-read?
A: A tourist." -- Anonymous

"It would be offly hard for any of you to abuse me on usenet. Really. I
have the advantage. I could easily turn alt.usenet.kooks into a cesspool
of encoded posts. Bringing the noise ratio up so high as to make the
group worthless. Anybody who can code could do this, why nobody has
bothered before now is beyond me. The ultimate spamming engine..
'BAWAHAHA'" -- Dustbin "Outer Filth" K00k's delusions of grandeur
reached new heights, in Message-ID:
>
"Immorality: The morality of those who are having a better time." -- H.
L. Mencken

"Consider that language a moment. 'Purposefully and materially
supported hostilities against the United States' is in the eye of the
beholder, and this administration has proven itself to be astonishingly
impatient with criticism of any kind. The broad powers given to Bush by
this legislation allow him to capture, indefinitely detain, and refuse a
hearing to any American citizen who speaks out against Iraq or any other
part of the so-called 'War on Terror.'

"If you write a letter to the editor attacking Bush, you could be
deemed as purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the
United States. If you organize or join a public demonstration against
Iraq, or against the administration, the same designation could befall
you. One dark-comedy aspect of the legislation is that senators or House
members who publicly disagree with Bush, criticize him, or organize
investigations into his dealings could be placed under the same
designation. In effect, Congress just gave Bush the power to lock them
up." -- William Rivers Pitt

"It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American
people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the
president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq,
and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections,
the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly
worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect,
declare himself dictator." -- Frank Morales
http://www.uruknet.biz/?p=m27769&hd=0&size=1&l=e&fark

"Right you are correct. Someone hooked me. I do believe in building
relationships. That is what Christians are required to do. I am amoral.
I am sure you know what that means. So are Scorpios. I am being
'protected' by the Formosa Rule because of my 'mental illness'. I am not
targeting 'teh Mop Jockey'. You are and you are using me as a bait.
Please stop. I have my own fish to reel in. Leave me alone. It is my hope
that I will be able to catch a fish and reel it in for you. Once my
retired bishop thought I was fishing for him and he took the bait, alas
it wasn't me and that spelled the demise of our relationship. Have a
little bit more faith in me. An Eastern Orthodox bishop thought I was
fishing for him and willingly, proudly and defiantly took the bait on
public record, and it wasn't even me. Give me a break." -- Atlanta
Olympiada "Erica" Kane yammered in
Message-ID: >

"It does to a certain extant physically and theoretically
it holds even into the quantum but there observational confirmation is
limited or non existent. That's the problem and the major stumbling
block to field unification. For Dr. Einstein held out that a physical
based field theory should be sought out and not left to quantum
uncertainty of how the universe primly base works. Man made coordinate
systems are fine without knowing from where or what is the base essence
of what the space as deduced field is composed of, but not totally
satisfactory. Anomalies keep space cropping up and scientists have to
keep adjusting for these unexpected events. It's like a blind man that
has memorized his physical surroundings to a point he feels very
comfortable until that one new or unexpected event pops up and he's lost
and fumbling." -- nightbat, in one of his more lucid moments.
Message-ID: >

Hail Eris! On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 05:23:08 -0500, "Viperdoc" sang, "If I were
a Deep One...blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, bloody,
bloody, blub...", and then randomly typed out:

> You can rationalize all you want- the bottom line is that you have nothing
> to contribute to a forum that includes real pilots and discusses actual
> flying.

So you think PoA would be ideal for him, then?

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; Anonymous Psycho Criminal #18
TEH USENETS BULLIE
http://www.runescape.com/
Join my RuneScape clan!
http://z11.invisionfree.com/Holy_Pretzel_Cabal/index.php
Full name of clan: Cabal of the Holy International Discordian Internet
And Usenet Terrorist Pretzel

Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle
Trainer of PorchMonkey4Life
http://www.screedbomb.info/porchie/

Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2008
Hammer of Thor, July 2008

"Not supporting me is equivalent to forfeiting your own rights." --
John D. Wentzky: Warrior For Your Freedumb! Message-ID:
>

"You cognatatively challenged fool!" -- According to Agamemnon, Stephen
Wilson is, apparently, highly ignorant about cognates, and so is anyone
who dares to disagree with him, in Message-ID:
>

"Is it still necrophilia if I'm conscious?" -- Owen Harper, "Dead Man
Walking", Torchwood (20/207)

Aratzio > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 22:33:46 +0000 (UTC), in the land of
> alt.usenet.kooks, Bertie the Bunyip > got double secret
> probation for writing:
>
>>Aratzio > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 22:13:32 +0000 (UTC), in the land of
>>> alt.usenet.kooks, Bertie the Bunyip > got double secret
>>> probation for writing:
>>>
>>>>"The God of Odd Statements, Henry Schmidt"
ta.org> wrote in
>>>>news:pan.2008.09.06.11.17.41.882523

>>>>ost:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:15:21 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip did most
oddly
>>>>> state:
>>>>>> "Lonnie" wrote:
>>>>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Entertainment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah but the rest of us are real pilots, dumb ass. We are not
here
>>>>>>> for entertainment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeh, oh ouch.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess Maxipad and some of the other RAP regs are being paid to
>>>>> post to usenet. Hmmmm. Alexa should know about this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Alexa?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Alexa Cameron (I think she is "FreeedomFromFacism" this week)
>>>
>>> The Queen of Screed, no cornsipricy is too wild, never met an alien
>>> she didn't like or a supersecret mind weapon that does not exist.
>>>
>>> I've always enjoyed the death of earth screeds.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Sounds vaguely familiar. I think I may have come across her before.
the
>>aviation groups were heavily infested with conspirawhackos after 9-11.
>>
>>Bertie
>
> Oh yeah, the twin towers were brought down by a CIA superweapon.


The onle I like the best is the missile into the Pentagon theory. "Why
isnt there a 757 shaped hole in the Pentagon?
Straight out of the WileY Coyote school of physics.


Bertie

"Mike" > wrote in news:hFEwk.769$393.86@trnddc05:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "The God of Odd Statements, Henry Schmidt"
>> ta.org> wrote in
>> news:pan.2008.09.06.11.14.25.490401
@kooks.worship.me.with.their.every.
>> post:
>>
>>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 23:49:28 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip did most oddly
>>> state:
>>>> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> They have always been common. I see examples of them again and
>>>>>> again in virtually every newsgroup on USENET, including this one.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's because your entry to this group precipitated the worst
>>>>> troll invasion ever seen here. I don't know why, exactly -- I
>>>>> find your postings to be relatively harmless, occasionally
>>>>> amusing, and often on-topic -- and perhaps it was coincidental --
>>>>> but there is no doubt that your entrance here occurred right
>>>>> before the entry of "Bertie" and his sock-puppets, and the exit of
>>>>> so many regular posters.
>>>>
>>>> What sock puppets?
>>>
>>> Apparently, Jay is as clueless about headers and sockpuppetry as
>>> Maxipad.
>>>
>>
>> Yep, he also has a fleapit motel in Iowa, of all places ( he's not
>> even from there, he actually moved there by choice) which he's
>> converted to an "aviatiors paradise" by placing a bunch of cheesy
>> pics of airplanes up on the walls. He posts the URL for this dump all
>> over the net.
>
> Jeez, you've got to be kidding. Who would move to Iowa City by
> choice? It's worse than Oklahoma.
>

Well, that's kind of like the "You got diahrea in my ****, no, you got
**** in my diahrea" argument, isn't it?
But Jay did indeed move to Iowa, from Chicago...


Bertie

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in
:

> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:hFEwk.769$393.86@trnddc05...
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "The God of Odd Statements, Henry Schmidt"
>>> ta.org> wrote in
>>> news:pan.2008.09.06.11.14.25.490401
@kooks.worship.me.with.their.every
>>> .post:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 23:49:28 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip did most
>>>> oddly state:
>>>>> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> They have always been common. I see examples of them again and
>>>>>>> again in virtually every newsgroup on USENET, including this
>>>>>>> one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's because your entry to this group precipitated the worst
>>>>>> troll invasion ever seen here. I don't know why, exactly -- I
>>>>>> find your postings to be relatively harmless, occasionally
>>>>>> amusing, and often on-topic -- and perhaps it was coincidental --
>>>>>> but there is no doubt that your entrance here occurred right
>>>>>> before the entry of "Bertie" and
>>>>>> his sock-puppets, and the exit of so many regular posters.
>>>>>
>>>>> What sock puppets?
>>>>
>>>> Apparently, Jay is as clueless about headers and sockpuppetry as
>>>> Maxipad.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yep, he also has a fleapit motel in Iowa, of all places ( he's not
>>> even from there, he actually moved there by choice) which he's
>>> converted to an "aviatiors paradise" by placing a bunch of cheesy
>>> pics of airplanes up on the walls. He posts the URL for this dump
>>> all over the net.
>>
>> Jeez, you've got to be kidding. Who would move to Iowa City by
>> choice? It's worse than Oklahoma.
> Oh my! I spent a month in Ok City one afternoon...
>

Still, beats the **** out of a weekend in Weisbaden.



Bertie
>
>
>

Peter Dohm schrieb:
>> http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23823
>>
>> basically "hi welcome back" over and over again.
>>
> That sort of thing is pretty innocuous, except for the tedeous interface
> that quintuples the effort to scroll through the posts in order to see in\f
> there is any "meat and potatoes" in any of them. We used to see the same
> thing here and in R.A.S until we were infested by Mxs and the places became
> a minefield--but it was not a problem with the simpler text oriented NNTP
> interface.

.... and all those _*useless*_ huge signatures with pictures (or
animations *waahhh*!) and most of the posters on forums not trimming
their replies.

#m

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:10:23 +0200, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
got double secret probation for writing:

>On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 15:24:37 -0700, Aratzio >
>wrote:
>
>>>Alexa?
>>>
>>
>>Alexa Cameron (I think she is "FreeedomFromFacism" this week)
>
>No, she is not. There is a second guy using her name posting from:
>

>
>
>C.

Drooling imbecile.

> wrote in message
news:fh67c4drflaqfmpt8sfddtjj1ooq789gbf@pasoschwei z.de...
> On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 15:24:37 -0700, Aratzio >
> wrote:
>
>>>Alexa?
>>>
>>
>>Alexa Cameron (I think she is "FreeedomFromFacism" this week)
>
> No, she is not. There is a second guy using her name posting from:
>
> @newsrazor.net
>
> Karl.

Hier clicken: http://clickme.50webs.org/

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
. ..

>
> That sounds like the start of a "Live forever" joke -- it's not
> forever, it just seems that way in OK. But an OK friend had a nice
> comeback. "Why do all the trees in OK lean toward Texas?"
>
>
> "Texas sucks".
>
> I admit it. I laughed. Now I'm ashamed!
>
>
>

If it wasn't for Oklahoma truckers and Mexican whores, there would never
have been a Texas.

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sounds vaguely familiar. I think I may have come across her before. the
> aviation groups were heavily infested with conspirawhackos after 9-11.
>
> Bertie
>

Bull****. We didn't have them or you either.

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>
>> That sounds like the start of a "Live forever" joke -- it's not
>> forever, it just seems that way in OK. But an OK friend had a nice
>> comeback. "Why do all the trees in OK lean toward Texas?"
>>
>>
>> "Texas sucks".
>>
>> I admit it. I laughed. Now I'm ashamed!
>>
>>
>>
>
> If it wasn't for Oklahoma truckers and Mexican whores, there would never
> have been a Texas.

Ah, come on. Everyone knows Okies only marry their sisters and first
cousins.

"Mike" > wrote in message
news:NxUwk.739$sq3.364@trnddc07...
>
> Ah, come on. Everyone knows Okies only marry their sisters and first
> cousins.

Just shows your ignorance about folklore is second only to your ignorance
about flying.

on 9/7/2008 9:41 AM Lonnie said the following:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Sounds vaguely familiar. I think I may have come across her before. the
>> aviation groups were heavily infested with conspirawhackos after 9-11.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Bull****. We didn't have them or you either.

As usual you're wrong. Alt.disasters.aviation was loaded with
conspirowhackos starting almost immediately, for instance. A number of
us were debunking them constantly for a couple years at least. Paul
Gooding and John Mazor were particularly active at it. And Bertie has
been posting in aviation groups since 1998, as a simple Google search
will turn up. He even posted in RAP on 9/11:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/e3d63e3ecb47417a?dmode=source

That was 9/11/2001 in the U.S., since I'm sure you'll jump on the
timestamp. It's GMT.

On 2008-09-07, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
> And Bertie has been posting in aviation groups since 1998, as a simple
> Google search will turn up. He even posted in RAP on 9/11:

Has he been a flaming asshole troll for that long, or did he just go over
the edge recently? (And no, I'm not about to dredge up that sewer on my
own.)
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC

on 9/7/2008 1:04 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
> On 2008-09-07, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>> And Bertie has been posting in aviation groups since 1998, as a simple
>> Google search will turn up. He even posted in RAP on 9/11:
>
> Has he been a flaming asshole troll for that long, or did he just go over
> the edge recently? (And no, I'm not about to dredge up that sewer on my
> own.)

A false dichotomy that I'm not going to bite on. Besides, Maxie would
insist I was defending him either way, but I'm simply presenting facts.

On 2008-09-07, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
> on 9/7/2008 1:04 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
>> On 2008-09-07, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>>> And Bertie has been posting in aviation groups since 1998, as a simple
>>> Google search will turn up. He even posted in RAP on 9/11:
>> Has he been a flaming asshole troll for that long, or did he just go over
>> the edge recently? (And no, I'm not about to dredge up that sewer on my
>> own.)
> A false dichotomy that I'm not going to bite on. Besides, Maxie would
> insist I was defending him either way, but I'm simply presenting facts.

Rich, my dim recollection from my previous time as a member of the
rec.aviation community was that you were, like a lot of other folks, calm,
rational, and knowledgeable. When I got away from flying, I got away from
rec.aviation. When I got back into flying, I got back in here, only to find
that the group is full of people like Mxsmanic and Bertie, each working to
destroy the sense of community and mutual assistance by being as trollish,
or as much a flaming asshole, as possible, and the few who were still trying
to be helpful (such as Jay Honeck) being ruthlessly driven away. Imagine my
surprise to discover you defending Bertie, one of the worst, and repeatedly
slamming Jay Honeck, one of the better of those remaining.

I still have my "rec.aviation: Global Hangar Flying" patch, somewhere. It
doesn't apply any more. If we had this kind of hangar flying, we could sell
tickets and market it on pay-per-view to the unlimited fighting fans.

Bertie's one of the primary causes of the hangar getting burned to the
ground. For you to defend him as you do merely sullies your own reputation.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:NxUwk.739$sq3.364@trnddc07...
>>
>> Ah, come on. Everyone knows Okies only marry their sisters and first
>> cousins.
>
> Just shows your ignorance about folklore is second only to your ignorance
> about flying.

....sez the 12 yr old flight sim "pilot".

It's not my fault your family tree is a wreath, Okie. Stop blaming others
for your faults.

This might help you out:

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

on 9/7/2008 1:49 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
> Bertie's one of the primary causes of the hangar getting burned to the
> ground. For you to defend him as you do merely sullies your own reputation.

First off, I'm not defending him. He's quite capable of doing so himself
if he chooses. Holding the same opinion as someone some of the time
(e.g., Maxie is an idiot) is not defending that person. Neither is
conversing with him. Or correcting factual errors about past history.
The fact that you cannot tell the difference places your judgment in
question.

I would turn it around and suggest that for you to praise Jay only
sullies your own reputation. He's a reactionary, self-promoting asshole,
and I stepped away from here for a good while because of the constant
pollution of his political crap.

However, no one is driving Jay away. He's merely running away because he
can't stand not being in control and having people disagree with him. He
can't even just ignore criticism or disagreement. He has to have it
squelched completely, or he'll take his ball and go home. Well, good
riddance.

Rich Ahrens > wrote:
> on 9/7/2008 1:04 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
>> On 2008-09-07, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>>> And Bertie has been posting in aviation groups since 1998, as a
>>> simple Google search will turn up. He even posted in RAP on 9/11:
>>
>> Has he been a flaming asshole troll for that long, or did he just go
>> over the edge recently? (And no, I'm not about to dredge up that
>> sewer on my own.)
>
> A false dichotomy

Well ... Jay did not use a dichotomy - that I can see. Rather, his question
made a presumption: that Bertie is a flaming asshole. The question was when
did he become one. The distant past and the recent past are not normally
considered dichotomous - merely a subjective matter.

An answer to Jay's question doesn't appear to yield anything useful,
though. At least not that I can see.

"Mike" > wrote in message
news:sCXwk.681$Af3.511@trnddc06...
>
> http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

Interesting document Mikey Mouth.

Is that required reading where you are institutionalized, or are you just
trying to understand Bertie?

It would really make someone wonder how you came to be associated with such
a study.

Opinions vary...

But it would be difficult to dispute that MX is one of the most "on
topic" posters here..

Dave



On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 09:51:03 -0500, "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote:

>That's because Mx has a long history with this group, and many of us can
>assure you, he is not a productive member and feeding his threads do not pay
>off in the long run. Quite the contrary.

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
. net...

Bull****, you fancy yourself as one of his favorite socks, and you
constantly treat him like your hero.

Echoing his ideals, feeding his cross posted threads with nonsense, and
supporting him and his nonsense whenever you can.

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-09-07, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>> on 9/7/2008 1:04 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
>>> On 2008-09-07, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>>>> And Bertie has been posting in aviation groups since 1998, as a simple
>>>> Google search will turn up. He even posted in RAP on 9/11:
>>> Has he been a flaming asshole troll for that long, or did he just go
>>> over
>>> the edge recently? (And no, I'm not about to dredge up that sewer on my
>>> own.)
>> A false dichotomy that I'm not going to bite on. Besides, Maxie would
>> insist I was defending him either way, but I'm simply presenting facts.
>
> Rich, my dim recollection from my previous time as a member of the
> rec.aviation community was that you were, like a lot of other folks, calm,
> rational, and knowledgeable. When I got away from flying, I got away from
> rec.aviation. When I got back into flying, I got back in here, only to
> find
> that the group is full of people like Mxsmanic and Bertie, each working to
> destroy the sense of community and mutual assistance by being as trollish,
> or as much a flaming asshole, as possible, and the few who were still
> trying
> to be helpful (such as Jay Honeck) being ruthlessly driven away. Imagine
> my
> surprise to discover you defending Bertie, one of the worst, and
> repeatedly
> slamming Jay Honeck, one of the better of those remaining.
>
> I still have my "rec.aviation: Global Hangar Flying" patch, somewhere. It
> doesn't apply any more. If we had this kind of hangar flying, we could
> sell
> tickets and market it on pay-per-view to the unlimited fighting fans.
>
> Bertie's one of the primary causes of the hangar getting burned to the
> ground. For you to defend him as you do merely sullies your own
> reputation.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
> http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
> Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC

Jay,

Thanks for having the guts to tell it like it is. Hopefully in time, more
people find the courage to come forward and tell Bertie and his socks where
to go.

"Jay Maynard" > wrote

> Rich, my dim recollection from my previous time as a member of the
> rec.aviation community was that you were, like a lot of other folks, calm,
> rational, and knowledgeable.

> Bertie's one of the primary causes of the hangar getting burned to the
> ground. For you to defend him as you do merely sullies your own
> reputation.

Rich has been on my plonked list, for almost as long as I can remember. He
has not always been a flamer, but he has always had an smart a**ed a**hole,
as far as I can remember.

Is Rich Ahrens a real name? I have wondered if it is just the name of
another Bertie sock puppet.
--
Jim in NC

Rich Ahrens > wrote:
> on 9/7/2008 1:49 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
>> Bertie's one of the primary causes of the hangar getting burned to
>> the ground. For you to defend him as you do merely sullies your own
>> reputation.
>
> First off, I'm not defending him. He's quite capable of doing so
> himself if he chooses. Holding the same opinion as someone some of the
> time (e.g., Maxie is an idiot) is not defending that person. Neither
> is conversing with him. Or correcting factual errors about past
> history. The fact that you cannot tell the difference places your
> judgment in question.

Well shucks, you confused a false dichotomy with an unproven assumption in
another post, but I wouldn't hold that against you.

I'm with Jay Maynard on suspecting you are using a stealth defense of the
person posting as Bertie. Feel free to consider my judgment in question
too. I've always suspected my judgment to be **** poor too. ;-)

> I would turn it around and suggest that for you to praise Jay only
> sullies your own reputation. He's a reactionary, self-promoting
> asshole, and I stepped away from here for a good while because of the
> constant pollution of his political crap.

Excellent: your opinion on Jay Honeck's views is clear. Now if you can make
(or point to a past posting) of a clear opinion of Bertie's postings it
will be clear whether your posts are in fact a stealth defense of him or
merely an incidental byproduct of objective observations.

> However, no one is driving Jay away.

"However, no one is driving X away."
Where X = {Bob Gardner, Dudley Henriques, Jay Honeck, C. Gattman, ... }

In other words, a throw-away rhetorical line.

> He's merely running away because
> he can't stand not being in control and having people disagree with
> him. He can't even just ignore criticism or disagreement. He has to
> have it squelched completely, or he'll take his ball and go home.
> Well, good riddance.

So if someone posts an opinion on PoA that Jay Honeck disagrees with, then
are you claiming it will be squelched? Are you claiming Jay controls PoA?
I'm having a hard time relating the objective facts of the operation of PoA
with your pseudo-psychological analysis.

How long have you been observing Mx?

Regardless of his "being on topic", his threads most often prove very
detrimental to the group.

He has a very loose grip on the real world in general, and a desire to
irritate any of the dozens of people who have honestly try to help him
understand. He seems to have an honest resentment for the messenger, when
reality doesn't live up to his needs and expectations.

You will find it much simpler and rewarding, explaining the hazards of adult
male/female relationships, to a 15 year old girl that thinks she's has just
fallen in love.



"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> Opinions vary...
>
> But it would be difficult to dispute that MX is one of the most "on
> topic" posters here..
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 09:51:03 -0500, "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote:
>
>>That's because Mx has a long history with this group, and many of us can
>>assure you, he is not a productive member and feeding his threads do not
>>pay
>>off in the long run. Quite the contrary.
>

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
...
> How long have you been observing Mx?
>
> Regardless of his "being on topic", his threads most often prove very
> detrimental to the group.

No more so than you, Okie.

> He has a very loose grip on the real world in general, and a desire to
> irritate any of the dozens of people who have honestly try to help him
> understand. He seems to have an honest resentment for the messenger, when
> reality doesn't live up to his needs and expectations.

No more so than you, Okie.

> You will find it much simpler and rewarding, explaining the hazards of
> adult male/female relationships, to a 15 year old girl that thinks she's
> has just fallen in love.

No more so than you, Okie.

Also the differences between you and Mx, is Mx at least appears to be a few
years older, doesn't change his sock puppet several times per week, and is
at least one standard deviation to the right on the bell curve.

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:sCXwk.681$Af3.511@trnddc06...
>>
>> http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
>
> Interesting document Mikey Mouth.
>
> Is that required reading where you are institutionalized, or are you just
> trying to understand Bertie?
>
> It would really make someone wonder how you came to be associated with
> such a study.

Oh dear, who would have ever anticipated a clever repackaging of the old
"I'm rubber, you're glue" line? I didn't see that one coming, kookboi.
Your Okie wit is simply overwhelming and the rest of us stand in awe.

Dave > wrote:
> Opinions vary...

A problem I am attempting to correct. Everyone should have my opinion!
The world would be a much more congenial place. On the other hand, no one
would want to do hard or unpleasant work.

on 9/7/2008 2:28 PM Jim Logajan said the following:
> Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>> on 9/7/2008 1:04 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
>>> On 2008-09-07, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>>>> And Bertie has been posting in aviation groups since 1998, as a
>>>> simple Google search will turn up. He even posted in RAP on 9/11:
>>> Has he been a flaming asshole troll for that long, or did he just go
>>> over the edge recently? (And no, I'm not about to dredge up that
>>> sewer on my own.)
>> A false dichotomy
>
> Well ... Jay did not use a dichotomy - that I can see. Rather, his question
> made a presumption: that Bertie is a flaming asshole. The question was when
> did he become one. The distant past and the recent past are not normally
> considered dichotomous - merely a subjective matter.

A false dichotomy is an instance of a bifurcation fallacy and falls into
the category of fallacies of presumption. A bifurcation fallacy is
committed when someone is asked to choose between two options when there
is at least one other option available. Jay clearly presented two
options and asked me to choose. In this case there is at least one other
option: that Bertie is not a flaming asshole troll. This clearly meets
the definition.

> An answer to Jay's question doesn't appear to yield anything useful,
> though. At least not that I can see.

On that we agree.

on 9/7/2008 3:33 PM Lonnie said the following:
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> . net...
>
> Bull****, you fancy yourself as one of his favorite socks, and you
> constantly treat him like your hero.

Good gawd, you're an idiot, Maxie. How can I fancy myself as one of his
socks when I accept the standard definition of sock puppet, which
excludes that possibility? *You* continue to erroneously make that
flight of fancy, not me.

> Echoing his ideals, feeding his cross posted threads with nonsense, and
> supporting him and his nonsense whenever you can.

If his ideals include the conclusions that you, MX, and Jay are all
assholes, then he is perceptive. But I reached those conclusions
independently from the copious evidence supporting them.

on 9/7/2008 3:43 PM Jim Logajan said the following:
> Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>> on 9/7/2008 1:49 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
>>> Bertie's one of the primary causes of the hangar getting burned to
>>> the ground. For you to defend him as you do merely sullies your own
>>> reputation.
>> First off, I'm not defending him. He's quite capable of doing so
>> himself if he chooses. Holding the same opinion as someone some of the
>> time (e.g., Maxie is an idiot) is not defending that person. Neither
>> is conversing with him. Or correcting factual errors about past
>> history. The fact that you cannot tell the difference places your
>> judgment in question.
>
> Well shucks, you confused a false dichotomy with an unproven assumption in
> another post, but I wouldn't hold that against you.

No, you falsely characterized it, as I've explained elsewhere. But I
won't hold it against you.

> I'm with Jay Maynard on suspecting you are using a stealth defense of the
> person posting as Bertie. Feel free to consider my judgment in question
> too. I've always suspected my judgment to be **** poor too. ;-)

Couldn't say one way or the other in other contexts. But you're wrong
here. By your reasoning: Jimmy Carter condemns Israel's treatment of
Palestinians, as does OBL, therefore Carter is using a stealth defense
of OBL. That kind of spurious reasoning might fly in some circles (Jay
H's reactionary mind, for instance), but it's ****-poor judgment.

> Excellent: your opinion on Jay Honeck's views is clear. Now if you can make
> (or point to a past posting) of a clear opinion of Bertie's postings it
> will be clear whether your posts are in fact a stealth defense of him or
> merely an incidental byproduct of objective observations.

I have no obligation to do so. It is your assertion, Jay's, or both. The
burden of proof is on you.

>> However, no one is driving Jay away.
>
> "However, no one is driving X away."
> Where X = {Bob Gardner, Dudley Henriques, Jay Honeck, C. Gattman, ... }
>
> In other words, a throw-away rhetorical line.

No. Jay M asserted that Jay H was "being ruthlessly driven away." I
simply contradicted him with an equally bald assertion.

> So if someone posts an opinion on PoA that Jay Honeck disagrees with, then
> are you claiming it will be squelched? Are you claiming Jay controls PoA?
> I'm having a hard time relating the objective facts of the operation of PoA
> with your pseudo-psychological analysis.

I'm saying it is inherent in the nature of that heavily moderated forum
to meet Jay's need to be coddled, as supported by their having at least
temporarily shut down the one area where anything is supposedly fair
game. And further supported by Jay's blathering in praise of that action.

"Mike" > wrote in message
news:X9Zwk.769$sq3.59@trnddc07...

Socken and sucken up to Mx now, eh Mikey Mouth.

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
. net...
> on 9/7/2008 3:43 PM Jim Logajan said the following:
>> Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>>> on 9/7/2008 1:49 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
>>>> Bertie's one of the primary causes of the hangar getting burned to
>>>> the ground. For you to defend him as you do merely sullies your own
>>>> reputation.
>>> First off, I'm not defending him. He's quite capable of doing so
>>> himself if he chooses. Holding the same opinion as someone some of the
>>> time (e.g., Maxie is an idiot) is not defending that person. Neither
>>> is conversing with him. Or correcting factual errors about past
>>> history. The fact that you cannot tell the difference places your
>>> judgment in question.
>>
>> Well shucks, you confused a false dichotomy with an unproven assumption
>> in another post, but I wouldn't hold that against you.
>
> No, you falsely characterized it, as I've explained elsewhere. But I won't
> hold it against you.
>
>> I'm with Jay Maynard on suspecting you are using a stealth defense of the
>> person posting as Bertie. Feel free to consider my judgment in question
>> too. I've always suspected my judgment to be **** poor too. ;-)
>
> Couldn't say one way or the other in other contexts. But you're wrong
> here. By your reasoning: Jimmy Carter condemns Israel's treatment of
> Palestinians, as does OBL, therefore Carter is using a stealth defense of
> OBL. That kind of spurious reasoning might fly in some circles (Jay H's
> reactionary mind, for instance), but it's ****-poor judgment.
>
>> Excellent: your opinion on Jay Honeck's views is clear. Now if you can
>> make (or point to a past posting) of a clear opinion of Bertie's postings
>> it will be clear whether your posts are in fact a stealth defense of him
>> or merely an incidental byproduct of objective observations.
>
> I have no obligation to do so. It is your assertion, Jay's, or both. The
> burden of proof is on you.
>
>>> However, no one is driving Jay away.
>>
>> "However, no one is driving X away."
>> Where X = {Bob Gardner, Dudley Henriques, Jay Honeck, C. Gattman, ... }
>>
>> In other words, a throw-away rhetorical line.
>
> No. Jay M asserted that Jay H was "being ruthlessly driven away." I simply
> contradicted him with an equally bald assertion.
>
>> So if someone posts an opinion on PoA that Jay Honeck disagrees with,
>> then are you claiming it will be squelched? Are you claiming Jay controls
>> PoA? I'm having a hard time relating the objective facts of the operation
>> of PoA with your pseudo-psychological analysis.
>
> I'm saying it is inherent in the nature of that heavily moderated forum to
> meet Jay's need to be coddled, as supported by their having at least
> temporarily shut down the one area where anything is supposedly fair game.
> And further supported by Jay's blathering in praise of that action.

Cool, nice spin.

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
. net...
> on 9/7/2008 2:28 PM Jim Logajan said the following:
>> Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>>> on 9/7/2008 1:04 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
>>>> On 2008-09-07, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>>>>> And Bertie has been posting in aviation groups since 1998, as a
>>>>> simple Google search will turn up. He even posted in RAP on 9/11:
>>>> Has he been a flaming asshole troll for that long, or did he just go
>>>> over the edge recently? (And no, I'm not about to dredge up that
>>>> sewer on my own.)
>>> A false dichotomy
>>
>> Well ... Jay did not use a dichotomy - that I can see. Rather, his
>> question made a presumption: that Bertie is a flaming asshole. The
>> question was when did he become one. The distant past and the recent past
>> are not normally considered dichotomous - merely a subjective matter.
>
> A false dichotomy is an instance of a bifurcation fallacy and falls into
> the category of fallacies of presumption. A bifurcation fallacy is
> committed when someone is asked to choose between two options when there
> is at least one other option available. Jay clearly presented two options
> and asked me to choose. In this case there is at least one other option:
> that Bertie is not a flaming asshole troll. This clearly meets the
> definition.
>
>> An answer to Jay's question doesn't appear to yield anything useful,
>> though. At least not that I can see.
>
> On that we agree.

Wow! Great big words, little bitty pecker.

Rich Ahrens > wrote:
> on 9/7/2008 3:43 PM Jim Logajan said the following:
>> Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>>> on 9/7/2008 1:49 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
>>>> Bertie's one of the primary causes of the hangar getting burned to
>>>> the ground. For you to defend him as you do merely sullies your own
>>>> reputation.
>>> First off, I'm not defending him. He's quite capable of doing so
>>> himself if he chooses. Holding the same opinion as someone some of
>>> the time (e.g., Maxie is an idiot) is not defending that person.
>>> Neither is conversing with him. Or correcting factual errors about
>>> past history. The fact that you cannot tell the difference places
>>> your judgment in question.
>>
>> Well shucks, you confused a false dichotomy with an unproven
>> assumption in another post, but I wouldn't hold that against you.
>
> No, you falsely characterized it, as I've explained elsewhere. But I
> won't hold it against you.

If there was no presumption in Jay M's question then it wasn't the
dichotomy you claimed it was. You need to make up your mind.

>> Excellent: your opinion on Jay Honeck's views is clear. Now if you
>> can make (or point to a past posting) of a clear opinion of Bertie's
>> postings it will be clear whether your posts are in fact a stealth
>> defense of him or merely an incidental byproduct of objective
>> observations.
>
> I have no obligation to do so. It is your assertion, Jay's, or both.
> The burden of proof is on you.

Huh? Are you saying the burden of proof of your opinions is on me? Sorry,
I don't follow that.

Look, I'm not asking for any obligations. I'm trying to figure out what
your opinion is of the person who posts using the "Bertie the Bunyip"
handle. You aren't shy about telling the world your opinion of Jay
Honeck's affect on this newsgroup. I'm not sure why you object to telling
the world your opinion of "Bertie's" affect on this newsgroup.

>>> However, no one is driving Jay away.
>>
>> "However, no one is driving X away."
>> Where X = {Bob Gardner, Dudley Henriques, Jay Honeck, C. Gattman, ...
>> }
>>
>> In other words, a throw-away rhetorical line.
>
> No. Jay M asserted that Jay H was "being ruthlessly driven away." I
> simply contradicted him with an equally bald assertion.

Are you now claiming no one has been driven away, or are you quibbling
over whether there was ruthless intent involved?

>> So if someone posts an opinion on PoA that Jay Honeck disagrees with,
>> then are you claiming it will be squelched? Are you claiming Jay
>> controls PoA? I'm having a hard time relating the objective facts of
>> the operation of PoA with your pseudo-psychological analysis.
>
> I'm saying it is inherent in the nature of that heavily moderated
> forum to meet Jay's need to be coddled, as supported by their having
> at least temporarily shut down the one area where anything is
> supposedly fair game. And further supported by Jay's blathering in
> praise of that action.

So bloody what? PoA has terms of use. So does your Usenet provider. You
can be bounced from your Usenet provider if you cross the line too, you
know.

Look - if you don't like Jay H's opinions or the man himself - fine. But
in my opinion all you are doing is rationalizing your dislike into a fine
tantrum of your own. And I say this as someone who doesn't agree with Jay
H on a huge range of issues.

On 2008-09-07, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
> First off, I'm not defending him. He's quite capable of doing so himself
> if he chooses. Holding the same opinion as someone some of the time
> (e.g., Maxie is an idiot) is not defending that person. Neither is
> conversing with him. Or correcting factual errors about past history.
> The fact that you cannot tell the difference places your judgment in
> question.

When was the last time you told him he was wrong?

> I would turn it around and suggest that for you to praise Jay only
> sullies your own reputation. He's a reactionary, self-promoting asshole,
> and I stepped away from here for a good while because of the constant
> pollution of his political crap.

If he's reactionary, then you definitely won't like my politics. However,
there's more to a person than his political views. I can separate my opinion
of someone's politics from my opinion of them as a person. You apparently
cannot.

Jay Honeck posted far more stuff on topic for this group than you have. He
was one of the few folks around here actually writing about aviation. He
certainly did so far more often than your buddy Bertie.

I've met Jay Honeck. He's a great guy. I strongly doubt I could say the same
about your buddy Bertie, even if I were to meet him (doubtful, since he
won't even stand behind his words).

> However, no one is driving Jay away. He's merely running away because he
> can't stand not being in control and having people disagree with him. He
> can't even just ignore criticism or disagreement. He has to have it
> squelched completely, or he'll take his ball and go home. Well, good
> riddance.

People disagree with him all the time on PoA. He's still there. The
difference is that PoA isn't filled with flaming assholes (no, that's not a
false dichotomy; Bertie is a flaming asshole, and that reduces the
possibilities to the two I wrote about) like your buddy Bertie, more intent
on tearing down than building a community.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC

On 2008-09-07, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>> on 9/7/2008 1:04 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
>>> Has he been a flaming asshole troll for that long, or did he just go
>>> over the edge recently? (And no, I'm not about to dredge up that
>>> sewer on my own.)
>> A false dichotomy
> Well ... Jay did not use a dichotomy - that I can see. Rather, his question
> made a presumption: that Bertie is a flaming asshole.

Exactly. This isn't in serious question except among Bertie and his
supporters.

> An answer to Jay's question doesn't appear to yield anything useful,
> though. At least not that I can see.

Oh, I was mainly curious as to when this group started its downhill slide
from community of aviators to flaming cesspit.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC

"Jay Maynard" > wrote

> Oh, I was mainly curious as to when this group started its downhill slide
> from community of aviators to flaming cesspit.

I can tell you that, exactly.

When MX came, and stayed, it was the beginning of the end.

We have had disruptive influences come and go, and if a person was
disruptive enough, everyone agreed to stop all communications with them, and
they usually left in a short period of time. I can probably think of 6 or
8 that fall into that classification. Other lesser levels of
disruptiveness, many people have a kill file to help them deal with the
individual.

Not so with this one. He posted enough on topic that some can not even
admit that he is a disruptive influence. He thrived on abuse, which was
also dished out to other people in the past, which I believe helped some
people decide to leave.

Bertie came in with his "yor an idiot" posts, and cross posted to every kook
group he could think of.

It all spins out of control, after that. At some point, critical mass was
reached, and people left by the handfuls.

Everyone has always realized that being a newsgroup, there were going to be
people that would not stay on topic, and post views that they did not agree
with. They had to develop thick skins, or they would not last long. People
came and went, and those that thought it was worth putting up with off topic
posts, and pure BS and flamefests, mostly became regulars.

I can't remember the last "new" regular that has joined, that posts somewhat
on topic, aviation based posts. On the other hand, it is not hard to make a
list of all of the people that were regulars, posting mostly (or even
somewhat mostly) on topic posts, that now have gone elsewhere, probably
never to return.

So yes, there have always been disruptions, and flames, and a balance has
always been maintained; with high and low points being part of the norm.

The new norm is the cesspool. Look up MX's first post. That is your "Black
Friday."
--
Jim in NC

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:X9Zwk.769$sq3.59@trnddc07...
>
> Socken and sucken up to Mx now, eh Mikey Mouth.

Pointing out that someone else is considerably to the right of you on the
bell curve is not necessarily a complement, Okie.

In article >, "Morgans" > wrote:

> The new norm is the cesspool. Look up MX's first post. That is your "Black
> Friday."

actually, mx first posted several years ago (iirc - I killfiled him back in 2002)

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Bob Noel > wrote:
> In article >, "Morgans"
> > wrote:
>
>> The new norm is the cesspool. Look up MX's first post. That is your
>> "Black Friday."
>
> actually, mx first posted several years ago (iirc - I killfiled him
> back in 2002)

That Mxsmanic actually posted to r.a.p several years before things went
sideways is often either missed or dismissed.

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote:
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:X9Zwk.769$sq3.59@trnddc07...
>
> Socken and sucken up to Mx now, eh Mikey Mouth.

You are either using a definition of "sock puppet" that only you
understand, or you don't understand the term as other people use it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet

on 9/7/2008 5:19 PM Jim Logajan said the following:
> If there was no presumption in Jay M's question then it wasn't the
> dichotomy you claimed it was. You need to make up your mind.

No, you need to try to keep up. The most common classification of
logical fallacies groups them into fallacies of relevance, of ambiguity,
and of presumption. False dichotomies fall into the group fallacies of
presumption. The presumption is that there are no options other than the
two offered. I previously explained why his question fit this definition.

>>> Excellent: your opinion on Jay Honeck's views is clear. Now if you
>>> can make (or point to a past posting) of a clear opinion of Bertie's
>>> postings it will be clear whether your posts are in fact a stealth
>>> defense of him or merely an incidental byproduct of objective
>>> observations.
>> I have no obligation to do so. It is your assertion, Jay's, or both.
>> The burden of proof is on you.
>
> Huh? Are you saying the burden of proof of your opinions is on me? Sorry,
> I don't follow that.

Do try harder to keep up. You and Jay have both asserted or at least
strongly presumed that I am defending Bertie. I have no obligation to
prove I am not doing so. It's your burden to prove that I am. I need not
play your game or answer your questions.

> Look, I'm not asking for any obligations. I'm trying to figure out what
> your opinion is of the person who posts using the "Bertie the Bunyip"
> handle. You aren't shy about telling the world your opinion of Jay
> Honeck's affect on this newsgroup. I'm not sure why you object to telling
> the world your opinion of "Bertie's" affect on this newsgroup.

I simply choose not to. My reasons are my own. You'll undoubtedly draw
your own conclusions. I care not.

>> No. Jay M asserted that Jay H was "being ruthlessly driven away." I
>> simply contradicted him with an equally bald assertion.
>
> Are you now claiming no one has been driven away, or are you quibbling
> over whether there was ruthless intent involved?

No one has been driven away. Some have chosen to leave, but that's their
choice. The fact that Jay and Dudley keep coming back here to sing the
praises of other forums makes it clear they are still free to post or
lurk and in fact do so.

> So bloody what? PoA has terms of use. So does your Usenet provider. You
> can be bounced from your Usenet provider if you cross the line too, you
> know.

So bloody what, in your own words. I choose providers who are far less
restrictive than Jay would like all to be. If he could netkopp me
successfully, I have no doubt he would.

> Look - if you don't like Jay H's opinions or the man himself - fine. But
> in my opinion all you are doing is rationalizing your dislike into a fine
> tantrum of your own. And I say this as someone who doesn't agree with Jay
> H on a huge range of issues.

No tantrum. I'm only responding to your arguments, lame as they may be.

on 9/7/2008 5:22 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
> On 2008-09-07, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>> First off, I'm not defending him. He's quite capable of doing so himself
>> if he chooses. Holding the same opinion as someone some of the time
>> (e.g., Maxie is an idiot) is not defending that person. Neither is
>> conversing with him. Or correcting factual errors about past history.
>> The fact that you cannot tell the difference places your judgment in
>> question.
>
> When was the last time you told him he was wrong?

We've had our disagreements. But I'm not going to do your research for
you. If you want to know, you do your own work.

> If he's reactionary, then you definitely won't like my politics. However,
> there's more to a person than his political views. I can separate my opinion
> of someone's politics from my opinion of them as a person. You apparently
> cannot.

Oh, I certainly can. I have friends whose views are diametrically
opposed to my own. But when someone constantly spouts reactionary drivel
in non-political forums like this one, a habit as destructive as any of
the other posters you despise, it cannot help but color my opinion of
him. The same with an endless stream of self-promotion.

> Jay Honeck posted far more stuff on topic for this group than you have. He
> was one of the few folks around here actually writing about aviation. He
> certainly did so far more often than your buddy Bertie.

In your opinion, which is rapidly becoming valueless to me. I've been
posting in the rec.aviation newsgroups since the mid-90s, the vast
majority of it on topic and aviation-related. Even during the recent
flamewars I've posted on topic now and then. Certainly more than some
others.

> I've met Jay Honeck. He's a great guy. I strongly doubt I could say the same
> about your buddy Bertie, even if I were to meet him (doubtful, since he
> won't even stand behind his words).

I've met Bertie and flown with him. I have no desire to meet Jay, much
less get in an aircraft with him. Between his online behavior and what
I've been told by friends who have met him face to face, I'd rather read
a book.

> People disagree with him all the time on PoA. He's still there. The
> difference is that PoA isn't filled with flaming assholes (no, that's not a
> false dichotomy; Bertie is a flaming asshole, and that reduces the
> possibilities to the two I wrote about) like your buddy Bertie, more intent
> on tearing down than building a community.

You have once again committed the same logical fallacy, but clearly
you're incapable of recognizing it. We can continue as long as you want,
but you're just contributing to the problem you're bitching about.

On 2008-09-08, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
> you're just contributing to the problem you're bitching about.

Not any more. *plonk*
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC

on 9/7/2008 9:27 PM Jim Logajan said the following:
> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote:
>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>> news:X9Zwk.769$sq3.59@trnddc07...
>>
>> Socken and sucken up to Mx now, eh Mikey Mouth.
>
> You are either using a definition of "sock puppet" that only you
> understand, or you don't understand the term as other people use it:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet

Good luck with this one. We've been trying to hammer it into Maxie's
head but he insists on his own definition.

on 9/7/2008 10:24 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
> On 2008-09-08, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>> you're just contributing to the problem you're bitching about.
>
> Not any more. *plonk*

Oh dear. That hurt dreadfully.

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
...
> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote:
>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>> news:X9Zwk.769$sq3.59@trnddc07...
>>
>> Socken and sucken up to Mx now, eh Mikey Mouth.
>
> You are either using a definition of "sock puppet" that only you
> understand, or you don't understand the term as other people use it:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet

The term sock puppet has been around much longer than the internet.

My first recollection of it was studying political history in the 9th grade
('60s), but I have heard it used even more often in corporate environments
since. In either case it is used to indicate someone is parroting someone
else's believes or ideals.

Either definition works for me. I don't care if someone has created a covert
identity, or if weak minded individuals simply parrot someone else's
mission, both examples seem transparent here. Let's face it, who cares if
Bich Ahrens, Mikey Mouth or any of the .kook folks, is a fake identity
operated by Bertie, or just another weak minded fool sucking up to him. They
both serve the same purpose.

Links included only because I like ya. :)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Political+Sock+Puppet

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/08/25/obama-picks-hollywood-sock

http://ohiodailyblog.com/content/sarah-palin-sock-puppet

Rich Ahrens > wrote:
> on 9/7/2008 5:19 PM Jim Logajan said the following:
>> If there was no presumption in Jay M's question then it wasn't the
>> dichotomy you claimed it was. You need to make up your mind.
>
> No, you need to try to keep up. The most common classification of
> logical fallacies groups them into fallacies of relevance, of
> ambiguity, and of presumption. False dichotomies fall into the group
> fallacies of presumption. The presumption is that there are no options
> other than the two offered. I previously explained why his question
> fit this definition.

I'm impressed by your attempts at logic. But I now suspect both of us are
not exactly young, so maybe the attempts at patronization are best left
out. It's been over 30 years since I took logic and philosophy classes in
college and later managed to convince them to award me a BSc in physics.
Later I managed to arrange my life to be able to work from the comfort of
my home out in the country. All of which I like to think proves I'm not a
complete idiot. So I'm not persuaded by your arguments at all because I
know from whence they come.

>>>> Excellent: your opinion on Jay Honeck's views is clear. Now if you
>>>> can make (or point to a past posting) of a clear opinion of
>>>> Bertie's postings it will be clear whether your posts are in fact a
>>>> stealth defense of him or merely an incidental byproduct of
>>>> objective observations.
>>> I have no obligation to do so. It is your assertion, Jay's, or both.
>>> The burden of proof is on you.
>>
>> Huh? Are you saying the burden of proof of your opinions is on me?
>> Sorry, I don't follow that.
>
> Do try harder to keep up. You and Jay have both asserted or at least
> strongly presumed that I am defending Bertie. I have no obligation to
> prove I am not doing so. It's your burden to prove that I am. I need
> not play your game or answer your questions.

I'm not playing a game. I wasn't even a target of your attack. I'm a third
party here. I simply don't see the point of attacking Jay H, who has never
cross-posted or gotten into deep threaded tit-for-tat attacks, whereas
others have done just that to the detriment of the group.

>> Look, I'm not asking for any obligations. I'm trying to figure out
>> what your opinion is of the person who posts using the "Bertie the
>> Bunyip" handle. You aren't shy about telling the world your opinion
>> of Jay Honeck's affect on this newsgroup. I'm not sure why you object
>> to telling the world your opinion of "Bertie's" affect on this
>> newsgroup.
>
> I simply choose not to. My reasons are my own.

Too bad you couldn't have used that opaque line of "reasoning" when you
were deciding whether to post your attack on Jay H.

> You'll undoubtedly draw your own conclusions.

I can't conclude anything - other than you dislike Jay H.

>>> No. Jay M asserted that Jay H was "being ruthlessly driven away." I
>>> simply contradicted him with an equally bald assertion.
>>
>> Are you now claiming no one has been driven away, or are you
>> quibbling over whether there was ruthless intent involved?
>
> No one has been driven away. Some have chosen to leave, but that's
> their choice.

I see. In much the same manner that a person who is attacked by a swarm of
mosquitos is simply making a choice to vacate the area - they aren't being
driven away. Dissembling over a colloquialism.

> The fact that Jay and Dudley keep coming back here to
> sing the praises of other forums makes it clear they are still free to
> post or lurk and in fact do so.

And you are free to complain (and complain (and complain)) about it - both
here - and on PoA if you wanted to, I bet.

And I say this as one who looked in on PoA and AOPA but decided they
weren't for me.

>> So bloody what? PoA has terms of use. So does your Usenet provider.
>> You can be bounced from your Usenet provider if you cross the line
>> too, you know.
>
> So bloody what, in your own words. I choose providers who are far less
> restrictive than Jay would like all to be. If he could netkopp me
> successfully, I have no doubt he would.

Jay H. had been reading and posting to this group for years and never
exhibited any sign of "net kopping". Ironically his r.a.p "Rogues Gallery"
appears to have been an attempt to "flesh out" and humanize a community
here. Since he invested some time in a volunteer effort, it stands to
reason he would be reluctant to sever his ties to the group and post a
public mourning when he took it down.

And it wasn't even Jay who precipitated the exodus to PoA and the other web
forums.

I see no facts to support your Jay H. "netkopp" fears.

>> Look - if you don't like Jay H's opinions or the man himself - fine.
>> But in my opinion all you are doing is rationalizing your dislike
>> into a fine tantrum of your own. And I say this as someone who
>> doesn't agree with Jay H on a huge range of issues.
>
> No tantrum. I'm only responding to your arguments, lame as they may
> be.

I love you too! ;-)

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
. net...
> on 9/7/2008 9:27 PM Jim Logajan said the following:
>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote:
>>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>>> news:X9Zwk.769$sq3.59@trnddc07...
>>>
>>> Socken and sucken up to Mx now, eh Mikey Mouth.
>>
>> You are either using a definition of "sock puppet" that only you
>> understand, or you don't understand the term as other people use it:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet
>
> Good luck with this one. We've been trying to hammer it into Maxie's head
> but he insists on his own definition.

Maybe you should expand your horizons a little beyond the troll sites, dumb
ass.

Been flying with Gertie lately?

Rich Ahrens > wrote:
> I've met Bertie and flown with him.

Well that explains your outlier opinion of Jay H. Wish I'd known that
earlier. It would have saved me typing time.

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote:
>>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>>> news:X9Zwk.769$sq3.59@trnddc07...
>>>
>>> Socken and sucken up to Mx now, eh Mikey Mouth.
>>
>> You are either using a definition of "sock puppet" that only you
>> understand, or you don't understand the term as other people use it:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet
>
> The term sock puppet has been around much longer than the internet.
>
> My first recollection of it was studying political history in the 9th
> grade ('60s), but I have heard it used even more often in corporate
> environments since. In either case it is used to indicate someone is
> parroting someone else's believes or ideals.

First I've heard of that meaning. On Usenet I always took it to mean
someone posting under multiple aliases. I may be wrong, but I may be
typical in understanding it by that meaning.

The links you include below appear to me to be unrelated to the meaning
traditionally used on Usenet. To avoid confusion, you might want to modify
your accusations by saying they are parrots, or parroting, or brainwashed,
or something other than sock puppets.

> Either definition works for me. I don't care if someone has created a
> covert identity, or if weak minded individuals simply parrot someone
> else's mission, both examples seem transparent here. Let's face it,
> who cares if Bich Ahrens, Mikey Mouth or any of the .kook folks, is a
> fake identity operated by Bertie, or just another weak minded fool
> sucking up to him. They both serve the same purpose.
>
> Links included only because I like ya. :)
>
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Political+Sock+Puppet
>
> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/08/25/obama-picks-holl
> ywood-sock
>
> http://ohiodailyblog.com/content/sarah-palin-sock-puppet

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
...
>
> First I've heard of that meaning. On Usenet I always took it to mean
> someone posting under multiple aliases. I may be wrong, but I may be
> typical in understanding it by that meaning.

>
> The links you include below appear to me to be unrelated to the meaning
> traditionally used on Usenet. To avoid confusion, you might want to modify
> your accusations by saying they are parrots, or parroting, or brainwashed,
> or something other than sock puppets.
>

If we can't tell one from the other, and they both serve the same purpose,
why do they need two names.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you've
got a duck.

Considering their actual motives, I guess we could call the real people
"suck puppets".

on 9/8/2008 12:07 AM Lonnie said the following:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> First I've heard of that meaning. On Usenet I always took it to mean
>> someone posting under multiple aliases. I may be wrong, but I may be
>> typical in understanding it by that meaning.
>
>> The links you include below appear to me to be unrelated to the meaning
>> traditionally used on Usenet. To avoid confusion, you might want to modify
>> your accusations by saying they are parrots, or parroting, or brainwashed,
>> or something other than sock puppets.
>>
>
> If we can't tell one from the other, and they both serve the same purpose,
> why do they need two names.

Because anyone with two working neurons can tall the difference. Which
eliminates you, I realize...

> Considering their actual motives, I guess we could call the real people
> "suck puppets".

Considering the amount of crap you spew, we'll just have to keep calling
you an asshole.

on 9/7/2008 11:32 PM Jim Logajan said the following:
> Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>> I've met Bertie and flown with him.
>
> Well that explains your outlier opinion of Jay H. Wish I'd known that
> earlier. It would have saved me typing time.

Jumping to conclusions, aren't you? I've met numerous folks here, flown
with a number of them, and been to more rec.aviation fly-ins in
Pinckneyville than everyone but the hosts. My opinion is my own, not
imposed by anyone else. And it is less of an outlier than you believe.

On Sep 7, 5:14*pm, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
> In this case there is at least one other
> option: that Bertie is not a flaming asshole troll. This clearly meets

Theres people who think Bertie isn't a flaming asshole troll?

Mxsmanic wrote:

> This pattern is typical of virtually all moderated forums. They essentially
> become social clubs for a small group of regulars, and all interaction is
> social, rather than intellectual. Anything that rocks the boat is rejected.
> Unfortunately, debate by definition rocks the boat.

Well the link that the buttman posted wasn't in the Aviation chat area.
it was in the "Pilots Lounge" that is described as...

"Forums in this category are not necessarily aviation specific. These
forums are our "Virtual Pilot's Lounge" where you can come in, chat,
have a cup of (virtual) coffee and a (virtual) donut and talk about just
about anything you like. :)"

The on topic aviation post can be found in "Controlled Airspace."

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=4

"All forums within this category are Aviation Only forums. Topics posted
here not dealing with Aviation in some way will be moved or deleted."

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Dave > wrote:
>> Opinions vary...
>
> A problem I am attempting to correct. Everyone should have my opinion!
> The world would be a much more congenial place.

Okay, dear. Whatever you say. I agree completely.





(I just love the little thrill it gives a guy when I say that!)

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>
>> That sounds like the start of a "Live forever" joke -- it's not
>> forever, it just seems that way in OK. But an OK friend had a nice
>> comeback. "Why do all the trees in OK lean toward Texas?"
>>
>>
>> "Texas sucks".
>>
>> I admit it. I laughed. Now I'm ashamed!
>>
>>
>>
>
> If it wasn't for Oklahoma truckers and Mexican whores, there would never
> have been a Texas.



Yeh, Maxine, We're thirlled you'r proud of your roots.


Bertie

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:NxUwk.739$sq3.364@trnddc07...
>>
>> Ah, come on. Everyone knows Okies only marry their sisters and first
>> cousins.
>
> Just shows your ignorance about folklore is second only to your
> ignorance about flying.
>
>
>

That's not caled folklore in Okie, It's called evolution.


Those whut fux their dogs call it intelijunt deeesahn.



Bertie

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

> How long have you been observing Mx?
>
> Regardless of his "being on topic", his threads most often prove very
> detrimental to the group.

Yeah, and your's are such a boon.


Bertie

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote:
>>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>>> news:X9Zwk.769$sq3.59@trnddc07...
>>>
>>> Socken and sucken up to Mx now, eh Mikey Mouth.
>>
>> You are either using a definition of "sock puppet" that only you
>> understand, or you don't understand the term as other people use it:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet
>
> The term sock puppet has been around much longer than the internet.
>
> My first recollection of it was studying political history in the 9th
> grade ('60s), but I have heard it used even more often in corporate
> environments since. In either case it is used to indicate someone is
> parroting someone else's believes or ideals.



Bull****.



Bertie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> First I've heard of that meaning. On Usenet I always took it to mean
>> someone posting under multiple aliases. I may be wrong, but I may be
>> typical in understanding it by that meaning.
>
>>
>> The links you include below appear to me to be unrelated to the
>> meaning traditionally used on Usenet. To avoid confusion, you might
>> want to modify your accusations by saying they are parrots, or
>> parroting, or brainwashed, or something other than sock puppets.
>>
>
> If we can't tell one from the other, and they both serve the same
> purpose, why do they need two names.
>
> If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck,
> you've got a duck.
>
> Considering their actual motives, I guess we could call the real
> people "suck puppets".


No, you can, the rest of the universe will call them posters, fjukkktard.




Bertie

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> on 9/7/2008 9:27 PM Jim Logajan said the following:
>>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote:
>>>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>>>> news:X9Zwk.769$sq3.59@trnddc07...
>>>>
>>>> Socken and sucken up to Mx now, eh Mikey Mouth.
>>>
>>> You are either using a definition of "sock puppet" that only you
>>> understand, or you don't understand the term as other people use it:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet
>>
>> Good luck with this one. We've been trying to hammer it into Maxie's
>> head but he insists on his own definition.
>
> Maybe you should expand your horizons a little beyond the troll sites,
> dumb ass.

You're an idiot. Don;t ever change.



>
> Been flying with Gertie lately?


Nope. Not for a while.

Jay Maynard > wrote in
:

> On 2008-09-07, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>> And Bertie has been posting in aviation groups since 1998, as a simple
>> Google search will turn up. He even posted in RAP on 9/11:
>
> Has he been a flaming asshole troll for that long, or did he just go over
> the edge recently? (And no, I'm not about to dredge up that sewer on my
> own.)


Awww, Jay huwt?

Bertie laffing.


Bertie

Jay Maynard > wrote in
:

> On 2008-09-07, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>> on 9/7/2008 1:04 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
>>> On 2008-09-07, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>>>> And Bertie has been posting in aviation groups since 1998, as a
>>>> simple Google search will turn up. He even posted in RAP on 9/11:
>>> Has he been a flaming asshole troll for that long, or did he just go
>>> over the edge recently? (And no, I'm not about to dredge up that
>>> sewer on my own.)
>> A false dichotomy that I'm not going to bite on. Besides, Maxie would
>> insist I was defending him either way, but I'm simply presenting
>> facts.
>
> Rich, my dim recollection from my previous time as a member of the
> rec.aviation community was that you were, like a lot of other folks,
> calm, rational, and knowledgeable. When I got away from flying, I got
> away from rec.aviation. When I got back into flying, I got back in
> here, only to find that the group is full of people like Mxsmanic and
> Bertie, each working to destroy the sense of community and mutual
> assistance by being as trollish, or as much a flaming asshole, as
> possible, and the few who were still trying to be helpful (such as Jay
> Honeck) being ruthlessly driven away. Imagine my surprise to discover
> you defending Bertie, one of the worst, and repeatedly slamming Jay
> Honeck, one of the better of those remaining.


No he isn't he's an accomplished liar who's only fooing himself and a
few others dim enough to swallow his line.

Like you, apparently.


>
> I still have my "rec.aviation: Global Hangar Flying" patch, somewhere.
> It doesn't apply any more. If we had this kind of hangar flying, we
> could sell tickets and market it on pay-per-view to the unlimited
> fighting fans.
>
> Bertie's one of the primary causes of the hangar getting burned to the
> ground. For you to defend him as you do merely sullies your own
> reputation.


Moi?

Never.


I just post.


Bertie

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> . net...
>
> Bull****, you fancy yourself as one of his favorite socks, and you
> constantly treat him like your hero.


Dumn dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum


Bertie

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>> on 9/7/2008 5:19 PM Jim Logajan said the following:
>>> If there was no presumption in Jay M's question then it wasn't the
>>> dichotomy you claimed it was. You need to make up your mind.
>>
>> No, you need to try to keep up. The most common classification of
>> logical fallacies groups them into fallacies of relevance, of
>> ambiguity, and of presumption. False dichotomies fall into the group
>> fallacies of presumption. The presumption is that there are no
>> options other than the two offered. I previously explained why his
>> question fit this definition.
>
> I'm impressed by your attempts at logic. But I now suspect both of us
> are not exactly young, so maybe the attempts at patronization are best
> left out. It's been over 30 years since I took logic and philosophy
> classes in college and later managed to convince them to award me a
> BSc in physics. Later I managed to arrange my life to be able to work
> from the comfort of my home out in the country. All of which I like to
> think proves I'm not a complete idiot. So I'm not persuaded by your
> arguments at all because I know from whence they come.
>
>>>>> Excellent: your opinion on Jay Honeck's views is clear. Now if you
>>>>> can make (or point to a past posting) of a clear opinion of
>>>>> Bertie's postings it will be clear whether your posts are in fact
>>>>> a stealth defense of him or merely an incidental byproduct of
>>>>> objective observations.
>>>> I have no obligation to do so. It is your assertion, Jay's, or
>>>> both. The burden of proof is on you.
>>>
>>> Huh? Are you saying the burden of proof of your opinions is on me?
>>> Sorry, I don't follow that.
>>
>> Do try harder to keep up. You and Jay have both asserted or at least
>> strongly presumed that I am defending Bertie. I have no obligation to
>> prove I am not doing so. It's your burden to prove that I am. I need
>> not play your game or answer your questions.
>
> I'm not playing a game. I wasn't even a target of your attack. I'm a
> third party here. I simply don't see the point of attacking Jay H, who
> has never cross-posted or gotten into deep threaded tit-for-tat
> attacks, whereas others have done just that to the detriment of the
> group.
>
>>> Look, I'm not asking for any obligations. I'm trying to figure out
>>> what your opinion is of the person who posts using the "Bertie the
>>> Bunyip" handle. You aren't shy about telling the world your opinion
>>> of Jay Honeck's affect on this newsgroup. I'm not sure why you
>>> object to telling the world your opinion of "Bertie's" affect on
>>> this newsgroup.
>>
>> I simply choose not to. My reasons are my own.
>
> Too bad you couldn't have used that opaque line of "reasoning" when
> you were deciding whether to post your attack on Jay H.
>
>> You'll undoubtedly draw your own conclusions.
>
> I can't conclude anything - other than you dislike Jay H.
>
>>>> No. Jay M asserted that Jay H was "being ruthlessly driven away." I
>>>> simply contradicted him with an equally bald assertion.
>>>
>>> Are you now claiming no one has been driven away, or are you
>>> quibbling over whether there was ruthless intent involved?
>>
>> No one has been driven away. Some have chosen to leave, but that's
>> their choice.
>
> I see. In much the same manner that a person who is attacked by a
> swarm of mosquitos is simply making a choice to vacate the area - they
> aren't being driven away. Dissembling over a colloquialism.
>
>> The fact that Jay and Dudley keep coming back here to
>> sing the praises of other forums makes it clear they are still free
>> to post or lurk and in fact do so.
>
> And you are free to complain (and complain (and complain)) about it -
> both here - and on PoA if you wanted to, I bet.
>
> And I say this as one who looked in on PoA and AOPA but decided they
> weren't for me.
>
>>> So bloody what? PoA has terms of use. So does your Usenet provider.
>>> You can be bounced from your Usenet provider if you cross the line
>>> too, you know.
>>
>> So bloody what, in your own words. I choose providers who are far
>> less restrictive than Jay would like all to be. If he could netkopp
>> me successfully, I have no doubt he would.
>
> Jay H. had been reading and posting to this group for years and never
> exhibited any sign of "net kopping". Ironically his r.a.p "Rogues
> Gallery" appears to have been an attempt to "flesh out" and humanize a
> community here.


No, it wasn't.


Bertie

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> on 9/7/2008 3:43 PM Jim Logajan said the following:
>>> Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>>>> on 9/7/2008 1:49 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
>>>>> Bertie's one of the primary causes of the hangar getting burned to
>>>>> the ground. For you to defend him as you do merely sullies your
>>>>> own reputation.
>>>> First off, I'm not defending him. He's quite capable of doing so
>>>> himself if he chooses. Holding the same opinion as someone some of
>>>> the time (e.g., Maxie is an idiot) is not defending that person.
>>>> Neither is conversing with him. Or correcting factual errors about
>>>> past history. The fact that you cannot tell the difference places
>>>> your judgment in question.
>>>
>>> Well shucks, you confused a false dichotomy with an unproven
>>> assumption in another post, but I wouldn't hold that against you.
>>
>> No, you falsely characterized it, as I've explained elsewhere. But I
>> won't hold it against you.
>>
>>> I'm with Jay Maynard on suspecting you are using a stealth defense
>>> of the person posting as Bertie. Feel free to consider my judgment
>>> in question too. I've always suspected my judgment to be **** poor
>>> too. ;-)
>>
>> Couldn't say one way or the other in other contexts. But you're wrong
>> here. By your reasoning: Jimmy Carter condemns Israel's treatment of
>> Palestinians, as does OBL, therefore Carter is using a stealth
>> defense of OBL. That kind of spurious reasoning might fly in some
>> circles (Jay H's reactionary mind, for instance), but it's ****-poor
>> judgment.
>>
>>> Excellent: your opinion on Jay Honeck's views is clear. Now if you
>>> can make (or point to a past posting) of a clear opinion of Bertie's
>>> postings it will be clear whether your posts are in fact a stealth
>>> defense of him or merely an incidental byproduct of objective
>>> observations.
>>
>> I have no obligation to do so. It is your assertion, Jay's, or both.
>> The burden of proof is on you.
>>
>>>> However, no one is driving Jay away.
>>>
>>> "However, no one is driving X away."
>>> Where X = {Bob Gardner, Dudley Henriques, Jay Honeck, C. Gattman,
>>> ... }
>>>
>>> In other words, a throw-away rhetorical line.
>>
>> No. Jay M asserted that Jay H was "being ruthlessly driven away." I
>> simply contradicted him with an equally bald assertion.
>>
>>> So if someone posts an opinion on PoA that Jay Honeck disagrees
>>> with, then are you claiming it will be squelched? Are you claiming
>>> Jay controls PoA? I'm having a hard time relating the objective
>>> facts of the operation of PoA with your pseudo-psychological
>>> analysis.
>>
>> I'm saying it is inherent in the nature of that heavily moderated
>> forum to meet Jay's need to be coddled, as supported by their having
>> at least temporarily shut down the one area where anything is
>> supposedly fair game. And further supported by Jay's blathering in
>> praise of that action.
>
> Cool, nice spin.



Nope, it's a fact, fjukkktard.


Bertie

Jay Maynard > wrote in
:

> On 2008-09-07, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>> First off, I'm not defending him. He's quite capable of doing so
>> himself if he chooses. Holding the same opinion as someone some of
>> the time (e.g., Maxie is an idiot) is not defending that person.
>> Neither is conversing with him. Or correcting factual errors about
>> past history. The fact that you cannot tell the difference places
>> your judgment in question.
>
> When was the last time you told him he was wrong?
>
>> I would turn it around and suggest that for you to praise Jay only
>> sullies your own reputation. He's a reactionary, self-promoting
>> asshole, and I stepped away from here for a good while because of the
>> constant pollution of his political crap.
>
> If he's reactionary, then you definitely won't like my politics.
> However, there's more to a person than his political views. I can
> separate my opinion of someone's politics from my opinion of them as a
> person. You apparently cannot.
>
> Jay Honeck posted far more stuff on topic for this group than you
> have. He was one of the few folks around here actually writing about
> aviation. He certainly did so far more often than your buddy Bertie.
>



No, he did not. And most of what he did post was crap.


Bertie

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2008-09-07, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>>> on 9/7/2008 1:04 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
>>>> On 2008-09-07, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>>>>> And Bertie has been posting in aviation groups since 1998, as a
>>>>> simple Google search will turn up. He even posted in RAP on 9/11:
>>>> Has he been a flaming asshole troll for that long, or did he just
>>>> go over
>>>> the edge recently? (And no, I'm not about to dredge up that sewer
>>>> on my own.)
>>> A false dichotomy that I'm not going to bite on. Besides, Maxie
>>> would insist I was defending him either way, but I'm simply
>>> presenting facts.
>>
>> Rich, my dim recollection from my previous time as a member of the
>> rec.aviation community was that you were, like a lot of other folks,
>> calm, rational, and knowledgeable. When I got away from flying, I got
>> away from rec.aviation. When I got back into flying, I got back in
>> here, only to find
>> that the group is full of people like Mxsmanic and Bertie, each
>> working to destroy the sense of community and mutual assistance by
>> being as trollish, or as much a flaming asshole, as possible, and the
>> few who were still trying
>> to be helpful (such as Jay Honeck) being ruthlessly driven away.
>> Imagine my
>> surprise to discover you defending Bertie, one of the worst, and
>> repeatedly
>> slamming Jay Honeck, one of the better of those remaining.
>>
>> I still have my "rec.aviation: Global Hangar Flying" patch,
>> somewhere. It doesn't apply any more. If we had this kind of hangar
>> flying, we could sell
>> tickets and market it on pay-per-view to the unlimited fighting fans.
>>
>> Bertie's one of the primary causes of the hangar getting burned to
>> the ground. For you to defend him as you do merely sullies your own
>> reputation.
>> --
>> Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
>> http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
>> Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
>> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC
>
> Jay,
>
> Thanks for having the guts to tell it like it is. Hopefully in time,
> more people find the courage to come forward and tell Bertie and his
> socks where to go.
>


You can tell me as much as you like. But I'm not going anywhere,
fjukkwit.


Bertie
>
>

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Jay Maynard" > wrote
>
>> Rich, my dim recollection from my previous time as a member of the
>> rec.aviation community was that you were, like a lot of other folks,
>> calm, rational, and knowledgeable.
>
>> Bertie's one of the primary causes of the hangar getting burned to
>> the ground. For you to defend him as you do merely sullies your own
>> reputation.
>
> Rich has been on my plonked list, for almost as long as I can
> remember. He has not always been a flamer, but he has always had an
> smart a**ed a**hole, as far as I can remember.
>
> Is Rich Ahrens a real name? I have wondered if it is just the name of
> another Bertie sock puppet.



God, antoher idiot heard from.


Bertie

Jay Maynard > wrote in
:

> On 2008-09-08, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>> you're just contributing to the problem you're bitching about.
>
> Not any more. *plonk*

You'll be back.


Bertie

buttman > wrote in news:cd7c4377-d32e-4006-afb4-
:

> On Sep 7, 5:14*pm, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>> In this case there is at least one other
>> option: that Bertie is not a flaming asshole troll. This clearly meets
>
> Theres people who think Bertie isn't a flaming asshole troll?
>

Apparently.

Go figger.


I do my best, but...

Bertie

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> on 9/7/2008 2:28 PM Jim Logajan said the following:
>>> Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>>>> on 9/7/2008 1:04 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
>>>>> On 2008-09-07, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>>>>>> And Bertie has been posting in aviation groups since 1998, as a
>>>>>> simple Google search will turn up. He even posted in RAP on 9/11:
>>>>> Has he been a flaming asshole troll for that long, or did he just
>>>>> go over the edge recently? (And no, I'm not about to dredge up
>>>>> that sewer on my own.)
>>>> A false dichotomy
>>>
>>> Well ... Jay did not use a dichotomy - that I can see. Rather, his
>>> question made a presumption: that Bertie is a flaming asshole. The
>>> question was when did he become one. The distant past and the recent
>>> past are not normally considered dichotomous - merely a subjective
>>> matter.
>>
>> A false dichotomy is an instance of a bifurcation fallacy and falls
>> into the category of fallacies of presumption. A bifurcation fallacy
>> is committed when someone is asked to choose between two options when
>> there is at least one other option available. Jay clearly presented
>> two options and asked me to choose. In this case there is at least
>> one other option: that Bertie is not a flaming asshole troll. This
>> clearly meets the definition.
>>
>>> An answer to Jay's question doesn't appear to yield anything useful,
>>> though. At least not that I can see.
>>
>> On that we agree.
>
> Wow! Great big words, little bitty pecker.
>
>
>

Funny the way your mind works.


No.. Hilarious.....!



Bertie

Jay Maynard > wrote in
:

> On 2008-09-07, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>>> on 9/7/2008 1:04 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
>>>> Has he been a flaming asshole troll for that long, or did he just
>>>> go over the edge recently? (And no, I'm not about to dredge up that
>>>> sewer on my own.)
>>> A false dichotomy
>> Well ... Jay did not use a dichotomy - that I can see. Rather, his
>> question made a presumption: that Bertie is a flaming asshole.
>
> Exactly. This isn't in serious question except among Bertie and his
> supporters.


?? To me it's not even a question.

>
>> An answer to Jay's question doesn't appear to yield anything useful,
>> though. At least not that I can see.
>
> Oh, I was mainly curious as to when this group started its downhill
> slide from community of aviators to flaming cesspit.


When did you arrive again, tronboi?



Bertie

on 9/8/2008 2:50 PM Bertie the Bunyip said the following:
> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :
>
>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>
>>> That sounds like the start of a "Live forever" joke -- it's not
>>> forever, it just seems that way in OK. But an OK friend had a nice
>>> comeback. "Why do all the trees in OK lean toward Texas?"
>>>
>>>
>>> "Texas sucks".
>>>
>>> I admit it. I laughed. Now I'm ashamed!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> If it wasn't for Oklahoma truckers and Mexican whores, there would never
>> have been a Texas.
>
>
>
> Yeh, Maxine, We're thirlled you'r proud of your roots.

I think you meant his parents.

"Stella Starr" > wrote

> Okay, dear. Whatever you say. I agree completely.
>
> (I just love the little thrill it gives a guy when I say that!)

OMG! I would be more likely to flip a lid, rather than get a thrill.

I think the word "whatever" should be banned from use between a woman and a
man.

Combined with a roll of the eyes, it has started wars, IIRC. <g>
--
Jim in NC

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
. net...
> on 9/8/2008 12:07 AM Lonnie said the following:
>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> First I've heard of that meaning. On Usenet I always took it to mean
>>> someone posting under multiple aliases. I may be wrong, but I may be
>>> typical in understanding it by that meaning.
>>
>>> The links you include below appear to me to be unrelated to the meaning
>>> traditionally used on Usenet. To avoid confusion, you might want to
>>> modify
>>> your accusations by saying they are parrots, or parroting, or
>>> brainwashed,
>>> or something other than sock puppets.
>>>
>>
>> If we can't tell one from the other, and they both serve the same
>> purpose, why do they need two names.
>
> Because anyone with two working neurons can tall the difference. Which
> eliminates you, I realize...
>
>> Considering their actual motives, I guess we could call the real people
>> "suck puppets".
>
> Considering the amount of crap you spew, we'll just have to keep calling
> you an asshole.

Shame yor to lame to speak to the issue. Keep sumbling fupid.

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> The term sock puppet has been around much longer than the internet.
>>
>> My first recollection of it was studying political history in the 9th
>> grade ('60s), but I have heard it used even more often in corporate
>> environments since. In either case it is used to indicate someone is
>> parroting someone else's believes or ideals.
>
>
>
> Bull****.
>
>
>
> Bertie

Sorry if reality doesn't happen to suit your needs, feel free to keep living
in your own little fantasy.

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Just shows your ignorance about folklore is second only to your
>> ignorance about flying.
>>
>>
>>
>
> That's not caled folklore in Okie, It's called evolution.
>
>
> Those whut fux their dogs call it intelijunt deeesahn.
>
>
>
> Bertie

You're as lame as you little sock friend.

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
ouse.com...
> on 9/8/2008 2:50 PM Bertie the Bunyip said the following:
>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :
>>
>>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>
>>>> That sounds like the start of a "Live forever" joke -- it's not
>>>> forever, it just seems that way in OK. But an OK friend had a nice
>>>> comeback. "Why do all the trees in OK lean toward Texas?"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Texas sucks".
>>>>
>>>> I admit it. I laughed. Now I'm ashamed!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> If it wasn't for Oklahoma truckers and Mexican whores, there would never
>>> have been a Texas.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yeh, Maxine, We're thirlled you'r proud of your roots.
>
> I think you meant his parents.

Least I know who mine are, shame you and Gertie don't.

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Nope, it's a fact, fjukkktard.
>
>
> Bertie
>

Nah, more like a fjukkantasy.

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, it wasn't.
>
>
> Bertie

You're a liar.

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
. net...
> on 9/7/2008 11:32 PM Jim Logajan said the following:
>> Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>>> I've met Bertie and flown with him.
>>
>> Well that explains your outlier opinion of Jay H. Wish I'd known that
>> earlier. It would have saved me typing time.
>
> Jumping to conclusions, aren't you? I've met numerous folks here, flown
> with a number of them, and been to more rec.aviation fly-ins in
> Pinckneyville than everyone but the hosts. My opinion is my own, not
> imposed by anyone else. And it is less of an outlier than you believe.

Bull****, yor just a sock for your uncle gertie.

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, he did not. And most of what he did post was crap.
>
>
> Bertie

as opposed to EVERYTHING that you post.

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :
>
> You can tell me as much as you like. But I'm not going anywhere,
> fjukkwit.
>
>
> Bertie


We know, because you are too stupid.

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Maynard > wrote in
> :
>
>> On 2008-09-07, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>>> on 9/7/2008 1:04 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
>>>> On 2008-09-07, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>>>>> And Bertie has been posting in aviation groups since 1998, as a
>>>>> simple Google search will turn up. He even posted in RAP on 9/11:
>>>> Has he been a flaming asshole troll for that long, or did he just go
>>>> over the edge recently? (And no, I'm not about to dredge up that
>>>> sewer on my own.)
>>> A false dichotomy that I'm not going to bite on. Besides, Maxie would
>>> insist I was defending him either way, but I'm simply presenting
>>> facts.
>>
>> Rich, my dim recollection from my previous time as a member of the
>> rec.aviation community was that you were, like a lot of other folks,
>> calm, rational, and knowledgeable. When I got away from flying, I got
>> away from rec.aviation. When I got back into flying, I got back in
>> here, only to find that the group is full of people like Mxsmanic and
>> Bertie, each working to destroy the sense of community and mutual
>> assistance by being as trollish, or as much a flaming asshole, as
>> possible, and the few who were still trying to be helpful (such as Jay
>> Honeck) being ruthlessly driven away. Imagine my surprise to discover
>> you defending Bertie, one of the worst, and repeatedly slamming Jay
>> Honeck, one of the better of those remaining.
>
>
> No he isn't he's an accomplished liar who's only fooing himself and a
> few others dim enough to swallow his line.
>
> Like you, apparently.
>
>
>>
>> I still have my "rec.aviation: Global Hangar Flying" patch, somewhere.
>> It doesn't apply any more. If we had this kind of hangar flying, we
>> could sell tickets and market it on pay-per-view to the unlimited
>> fighting fans.
>>
>> Bertie's one of the primary causes of the hangar getting burned to the
>> ground. For you to defend him as you do merely sullies your own
>> reputation.
>
>
> Moi?
>
> Never.
>
>
> I just post.
>
>
> Bertie

Shame you are too stupid, and too wrong to offer even a half assed rebuttal.

"buttman" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 7, 5:14 pm, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
> In this case there is at least one other
> option: that Bertie is not a flaming asshole troll. This clearly meets

Theres people who think Bertie isn't a flaming asshole troll?

Just his sockies.

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote:
>>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>>> news:X9Zwk.769$sq3.59@trnddc07...
>>>
>>> Socken and sucken up to Mx now, eh Mikey Mouth.
>>
>> You are either using a definition of "sock puppet" that only you
>> understand, or you don't understand the term as other people use it:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet
>
> The term sock puppet has been around much longer than the internet.
>
> My first recollection of it was studying political history in the 9th
> grade ('60s), but I have heard it used even more often in corporate
> environments since. In either case it is used to indicate someone is
> parroting someone else's believes or ideals.

Prove it.

"Mike" > wrote in message
...
> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote:
>>>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>>>> news:X9Zwk.769$sq3.59@trnddc07...
>>>>
>>>> Socken and sucken up to Mx now, eh Mikey Mouth.
>>>
>>> You are either using a definition of "sock puppet" that only you
>>> understand, or you don't understand the term as other people use it:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet
>>
>> The term sock puppet has been around much longer than the internet.
>>
>> My first recollection of it was studying political history in the 9th
>> grade ('60s), but I have heard it used even more often in corporate
>> environments since. In either case it is used to indicate someone is
>> parroting someone else's believes or ideals.
>
> Prove it.

Hell no, I don't want a sockie like you to believe it.

I get too much pleasure listening to you, Bich and Gertie making asses out
of yourselves arguing otherwise.

By all means Mikey Mouth, bitch some more.

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote:
>>>>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>>>>> news:X9Zwk.769$sq3.59@trnddc07...
>>>>>
>>>>> Socken and sucken up to Mx now, eh Mikey Mouth.
>>>>
>>>> You are either using a definition of "sock puppet" that only you
>>>> understand, or you don't understand the term as other people use it:
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet
>>>
>>> The term sock puppet has been around much longer than the internet.
>>>
>>> My first recollection of it was studying political history in the 9th
>>> grade ('60s), but I have heard it used even more often in corporate
>>> environments since. In either case it is used to indicate someone is
>>> parroting someone else's believes or ideals.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
> Hell no

I knew you couldn't.

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> ouse.com...
>> on 9/8/2008 2:50 PM Bertie the Bunyip said the following:
>>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :
>>>
>>>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
>>>> . ..
>>>>
>>>>> That sounds like the start of a "Live forever" joke -- it's not
>>>>> forever, it just seems that way in OK. But an OK friend had a nice
>>>>> comeback. "Why do all the trees in OK lean toward Texas?"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Texas sucks".
>>>>>
>>>>> I admit it. I laughed. Now I'm ashamed!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> If it wasn't for Oklahoma truckers and Mexican whores, there would
>>>> never have been a Texas.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeh, Maxine, We're thirlled you'r proud of your roots.
>>
>> I think you meant his parents.
>
> Least I know who mine are, shame you and Gertie don't.

Only because massive inbreeding made your dad/uncle, mom/aunt easy enough to
identify once the anencephalic infant was found in the dumpster and they
were still there picking out soda cans.

"Mike" > wrote in message
...
> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote:
>>>>>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>>>>>> news:X9Zwk.769$sq3.59@trnddc07...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Socken and sucken up to Mx now, eh Mikey Mouth.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are either using a definition of "sock puppet" that only you
>>>>> understand, or you don't understand the term as other people use it:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet
>>>>
>>>> The term sock puppet has been around much longer than the internet.
>>>>
>>>> My first recollection of it was studying political history in the 9th
>>>> grade ('60s), but I have heard it used even more often in corporate
>>>> environments since. In either case it is used to indicate someone is
>>>> parroting someone else's believes or ideals.
>>>
>>> Prove it.
>>
>> Hell no
>
> I knew you couldn't.

Another Anthony trim. Good job. Just shows, like Anthony, you have no
interest in someone else's opinion. But hell, we already knew that, didn't
we Mikey Mouth.

"Mike" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Least I know who mine are, shame you and Gertie don't.
>
> Only because massive inbreeding made your dad/uncle, mom/aunt easy enough
> to identify once the anencephalic infant was found in the dumpster and
> they were still there picking out soda cans.

Your childish rants really serve not purpose other than to illustrate your
obvious mental illness. Do you really think other people think about things
like that? You know, normal people.

on 9/8/2008 8:19 PM Lonnie said the following:
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> on 9/8/2008 12:07 AM Lonnie said the following:
>>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> First I've heard of that meaning. On Usenet I always took it to mean
>>>> someone posting under multiple aliases. I may be wrong, but I may be
>>>> typical in understanding it by that meaning.
>>>> The links you include below appear to me to be unrelated to the meaning
>>>> traditionally used on Usenet. To avoid confusion, you might want to
>>>> modify
>>>> your accusations by saying they are parrots, or parroting, or
>>>> brainwashed,
>>>> or something other than sock puppets.
>>>>
>>> If we can't tell one from the other, and they both serve the same
>>> purpose, why do they need two names.
>> Because anyone with two working neurons can tall the difference. Which
>> eliminates you, I realize...
>>
>>> Considering their actual motives, I guess we could call the real people
>>> "suck puppets".
>> Considering the amount of crap you spew, we'll just have to keep calling
>> you an asshole.
>
> Shame yor to lame to speak to the issue. Keep sumbling fupid.

Spent the whole social security check on Thunderbird tonight, eh, Maxie?

on 9/8/2008 8:25 PM Lonnie said the following:
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> ouse.com...
>> on 9/8/2008 2:50 PM Bertie the Bunyip said the following:
>>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :
>>>
>>>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
>>>> . ..
>>>>
>>>>> That sounds like the start of a "Live forever" joke -- it's not
>>>>> forever, it just seems that way in OK. But an OK friend had a nice
>>>>> comeback. "Why do all the trees in OK lean toward Texas?"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Texas sucks".
>>>>>
>>>>> I admit it. I laughed. Now I'm ashamed!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> If it wasn't for Oklahoma truckers and Mexican whores, there would never
>>>> have been a Texas.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeh, Maxine, We're thirlled you'r proud of your roots.
>> I think you meant his parents.
>
> Least I know who mine are, shame you and Gertie don't.

I have no desire to know who your parents are, Maxie. They've
undoubtedly killed themselves out of shame long ago.

on 9/8/2008 8:28 PM Lonnie said the following:
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> on 9/7/2008 11:32 PM Jim Logajan said the following:
>>> Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>>>> I've met Bertie and flown with him.
>>> Well that explains your outlier opinion of Jay H. Wish I'd known that
>>> earlier. It would have saved me typing time.
>> Jumping to conclusions, aren't you? I've met numerous folks here, flown
>> with a number of them, and been to more rec.aviation fly-ins in
>> Pinckneyville than everyone but the hosts. My opinion is my own, not
>> imposed by anyone else. And it is less of an outlier than you believe.
>
> Bull****, yor just a sock for your uncle gertie.

Whatever you say, Maxie. Now pour yourself another Sterno cocktail.

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
. net...
> on 9/8/2008 8:19 PM Lonnie said the following:
>> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
>> . net...
>>> on 9/8/2008 12:07 AM Lonnie said the following:
>>>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> First I've heard of that meaning. On Usenet I always took it to mean
>>>>> someone posting under multiple aliases. I may be wrong, but I may be
>>>>> typical in understanding it by that meaning.
>>>>> The links you include below appear to me to be unrelated to the
>>>>> meaning
>>>>> traditionally used on Usenet. To avoid confusion, you might want to
>>>>> modify
>>>>> your accusations by saying they are parrots, or parroting, or
>>>>> brainwashed,
>>>>> or something other than sock puppets.
>>>>>
>>>> If we can't tell one from the other, and they both serve the same
>>>> purpose, why do they need two names.
>>> Because anyone with two working neurons can tall the difference. Which
>>> eliminates you, I realize...
>>>
>>>> Considering their actual motives, I guess we could call the real people
>>>> "suck puppets".
>>> Considering the amount of crap you spew, we'll just have to keep calling
>>> you an asshole.
>>
>> Shame yor to lame to speak to the issue. Keep sumbling fupid.
>
> Spent the whole social security check on Thunderbird tonight, eh, Maxie?

Oh yeah, that's addressing the issue. Keep dodging it , sockboi.

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:X9Zwk.769$sq3.59@trnddc07...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Socken and sucken up to Mx now, eh Mikey Mouth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are either using a definition of "sock puppet" that only you
>>>>>> understand, or you don't understand the term as other people use it:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet
>>>>>
>>>>> The term sock puppet has been around much longer than the internet.
>>>>>
>>>>> My first recollection of it was studying political history in the 9th
>>>>> grade ('60s), but I have heard it used even more often in corporate
>>>>> environments since. In either case it is used to indicate someone is
>>>>> parroting someone else's believes or ideals.
>>>>
>>>> Prove it.
>>>
>>> Hell no
>>
>> I knew you couldn't.
>
> Another Anthony trim. Good job. Just shows, like Anthony, you have no
> interest in someone else's opinion. But hell, we already knew that, didn't
> we Mikey Mouth.

Referring to yourself as "we" now I see, Okie. Not only do your sockpuppets
have distinct nyms but apparently are assigned dissociative identities as
well. The extent of your delusions is much worse than I originally thought,
but please don't seek professional help. The entertainment value alone is
well worth it.

But to answer your (their?) assertion, I do indeed have interest in other
opinions, but yours (theirs) rate somewhere below Gary the Retard's.

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>> Least I know who mine are, shame you and Gertie don't.
>>
>> Only because massive inbreeding made your dad/uncle, mom/aunt easy enough
>> to identify once the anencephalic infant was found in the dumpster and
>> they were still there picking out soda cans.
>
> Your childish rants really serve not purpose other than to illustrate your
> obvious mental illness. Do you really think other people think about
> things like that? You know, normal people.

Let's see here, Okie. You're the one with multiple personality delusions
and you dare accuse someone else of mental illness? Didn't your mom/aunt
ever tell you the story about the pot and the kettle? Perhaps you think
it's OK to cast childish disparities on others' heritage (kinda pegs the
irony meter coming from an Okie to begin with), but then when someone turns
the tables in a much more entertaining and thoughtful manner, you're going
to squeal like a little schoolgirl? I know you promised to stop responding
to me, Maxie, but I'm really starting to appreciate you for the great
punching bag you are. Keep up the good work.

On Sep 7, 2:52*am, Martin Hotze > wrote:
> Peter Dohm schrieb:
>
> >>http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23823
>
> >> basically "hi welcome back" over and over again.
>
> > That sort of thing is pretty innocuous, except for the tedeous interface
> > that quintuples the effort to scroll through the posts in order to see in\f
> > there is any "meat and potatoes" in any of them. *We used to see the same
> > thing here and in R.A.S until we were infested by Mxs and the places became
> > a minefield--but it was not a problem with the simpler text oriented NNTP
> > interface.
>
> ... and all those _*useless*_ huge signatures with pictures (or
> animations *waahhh*!) and most of the posters on forums not trimming
> their replies.
>
> #m

You can turn avatars and sigs off if you register. Its what always do
when I use a web forum where everyone seems to have annoying sigs,
which seems to be just about every aviation forum I have ever known of.

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Sep 7, 2:52*am, Martin Hotze > wrote:
>> Peter Dohm schrieb:
>>
>> >>http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23823
>>
>> >> basically "hi welcome back" over and over again.
>>
>> > That sort of thing is pretty innocuous, except for the tedeous
>> > interfac
> e
>> > that quintuples the effort to scroll through the posts in order to
>> > see
> in\f
>> > there is any "meat and potatoes" in any of them. *We used to see
>> > the
> same
>> > thing here and in R.A.S until we were infested by Mxs and the
>> > places be
> came
>> > a minefield--but it was not a problem with the simpler text
>> > oriented NN
> TP
>> > interface.
>>
>> ... and all those _*useless*_ huge signatures with pictures (or
>> animations *waahhh*!) and most of the posters on forums not trimming
>> their replies.
>>
>> #m
>
> You can turn avatars and sigs off if you register. Its what always do
> when I use a web forum where everyone seems to have annoying sigs,
> which seems to be just about every aviation forum I have ever known
> of.
>

Wheras just having an annoying personality is enough for you,
presumably.


Bertie

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Nope, it's a fact, fjukkktard.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Nah, more like a fjukkantasy.



Yeh, cuz you say so,eh?


God you're priceless.

Figured out that every poast you make gets recycled into grist for the mill
yet?


No?

Excellent.





Bertie

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> No, it wasn't.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You're a liar.
>
>
>

No, i;m not.

Bertie

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> on 9/7/2008 11:32 PM Jim Logajan said the following:
>>> Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>>>> I've met Bertie and flown with him.
>>>
>>> Well that explains your outlier opinion of Jay H. Wish I'd known that
>>> earlier. It would have saved me typing time.
>>
>> Jumping to conclusions, aren't you? I've met numerous folks here, flown
>> with a number of them, and been to more rec.aviation fly-ins in
>> Pinckneyville than everyone but the hosts. My opinion is my own, not
>> imposed by anyone else. And it is less of an outlier than you believe.
>
> Bull****, yor just a sock for your uncle gertie.
>


Snort!


Bertie

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> No, he did not. And most of what he did post was crap.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> as opposed to EVERYTHING that you post.
>


Bwawhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhhahwhahwh!


PKB, wannabe boi...


Bertie

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :
>>
>> You can tell me as much as you like. But I'm not going anywhere,
>> fjukkwit.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> We know, because you are too stupid.
>

Yeh, that's the reason OK> ..




Bwawhawhahhwhahwhahwhahwhhahw!

Bertie

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jay Maynard > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On 2008-09-07, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>>>> on 9/7/2008 1:04 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
>>>>> On 2008-09-07, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>>>>>> And Bertie has been posting in aviation groups since 1998, as a
>>>>>> simple Google search will turn up. He even posted in RAP on 9/11:
>>>>> Has he been a flaming asshole troll for that long, or did he just
>>>>> go over the edge recently? (And no, I'm not about to dredge up
>>>>> that sewer on my own.)
>>>> A false dichotomy that I'm not going to bite on. Besides, Maxie
>>>> would insist I was defending him either way, but I'm simply
>>>> presenting facts.
>>>
>>> Rich, my dim recollection from my previous time as a member of the
>>> rec.aviation community was that you were, like a lot of other folks,
>>> calm, rational, and knowledgeable. When I got away from flying, I
>>> got away from rec.aviation. When I got back into flying, I got back
>>> in here, only to find that the group is full of people like Mxsmanic
>>> and Bertie, each working to destroy the sense of community and
>>> mutual assistance by being as trollish, or as much a flaming
>>> asshole, as possible, and the few who were still trying to be
>>> helpful (such as Jay Honeck) being ruthlessly driven away. Imagine
>>> my surprise to discover you defending Bertie, one of the worst, and
>>> repeatedly slamming Jay Honeck, one of the better of those
>>> remaining.
>>
>>
>> No he isn't he's an accomplished liar who's only fooing himself and a
>> few others dim enough to swallow his line.
>>
>> Like you, apparently.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I still have my "rec.aviation: Global Hangar Flying" patch,
>>> somewhere. It doesn't apply any more. If we had this kind of hangar
>>> flying, we could sell tickets and market it on pay-per-view to the
>>> unlimited fighting fans.
>>>
>>> Bertie's one of the primary causes of the hangar getting burned to
>>> the ground. For you to defend him as you do merely sullies your own
>>> reputation.
>>
>>
>> Moi?
>>
>> Never.
>>
>>
>> I just post.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Shame you are too stupid, and too wrong to offer even a half assed
> rebuttal.
>

Nope. I just poast.


Bertie

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "buttman" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Sep 7, 5:14 pm, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>> In this case there is at least one other
>> option: that Bertie is not a flaming asshole troll. This clearly meets
>
> Theres people who think Bertie isn't a flaming asshole troll?


Couldn't care less..

>
> Just his sockies.
>
>

Yeh, my famous "sockpuppets"


Care to offer some evidence I'm creating sockpuppets, wannabe boi?

No?


didna thin so laddie.


Bertie

Rich Ahrens > wrote in
ouse.com:

> on 9/8/2008 2:50 PM Bertie the Bunyip said the following:
>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>
>>>> That sounds like the start of a "Live forever" joke -- it's not
>>>> forever, it just seems that way in OK. But an OK friend had a nice
>>>> comeback. "Why do all the trees in OK lean toward Texas?"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Texas sucks".
>>>>
>>>> I admit it. I laughed. Now I'm ashamed!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> If it wasn't for Oklahoma truckers and Mexican whores, there would
>>> never have been a Texas.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yeh, Maxine, We're thirlled you'r proud of your roots.
>
> I think you meant his parents.
>

And you'd be correct.


bertie

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> ouse.com...
>> on 9/8/2008 2:50 PM Bertie the Bunyip said the following:
>>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
>>>> . ..
>>>>
>>>>> That sounds like the start of a "Live forever" joke -- it's not
>>>>> forever, it just seems that way in OK. But an OK friend had a nice
>>>>> comeback. "Why do all the trees in OK lean toward Texas?"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Texas sucks".
>>>>>
>>>>> I admit it. I laughed. Now I'm ashamed!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> If it wasn't for Oklahoma truckers and Mexican whores, there would
>>>> never have been a Texas.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeh, Maxine, We're thirlled you'r proud of your roots.
>>
>> I think you meant his parents.
>
> Least I know who mine are,

Yes, you said.

shame you and Gertie don't.


We do now, you just told us, fjukktard!

Keep up maxie..



Bertie

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>> Least I know who mine are, shame you and Gertie don't.
>>
>> Only because massive inbreeding made your dad/uncle, mom/aunt easy
>> enough to identify once the anencephalic infant was found in the
>> dumpster and they were still there picking out soda cans.
>
> Your childish rants really serve not purpose other than to illustrate
> your obvious mental illness. Do you really think other people think
> about things like that? You know, normal people.


If by "normal" you mean "uneducated Okies", yes.



Bertie

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> on 9/8/2008 12:07 AM Lonnie said the following:
>>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> First I've heard of that meaning. On Usenet I always took it to
>>>> mean someone posting under multiple aliases. I may be wrong, but I
>>>> may be typical in understanding it by that meaning.
>>>
>>>> The links you include below appear to me to be unrelated to the
>>>> meaning traditionally used on Usenet. To avoid confusion, you might
>>>> want to modify
>>>> your accusations by saying they are parrots, or parroting, or
>>>> brainwashed,
>>>> or something other than sock puppets.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If we can't tell one from the other, and they both serve the same
>>> purpose, why do they need two names.
>>
>> Because anyone with two working neurons can tall the difference.
>> Which eliminates you, I realize...
>>
>>> Considering their actual motives, I guess we could call the real
>>> people "suck puppets".
>>
>> Considering the amount of crap you spew, we'll just have to keep
>> calling you an asshole.
>
> Shame yor to lame to speak to the issue. Keep sumbling fupid.


Wow! clever exchange of consonants there Maxine.

That was quite a cunning stunt.



Bertie

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> on 9/8/2008 8:19 PM Lonnie said the following:
>>> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
>>> . net...
>>>> on 9/8/2008 12:07 AM Lonnie said the following:
>>>>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> First I've heard of that meaning. On Usenet I always took it to
>>>>>> mean someone posting under multiple aliases. I may be wrong, but
>>>>>> I may be typical in understanding it by that meaning.
>>>>>> The links you include below appear to me to be unrelated to the
>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>> traditionally used on Usenet. To avoid confusion, you might want
>>>>>> to modify
>>>>>> your accusations by saying they are parrots, or parroting, or
>>>>>> brainwashed,
>>>>>> or something other than sock puppets.
>>>>>>
>>>>> If we can't tell one from the other, and they both serve the same
>>>>> purpose, why do they need two names.
>>>> Because anyone with two working neurons can tall the difference.
>>>> Which eliminates you, I realize...
>>>>
>>>>> Considering their actual motives, I guess we could call the real
>>>>> people "suck puppets".
>>>> Considering the amount of crap you spew, we'll just have to keep
>>>> calling you an asshole.
>>>
>>> Shame yor to lame to speak to the issue. Keep sumbling fupid.
>>
>> Spent the whole social security check on Thunderbird tonight, eh,
>> Maxie?
>
> Oh yeah, that's addressing the issue. Keep dodging it , sockboi.
>

Dunno, I think the unspoken issue is being dealt wiht post by post,
fanboi.


Bertie
>
>

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>> The term sock puppet has been around much longer than the internet.
>>>
>>> My first recollection of it was studying political history in the
>>> 9th grade ('60s), but I have heard it used even more often in
>>> corporate environments since. In either case it is used to indicate
>>> someone is parroting someone else's believes or ideals.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bull****.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Sorry if reality doesn't happen to suit your needs, feel free to keep
> living in your own little fantasy.
>


sez the fjukkktard who invents his own definitins.


, Maxine..


Bertie

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote:
>>>>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>>>>> news:X9Zwk.769$sq3.59@trnddc07...
>>>>>
>>>>> Socken and sucken up to Mx now, eh Mikey Mouth.
>>>>
>>>> You are either using a definition of "sock puppet" that only you
>>>> understand, or you don't understand the term as other people use
>>>> it:
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet
>>>
>>> The term sock puppet has been around much longer than the internet.
>>>
>>> My first recollection of it was studying political history in the
>>> 9th grade ('60s), but I have heard it used even more often in
>>> corporate environments since. In either case it is used to indicate
>>> someone is parroting someone else's believes or ideals.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
> Hell no, I don't want a sockie like you to believe it.

OK, you've just completely porfeited your right to whine "prove it" form
this moment forward, Maxine.

Every time you do I will increas the crosspost list by one froup.





Bertie
>
>
>
>

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>> Just shows your ignorance about folklore is second only to your
>>> ignorance about flying.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That's not caled folklore in Okie, It's called evolution.
>>
>>
>> Those whut fux their dogs call it intelijunt deeesahn.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You're as lame as you little sock friend.
>
>
>

Oh yeah. nice bit of projection there, fanboi.




Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :
>
>>
>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Least I know who mine are, shame you and Gertie don't.
>>>
>>> Only because massive inbreeding made your dad/uncle, mom/aunt easy
>>> enough to identify once the anencephalic infant was found in the
>>> dumpster and they were still there picking out soda cans.
>>
>> Your childish rants really serve not purpose other than to illustrate
>> your obvious mental illness. Do you really think other people think
>> about things like that? You know, normal people.
>
>
> If by "normal" you mean "uneducated Okies", yes.

I don't think it's entirely accurate to say he's "uneducated". Oklahoma
does have plenty of schools for functional anencephalics as you would expect
in an area with a high degree of consanguinity. However, such education
mainly consists of teaching them basic social and coping skills like how to
put on your own depends, why it's wrong to jack off on the bus, and how to
gather carts in the Wal-Mart parking lot.

"Mike" > wrote in news:Hcuxk.879$1a2.225@trnddc04:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Least I know who mine are, shame you and Gertie don't.
>>>>
>>>> Only because massive inbreeding made your dad/uncle, mom/aunt easy
>>>> enough to identify once the anencephalic infant was found in the
>>>> dumpster and they were still there picking out soda cans.
>>>
>>> Your childish rants really serve not purpose other than to
>>> illustrate your obvious mental illness. Do you really think other
>>> people think about things like that? You know, normal people.
>>
>>
>> If by "normal" you mean "uneducated Okies", yes.
>
> I don't think it's entirely accurate to say he's "uneducated".
> Oklahoma does have plenty of schools for functional anencephalics as
> you would expect in an area with a high degree of consanguinity.
> However, such education mainly consists of teaching them basic social
> and coping skills like how to put on your own depends, why it's wrong
> to jack off on the bus, and how to gather carts in the Wal-Mart
> parking lot.
>


Well, it's obviously failed in this case.



Bertie