It's not our fault...

[EDR]

It's not our fault Tom Ridge just doesn't get it; nor does the NSC's
"Anaconda" (or whatever the name is) program that monitors all
electronic communications doesn't have the proper context filter to
discount all our rec.aviation postings.

Hey Tom, the weather gets lousey this time of year, so we participate
in a time honored form of communication called "hangar flying". That's
why the "chatter" has gone up. And around the holidays, we tend to stay
close to home so yeah, the email traffic can get pretty high if we have
a good topic to debate and discuss.

Think about all the times we use "key words" the program latches onto:

flying
airports
fuel load
fuel-air
useful load
crash
airport security
Bush
Secret Service
Air Force One
TSA
TFR
box cutters
nail clippers
carry on luggage
pilotage

(I just had a brain fade and cannot remember the other words I was
going to include. Feel free to add you own candidate words.)

We could really have some fun with this, maybe we could all take on
middle east sounding pseudonyms in our sig lines.

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:45:18 GMT, EDR > wrote:

>Hey Tom, the weather gets lousey this time of year, so we participate
>in a time honored form of communication called "hangar flying".

Those among the readership who believe that "hangar flying" is
appropriate for this newsgroup haven't read and understood the group's
charter:

From: Geoff Peck )
Subject: CHARTER: rec.aviation.piloting
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Date: 2002-01-13 00:45:07 PST

The charter of rec.aviation.piloting is:


************************************************** *****************
* Information pertinent to pilots of general aviation aircraft
* which would not fall into one of the other non-misc
* rec.aviation groups. Topics include, but are not limited to
* flying skills, interesting sights, destinations, flight
* characteristics of aircraft, unusual situations, handling
* emergencies, working with air traffic control, international
* flights, customs and immigration, experiences with
* ground support facilities, etc.

************************************************** *****************

[Dan Luke]

> wrote:
> Those among the readership who believe that "hangar flying" is
> appropriate for this newsgroup haven't read and understood
> the group's charter:
>
> **********************************************
> * Information pertinent to pilots of general aviation aircraft
> * which would not fall into one of the other non-misc
> * rec.aviation groups. Topics include, but are not limited to
> * flying skills, interesting sights, destinations, flight
> * characteristics of aircraft, unusual situations, handling
> * emergencies, working with air traffic control, international
> * flights, customs and immigration, experiences with
> * ground support facilities, etc.
>
> ***********************************************

These topics comprise a pretty good definition of "hangar flying," IMO.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 09:53:40 -0600, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

> wrote:
>> Those among the readership who believe that "hangar flying" is
>> appropriate for this newsgroup haven't read and understood
>> the group's charter:
>>
>> **********************************************
>> * Information pertinent to pilots of general aviation aircraft
>> * which would not fall into one of the other non-misc
>> * rec.aviation groups. Topics include, but are not limited to
>> * flying skills, interesting sights, destinations, flight
>> * characteristics of aircraft, unusual situations, handling
>> * emergencies, working with air traffic control, international
>> * flights, customs and immigration, experiences with
>> * ground support facilities, etc.
>>
>> ***********************************************
>
>These topics comprise a pretty good definition of "hangar flying," IMO.

You'll note that the first word of the newsgroup's charter is
'information.' If an article fails to provide INFORMATION that falls
within the newsgroup's guidelines, it isn't appropriate, IMO.

[Roger Halstead]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 08:33:33 -0800, wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 09:53:40 -0600, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:
>
> wrote:
>>> Those among the readership who believe that "hangar flying" is
>>> appropriate for this newsgroup haven't read and understood
>>> the group's charter:
>>>
>>> **********************************************
>>> * Information pertinent to pilots of general aviation aircraft
>>> * which would not fall into one of the other non-misc
>>> * rec.aviation groups. Topics include, but are not limited to
>>> * flying skills, interesting sights, destinations, flight
>>> * characteristics of aircraft, unusual situations, handling
>>> * emergencies, working with air traffic control, international
>>> * flights, customs and immigration, experiences with
>>> * ground support facilities, etc.
>>>
>>> ***********************************************
>>
>>These topics comprise a pretty good definition of "hangar flying," IMO.
>
>You'll note that the first word of the newsgroup's charter is
>'information.' If an article fails to provide INFORMATION that falls
>within the newsgroup's guidelines, it isn't appropriate, IMO.
>
And 99% of the imformation/stories/chatter here is of the antidotal
variety which provides the best information available, IE..."There I
was...." Although threads arguing the point... well, I guess they are
informational too. <:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>

[Verbs Under My Gel]

wrote in message >...
>
> Those among the readership who believe that "hangar flying" is
> appropriate for this newsgroup haven't read and understood the group's
> charter:
>
> From: Geoff Peck )
> Subject: CHARTER: rec.aviation.piloting
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
> Date: 2002-01-13 00:45:07 PST
>
> The charter of rec.aviation.piloting is:
>
>
> ************************************************** *****************
> * Information pertinent to pilots of general aviation aircraft
> * which would not fall into one of the other non-misc
> * rec.aviation groups. Topics include, but are not limited to
> * flying skills, interesting sights, destinations, flight
> * characteristics of aircraft, unusual situations, handling
> * emergencies, working with air traffic control, international
> * flights, customs and immigration, experiences with
> * ground support facilities, etc.
>
> ************************************************** *****************

I couldn't agree more.

By the way, what kind of beer is Jay going to have at next year's
pre-Airventure barbeque?

[Jay Honeck]

> By the way, what kind of beer is Jay going to have at next year's
> pre-Airventure barbeque?

Sprecher Special Amber! ;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[StellaStar]

>> By the way, what kind of beer is Jay going to have at next year's
>> pre-Airventure barbeque?
>
>Sprecher Special Amber! ;-)

Completely off-topic, but I can't resist. My kid sis befriended a bar owner in
Galveston, where she lives. (I went to a great airshow there last year --
there's the aviation connection!) The guy one evening started pouring a Lone
Star for some lucky patron and then added half a tankard of Shiner Bock. Folks
thought it was cute that he dubbed it Star-Bock, and it became local favorite.
Lo and behold, Starbucks heard about it and threatened a lawsuit!

[Jay Honeck]

> Lo and behold, Starbucks heard about it and threatened a lawsuit!

That's sad.

Starbucks has become the Wal-Mart of coffee shops, to be despised and
avoided at all costs.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:PagIb.690743$HS4.4891134@attbi_s01...
> > Lo and behold, Starbucks heard about it and threatened a lawsuit!
>
> That's sad.
>
> Starbucks has become the Wal-Mart of coffee shops, to be despised and
> avoided at all costs.

They've been one to avoid since their fiasco in NYC during the 9/11
disaster.

[Martin Hotze]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 07:54:08 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:

>> Starbucks has become the Wal-Mart of coffee shops, to be despised and
>> avoided at all costs.
>
>They've been one to avoid since their fiasco in NYC during the 9/11
>disaster.

what have they done then?

#m
--
harsh regulations in North Korea (read below link after reading the story):
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/04/open-mikulan.php
oooops ... sorry ... it happened in the USA, ya know: the land of the free.

[C J Campbell]

> wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 09:53:40 -0600, "Dan Luke"
| > wrote:
|
| You'll note that the first word of the newsgroup's charter is
| 'information.' If an article fails to provide INFORMATION that falls
| within the newsgroup's guidelines, it isn't appropriate, IMO.

This from an idiot who constantly posts his political opinions.

[Video Guy]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:PagIb.690743$HS4.4891134@attbi_s01...
> > > Lo and behold, Starbucks heard about it and threatened a lawsuit!
> >
> > That's sad.
> >
> > Starbucks has become the Wal-Mart of coffee shops, to be despised and
> > avoided at all costs.
>
> They've been one to avoid since their fiasco in NYC during the 9/11
> disaster.

Pardon the failing memory of his non-coffe drinker. What did the NYC
Starbucks do that caused the fiasco?

VideoGuy

[Ron Natalie]

"Video Guy" <gkasten at brick dot net> wrote in message ...
> Pardon the failing memory of his non-coffe drinker. What did the NYC
> Starbucks do that caused the fiasco?
>
I believe some Starbucks near the WTC refused to give out water for free. I'd hardly
claim this to be a corporate wide defect. The local Starbucks here, equally without
corporate input, supported various efforts like the Northern Virginia blood banks
(people forget that Virginia was also attacked) with free coffee and other stuff during
the emergency.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Video Guy" <gkasten at brick dot net> wrote in message
...
> > Pardon the failing memory of his non-coffe drinker. What did the NYC
> > Starbucks do that caused the fiasco?
> >
> I believe some Starbucks near the WTC refused to give out water for free.
I'd hardly
> claim this to be a corporate wide defect. The local Starbucks here,
equally without
> corporate input, supported various efforts like the Northern Virginia
blood banks
> (people forget that Virginia was also attacked) with free coffee and other
stuff during
> the emergency.

I'm sure individual Starbucks may be very helpful. The problem was the
corporate HQ response. It took a media blitz to get them to even answer the
phone, and even then their response was LAME!

It took a pointblank "slap in the face" to the Starbucks CEO to get him off
his arrogant/contemptuous ass.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
> In article >, Ron
> Natalie > wrote:
>
> > "Video Guy" <gkasten at brick dot net> wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Pardon the failing memory of his non-coffe drinker. What did the NYC
> > > Starbucks do that caused the fiasco?
> > >
> > I believe some Starbucks near the WTC refused to give out water for
free.
> > I'd hardly
> > claim this to be a corporate wide defect. The local Starbucks here,
equally
> > without
> > corporate input, supported various efforts like the Northern Virginia
blood
> > banks
> > (people forget that Virginia was also attacked) with free coffee and
other
> > stuff during
> > the emergency.
> >
>
> IIRC Starbucks put out some kind of window dressing advertisment in
> some of their shops in NY shortly after 9/11 that which depicted towers
> of coffee crumbling. It was very distasteful and they were forced to
> withdraw them within a day or two.

Not even close! http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cool.htm

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
> In article >, Tom Sixkiller
> > wrote:
>
> > > >
> > >
> > > IIRC Starbucks put out some kind of window dressing advertisment in
> > > some of their shops in NY shortly after 9/11 that which depicted
towers
> > > of coffee crumbling. It was very distasteful and they were forced to
> > > withdraw them within a day or two.
> >
> > Not even close! http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cool.htm
> >
>
> Yes, that's the one. Starbucks got a load of **** for those ads here in
> the NY area when they appeared.

How you qualified them as "distasteful" is really a curiosity (or did you
mean to say some mental midgets found them "distasteful"?).

[Gary Drescher]

"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
> In article >, Tom Sixkiller
> > wrote:
> > > IIRC Starbucks put out some kind of window dressing advertisment in
> > > some of their shops in NY shortly after 9/11 that which depicted
towers
> > > of coffee crumbling. It was very distasteful and they were forced to
> > > withdraw them within a day or two.
> >
> > Not even close! http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cool.htm
>
> Yes, that's the one. Starbucks got a load of **** for those ads here in
> the NY area when they appeared.

What do you mean, "yes, that's the one"? You described a depiction of
"towers of coffee crumbling". The actual ad merely showed two cups of
coffee sitting placidly in a field of grass! (And the ads were displayed
for a month or two, not "a day or two".)

[Shirley]

Tom Fleischman wrote:

[snip]
>As you point out, the ad itself was fairly innocuous.
>I think the word "collapse" was not well chosen,

So should the word "collapse" be unusable in advertising from now on because it
describes what happened to the WTC? Should we pull any and all ads using the
words "airplane", "fly", "tower", "twin" too? regardless of how much of a
stretch it is to suggest they were intentionally chosen? How many pest control
service ads use words that *could be* associated with horrible events of the
past century? I don't think anyone lacks compassion for victims and their
families, but if you're going to get that "sensitive," just about anything
could be linked in one way or another. Where do you draw the line?

>but looking at it now I think it was a bit of a
>stretch to connect it to the WTC.

Ya think?

[Rich]

We've had good luck with our local Starbucks, they generously donated
four huge carafes of coffee for our Challenge Air event at FDK last
October. They even supplied all the cups, cream etc.

www.challengeair.com

Rich
(my real email )


"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message >...
> "Video Guy" <gkasten at brick dot net> wrote in message ...
> > Pardon the failing memory of his non-coffe drinker. What did the NYC
> > Starbucks do that caused the fiasco?
> >
> I believe some Starbucks near the WTC refused to give out water for free. I'd hardly
> claim this to be a corporate wide defect. The local Starbucks here, equally without
> corporate input, supported various efforts like the Northern Virginia blood banks
> (people forget that Virginia was also attacked) with free coffee and other stuff during
> the emergency.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:c3UJb.53854$I07.177401@attbi_s53...
> "Tom Fleischman" > wrote in message
> rthlink.net...
> > In article >, Tom Sixkiller
> > > wrote:
> > > > IIRC Starbucks put out some kind of window dressing advertisment in
> > > > some of their shops in NY shortly after 9/11 that which depicted
> towers
> > > > of coffee crumbling. It was very distasteful and they were forced to
> > > > withdraw them within a day or two.
> > >
> > > Not even close! http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cool.htm
> >
> > Yes, that's the one. Starbucks got a load of **** for those ads here in
> > the NY area when they appeared.
>
> What do you mean, "yes, that's the one"? You described a depiction of
> "towers of coffee crumbling". The actual ad merely showed two cups of
> coffee sitting placidly in a field of grass! (And the ads were displayed
> for a month or two, not "a day or two".)

They weren't even coffee...they were some sort of fruit "slurpee".

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
> > >
> > > Yes, that's the one. Starbucks got a load of **** for those ads here
in
> > > the NY area when they appeared.
> >
> > How you qualified them as "distasteful" is really a curiosity (or did
you
> > mean to say some mental midgets found them "distasteful"?).
> >
>
> At the time I didn't really give it much of my attention, but I thought
> that whatever wiseass at Starbuck's ad agency came up with that
> campaign was pretty insensitive.



> The point is that Starbucks garnered
> nothing but bad publicity over the whole affair. They ads were viewed
> by many, many people here in New York as distasteful. I have no idea
> whether all the people who found them distasteful were "mental
> migdets", whatever that characterization might mean to you, although I
> doubt that on the whole they were.

Take a look at the picture again and tell me what Rhorschash test you've
been taking. You've already said you "didn't really give it much of my
attention". Sound's like you're following a rather retarded herd, and now
you're trying to rationalize. This also reminds me of the hugh flap by the
other mental midgets/vocbulary-challenged that rasied a stink overthe word
"niggardly".

>
> I think that everything having to do with Starbucks in this thread has
> been asked and answered and that's all I am going to have to say to you
> on this subject.

In other words you stuck you foot in your mouth big-time and now hope no one
notices.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Shirley" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Fleischman wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >As you point out, the ad itself was fairly innocuous.
> >I think the word "collapse" was not well chosen,
>
> So should the word "collapse" be unusable in advertising from now on
because it
> describes what happened to the WTC? Should we pull any and all ads using
the
> words "airplane", "fly", "tower", "twin" too? regardless of how much of a
> stretch it is to suggest they were intentionally chosen? How many pest
control
> service ads use words that *could be* associated with horrible events of
the
> past century? I don't think anyone lacks compassion for victims and their
> families, but if you're going to get that "sensitive," just about anything
> could be linked in one way or another. Where do you draw the line?
>
> >but looking at it now I think it was a bit of a
> >stretch to connect it to the WTC.
>
> Ya think?

Like a test for schizophrenia?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Rich" > wrote in message
om...
> We've had good luck with our local Starbucks, they generously donated
> four huge carafes of coffee for our Challenge Air event at FDK last
> October. They even supplied all the cups, cream etc.
>
> www.challengeair.com
>
> Rich
> (my real email )
>
Local stores, for any company, are usually more "attuned" to their local
_customers_. Then again...