Leaving Usnet Groups, Bye [Archive]

Matt Whiting

April 30th 05, 05:46 PM

houstondan wrote:

> personally, i've always had kind of a creepy feeling when someone posts
> that they're not going to post anymore. why not just stop posting and
> be done with it? too much "it's all about me" for my taste but that's
> just me.

Yes, I was thinking much the same,

> i know nw was enjoying throwing a cat over the fence by shaking the
> "non-aerobatic" at the dogs. lotsa good stuff came out but some of it
> was over the top. i thought "that airframe is now worth zero" was
> especially good and of course "i'm gunna tell mama" won the prize.
> somebody needs to hold that boy down and feed him some worms.

The airframe comment was a little over the top, but performing
aerobatics in an airplane not designed for it certainly increases the
risk of causing irreparable airframe damage.

I think the person who turned him in to the FSDO, assuming it wasn't
just a bluff, did the most responsible thing of anyone here. It is very
important to police our ranks. This not only helps prevent accidents,
but it helps us all preserve our flight privileges and not have them
legislated away. Organizations that don't police themselves often find
someone else, usually a government bureacracy, more than willing to do
it for them. The latter is almost always a bad thing.

We aren't talking about turning someone in for making an honest mistake,
we're talking someone who knowingly and willingly violated the law and
then had the nerve to brag about it. This isn't the sort of person we
should desire to have in our ranks.

> anyway, nw, why don't you just do what everybody else does; change
> your name and come back in??

Not everyone else; just the cowards.

Matt

Dudley Henriques

April 30th 05, 06:24 PM

"Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,

> Thank you, for being the ONE person on this NG with a modicum of sense.
> You and Weir.

Well let's see here....... First we have someone coming into a student
pilot's newsgroup using an obviously activist pseudonym that's designed to
either illicit aviation unrelated activist responses or simply make some
kind of idiotic political statement based on some self conceived personal
preference concerning a specific totally unrelated issue to
flying.......then we get the same person telling us all that there is only
ONE person on the entire group who has a "modicum of sense"..........THEN we
get this gem of wisdom completely nullified in the very next sentence by the
addition of another person to the list.
Interesting post really!!!
Although your post is self contradictory by definition, it does however tend
to show that no matter how many others out here indeed DO have "a modicum of
sense"....( and there are many believe me :-)) you unfortunately, don't seem
to be one of them :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)

Ed H

April 30th 05, 06:26 PM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> houstondan wrote:
>
> We aren't talking about turning someone in for making an honest mistake,
> we're talking someone who knowingly and willingly violated the law and
> then had the nerve to brag about it. This isn't the sort of person we
> should desire to have in our ranks.
>

One thing I don't get ... why are we blaming NW? Yeah he's a bit of a dork
for bragging about it, but didn't he do that roll with a CFI present?
Wasn't that CFI presumably encouraging if not directing that behavior?

If I were the FSDO, I would give NW a stern lecture about who to trust, then
send him on his way. Then I would suspend the CFI's flying and instructing
certs, and consider criminal charges against him. He's the one who violated
the trust of his student and the government that certified him to instruct.

Dudley Henriques

April 30th 05, 06:37 PM

"Ed H" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> houstondan wrote:
>>
>> We aren't talking about turning someone in for making an honest mistake,
>> we're talking someone who knowingly and willingly violated the law and
>> then had the nerve to brag about it. This isn't the sort of person we
>> should desire to have in our ranks.
>>
>
>
> One thing I don't get ... why are we blaming NW? Yeah he's a bit of a
> dork for bragging about it, but didn't he do that roll with a CFI present?
> Wasn't that CFI presumably encouraging if not directing that behavior?
>
> If I were the FSDO, I would give NW a stern lecture about who to trust,
> then send him on his way. Then I would suspend the CFI's flying and
> instructing certs, and consider criminal charges against him. He's the
> one who violated the trust of his student and the government that
> certified him to instruct.

I've not followed NW's background, and never quite got whether or not he was
a student pilot flying with a CFI when this incident occurred. My
understanding is that he owns a 150, but the one used for the roll wasn't
his. I also understand that there was a CFI in the airplane.
If NW is certificated, it's bad enough, but if he is indeed a student, the
CFI should be grounded immediately. Had this instructor worked for me , he
would never set foot in one of my airplanes ever again.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)

Lynne

April 30th 05, 07:04 PM

THANK YOU!!! Finally someone realizes that Dudley is an old
self-promoting, asshole piece of ****, ****ty "pilot." He spends too
much time on the computer, and no doubt has no skills or qualifications
to back up his claims. Read on...

Do a search in the FAA pilot database for Dudley Henriques. Wow; Look
at that! No entry for him! See that folks, he's not even a pilot!! So
for the last several years he's been doing nothing but spoofing us. He
is a SIMULATOR PILOT, and that's it!

You ought to be ashamed of yourself Dudley.

houstondan

April 30th 05, 07:08 PM

Ed H wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> > houstondan wrote:
> >
> > We aren't talking about turning someone in for making an honest
mistake,
> > we're talking someone who knowingly and willingly violated the law
and
> > then had the nerve to brag about it. This isn't the sort of person
we
> > should desire to have in our ranks.
> >
>
hold on a second there ed....the way you edited that stuff made it look
like i said the stuff above....i did not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

dan

Dudley Henriques

April 30th 05, 07:13 PM

"Lynne" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> THANK YOU!!! Finally someone realizes that Dudley is an old
> self-promoting, asshole piece of ****, ****ty "pilot." He spends too
> much time on the computer, and no doubt has no skills or qualifications
> to back up his claims. Read on...
>
> Do a search in the FAA pilot database for Dudley Henriques. Wow; Look
> at that! No entry for him! See that folks, he's not even a pilot!! So
> for the last several years he's been doing nothing but spoofing us. He
> is a SIMULATOR PILOT, and that's it!
>
> You ought to be ashamed of yourself Dudley.

Google IFPF History. Might be enlightening for some, if not for you :-)

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)

Dudley Henriques

April 30th 05, 07:17 PM

"Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>,
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Duhdley, it's so refreshing to see that after all these years, you're
> still the same old self-promoting asshole you've always been.
>
> You're still a ****ty pilot, too.

Hey...only pilots who have flown with me can say I'm a ****ty pilot, and YOU
ain't one of them. I can steer you to a few who have if you like :-)

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)

Dudley Henriques

April 30th 05, 07:47 PM

"Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>,
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>
>> Hey...only pilots who have flown with me can say I'm a ****ty pilot, and
>> YOU
>> ain't one of them. I can steer you to a few who have if you like :-)
>
> I see you're not arguing with the first graf.
>
> Anybody who's as self-promoting as you are CANNOT, almost by definition,
> be worth a ****. Kind of like saying you're a cool person, or a
> "consummate professional."
>
> If you have to say it...well, you know.
>
> And since you're not listed in the FAA database, I'd have to say you've
> been lying all these years, too.
>
> So deal with it, you're not a pilot, you're a liar and a fraud, and you
> don't even belong here. Sucks to be you.

Ah yes...now I know who you are :-) I'm not listed in the FAA database
because I retired from flying before the data cutoff date you idiot. Of
course, if you want to actually see my certificate, I still have it in my
possession and will be most happy to scan it and have it displayed in an
appropriate place on the web......but it's gonna cost you to see it because
you're such a ****ing moron and I don't particularly like you :-)
Anytime your a mind idiot, I'll be glad to set up an account with a named
bank where both you and I will deposit the sum of 10 grand. I'll have the
legal papers drawn up for you in two days if you like. The papers will state
simply that I can't produce an FAA issued Flight Instructor Airplane and
Commercial Certificate to go with it, YOU get the 10 grand. If, on the other
hand, I can produce such documentation, YOUR 10 grand will be forfeit to a
United States Military charity of my choice.
How bout it dickhead? You opened your ****ing mouth. Now let's rumble!
I don't even want your ****ing money. I'll give it away to charity. If what
you have said about me is true, you get my 10 grand.

You ****ing Usenet idiots would make me sick if you weren't so pathetic!
:-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)

Thomas Borchert

April 30th 05, 08:00 PM

Terri,

get lost, you idiots. Lynne and you.

Have you noticed how much of a coward you are not even using a real
name? We don't need nor want you here. Just leave.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

kage

April 30th 05, 08:01 PM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> houstondan wrote:
> >
> I think the person who turned him in to the FSDO, assuming it wasn't just
> a bluff, did the most responsible thing of anyone here. It is very
> important to police our ranks. This not only helps prevent accidents, but
> it helps us all preserve our flight privileges and not have them
> legislated away. Organizations that don't police themselves often find
> someone else, usually a government bureacracy, more than willing to do it
> for them. The latter is almost always a bad thing.

Dream on.

Reporting to the FSDO will do NOTHING. No way any inspector will EVER show
unless there is a death, at least.

Karl

Darrel Toepfer

April 30th 05, 08:02 PM

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> You *BLEEP*ing Usenet idiots would make me sick if you weren't so pathetic!
> :-)

You've been trolled...

The "Lynne" is at least on another ISP, Cox...

From: Davy Jones Locker >
Organization: The Briny Deep
Message-ID: >
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.124.230.15
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:29:59 EDT

From: Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube >
Message-ID: >
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.124.230.15
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:24:02 EDT
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:24:02 GMT

Both should geaux here:
X-Complaints-To:

Chill out, I'm losing respect for ya...

April 30th 05, 08:17 PM

oops, sorry.

"houstondan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Ed H wrote:
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > houstondan wrote:
>> >
>> > We aren't talking about turning someone in for making an honest
> mistake,
>> > we're talking someone who knowingly and willingly violated the law
> and
>> > then had the nerve to brag about it. This isn't the sort of person
> we
>> > should desire to have in our ranks.
>> >
>>
> hold on a second there ed....the way you edited that stuff made it look
> like i said the stuff above....i did not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
>
>
>
> dan
>

Dudley Henriques

April 30th 05, 08:17 PM

Careful not to misread me on things like this. It's easy to do when I start
laying people out like this. I know these idiots and their game as well :-))
If anyone is trolling anybody, it's the other way around. Think about it!
:-)
I posted to this moron because his post was so obviously funny. When I do
things like this, I fully expect the answering post to be confrontational.
Trust me on this one. I'm not even mad at these clowns. I'm using them for
amusement.
And who knows.... if they bite, I have a very worthy charity in mind that
could use an extra buck or two :-)
I've used this "bet thing" before on these clowns. It's usually some idiot
who can't find my name on the data base, or has seen the tutorials I do for
the simulation community. They usually try and make a tie with the old
"Dud's not a pilot" routine, and I follow up with this little proposition,
which for obvious reasons they want no part of.
Anyway....it's raining where I am, and my wife and I are expecting our son
for a birthday dinner, so I'm killing time playing around. :-)
Dudley

"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> You *BLEEP*ing Usenet idiots would make me sick if you weren't so
>> pathetic!
>> :-)
>
> You've been trolled...
>
> The "Lynne" is at least on another ISP, Cox...
>
> From: Davy Jones Locker >
> Organization: The Briny Deep
> Message-ID: >
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.124.230.15
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:29:59 EDT
>
> From: Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube >
> Message-ID: >
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.124.230.15
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:24:02 EDT
> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:24:02 GMT
>
> Both should geaux here:
> X-Complaints-To:
>
> Chill out, I'm losing respect for ya...

Darrel Toepfer

April 30th 05, 08:36 PM

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> I wrote, Chill out, I'm losing respect for ya...

> Careful not to misread me on things like this. It's easy to do when I start
> laying people out like this. I know these idiots and their game as well :-))
> If anyone is trolling anybody, it's the other way around. Think about it!
> :-)
> I posted to this moron because his post was so obviously funny. When I do
> things like this, I fully expect the answering post to be confrontational.
> Trust me on this one. I'm not even mad at these clowns. I'm using them for
> amusement.
> And who knows.... if they bite, I have a very worthy charity in mind that
> could use an extra buck or two :-)
> I've used this "bet thing" before on these clowns. It's usually some idiot
> who can't find my name on the data base, or has seen the tutorials I do for
> the simulation community. They usually try and make a tie with the old
> "Dud's not a pilot" routine, and I follow up with this little proposition,
> which for obvious reasons they want no part of.
> Anyway....it's raining where I am, and my wife and I are expecting our son
> for a birthday dinner, so I'm killing time playing around. :-)

Well tone it back on the gutter language, its unnecessary and uncalled
for...

The bet is truely a slam-dunk, I regret not stating as much originally,
I think I've read it before in years past...

Happy birthday...

Robert Chambers

April 30th 05, 08:45 PM

The are all the same person. fairly obvious.

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Terri,
>
> get lost, you idiots. Lynne and you.
>
> Have you noticed how much of a coward you are not even using a real
> name? We don't need nor want you here. Just leave.
>

Dudley Henriques

April 30th 05, 08:48 PM

"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > I wrote, Chill out, I'm losing respect for ya...
>
>> Careful not to misread me on things like this. It's easy to do when I
>> start laying people out like this. I know these idiots and their game as
>> well :-)) If anyone is trolling anybody, it's the other way around. Think
>> about it! :-)
>> I posted to this moron because his post was so obviously funny. When I do
>> things like this, I fully expect the answering post to be
>> confrontational.
>> Trust me on this one. I'm not even mad at these clowns. I'm using them
>> for amusement.
>> And who knows.... if they bite, I have a very worthy charity in mind that
>> could use an extra buck or two :-)
>> I've used this "bet thing" before on these clowns. It's usually some
>> idiot who can't find my name on the data base, or has seen the tutorials
>> I do for the simulation community. They usually try and make a tie with
>> the old "Dud's not a pilot" routine, and I follow up with this little
>> proposition, which for obvious reasons they want no part of.
>> Anyway....it's raining where I am, and my wife and I are expecting our
>> son for a birthday dinner, so I'm killing time playing around. :-)
>
> Well tone it back on the gutter language, its unnecessary and uncalled
> for...
>
> The bet is truely a slam-dunk, I regret not stating as much originally, I
> think I've read it before in years past...
>
> Happy birthday...

Sorry, but the language goes with me. Pass on anything I post if it bothers
you or post an objection that I will ignore. I could care less. I'm not on
Usenet to make friends with anyone. That motivation ceased years ago with
the first post I got telling me that my family should die in a crash because
I told some ****ing idiot that stall was more related to angle of attack
more than to airspeed.
I'll post as I see fit.
And thank you for the birthday wish. I appreciate it, and will consider it
as a close between you and I as far as meaningful communication is
concerned.
All the best to you.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)

Matt Whiting

April 30th 05, 09:13 PM

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Sorry, but the language goes with me. Pass on anything I post if it bothers
> you or post an objection that I will ignore. I could care less. I'm not on
> Usenet to make friends with anyone. That motivation ceased years ago with
> the first post I got telling me that my family should die in a crash because
> I told some ****ing idiot that stall was more related to angle of attack
> more than to airspeed.

More? Isn't it completely related to AOA rather than airspeed?

Matt

Dudley Henriques

April 30th 05, 09:28 PM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but the language goes with me. Pass on anything I post if it
>> bothers you or post an objection that I will ignore. I could care less.
>> I'm not on Usenet to make friends with anyone. That motivation ceased
>> years ago with the first post I got telling me that my family should die
>> in a crash because I told some ****ing idiot that stall was more related
>> to angle of attack more than to airspeed.
>
> More? Isn't it completely related to AOA rather than airspeed?
>
> Matt

Stall is directly related to angle of attack (CLmax).
It is also peripherally related to airspeed in that stall can be achieved at
various airspeeds under acceleration.
It's important that pilots understand a COMPLETE concept of stall and not
simply relate it to one single factor.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)

RomeoMike

April 30th 05, 11:17 PM

I know you are what you say you are, but who is or isn't in the
database? You retired before a cutoff? When was that? My father and
uncle are in the database, and both quit flying in the 1950's or early
60's, and my father died in 1976. I'm not challenging you, just curious
how the database is made up. I always thought all pilots were listed
unless they chose to opt out.

Dudley Henriques wrote:

>
> Ah yes...now I know who you are :-) I'm not listed in the FAA database
> because I retired from flying before the data cutoff date you idiot.

> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
> dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
> (take out the trash :-)
>
>

Jon Kraus

April 30th 05, 11:45 PM

Dudley - Where are all these people coming from? I do not recognize
Terri and Darrel (idiots) but Lynne is a regular troll... I wonder why
this post brought out the trolls? Happy Birthday!!

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
'79 Mooney 201

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sorry, but the language goes with me. Pass on anything I post if it
>>>bothers you or post an objection that I will ignore. I could care less.
>>>I'm not on Usenet to make friends with anyone. That motivation ceased
>>>years ago with the first post I got telling me that my family should die
>>>in a crash because I told some ****ing idiot that stall was more related
>>>to angle of attack more than to airspeed.
>>
>>More? Isn't it completely related to AOA rather than airspeed?
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Stall is directly related to angle of attack (CLmax).
> It is also peripherally related to airspeed in that stall can be achieved at
> various airspeeds under acceleration.
> It's important that pilots understand a COMPLETE concept of stall and not
> simply relate it to one single factor.
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
> dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
> (take out the trash :-)
>
>
>
>

Jon Kraus

April 30th 05, 11:50 PM

Unbelievable if they are indeed true. He says that he is now left seat
in a King Air... How'd ya like to be his pax? :-)

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
'79 Mooney 201

John Clonts wrote:

> "Jon Kraus" > wrote in message ...
>
>>Go do a Google Groups search on Doug Rinks and read for yourself. Please report back your findings.
>>
>>Jon Kraus
>>
>>Roy Page wrote:
>>
>>>I would love to know "what was worse about you"
>
>
> Thanks, I had forgotten about those hilarious threads!!!

Dudley Henriques

May 1st 05, 12:40 AM

I know who one of them is. In fact I have his address, not that I need it
for anything.
God only knows where these idiots come from. It's Usenet :-)
Thank you for the birthday wish. I'll pass it along to my son.
DH

"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley - Where are all these people coming from? I do not recognize Terri
> and Darrel (idiots) but Lynne is a regular troll... I wonder why this post
> brought out the trolls? Happy Birthday!!
>
> Jon Kraus
> PP-ASEL-IA
> '79 Mooney 201
>
>
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sorry, but the language goes with me. Pass on anything I post if it
>>>>bothers you or post an objection that I will ignore. I could care less.
>>>>I'm not on Usenet to make friends with anyone. That motivation ceased
>>>>years ago with the first post I got telling me that my family should die
>>>>in a crash because I told some ****ing idiot that stall was more related
>>>>to angle of attack more than to airspeed.
>>>
>>>More? Isn't it completely related to AOA rather than airspeed?
>>>
>>>Matt
>>
>>
>> Stall is directly related to angle of attack (CLmax).
>> It is also peripherally related to airspeed in that stall can be achieved
>> at
>> various airspeeds under acceleration.
>> It's important that pilots understand a COMPLETE concept of stall and not
>> simply relate it to one single factor.
>> Dudley Henriques
>> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>> Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
>> dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
>> (take out the trash :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Dudley Henriques

May 1st 05, 12:40 AM

To tell you the truth I'm not sure how the data base works or when the
actual cutoff date was for back data. I haven't flown actively for many
years, but remain somewhat active as a safety consultant in various venues.
(See Aeroplane Monthly Feb 2004 issue "Precision Decision" by Gen Des Barker
of the SAAF. I go into some detail there concerning low altitude vertical
recoveries and demonstration flying in the P51 Mustang.)
If you would like my certificate numbers to check with the FAA for accuracy,
I'll be glad to supply them for you via private email. Perhaps you can clear
up for me while you are at it, why my name doesn't appear on the data base.
Just be advised that although I will supply you with the certificate
numbers, your lack of trust in my word that they exist without seeing them
will be the last time I have any contact with you.
No hard feelings, but I'm a stickler for trust, and proving things to people
on Usenet isn't my thing. I'm sure you understand. If your curiosity has to
be assuaged, please email me back channel and I will give you the numbers so
you can have them checked for authenticity and report back to any of the
Usenet idiots here who require such proof.
Thank you. It's your call.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)

"RomeoMike" > wrote in message
...
>I know you are what you say you are, but who is or isn't in the database?
>You retired before a cutoff? When was that? My father and uncle are in the
>database, and both quit flying in the 1950's or early 60's, and my father
>died in 1976. I'm not challenging you, just curious how the database is
>made up. I always thought all pilots were listed unless they chose to opt
>out.
>
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>>
>> Ah yes...now I know who you are :-) I'm not listed in the FAA database
>> because I retired from flying before the data cutoff date you idiot.
>
>> Dudley Henriques
>> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>> Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
>> dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
>> (take out the trash :-)
>>

George Patterson

May 1st 05, 12:59 AM

Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube wrote:
>
> And since you're not listed in the FAA database, I'd have to say you've
> been lying all these years, too.

And you don't even have the experience to know that the database only contains
pilots who have current medicals. It doesn't contain former pilots.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

George Patterson

May 1st 05, 01:02 AM

Jon Kraus wrote:
> Dudley - Where are all these people coming from?

Notice that this thread is cross-posted to four groups. They're probably
regulars on one of the ones you don't usually read.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

Dudley Henriques

May 1st 05, 01:15 AM

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:8ZUce.7760$Ab.6199@trndny04...
> Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube wrote:
>>
>> And since you're not listed in the FAA database, I'd have to say you've
>> been lying all these years, too.
>
> And you don't even have the experience to know that the database only
> contains pilots who have current medicals. It doesn't contain former
> pilots.
>
> George Patterson

Actually George, I didn't know that either :-))))))))))))) I've just never
had occasion before to be checking on people this way......or myself for
that matter.
I'm glad you posted this. It helps clear up a very minor point of curiosity
for me at least as to why the hell I'm not listed. It all makes sense now,
and everything falls right into place.
Thank you
Dudley

Dudley Henriques

May 1st 05, 01:18 AM

Actually Nomen, I think the "topic" got fractured some time ago anyway. Now
we're just back to the usual Usenet format :-))))
Thanks for the birthday wish. It's our son though and not me, but he's
upstairs and I'll pass it along to him PDQ :-)
Dudley

"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> I don't have any on topic comments to make.
>
> Just wanted to wish you a Happy Birthday.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.2
>
> iQCVAwUBQnQMDpMoscYxZNI5AQF9UQP/UyERK0Sn9w7XkfgHLqYUJtdMtI2EqwLK
> 42mcFogJwTd5Uwkatt/8jRb0uRCmlzDnwx45FwcNfy6ApH+fjlIzmoobMPqOPxAB
> QLutdqJZjR89ENYoJoC6OTHUhgRn5bNQnI1kwqb3IIYPGF4Rw7 lvREFphn06x3nR
> B+VSTGqXV60=
> =FalW
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
>

Darrel Toepfer

May 1st 05, 01:19 AM

Jon Kraus wrote:

> Dudley - Where are all these people coming from? I do not recognize
> Terri and Darrel (idiots) but Lynne is a regular troll... I wonder why
> this post brought out the trolls? Happy Birthday!!

Gee thanks Jon...

George Patterson

May 1st 05, 01:24 AM

Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> Actually George, I didn't know that either :-)))))))))))))

It actually takes years for people to disappear from the DB after they lose a
medical, but they go away after a while.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

Newps

May 1st 05, 01:33 AM

Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube wrote:
> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>>We aren't talking about turning someone in for making an honest mistake,
>>we're talking someone who knowingly and willingly violated the law and
>>then had the nerve to brag about it. This isn't the sort of person we
>>should desire to have in our ranks.
>
>
> Thank you, for being the ONE person on this NG with a modicum of sense.
> You and Weir.

1+1=2

Mortimer Schnerd, RN

May 1st 05, 01:56 AM

Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube wrote:
> And since you're not listed in the FAA database, I'd have to say you've
> been lying all these years, too.

You've got your head buried in your ass. My name hasn't been in the registry
since 1990, when I lost my medical. Now that I have it back, I'm back in there
(for the last month).

Dudley lost his medical. They dropped him out of the registry. That doesn't
mean he was never in there.

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Dudley Henriques

May 1st 05, 02:26 AM

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:VkVce.3049$yd1.241@trndny01...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
> >
>> Actually George, I didn't know that either :-)))))))))))))
>
> It actually takes years for people to disappear from the DB after they
> lose a medical, but they go away after a while.

That would be it for me. Lost the medical years ago. That's the reason I
became a consultant :-)
Dudley

George Patterson

May 1st 05, 04:00 AM

Gene Kearns wrote:
>
> So.... I'll let you characterize it.... what *did* he mean??

Well, my guess is that he expected a lot more "ataboys" than he got and began to
realize that talking about this sort of thing is likely to result in a
retroactive need for AOPAs legal plan. He may not feel like changing his
behavior as a result of the feedback here, but at least he's less likely to get
reprimanded by the Feds if he doesn't post in the aviation groups.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

Peter Duniho

May 1st 05, 04:15 AM

"Gene Kearns" > wrote in message
...
> So.... I'll let you characterize it.... what *did* he mean??

It seems you failed to get my point. Which is that the original post made
no representation for why he's leaving at all. How would I have an opinion
on "what he *did* mean", when I've just explained that there's no way to
form that opinion?

That said, if you want more details, feel free to read the additional
messages he posted to this thread.

Jay Honeck

May 1st 05, 04:16 AM

> Of course, this guy CALLING HIMSELF Dudley Henriques is probably some
> poor little guy, about 45 years old, living in his mom's basement,

See:

http://alexisparkinn.com/ifpf_history.htm

You may wish to wash that egg off your faces...

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

Dudley Henriques

May 1st 05, 04:29 AM

"Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:
>
>> You've got your head buried in your ass. My name hasn't been in the
>> registry
>> since 1990, when I lost my medical. Now that I have it back, I'm back in
>> there
>> (for the last month).
>>
>> Dudley lost his medical. They dropped him out of the registry. That
>> doesn't
>> mean he was never in there.
>
> If you don't have a medical, you are not a pilot. Duhdley is not a
> pilot. he may have been one, but on this day, in the year 2005, he is
> not a pilot. He is nothing but an old "remember-when" and nothing more.
>
> And he's still a self-aggrandizing piece of ****.

My people make it Marblehead Gregg. Nice place Marblehead. How do you like
it up there? Should be getting pretty nice about now.
Take care and check six!

RomeoMike

May 1st 05, 04:39 AM

Well, that's not accurate. As I posted to D.H., my father has been
deceased since 1976, and he is in the data base. My uncle hasn't had a
medical in over 40 years, and he is there also.

George Patterson wrote:

>
>
> And you don't even have the experience to know that the database only
> contains pilots who have current medicals. It doesn't contain former
> pilots.
>
> George Patterson
> There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
> mashed potatoes.

Dudley Henriques

May 1st 05, 05:08 AM

"RomeoMike" > wrote in message
...
> Well, that's not accurate. As I posted to D.H., my father has been
> deceased since 1976, and he is in the data base. My uncle hasn't had a
> medical in over 40 years, and he is there also.

Why don't you just call the FAA and get the information you want? At least
find out what the data parameters are so you will know why one pilot will be
in the data base and another will not. I'm sitting here looking at my
certificates so I'd like to know also. After you make your call to the FAA,
post back here with the answer so all of us will know.
Thank you
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)

Scott D.

May 1st 05, 06:12 AM

On Sun, 01 May 2005 04:08:58 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
<dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:

>
>"RomeoMike" > wrote in message
...
>> Well, that's not accurate. As I posted to D.H., my father has been
>> deceased since 1976, and he is in the data base. My uncle hasn't had a
>> medical in over 40 years, and he is there also.
>
>Why don't you just call the FAA and get the information you want? At least
>find out what the data parameters are so you will know why one pilot will be
>in the data base and another will not. I'm sitting here looking at my
>certificates so I'd like to know also. After you make your call to the FAA,
>post back here with the answer so all of us will know.
>Thank you
>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
>dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
>(take out the trash :-)
>

Stop wasting your time of these guys. I kill filed them a long time
ago. And as soon as he changes his name, Its kill filed again. My
father-in-law let his medical expire about 6 years ago and he is no
longer on the list either, so what ever the criteria is, it doesn't
matter. For the ones that have been around for awhile, we all know
what your accomplishments have been. You don't have to justify it to
anyone, especially this clown.

Scott D

Fly

May 1st 05, 06:21 AM

>
> Yes, unfortunately, the Usenet loudmouths and bullies win again.

> JKG

So, which group of bullies do you mean? NW pilot cross posted to ALL the
rec.avaiton *.* groups.
Sure he got bullied because his post had all resemblances of a classic
dumbass.

Darwinism at its best! (speeling be damned)

Kent Ok

Dudley Henriques

May 1st 05, 06:32 AM

<Scott D.> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 01 May 2005 04:08:58 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"RomeoMike" > wrote in message
...
>>> Well, that's not accurate. As I posted to D.H., my father has been
>>> deceased since 1976, and he is in the data base. My uncle hasn't had a
>>> medical in over 40 years, and he is there also.
>>
>>Why don't you just call the FAA and get the information you want? At least
>>find out what the data parameters are so you will know why one pilot will
>>be
>>in the data base and another will not. I'm sitting here looking at my
>>certificates so I'd like to know also. After you make your call to the
>>FAA,
>>post back here with the answer so all of us will know.
>>Thank you
>>Dudley Henriques
>>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>>Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
>>dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
>>(take out the trash :-)
>>
>
> Stop wasting your time of these guys. I kill filed them a long time
> ago. And as soon as he changes his name, Its kill filed again. My
> father-in-law let his medical expire about 6 years ago and he is no
> longer on the list either, so what ever the criteria is, it doesn't
> matter. For the ones that have been around for awhile, we all know
> what your accomplishments have been. You don't have to justify it to
> anyone, especially this clown.
>
>
> Scott D

The funny thing is that I don't "push" any accomplishments. I'm simply what
and who I am..period. There's nothing heroic or daring in anything I have
ever done in flying. In fact, the more dangerous the venue, the more
protracted and professional the living in that venue must be to survive.
As for the certificates, I've actually had my own curiousity piqued by this
idiot search for my name on some FAA data base, and have supplied my
certificate numbers to a friend who is as I speak researching the situation
for us both and I'm sure will be getting back with the information.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)

May 1st 05, 06:56 AM

"Lynne" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> THANK YOU!!! Finally someone realizes that Dudley is an old
> self-promoting, asshole piece of ****, ****ty "pilot." He spends too
> much time on the computer, and no doubt has no skills or qualifications
> to back up his claims. Read on...
>
> Do a search in the FAA pilot database for Dudley Henriques. Wow; Look
> at that! No entry for him! See that folks, he's not even a pilot!! So
> for the last several years he's been doing nothing but spoofing us. He
> is a SIMULATOR PILOT, and that's it!
>

Hey, anyone who ****es off John Tarver with reality is an angel! - and the
fact that Dudley can really fly is a big plus!

-cj

Thomas Borchert

May 1st 05, 08:08 AM

Robert,

> The are all the same person. fairly obvious.
>

I know. But doesn't it make sense to talk to both if she has a split
personality?

I wonder how it is that usenet attracts the scum time and again...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

May 1st 05, 08:08 AM

Terri,

> Too afraid to to that?
>

Afraid??? Of what, for Pete's sake? I'm too busy to waste more than two
or three posts on idiots like you.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Jon Kraus

May 1st 05, 12:46 PM

Your post is proves exactly why your "team" keep losing elections. Keep
up the good work!! :-)

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
'79 Mooney 201

Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube wrote:

<<< proof of of being an idiot snipped >>>

Jon Kraus

May 1st 05, 12:55 PM

Your post proves exactly why your "team" keep losing elections. Keep up
the good work!! <plonk>

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
'79 Mooney 201

Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube wrote:

> In article <WRXce.39261$NU4.17843@attbi_s22>,
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>
>>http://alexisparkinn.com/ifpf_history.htm
>>
>>You may wish to wash that egg off your faces...
>
>
> You republicans really are as stupid as your leader. You have a photo of
> Dudley Henriques. And please, now, explain to me how this proves some
> guy calling himself Dudley Henriques is the guy in the photo?
>
> 3, 2, 1, time's up, you lose. No proof offered. I bet you're a
> christian, too. How's your relationship with Santa going these days?
>
> Jay, switch parties. you might not be so ****ing stupid if you do.

Jay Honeck

May 1st 05, 02:01 PM

>> http://alexisparkinn.com/ifpf_history.htm
>>
>> You may wish to wash that egg off your faces...
>
> You republicans really are as stupid as your leader. You have a photo of
> Dudley Henriques. And please, now, explain to me how this proves some
> guy calling himself Dudley Henriques is the guy in the photo?

Well, I suppose it's POSSIBLE that Dudley conned all of those people on the
website into writing all those letters. And I suppose it's POSSIBLE that
all those quoted aviation legends might not have actually been referring to
the Dudley that we all know and love from this newsgroup.

Hell, it's even POSSIBLE that the Democrats might win a national election
again, some day...

I think all three of these scenarios are equally unlikely, however.

> 3, 2, 1, time's up, you lose. No proof offered. I bet you're a
> christian, too. How's your relationship with Santa going these days?

I'm certainly not a Christian -- but Santa's doing well!

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

gregg

May 1st 05, 04:54 PM

Dudley Henriques wrote:

>
> "Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:
>>
>>> You've got your head buried in your ass. My name hasn't been in the
>>> registry
>>> since 1990, when I lost my medical. Now that I have it back, I'm back
>>> in there
>>> (for the last month).
>>>
>>> Dudley lost his medical. They dropped him out of the registry. That
>>> doesn't
>>> mean he was never in there.
>>
>> If you don't have a medical, you are not a pilot. Duhdley is not a
>> pilot. he may have been one, but on this day, in the year 2005, he is
>> not a pilot. He is nothing but an old "remember-when" and nothing more.
>>
>> And he's still a self-aggrandizing piece of ****.
>
> My people make it Marblehead Gregg. Nice place Marblehead. How do you like
> it up there? Should be getting pretty nice about now.
> Take care and check six!

Dudley,

Sorry but that's not me writing. It's someone else. dunno who. I never even
heard of this registry. And I don't know who "your people" are, but they
need to work harder, if they are the ones doing your email address snooping
for you.

I love Marblehead, but it's not so nice right now. 2 weeks of mostly rain
and fog - not unusual for this place. But it'll get better. If you're ever
this way I'll show you around.

Take care as well - but try to be more accurate in your accusations next
time. ;^)

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

gregg

May 1st 05, 04:55 PM

Dudley Henriques wrote:

>
> "Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:
>>
>>> You've got your head buried in your ass. My name hasn't been in the
>>> registry
>>> since 1990, when I lost my medical. Now that I have it back, I'm back
>>> in there
>>> (for the last month).
>>>
>>> Dudley lost his medical. They dropped him out of the registry. That
>>> doesn't
>>> mean he was never in there.
>>
>> If you don't have a medical, you are not a pilot. Duhdley is not a
>> pilot. he may have been one, but on this day, in the year 2005, he is
>> not a pilot. He is nothing but an old "remember-when" and nothing more.
>>
>> And he's still a self-aggrandizing piece of ****.
>
> My people make it Marblehead Gregg. Nice place Marblehead. How do you like
> it up there? Should be getting pretty nice about now.
> Take care and check six!

p.s. I voted, quite happily, for Bush.

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

gregg

May 1st 05, 05:03 PM

Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube wrote:

> In article >,
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:
>
>> You've got your head buried in your ass. My name hasn't been in the
>> registry
>> since 1990, when I lost my medical. Now that I have it back, I'm back in
>> there
>> (for the last month).
>>
>> Dudley lost his medical. They dropped him out of the registry. That
>> doesn't mean he was never in there.
>
> If you don't have a medical, you are not a pilot. Duhdley is not a
> pilot. he may have been one, but on this day, in the year 2005, he is
> not a pilot. He is nothing but an old "remember-when" and nothing more.

Actually i don't think that's true. The way it was described to me (for PPL)
is that once you have your license you have it for life, under normal
circumstances. hwoever whether or not you can exercise the priviledges of
the license depends upon whether your medical is up to date.

>
> And he's still a self-aggrandizing piece of ****.

since Dudley has made the incorrect guess that you and I are one in the same
(we are not), I'd have to point out that I think a lot of things about him
but POS is not one of them.

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

Brooks Hagenow

May 1st 05, 05:25 PM

Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube wrote:
> In article et>,
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm not listed in the FAA database
>>because I retired from flying before the data cutoff date you idiot.
>
>
> So I AM right, you are no longer a pilot. You WERE a pilot.
>
> A certificate does not a pilot make YOU IDIOT.
>
> Currency, proficiency, activity. You probably couldn't fly an
> ultralight these days, OLD MAN.
>
> Send the check to the Humane Society of Solano County, California. I
> don't want or need your money.
>
> And I bet every student you turned out had the same ****ty judgement and
> attitude you do. You are a disgrace to aviation, to homo sapiens and to
> the uniform you wore. if you had a shred of human decency, you'd do the
> honorable thing and suck a shotgun. but you are NOT an honorable man.

What kind of honor do you have?

You attack someone for being a retired pilot. You attack others for
being republican. You take a name that invokes controversy. You
advocate suicide.

I give your opinions very low merit. If you would provide your name so
that I might look you up in the FAA database, perhaps that would help
somewhat.

I respect Dudley's posts. I don't even care if he is or is not who he
says he is. I generally like and agree with what he has to say. His
posts have also given sufficient proof that he has more experience than
myself. As of yet you have not posted anything to earn respect for
yourself.

Wyatt Emmerich

May 1st 05, 06:43 PM

Nobody knows who is real or who is not in internet space. The only thing
that matters is what is written. Ideas stand or fail on their own merits,
whether posted by real pilots or pretend pilots. Who cares! It's the
strength of the argument that matters.

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
m...
> Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube wrote:
> > And since you're not listed in the FAA database, I'd have to say you've
> > been lying all these years, too.
>
>
> You've got your head buried in your ass. My name hasn't been in the
registry
> since 1990, when I lost my medical. Now that I have it back, I'm back in
there
> (for the last month).
>
> Dudley lost his medical. They dropped him out of the registry. That
doesn't
> mean he was never in there.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
>
>
>

Jay Honeck

May 1st 05, 11:52 PM

> Nobody knows who is real or who is not in internet space.

Unless you're a real person, with a real name.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck

May 2nd 05, 12:37 AM

> You have proof, Jay, that you are a real person. You have the Alexis
> Park, where people have met you. Have you ever MET Duhdley?

Does talking on the phone count? Probably not, in your world.

Could it all be an elaborate conspiracy, like the aliens in Area 51? Could
"Dudley" actually be the guy who REALLY shot Kennedy from the grassy knoll?

I suppose. But he sure knows a helluva lot about aviation, and an awful lot
of people in the aviation world seem to know him.

Oh, wait -- THEY'RE part of the conspiracy, too...right?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Blanche

May 2nd 05, 01:37 AM

Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> Nobody knows who is real or who is not in internet space.
>
>Unless you're a real person, with a real name.

On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog
(caption to the famous cartoon with the dog at the keyboard)

Dudley Henriques

May 2nd 05, 01:43 AM

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>> Nobody knows who is real or who is not in internet space.
>>
>>Unless you're a real person, with a real name.
>
> On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog
> (caption to the famous cartoon with the dog at the keyboard)

Hi Blanche;

Actually, I tried to prove this out one time but failed. I attempted to use
our dog's paws to answer an email that was dealing with just this cartoon.
Unfortunately, his big paws gave away the store because each letter he typed
sort of came out something like "fghj tyui sdfg qwer".
Dudley

Jay Beckman

May 2nd 05, 02:29 AM

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Blanche" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>>> Nobody knows who is real or who is not in internet space.
>>>
>>>Unless you're a real person, with a real name.
>>
>> On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog
>> (caption to the famous cartoon with the dog at the keyboard)
>
> Hi Blanche;
>
> Actually, I tried to prove this out one time but failed. I attempted to
> use our dog's paws to answer an email that was dealing with just this
> cartoon. Unfortunately, his big paws gave away the store because each
> letter he typed sort of came out something like "fghj tyui sdfg
> qwer".
> Dudley
>
>

At which point you get flamed for mis-spelled gobledygook anyway, right?

Jay B

Dudley Henriques

May 2nd 05, 02:34 AM

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:6ofde.1629$D91.651@fed1read01...
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Blanche" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>>>> Nobody knows who is real or who is not in internet space.
>>>>
>>>>Unless you're a real person, with a real name.
>>>
>>> On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog
>>> (caption to the famous cartoon with the dog at the keyboard)
>>
>> Hi Blanche;
>>
>> Actually, I tried to prove this out one time but failed. I attempted to
>> use our dog's paws to answer an email that was dealing with just this
>> cartoon. Unfortunately, his big paws gave away the store because each
>> letter he typed sort of came out something like "fghj tyui sdfg
>> qwer".
>> Dudley
>>
>>
>
> At which point you get flamed for mis-spelled gobledygook anyway, right?
>
> Jay B

I think someone might have wanted to see my license to operate a keyboard;
something about being too old or not current enough or something like that!
:-)

Mortimer Schnerd, RN

May 2nd 05, 03:10 AM

Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> It actually takes years for people to disappear from the DB after they
>> lose a medical, but they go away after a while.
>
> That would be it for me. Lost the medical years ago. That's the reason I
> became a consultant :-)

I lost my medical back in 1990 and at some point after that disappeared from the
registry, despite the old saw about being licensed for life. When I got my
medical back last month, I miraculously reappeared in the registry.

Fifteen years ago I was a pilot, and now I are one again. <G>

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Mortimer Schnerd, RN

May 2nd 05, 03:11 AM

Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube wrote:
>> That would be it for me. Lost the medical years ago. That's the reason I
>> became a consultant :-)
>
> You're not a Pilot any more. you are a FAILURE. If you were a pilot,
> you'd still be flying.
>
> ****ing loser.

Apt signature....

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Mortimer Schnerd, RN

May 2nd 05, 03:13 AM

RomeoMike wrote:
> Well, that's not accurate. As I posted to D.H., my father has been
> deceased since 1976, and he is in the data base. My uncle hasn't had a
> medical in over 40 years, and he is there also.

Well, I sure as hell disappeared for the fifteen years I didn't have a medical.
I've had no certificate action; just no medical. And now I'm back in. What
other conclusion should I draw?

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Dudley Henriques

May 2nd 05, 03:20 AM

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
m...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> It actually takes years for people to disappear from the DB after they
>>> lose a medical, but they go away after a while.
>>
>> That would be it for me. Lost the medical years ago. That's the reason I
>> became a consultant :-)
>
>
> I lost my medical back in 1990 and at some point after that disappeared
> from the registry, despite the old saw about being licensed for life.
> When I got my medical back last month, I miraculously reappeared in the
> registry.
>
> Fifteen years ago I was a pilot, and now I are one again. <G>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
>

Actually, my curiosity has been piqued by all this nonsense being thrown
out here about not being on a data base. I've given the numbers back channel
to a select few friends on the group to research and see if they can find
out the exact reason why someone.....anyone...would appear or not appear on
the data bases.

Dudley

George Patterson

May 2nd 05, 03:52 AM

Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, his big paws gave away the store because each letter he typed
> sort of came out something like "fghj tyui sdfg qwer".

Was he posting recently as "Amos"? :-)

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

Andrew Gideon

May 2nd 05, 04:00 AM

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

> I lost my medical back in 1990 and at some point after that disappeared
> from the registry, despite the old saw about being licensed for life.Â*
> WhenÂ*IÂ*gotÂ*my medical back last month, I miraculously reappeared in the
> registry.

I'm glad for you.

A good friend recently had to go through something of that sort, but
thankfully not quite as bad. He'd actually received a note of final
rejection (or whatever it was called). But somehow he and/or his examiner
managed to get past even this.

We joke about it being one of, of not the, most expensive medical ever.

But welcome back into the fold (and the DB {8^).

- Andrew

Dudley Henriques

May 2nd 05, 04:04 AM

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:YBgde.1455$dH6.62@trndny07...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> Unfortunately, his big paws gave away the store because each letter he
>> typed sort of came out something like "fghj tyui sdfg qwer".
>
> Was he posting recently as "Amos"? :-)

You never know about some of these "smart" animals, but this one's not all
that smart really. I taught him how to play chess this year. Hell....I can
still beat him 2 games out of 3!!!!
D

Andrew Gideon

May 2nd 05, 04:08 AM

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

> Well, I sure as hell disappeared for the fifteen years I didn't have a
> medical. I've had no certificate action; just no medical.Â*Â*AndÂ*nowÂ*I'm
> backÂ*in.Â*Â*What other conclusion should I draw?
>

People have been assuming that there's some uniform rule governing the DB.
Given the frequent complaints about the FAA here, I'm amused that in this
case people are assuming flawless competence.

- Andrew

Dudley Henriques

May 2nd 05, 04:48 AM

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Dudley Henriques" wrote(
>> You never know about some of these "smart" animals, but this one's not
>> all that smart really. I taught him how to play chess this year.
>> Hell....I can still beat him 2 games out of 3!!!!
>
>
> Gary Kasparov will be playing a match against "Blue" today.
>
> The IBM computer or the Bloodhound?
>
>
> Montblack

You have to admit....the guy's good!!
:-)
DH

Montblack

May 2nd 05, 04:49 AM

("Dudley Henriques" wrote(
> You never know about some of these "smart" animals, but this one's not all
> that smart really. I taught him how to play chess this year. Hell....I can
> still beat him 2 games out of 3!!!!

Gary Kasparov will be playing a match against "Blue" today.

The IBM computer or the Bloodhound?

Montblack

Dave Stadt

May 2nd 05, 05:06 AM

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Dudley Henriques" wrote(
> > You never know about some of these "smart" animals, but this one's not
all
> > that smart really. I taught him how to play chess this year. Hell....I
can
> > still beat him 2 games out of 3!!!!
>
>
> Gary Kasparov will be playing a match against "Blue" today.
>
> The IBM computer or the Bloodhound?
>
>
> Montblack

"Blue" also came in red or yellow.

RomeoMike

May 2nd 05, 05:42 AM

I don't know what conclusion to make; that's why I asked the question
'what determines who is in the database?' Whether one has a medical
appears to be a part of the equation for some, but then there are people
with no medical in there.

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> RomeoMike wrote:
>
>>Well, that's not accurate. As I posted to D.H., my father has been
>>deceased since 1976, and he is in the data base. My uncle hasn't had a
>>medical in over 40 years, and he is there also.
>
>
>
> Well, I sure as hell disappeared for the fifteen years I didn't have a medical.
> I've had no certificate action; just no medical. And now I'm back in. What
> other conclusion should I draw?
>
>
>

Scott D.

May 2nd 05, 06:04 AM

>
> I think someone might have wanted to see my license to operate a keyboard;
>something about being too old or not current enough or something like that!
>:-)
>
But since your not in the DB, then are you sure that you can operate a
keyboard? Or are you just the dog pretending that you are Dudley?

Scott D.

Scott D

To email remove spamcatcher's

Dudley Henriques

May 2nd 05, 06:09 AM

<Scott D.> wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> I think someone might have wanted to see my license to operate a
>> keyboard;
>>something about being too old or not current enough or something like
>>that!
>>:-)
>>
> But since your not in the DB, then are you sure that you can operate a
> keyboard? Or are you just the dog pretending that you are Dudley?
>
> Scott D.

You know....at this point on Usenet....I'm not really sure who the hell I am
actually.
I had a guy write a private email to me once accusing me of not being Dudley
Henriques. This guy said he knew Dudley Henriques personally and that I
wasn't him.
My wife wrote back and told him that if he knew where the real Dudley was,
would he please tell him to come home, and while he was at it, would he
PLEASE tell her where the hell she should send the phony Dudley she had been
living with for the past forty years.
We never heard back :-)
Dudley

Peter Duniho

May 2nd 05, 07:15 AM

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:YBgde.1455$dH6.62@trndny07...
>> Unfortunately, his big paws gave away the store because each letter he
>> typed sort of came out something like "fghj tyui sdfg qwer".
>
> Was he posting recently as "Amos"? :-)

Number one reason dogs don't use computers:

rTyOipO sDczAsnMkbNj gHjqAzeRtsDc fTykOp hTgtYuoPlfEw dWqjIofTygHj
lP[sAqaWezSw!!

Roger

May 2nd 05, 09:14 AM

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 01:07:29 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Its been fun but I am leaving all usenet group's maby see you all at a
>> fly-in or two over the years
>>
>
>How will you recognize us?
>
We're all the ones with computer keyboards stuck to our hands and a
mouse cord hanging out of a pocket.

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

gregg

May 2nd 05, 09:56 AM

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

> Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube wrote:
>>> That would be it for me. Lost the medical years ago. That's the reason I
>>> became a consultant :-)
>>
>> You're not a Pilot any more. you are a FAILURE. If you were a pilot,
>> you'd still be flying.
>>
>> ****ing loser.
>
>
> Apt signature....

*snicker* ;^)

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

Cub Driver

May 2nd 05, 11:15 AM

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 16:17:09 -0600, RomeoMike
> wrote:

>I know you are what you say you are, but who is or isn't in the
>database? You retired before a cutoff? When was that? My father and
>uncle are in the database, and both quit flying in the 1950's or early
>60's, and my father died in 1976. I'm not challenging you, just curious
>how the database is made up. I always thought all pilots were listed
>unless they chose to opt out.

During the campaign there was a lot of hoo-hah about the president's
flying, so I looked him up in the FAA database. As I recall, he had a
single and twin certificate, but no current medical, and his address
was: unknown! I believe he last flew in the early 1970s.

However, this is the government, after all. It has been known to make
the occasional mistake.

I looked up the database yesterday, and it wasn't working at the time.
(Hey, it's the government!) But the introductory pages noted that
anyone who wanted could block his entry from being displayed.

-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

Cub Driver

May 2nd 05, 11:17 AM

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 23:40:24 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
<dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:

>Just be advised that although I will supply you with the certificate
>numbers, your lack of trust in my word that they exist without seeing them
>will be the last time I have any contact with you.

Holy smoke!

-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

Matt Whiting

May 2nd 05, 11:22 AM

Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube wrote:
> In article et>,
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>
>
>>That would be it for me. Lost the medical years ago. That's the reason I
>>became a consultant :-)
>
>
> You're not a Pilot any more. you are a FAILURE. If you were a pilot,
> you'd still be flying.

We'll all lose our medicals at some point. Doesn't mean we're not
pilots anymore.

> ****ing loser.

You aren't a loser until you resort to name calling.

Matt

Matt Whiting

May 2nd 05, 11:23 AM

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>>>It actually takes years for people to disappear from the DB after they
>>>lose a medical, but they go away after a while.
>>
>>That would be it for me. Lost the medical years ago. That's the reason I
>>became a consultant :-)
>
>
>
> I lost my medical back in 1990 and at some point after that disappeared from the
> registry, despite the old saw about being licensed for life. When I got my
> medical back last month, I miraculously reappeared in the registry.

Being in a computer database doesn't make you a pilot! :-)

> Fifteen years ago I was a pilot, and now I are one again. <G>

Congratulations!

Matt

Matt Whiting

May 2nd 05, 11:25 AM

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>>>>It actually takes years for people to disappear from the DB after they
>>>>lose a medical, but they go away after a while.
>>>
>>>That would be it for me. Lost the medical years ago. That's the reason I
>>>became a consultant :-)
>>
>>
>>I lost my medical back in 1990 and at some point after that disappeared
>>from the registry, despite the old saw about being licensed for life.
>>When I got my medical back last month, I miraculously reappeared in the
>>registry.
>>
>>Fifteen years ago I was a pilot, and now I are one again. <G>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>>

>
>
> Actually, my curiosity has been piqued by all this nonsense being thrown
> out here about not being on a data base. I've given the numbers back channel
> to a select few friends on the group to research and see if they can find
> out the exact reason why someone.....anyone...would appear or not appear on
> the data bases.

It will be interesting to know, but I'm guessing the intent is to have
only "active" pilots listed, i.e., those with current medicals. I know
that they only send the safety seminar information to those with active
medicals. I let mine lapse due to being too busy to fly a few years
ago, and I stopped getting the notices. When I inquired as to why, I
was told that they sent those only to people with current medicals.
Sure enough, I took my physical and they resumed again.

Matt

OtisWinslow

May 2nd 05, 01:13 PM

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
>
> Pete, You struck the nail on the head I have better things to do with my
> time.
>

Wow .. even better than talking to your flying buddies here? I don't
know what to say .. I don't do rejection well.

OtisWinslow

May 2nd 05, 01:19 PM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> houstondan wrote:
>
> I think the person who turned him in to the FSDO,

I was just teasing .. honest .. I didn't turn him in.

OtisWinslow

May 2nd 05, 01:39 PM

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
> You ****ing Usenet idiots would make me sick if you weren't so pathetic!
> :-)
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
> dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
> (take out the trash :-)
>

Dudley ..

Why do you waste your time on a Usenet troll? This kid's probably about
14 and using daddy's computer to jerk people around when he should
be doing his jr high homework.

I think he should put up or shut up and deposit his 10 grand instead of
running his mouth off. Unless he's too chicken **** to back up his
loose mouth. Anyone who's been around a few years with
even a remote knowledge of aviation knows who you are.

OW

Steve Foley

May 2nd 05, 02:11 PM

I thought you left.

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...

> I scrapped that x-country flight due to weather I will attempt it again in
> the near future.
>
>

Dudley Henriques

May 2nd 05, 03:43 PM

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 16:17:09 -0600, RomeoMike
> > wrote:

>
>>I know you are what you say you are, but who is or isn't in the
>>database? You retired before a cutoff? When was that? My father and
>>uncle are in the database, and both quit flying in the 1950's or early
>>60's, and my father died in 1976. I'm not challenging you, just curious
>>how the database is made up. I always thought all pilots were listed
>>unless they chose to opt out.
>
> During the campaign there was a lot of hoo-hah about the president's
> flying, so I looked him up in the FAA database. As I recall, he had a
> single and twin certificate, but no current medical, and his address
> was: unknown! I believe he last flew in the early 1970s.
>
> However, this is the government, after all. It has been known to make
> the occasional mistake.
>
> I looked up the database yesterday, and it wasn't working at the time.
> (Hey, it's the government!) But the introductory pages noted that
> anyone who wanted could block his entry from being displayed.
>
>
>
> -- all the best, Dan Ford

And what did the introductory pages say about pilots who have never asked to
be included OR excluded from any FAA data base; who can physically sit in
their dens in 2005 holding their certificates in their right hand?
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)

Dudley Henriques

May 2nd 05, 03:43 PM

"OtisWinslow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>>
>> You ****ing Usenet idiots would make me sick if you weren't so pathetic!
>> :-)
>> Dudley Henriques
>> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>> Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
>> dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
>> (take out the trash :-)
>>
>
> Dudley ..
>
> Why do you waste your time on a Usenet troll? This kid's probably about
> 14 and using daddy's computer to jerk people around when he should
> be doing his jr high homework.
>
> I think he should put up or shut up and deposit his 10 grand instead of
> running his mouth off. Unless he's too chicken **** to back up his
> loose mouth. Anyone who's been around a few years with
> even a remote knowledge of aviation knows who you are.
>
> OW

Unfortunately this isn't true. I know exactly who this person is and where
he is and he's not a troll. He's an
unbalanced individual who has contacted me several times by
personal email seeking to fly a P51. The tone of his correspondence was such
that my wife became concerned enough that the situation has been turned over
at this point to a third party for investigation.
Thank you for your interest.

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)

Steve Foley

May 2nd 05, 04:22 PM

I just finished watching the Matrix. Now I'm wondering if I even exist.

Oops - I just replied to a fired feeding tube.

"Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube" > wrote in message
...

> You have proof, Jay, that you are a real person. You have the Alexis
> Park, where people have met you. Have you ever MET Duhdley? If not, you
> have NO PROOF the guy POSTING as Duhdley is indeed, Duhdley.

Steve Foley

May 2nd 05, 04:47 PM

Regarding my "that airframe is now worth zero" statement:

I'll modify that to "it's worth zero to me".

There is enough uncertainty when buying a plane as it stands. This is enough
reason for me to pass on a plane he is selling. At least when he has an
engine failure while flying over the mountains in the dark, there won't be
any doubt if he's caused any damage.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...

> The airframe comment was a little over the top,

OtisWinslow

May 2nd 05, 04:56 PM

You can opt out of having your personal info appear on the
DB. Many who are active pilots do that.

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>
> Actually, my curiosity has been piqued by all this nonsense being thrown
> out here about not being on a data base. I've given the numbers back
> channel to a select few friends on the group to research and see if they
> can find out the exact reason why someone.....anyone...would appear or not
> appear on the data bases.
>
> Dudley
>

John Galban

May 2nd 05, 05:01 PM

Lynne wrote:
> THANK YOU!!! Finally someone realizes that Dudley is an old
<snip>

You're not doing a very good job of trolling again, Lynne. Just
changing the screen name on your newsreader doesn't cut it. You
haven't fooled anyone so far. Just give it up.

> Do a search in the FAA pilot database for Dudley Henriques. Wow; Look
> at that! No entry for him! See that folks, he's not even a pilot!! So
> for the last several years he's been doing nothing but spoofing us.
He
> is a SIMULATOR PILOT, and that's it!

A gander at your posting history convinced me long ago that you are
just a simulator pilot and/or a just a common liar. Got any tattoos
lately?
>
> You ought to be ashamed of yourself Dudley.

Look who's talking!

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

Dudley Henriques

May 2nd 05, 05:08 PM

Actually, being retired, I really never give it a thought either way since I
won't be flying again. It's apparently only a big deal for a few specific
morons on Usenet. My family, my friends, my professional associates past and
present, and indeed even my country's government at the highest level seem
to be quite happy with things just the way they are.
Only on Usenet will one find the idiots an issue like this one will attract.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)

"OtisWinslow" > wrote in message
...
> You can opt out of having your personal info appear on the
> DB. Many who are active pilots do that.
>
>
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>>
>> Actually, my curiosity has been piqued by all this nonsense being thrown
>> out here about not being on a data base. I've given the numbers back
>> channel to a select few friends on the group to research and see if they
>> can find out the exact reason why someone.....anyone...would appear or
>> not appear on the data bases.
>>
>> Dudley
>>
>
>

W P Dixon

May 2nd 05, 05:09 PM

I'm just trying to figure out what tattoos have to do with being able to fly
an airplane? Ink doesn't weigh that much ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

OtisWinslow

May 2nd 05, 07:27 PM

I think it's the ones with little tiny dicks who can actually pretend to be
someone on here.

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
ink.net...
> Only on Usenet will one find the idiots an issue like this one will
> attract.
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
> dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
> (take out the trash :-)
>

Dudley Henriques

May 2nd 05, 07:51 PM

"OtisWinslow" > wrote in message
...
>I think it's the ones with little tiny dicks who can actually pretend to be
> someone on here.

I've contemplated many times my decision to appear here on Usenet as myself.
I am fully aware that on Usenet, the name; face; and truth factor contained
in posting data can only be confirmed by those few with whom personal
knowledge and contact with a specific individual has been made. It's for
these few people I use my own name on Usenet. The rest can
guess.........conjecture.........flame.........acc use........attack.........and
sit there at their keyboards and believe whatever they want to believe.
Sometimes I'll deal with them....sometimes I won't. But always.....I'm here
only for the people with whom I choose to communicate. The "**** you's you
see from me once in a while are simply my way of reminding myself that
Usenet for me will always be split into these two very distinct sections;
the people who are worth my time; experience, and intelligence......and
those who don't deserve it. :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)

>
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> Only on Usenet will one find the idiots an issue like this one will
>> attract.
>> Dudley Henriques
>> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>> Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
>> dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
>> (take out the trash :-)
>>
>
>

Allen

May 2nd 05, 09:19 PM

"Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube" > wrote in message
...
> In article <T4dde.34028$c24.16603@attbi_s72>,
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>> Unless you're a real person, with a real name.
>
> You have proof, Jay, that you are a real person. You have the Alexis
> Park, where people have met you. Have you ever MET Duhdley? If not, you
> have NO PROOF the guy POSTING as Duhdley is indeed, Duhdley.
>

Why are you so embarrassed to use your real name, PEG? (percutaneous
endoscopes gastrostomy tube)

Allen

Matt Whiting

May 2nd 05, 09:49 PM

OtisWinslow wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>houstondan wrote:
>>
>>I think the person who turned him in to the FSDO,
>
>
> I was just teasing .. honest .. I didn't turn him in.
>
>

I didn't think you would. :-)

Matt

Morgans

May 2nd 05, 10:07 PM

"OtisWinslow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Pete, You struck the nail on the head I have better things to do with my
> > time.
> >
>
> Wow .. even better than talking to your flying buddies here? I don't
> know what to say .. I don't do rejection well.

What he meant to say was;

I don't deal with criticism well, so I'm going to take my ball and go home.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans

May 2nd 05, 10:13 PM

"OtisWinslow" > wrote
>
> I was just teasing .. honest .. I didn't turn him in.

No reason not to.
--
Jim in NC

Rob

May 2nd 05, 10:34 PM

ok dude its been interesting reading your wacky stories and i hope that
maby you wont roll non-aerobat 150s any more because theyre not really
designed for that and be careful when youre flying especially at night
in the mountains

-R

gregg

May 2nd 05, 10:34 PM

Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube wrote:

> In article >,
> "Allen" > wrote:
>
>> "Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article <T4dde.34028$c24.16603@attbi_s72>,
>> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Unless you're a real person, with a real name.
>> >
>> > You have proof, Jay, that you are a real person. You have the Alexis
>> > Park, where people have met you. Have you ever MET Duhdley? If not, you
>> > have NO PROOF the guy POSTING as Duhdley is indeed, Duhdley.
>> >
>>
>> Why are you so embarrassed to use your real name, PEG? (percutaneous
>> endoscopes gastrostomy tube)
>
> What's it to you?

Personally I wish someone would track throught he links and find out the
real email address of this person.

Gregg

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

Michael

May 2nd 05, 11:09 PM

> And you don't even have the experience to know that the database only
contains
> pilots who have current medicals. It doesn't contain former pilots.

I don't know what database you are using, but I suggest you try using
the one the FAA maintains.

http://162.58.35.241/aadatabase/login.asp

It most certainly does contain former pilots - even ones who haven't
flown for decades. There is also no cutoff date and no requirement to
hold a current medical.

What a ****storm this has caused. Truly, it makes me wonder if anyone
here knows how to do an elementary google search.

First off, did any of you actually look at the Alexis Park Inn site?
Did you notice that when people addressed Dudley, they spelled his last
name Henrique, without a terminal s? Google groups search is your
friend. If you go back far enough, you will discover that Dudley
changed the way he spells his name online. He spells it Henriques now,
but the spelling he used a few years ago was Henrique, and the middle
initial was A. Clearly the same person, since the references to the
IFPF remain the same. He appears in the airman database as Dudley
Arthur Henrique. This is a real person who really exists - it's not
rocket science.

What's more, given that he produced all sorts of IFPF documents for
Jay's web site, we can be pretty certain that he is who he says he is,
or at least knew that person well. It's not like those documents, or
copies of them, could be found anywhere. The very obscurity of the
organization proves this. If you wanted to find some documents
traceable to the IFPF, how would you do it? Again, google is your
friend. A search turns up the full name of the organization in
thousands of hits - but every one of them is Dudley's signature (other
than the Alexis Park Inn site). There is not one single hit in any
other context. How would someone who was pretending to be Dudley
unearth these documents? Nobody has copies. The organization is so
obscure that it's not mentioned or linked to by any aviation
organization ANYWHERE on the web. Nobody unconnected with the
organization would have any way of getting his hands on these
documents, originals or copies.

BTW - if you have even basic google skills, you can figure out who I am
with relative ease. Asking one of the many people here who know me is
cheating.

Michael

Peter R.

May 2nd 05, 11:17 PM

Michael wrote:

<snip>
> First off, did any of you actually look at the Alexis Park Inn site?

This troll (the tube, not the OP) is simply going for a shock value and
nothing else. Given the continued growth of this thread, it appears
to have worked.

Usenet perpetual motion, this thread has become.

--
Peter

Bart

May 3rd 05, 12:22 AM

Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube wrote:
> If you don't have a medical, you are not a pilot. Duhdley is not a
> pilot. he may have been one, but on this day, in the year 2005, he is

> not a pilot. He is nothing but an old "remember-when" and nothing
more.

Last time I checked, the cert makes you a pilot, not the med.

Go back to ATTWW to your nut-case buddies. There's too many intelligent
people here for you.

Roger

May 3rd 05, 03:52 AM

On 30 Apr 2005 11:04:49 -0700, "Lynne" > wrote:

>
>THANK YOU!!! Finally someone realizes that Dudley is an old
>self-promoting, asshole piece of ****, ****ty "pilot." He spends too
>much time on the computer, and no doubt has no skills or qualifications
>to back up his claims. Read on...
>
>Do a search in the FAA pilot database for Dudley Henriques. Wow; Look
>at that! No entry for him! See that folks, he's not even a pilot!! So
>for the last several years he's been doing nothing but spoofing us. He
>is a SIMULATOR PILOT, and that's it!

You might want to check a tad farther back than that and not fall for
trolls.

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

>
>You ought to be ashamed of yourself Dudley.

Roger

May 3rd 05, 03:53 AM

On Sun, 01 May 2005 04:32:33 GMT, Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube
> wrote:

>In article <WRXce.39261$NU4.17843@attbi_s22>,
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>> http://alexisparkinn.com/ifpf_history.htm
>>
>> You may wish to wash that egg off your faces...
>
>You republicans really are as stupid as your leader. You have a photo of
>Dudley Henriques. And please, now, explain to me how this proves some
>guy calling himself Dudley Henriques is the guy in the photo?
>
>3, 2, 1, time's up, you lose. No proof offered. I bet you're a
>christian, too. How's your relationship with Santa going these days?
>
>Jay, switch parties. you might not be so ****ing stupid if you do.

Sounds like the Fish who shall not be nammed is back.

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

Roger

May 3rd 05, 04:16 AM

Hi Dudley,

It's all your fault. I hadn't been on in a few days, brought up the
News Group and wondered why I was getting RAP when I should have been
getting RAS. Installed the damn news reader three times before I
figured out you shook the trees and all the nuts fell off... er ...
out...

I ain't never going fishing with you. You'd have the boat full before
I got the bait on the hook.

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

Dudley Henriques

May 3rd 05, 04:41 AM

Very astute reasoning, and the name problems persist to this day because
half the world issues us credit cards and store charge cards and drivers
licenses using one spelling, and the financial end of things uses the other.
The name is Henriques; always has been Henriques. I've had to switch it back
and forth all my life to try and compensate for who ever was calling me what
at
what time and for what purpose. Every time we tried changing it to
Henriques and leaving it that way, it would cause problems with our cards so
we finally just gave up
on it and allowed it either way.
Just to give you some idea of how confusing this can be, I can tell you that
I am sitting here now looking at my Commercial and my CFI. My CFI reads
Henrique, and my Commercial plainly reads Henriques.......and THAT'S just
the FAA!!!!! :-)
As for the Fellowship, it was what it was and nothing more; a group of
fine people with a common interest in demonstration flight safety, all
members by special invitation only.

The IFPF never been presented in any other light other than what it
was....an
honor fraternity .
There is however, a close reference with another aviation organization, and
that would be the Combat Pilots Association of the United States. Both our
organizations are long gone, but anyone searching through the CPA official
magazines "Join Up" will find reference there to the Fellowship, and also
reference there to me personally as first the Maryland State Representative,
and then the Eastern Regional Director of CPA. I'm not sure where these
references can be found. I believe I've seen some sources for Join Up on the
web. Perhaps a letter to Steve Ritchie would produce further information, as
Steve was a member of both the Fellowship and served as President of the
Combat Pilots Association.
Organizations like the IFPF and CPA unfortunately come and go in this world
without much fanfare.

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)
"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> And you don't even have the experience to know that the database only
> contains
>> pilots who have current medicals. It doesn't contain former pilots.
>
> I don't know what database you are using, but I suggest you try using
> the one the FAA maintains.
>
> http://162.58.35.241/aadatabase/login.asp
>
> It most certainly does contain former pilots - even ones who haven't
> flown for decades. There is also no cutoff date and no requirement to
> hold a current medical.
>
> What a ****storm this has caused. Truly, it makes me wonder if anyone
> here knows how to do an elementary google search.
>
> First off, did any of you actually look at the Alexis Park Inn site?
> Did you notice that when people addressed Dudley, they spelled his last
> name Henrique, without a terminal s? Google groups search is your
> friend. If you go back far enough, you will discover that Dudley
> changed the way he spells his name online. He spells it Henriques now,
> but the spelling he used a few years ago was Henrique, and the middle
> initial was A. Clearly the same person, since the references to the
> IFPF remain the same. He appears in the airman database as Dudley
> Arthur Henrique. This is a real person who really exists - it's not
> rocket science.
>
> What's more, given that he produced all sorts of IFPF documents for
> Jay's web site, we can be pretty certain that he is who he says he is,
> or at least knew that person well. It's not like those documents, or
> copies of them, could be found anywhere. The very obscurity of the
> organization proves this. If you wanted to find some documents
> traceable to the IFPF, how would you do it? Again, google is your
> friend. A search turns up the full name of the organization in
> thousands of hits - but every one of them is Dudley's signature (other
> than the Alexis Park Inn site). There is not one single hit in any
> other context. How would someone who was pretending to be Dudley
> unearth these documents? Nobody has copies. The organization is so
> obscure that it's not mentioned or linked to by any aviation
> organization ANYWHERE on the web. Nobody unconnected with the
> organization would have any way of getting his hands on these
> documents, originals or copies.
>
> BTW - if you have even basic google skills, you can figure out who I am
> with relative ease. Asking one of the many people here who know me is
> cheating.
>
> Michael
>

Dudley Henriques

May 3rd 05, 04:41 AM

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Dudley,
>
> It's all your fault. I hadn't been on in a few days, brought up the
> News Group and wondered why I was getting RAP when I should have been
> getting RAS. Installed the damn news reader three times before I
> figured out you shook the trees and all the nuts fell off... er ...
> out...
>
> I ain't never going fishing with you. You'd have the boat full before
> I got the bait on the hook.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

It's amazing ain't it? I'm like a lightning rod for some of these people.
First it's the Fellowship signature. They don't like that! Then it's the
Fellowship itself! Must be a bunch of idiots who all signed up to please a
"fan" :-) Then it's my pilot certificates. They can't find um! Then it's my
working on the flight simulator for the software folks. They think they
REALLY found something THERE :-))) Man, I'm telling you, Usenet could be
used as a basis for a mathematical constant by psychiatrists. Your state of
mental degradation should be roughly directly proportional to the time you
spend on Usenet! :-)
And I'm including myself in this equation. Bea says I'm absolutely NUTS to
keep posting on this group! For the life of me I'm beginning to think she's
right!!!
On well....support mental health I always say. Thank God the good people
around here seem to outnumber the morons. Of course Bea says that me
sticking around here to take all this crap kind of puts one extra in the
moron column :-)
Dudley

Dudley Henriques

May 3rd 05, 04:51 AM

"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> And you don't even have the experience to know that the database only
> contains
>> pilots who have current medicals. It doesn't contain former pilots.
>
> I don't know what database you are using, but I suggest you try using
> the one the FAA maintains.
>
> http://162.58.35.241/aadatabase/login.asp
>
> It most certainly does contain former pilots - even ones who haven't
> flown for decades. There is also no cutoff date and no requirement to
> hold a current medical.
>
> What a ****storm this has caused. Truly, it makes me wonder if anyone
> here knows how to do an elementary google search.
>
> First off, did any of you actually look at the Alexis Park Inn site?
> Did you notice that when people addressed Dudley, they spelled his last
> name Henrique, without a terminal s? Google groups search is your
> friend. If you go back far enough, you will discover that Dudley
> changed the way he spells his name online. He spells it Henriques now,
> but the spelling he used a few years ago was Henrique, and the middle
> initial was A. Clearly the same person, since the references to the
> IFPF remain the same. He appears in the airman database as Dudley
> Arthur Henrique. This is a real person who really exists - it's not
> rocket science.
>
> What's more, given that he produced all sorts of IFPF documents for
> Jay's web site, we can be pretty certain that he is who he says he is,
> or at least knew that person well. It's not like those documents, or
> copies of them, could be found anywhere. The very obscurity of the
> organization proves this. If you wanted to find some documents
> traceable to the IFPF, how would you do it? Again, google is your
> friend. A search turns up the full name of the organization in
> thousands of hits - but every one of them is Dudley's signature (other
> than the Alexis Park Inn site). There is not one single hit in any
> other context. How would someone who was pretending to be Dudley
> unearth these documents? Nobody has copies. The organization is so
> obscure that it's not mentioned or linked to by any aviation
> organization ANYWHERE on the web. Nobody unconnected with the
> organization would have any way of getting his hands on these
> documents, originals or copies.
>
> BTW - if you have even basic google skills, you can figure out who I am
> with relative ease. Asking one of the many people here who know me is
> cheating.
>
> Michael

Actually I'm surprised you came up with my licenses at all. My actual
Commercial reads Henrique and my actual CFI reads Henriques....and this is
just the FAA!!!
You can imagine the problems we have had through the years with half our
credit cards and store charges being issued with Henrique on them and all
our financial dealings using the correct spelling of Henriques.
I've tried through the years to sneak everything back to the correct
Henriques spelling, but every time I change something, a new form or license
or card shows up with Henrique on it. For some reason, people like to drop
the S.
Oh well....such is life!
Dudley

Mortimer Schnerd, RN

May 3rd 05, 11:49 AM

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Just to give you some idea of how confusing this can be, I can tell you that
> I am sitting here now looking at my Commercial and my CFI. My CFI reads
> Henrique, and my Commercial plainly reads Henriques.......and THAT'S just
> the FAA!!!!! :-)

There you go... the mystery is solved if your middle name is Arthur. They don't
show the final "s" in the name.

https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/aadatabase/login.asp

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Cub Driver

May 3rd 05, 01:44 PM

On Mon, 02 May 2005 10:25:21 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>It will be interesting to know, but I'm guessing the intent is to have
>only "active" pilots listed, i.e.,

Okay, the database is working today.

I plugged in George H W Bush. He got a commercial pilot rating in
October 1945. Neither medical nor address available.

Then I plugged in George W Bush. He got a commercial rating in
December 1969 (not only SEL like his dad, but multiengine land and
instrument). Again, neither medical nor address available :)

So you hardly need to be current! (Both George 41 and George 43 are
alive, however, so possibly the list is pruned when you go to the
great fly-in in the sky.)

I plug in my own name and find address and all! But interestingly
enough, it gives the wrong information for my pilot certificate -- oh,
I know! I got a new cert in 2003, to scrub the Social Security number
off it, and that's evidently the date of issue.

And now I plug in Dudley Arthur Henrique and find that he was issued a
commercial pilot cert in January 1969, SEL and multi-engine land
"limited to center thrust". Last medical 3rd class November 1987 "must
wear corrective lenses." . No address

So: my guess is that Dudley is in there under a variant of his
surname, that he is practically a colleague of the president, and that
he hasn't been flying since 1989 or 1990.

Let's hear it for the FAA! That's a pretty good database, all things
considered. I think I was too hard on the guvmint in my earlier posts.

-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

OtisWinslow

May 3rd 05, 02:01 PM

I'll sure have to disagree with that one. I know they address situations
of unsafe or illegal operations. I've seen it. Maybe where you live they
don't care but that isn't the situation here.

"kage" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dream on.
>
> Reporting to the FSDO will do NOTHING. No way any inspector will EVER show
> unless there is a death, at least.
>
>
> Karl
>

Montblack

May 3rd 05, 04:25 PM

("Cub Driver" wrote)
[snip]
> Then I plugged in George W Bush. He got a commercial rating in
> December 1969 (not only SEL like his dad, but multiengine land and
> instrument). Again, neither medical nor address available :)

Wonder where he lives?

Montblack

Dudley Henriques

May 3rd 05, 04:32 PM

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
om...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> Just to give you some idea of how confusing this can be, I can tell you
>> that
>> I am sitting here now looking at my Commercial and my CFI. My CFI reads
>> Henrique, and my Commercial plainly reads Henriques.......and THAT'S just
>> the FAA!!!!! :-)
>
>
> There you go... the mystery is solved if your middle name is Arthur. They
> don't show the final "s" in the name.
>
> https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/aadatabase/login.asp

Yep...seems to have solved THAT mystery all right.

Now, the only mystery left for me is how Usenet can be so chuck full of
people who actually spend most of their on line time concerned with "
exposing" someone....or discovering that someone isn't who they appear to
be.....or that someone is lying.....or that THEY have a better answer than
someone else.......or what has come to be for me at least; the ultimate
mystery of Usenet......that being the existence of people out here who
actually will wait patiently for a particular poster they don't like to post
something....ANYTHING......and then check every word...every
statement......every meaning....in the twisted hope that the poster they
don't particularly like very well will make a mistake.....no matter how tiny
a mistake or error...that THEY can jump on immediately to use as "absolute
proof" that the object of their "exposure" is flawed!
Actually, I solved this "mystery" years ago. That's why I no longer treat
Usenet as a serious means of communicating with my fellow pilots. It's just
an odd place on the net to come into from time to time...see my name bandied
about by people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about,
then leave quietly as I came.....either totally disgusted or laughing like
hell at the sheer stupidity that is Usenet :-)
Dudley Henriques

Ross Richardson

May 3rd 05, 04:33 PM

Michael wrote:

>>And you don't even have the experience to know that the database only
>
> contains
>
>>pilots who have current medicals. It doesn't contain former pilots.
>
>
> I don't know what database you are using, but I suggest you try using
> the one the FAA maintains.
>
> http://162.58.35.241/aadatabase/login.asp
>
> It most certainly does contain former pilots - even ones who haven't
> flown for decades. There is also no cutoff date and no requirement to
> hold a current medical.
>
>SNIP

Interesting website. I put in my father's name and it came up! He passed
away a couple of years ago and hasn't flown many years beyond that. I
put is my first and last names and came up with five of us. Different
middle names except two.

Finally, can't we all get along? All of these groups should be for
sharing information, experiences, requesting assistance from one
another, etc. And if it gets out of hand, do not respond. Just stop it.
You can't stop the other person from posting, but by not replying the
thread will die.

Let's all have fun and learn.

--
Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP

gatt

May 3rd 05, 06:48 PM

"Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube" > wrote in message

> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>
> > That would be it for me. Lost the medical years ago. That's the reason I
> > became a consultant :-)
>
> You're not a Pilot any more. you are a FAILURE. If you were a pilot,
> you'd still be flying.
>
> ****ing loser.

LOL. The troll must be jealous.

-c

gatt

May 3rd 05, 07:04 PM

"Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube" > wrote in message news:dork-

> If you don't have a medical, you are not a pilot.

How many hours have you logged?

>Duhdley is not a
> pilot. he may have been one, but on this day, in the year 2005, he is
> not a pilot. He is nothing but an old "remember-when" and nothing more.

Which is worth more to every single pilot here in a single post than you
will ever be.
Neil Armstrong is a washed-up astronaut. But he still walked on the moon.

-c

gatt

May 3rd 05, 07:09 PM

"Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube" > wrote in message news:dork-

> I say again, you Republicans are as stupid as your leader.

Guys like these are why Democrats don't win elections. Every intelligent
thing a liberal leader says is undermined by some clueless jackass like
this, which is what people remember when they think of liberaldom. In fact,
guys like this are the best thing to happen to Republicans.

But, let's get back on the subject--flying--which should pretty much push
this guy right out of the loop.

Anybody know the Vancouver pilot that crashed in Portland, Oregon this
weekend?

-c

gatt

May 3rd 05, 07:22 PM

"Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube" > wrote in message news:dork-
> > You may wish to wash that egg off your faces...
>
> You republicans really are as stupid as your leader.

I'm not a Republican, but you're stupid. The real pilots out here, which
is to say not you, know Dudley's Dudley because of the accuracy and quality
of information he gives.

He knows things and says things native to aviation that guys like you
wouldn't understand, which is why the vast majority of people out here who
don't care whether his name is "Dudley" or "Old MacDonald" recognize him as
an accomplished pilot.

We wouldn't expect you to understand, because you're not an aviator.

As a non-Republican, I'm embarrassed to see you speaking on behalf of
non-Republicans. It's guys like you that scare away the moderate voters.

-c

Peter Duniho

May 3rd 05, 07:43 PM

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
> Guys like these are why Democrats don't win elections. Every intelligent
> thing a liberal leader says is undermined by some clueless jackass like
> this

As opposed to all the clueless jackass Republicans? (Rush, O'Reilly, et al)

Come on...both parties have plenty of clueless jackasses to go around. :p

Democrats certainly do win elections (so you've started with a false premise
anyway), and the number of clueless jackasses on either side has little to
do with that, one way or the other.

Frankly, the incredibly slim margins that have been deciding elections
around the country (and including the Presidential one, of course) is
evidence to me that NEITHER party is doing a very good job addressing things
people really care about. Most people are obviously just flipping a coin.

> [...]
> Anybody know the Vancouver pilot that crashed in Portland, Oregon this
> weekend?

Nope...I did find myself wondering if the airplane was a Cessna 150
though...

Pete

gatt

May 3rd 05, 07:43 PM

"OtisWinslow" > wrote in message news:kcpde.1748053

> Why do you waste your time on a Usenet troll? This kid's probably about
> 14 and using daddy's computer to jerk people around when he should
> be doing his jr high homework.

Naw. The sad thing is he's probably 40, drunk and living in his mama's
basement.

Odds are he failed a medical or got kicked out of flight school, which is
why he's taking it out on Dudley (who doesn't have a medical and is
otherwise everything this loser wishes he was big enough to be.)

-c

private

May 3rd 05, 07:52 PM

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
snip
> Guys like these are why Democrats don't win elections. Every intelligent
> thing a liberal leader says is undermined by some clueless jackass like
> this, which is what people remember when they think of liberaldom. In
fact,
> guys like this are the best thing to happen to Republicans.
>
It is an unfortunite fact of common human nature to wish to be BETTER than
others and the simplest way is to discredit everyone else. Unfortunately
this tactic robs the time and energy that would be required to truely better
themselves.
Remember "natering nabobs of negativism"?

Also unfortunately this tactic is often used in the courts of both legal and
electoral judgement and is the reason negative political advertizing works
so well. It is however also a comment on the percieved inteligence of its
targets.

I notice that organizations like the military that have studied what really
works develop cultures that build on the positive and motivate with words
like "outstanding"

snip

gatt

May 3rd 05, 07:53 PM

Good luck and good flying! -c

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
> Its been fun but I am leaving all usenet group's maby see you all at a
> fly-in or two over the years
>
>

Mortimer Schnerd, RN

May 3rd 05, 08:09 PM

Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/aadatabase/login.asp
>
> Yep...seems to have solved THAT mystery all right.

Now I'm left with a mystery. Since you're in there even without a current
medical, why was I left out for so long?

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

private

May 3rd 05, 08:22 PM

snip
> On well....support mental health I always say. Thank God the good people
> around here seem to outnumber the morons. Of course Bea says that me
> sticking around here to take all this crap kind of puts one extra in the
> moron column :-)
> Dudley

Some come here in goodwill and leave only intelligence.
We judge and respond to the demonstration of both,
the rest is inconsequential.

Blue skies to all

Dudley Henriques

May 3rd 05, 08:35 PM

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/aadatabase/login.asp
>>
>> Yep...seems to have solved THAT mystery all right.
>
>
> Now I'm left with a mystery. Since you're in there even without a current
> medical, why was I left out for so long?

Not sure, but anything even remotely connected with the government can be a
twisted nightmare.
For example, I think the last medical they have listed for me is a class 2
dated in 82. I'm sitting here looking at a class 3 I got dated in 87 where I
was in sort of a "transition period" during my "retirement "from active
flying. That medical isn't on the data base at all. Next, I'm trying to
figure out how both my Commercial and CFI are listed on the base under
Dudley Arthur Henrique when in fact, my CFI in reality says Henriques :-))
I think probably the best thing for EVERYBODY to do is just accept the fact
that it's the FAA (we all know what THAT means :-) and just stop trying to
figure out how they manage to get ANYTHING right!! :-)
Dudley Henriques

Matt Whiting

May 4th 05, 02:40 AM

Cub Driver wrote:

> On Mon, 02 May 2005 10:25:21 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote:
>
>
>>It will be interesting to know, but I'm guessing the intent is to have
>>only "active" pilots listed, i.e.,
>
>
> Okay, the database is working today.
>
> I plugged in George H W Bush. He got a commercial pilot rating in
> October 1945. Neither medical nor address available.
>
> Then I plugged in George W Bush. He got a commercial rating in
> December 1969 (not only SEL like his dad, but multiengine land and
> instrument). Again, neither medical nor address available :)
>
> So you hardly need to be current! (Both George 41 and George 43 are
> alive, however, so possibly the list is pruned when you go to the
> great fly-in in the sky.)
>
> I plug in my own name and find address and all! But interestingly
> enough, it gives the wrong information for my pilot certificate -- oh,
> I know! I got a new cert in 2003, to scrub the Social Security number
> off it, and that's evidently the date of issue.
>
> And now I plug in Dudley Arthur Henrique and find that he was issued a
> commercial pilot cert in January 1969, SEL and multi-engine land
> "limited to center thrust". Last medical 3rd class November 1987 "must
> wear corrective lenses." . No address
>
> So: my guess is that Dudley is in there under a variant of his
> surname, that he is practically a colleague of the president, and that
> he hasn't been flying since 1989 or 1990.
>
> Let's hear it for the FAA! That's a pretty good database, all things
> considered. I think I was too hard on the guvmint in my earlier posts.

Yes, amazing what dropping a letter can do when dealing with a computer!

Matt

Mortimer Schnerd, RN

May 4th 05, 03:22 AM

Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>> https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/aadatabase/login.asp

> For example, I think the last medical they have listed for me is a class 2
> dated in 82. I'm sitting here looking at a class 3 I got dated in 87 where I
> was in sort of a "transition period" during my "retirement "from active
> flying. That medical isn't on the data base at all.

Yes, it is. You got it (the class 3) in November of 1987. It's listed if you
look up Dudley Henrique (without the "s"). Somebody else posted a link earlier
that included numbers. I didn't try it so I'm not sure if it's the same one
that I quoted above. I found your medical in the database accessed by the link
in this message.

> Next, I'm trying to
> figure out how both my Commercial and CFI are listed on the base under
> Dudley Arthur Henrique when in fact, my CFI in reality says Henriques :-))

Not that is screwy. All I can think is: "your tax dollars at work".

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Dudley Henriques

May 4th 05, 03:51 AM

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
.. .
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>> https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/aadatabase/login.asp
>
>> For example, I think the last medical they have listed for me is a class
>> 2
>> dated in 82. I'm sitting here looking at a class 3 I got dated in 87
>> where I
>> was in sort of a "transition period" during my "retirement "from active
>> flying. That medical isn't on the data base at all.
>
>
> Yes, it is. You got it (the class 3) in November of 1987. It's listed if
> you look up Dudley Henrique (without the "s"). Somebody else posted a
> link earlier that included numbers. I didn't try it so I'm not sure if
> it's the same one that I quoted above. I found your medical in the
> database accessed by the link in this message.
>
>
>> Next, I'm trying to
>> figure out how both my Commercial and CFI are listed on the base under
>> Dudley Arthur Henrique when in fact, my CFI in reality says Henriques
>> :-))
>
>
> Not that is screwy. All I can think is: "your tax dollars at work".

Kind of makes you wonder what it must have been like for Alan Shepard
sitting on top of that Redstone just before they lit it....put together by
government workers after being assigned the job of building it as the lowest
bidder for the contract.
:-))
Dudley Henriques

Montblack

May 4th 05, 03:56 AM

("Matt Whiting" wrote)
> Yes, amazing what dropping a letter can do when dealing with a computer!

Buttle
Tuttle

"This is your receipt for your husband...and this is my receipt for your
receipt."

"I assure you, Mrs. Buttle, the Ministry is very scrupulous about following
up and eradicating any error. If you have any complaints which you'd like to
make, I'd be more than happy to send you the appropriate forms."

Brazil (1985)

Montblack

xyzzy

May 4th 05, 03:02 PM

Montblack wrote:

> ("Matt Whiting" wrote)
>
>> Yes, amazing what dropping a letter can do when dealing with a computer!
>
>
>
> Buttle
> Tuttle
>
> "This is your receipt for your husband...and this is my receipt for your
> receipt."
>
> "I assure you, Mrs. Buttle, the Ministry is very scrupulous about
> following up and eradicating any error. If you have any complaints which
> you'd like to make, I'd be more than happy to send you the appropriate
> forms."
>
> Brazil (1985)
>

Sorry, but I can't do anything without a form 29/J

gatt

May 4th 05, 07:48 PM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message

> > Guys like these are why Democrats don't win elections. Every
intelligent
> > thing a liberal leader says is undermined by some clueless jackass like
> > this
>
> As opposed to all the clueless jackass Republicans? (Rush, O'Reilly, et
al)

Exactly. The only difference being, the jackass Republicans--which is
certainly not to say all Republicans are jackasses--are more convincing than
the jackass Dems.

> Come on...both parties have plenty of clueless jackasses to go around. :p

Absolutely NO argument there.

> > Anybody know the Vancouver pilot that crashed in Portland, Oregon this
> > weekend?
>
> Nope...I did find myself wondering if the airplane was a Cessna 150
> though...

I catch your meaning. Looked to me that the airplane was green, but I
haven't seen much.

-c

Peter Duniho

May 4th 05, 11:28 PM

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>> As opposed to all the clueless jackass Republicans? (Rush, O'Reilly, et
> al)
>
> Exactly. The only difference being, the jackass Republicans--which is
> certainly not to say all Republicans are jackasses--are more convincing
> than
> the jackass Dems.

They've just had more practice at it. I don't doubt the Democrats will
polish their jackass act eventually.

> [...]
> I catch your meaning. Looked to me that the airplane was green, but I
> haven't seen much.

Me either...only images I saw were on the nightly news, sounds similar to
what you saw. But all I caught was a tiny portion of what MIGHT have been
the vertical stabilizer. Hardly enough to ID an airplane.

Pete

John R. Copeland

May 5th 05, 02:13 AM

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message =
ink.net...
>=20
>=20
> Kind of makes you wonder what it must have been like for Alan Shepard=20
> sitting on top of that Redstone just before they lit it....put =
together by=20
> government workers after being assigned the job of building it as the =
lowest=20
> bidder for the contract.
> :-))
> Dudley Henriques=20
>

I thought Wally Schirra said that.

Rich Lemert

May 5th 05, 02:52 AM

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> .......or what has come to be for me at least; the ultimate
> mystery of Usenet......that being the existence of people out here who
> actually will wait patiently for a particular poster they don't like to post
> something....ANYTHING......and then check every word...every
> statement......every meaning....in the twisted hope that the poster they
> don't particularly like very well will make a mistake.....no matter how tiny
> a mistake or error...that THEY can jump on immediately to use as "absolute
> proof" that the object of their "exposure" is flawed!

Consider yourself lucky if they're actually waiting for you to post
something so they can try to embarass you with it. I've been a regular
in sci.research.careers, and they've got a guy over there who doesn't
even bother waiting for me to post something in order to mis-represent
my views.

Rich Lemert

Rich Lemert

May 5th 05, 02:52 AM

Dudley Henriques

May 5th 05, 03:00 AM

"John R. Copeland" > wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
> Kind of makes you wonder what it must have been like for Alan Shepard
> sitting on top of that Redstone just before they lit it....put together by
> government workers after being assigned the job of building it as the
> lowest
> bidder for the contract.
> :-))
> Dudley Henriques
>

I thought Wally Schirra said that.

Rockhound from "Armegeddon". The quote is usually a toss up between Schirra
and Grissom as to who actually said it. My guess would be Schirra. Sounds
just like something he would have said; great practical joker!
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques

May 5th 05, 03:08 AM

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 01:13:06 GMT, "John R. Copeland"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
ink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind of makes you wonder what it must have been like for Alan Shepard
>>> sitting on top of that Redstone just before they lit it....put together
>>> by
>>> government workers after being assigned the job of building it as the
>>> lowest
>>> bidder for the contract.
>>> :-))
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>
>>
>>I thought Wally Schirra said that.
>
> and I thought it was the private sector that bid on government
> contracts, not "government workers".

Remind me in the future if I happen to state pi to extend it to it's maximum
just for this newsgroup's more intellectual readers.
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques

May 5th 05, 03:19 AM

"Rich Lemert" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> .......or what has come to be for me at least; the ultimate mystery of
>> Usenet......that being the existence of people out here who actually will
>> wait patiently for a particular poster they don't like to post
>> something....ANYTHING......and then check every word...every
>> statement......every meaning....in the twisted hope that the poster they
>> don't particularly like very well will make a mistake.....no matter how
>> tiny a mistake or error...that THEY can jump on immediately to use as
>> "absolute proof" that the object of their "exposure" is flawed!
>
> Consider yourself lucky if they're actually waiting for you to post
> something so they can try to embarass you with it. I've been a regular
> in sci.research.careers, and they've got a guy over there who doesn't
> even bother waiting for me to post something in order to mis-represent
> my views.
>
> Rich Lemert

It's become more or less expected on these groups by many who post on them.
It's no big deal really, but it takes a lot of the fun out of posting and
eventually runs a lot of fairly well qualified and experienced people off
the groups, or as it has done in my case, turns them into totally hostile
posters.
My Usenet persona has come 180 degrees from when I first arrived on Usenet 6
years ago, especially on this group right here. I used to assume a neutral
or even friendly atmosphere from posters until shown otherwise. I now assume
a totally hostile environment unless I know the poster I'm dealing with (and
there are indeed some very fine people here) or the people posting with me
demonstrate to me that they are not hostile.
Dudley Henriques

Roger

May 5th 05, 04:22 AM

On Thu, 05 May 2005 02:08:25 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
<dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 05 May 2005 01:13:06 GMT, "John R. Copeland"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
ink.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kind of makes you wonder what it must have been like for Alan Shepard
>>>> sitting on top of that Redstone just before they lit it....put together
>>>> by
>>>> government workers after being assigned the job of building it as the
>>>> lowest
>>>> bidder for the contract.
>>>> :-))
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>
>>>
>>>I thought Wally Schirra said that.
>>
>> and I thought it was the private sector that bid on government
>> contracts, not "government workers".
>
>Remind me in the future if I happen to state pi to extend it to it's maximum

It's 22/7 You can't get closer than that. <:-))

>just for this newsgroup's more intellectual readers.

We have intellectuals on here?

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

>Dudley Henriques
>

Roger

May 5th 05, 04:31 AM

On Mon, 02 May 2005 16:08:12 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
<dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:

>Actually, being retired, I really never give it a thought either way since I
>won't be flying again. It's apparently only a big deal for a few specific
>morons on Usenet. My family, my friends, my professional associates past and
>present, and indeed even my country's government at the highest level seem
>to be quite happy with things just the way they are.
>Only on Usenet will one find the idiots an issue like this one will attract.

Oh, they exist IRL as well, but they can't hide behind anonymous
signatures so they are less prone to expressing themselves. It's far
more hazardous there. <:-)) So they tend to talk among themselves
where they might find some one who will listen.

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

>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
>dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
>(take out the trash :-)
>
>"OtisWinslow" > wrote in message
...
>> You can opt out of having your personal info appear on the
>> DB. Many who are active pilots do that.
>>
>>
>> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, my curiosity has been piqued by all this nonsense being thrown
>>> out here about not being on a data base. I've given the numbers back
>>> channel to a select few friends on the group to research and see if they
>>> can find out the exact reason why someone.....anyone...would appear or
>>> not appear on the data bases.
>>>
>>> Dudley
>>>
>>
>>
>

Roger

May 5th 05, 04:52 AM

On Thu, 05 May 2005 02:19:24 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
<dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:

>
>"Rich Lemert" > wrote in message
...
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> .......or what has come to be for me at least; the ultimate mystery of
>>> Usenet......that being the existence of people out here who actually will
>>> wait patiently for a particular poster they don't like to post
>>> something....ANYTHING......and then check every word...every
>>> statement......every meaning....in the twisted hope that the poster they
>>> don't particularly like very well will make a mistake.....no matter how
>>> tiny a mistake or error...that THEY can jump on immediately to use as
>>> "absolute proof" that the object of their "exposure" is flawed!
>>
>> Consider yourself lucky if they're actually waiting for you to post
>> something so they can try to embarass you with it. I've been a regular
>> in sci.research.careers, and they've got a guy over there who doesn't
>> even bother waiting for me to post something in order to mis-represent
>> my views.
>>
>> Rich Lemert
>
>It's become more or less expected on these groups by many who post on them.
>It's no big deal really, but it takes a lot of the fun out of posting and
>eventually runs a lot of fairly well qualified and experienced people off

We've lost a lot of very knowledgeable posters over the years and some
was due to actual harassment at the work place and home by posters who
couldn't win on here.

I've received unsolicited pointers and suggestions on both building
and flying from some of the top people, if not the top people, in
their fields on here. People I'm proud to say were willing to take
the time to help. Unfortunately they are people I seldom see on these
groups (this is cross posted) any more.

>the groups, or as it has done in my case, turns them into totally hostile
>posters.

You mean you've changed? <:-))

>My Usenet persona has come 180 degrees from when I first arrived on Usenet 6
>years ago, especially on this group right here. I used to assume a neutral
>or even friendly atmosphere from posters until shown otherwise. I now assume
>a totally hostile environment unless I know the poster I'm dealing with (and
>there are indeed some very fine people here) or the people posting with me
>demonstrate to me that they are not hostile.

I only get hostile after having to redo the same part for the 5th or
6th time and it's 4:00 AM.

I have a habit of including personal experience when explaining
something and as I learned some things differently than others and
tend to be a stickler for *really* learning an airplane right out to
the edges of the envelope it does tend to grate on a few. OTOH it's
about the only way I really know how to explain things IRW.
(Oops...too much sim group time) IRW = In the real world for the non
simmers.
Those are not attempts to prove how good or poor I am, it's just me.
Those who know me, know that, others... <:-)) When you challenge what
some take to be gospel in aviation a few can get down right
hostile<LOL>

And... I still use my real name although the e-mail address is
"munged' (but can be fixed to work)

The thing on the newsgroups is you can be any one. Only after
developing a posting history do any of us gain or lose credibility.

>Dudley Henriques
>

73

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

>

Dudley Henriques

May 5th 05, 04:52 AM

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 02:08:25 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>
>>
> wrote in message
...
>>> On Thu, 05 May 2005 01:13:06 GMT, "John R. Copeland"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
ink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind of makes you wonder what it must have been like for Alan Shepard
>>>>> sitting on top of that Redstone just before they lit it....put
>>>>> together
>>>>> by
>>>>> government workers after being assigned the job of building it as the
>>>>> lowest
>>>>> bidder for the contract.
>>>>> :-))
>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I thought Wally Schirra said that.
>>>
>>> and I thought it was the private sector that bid on government
>>> contracts, not "government workers".
>>
>>Remind me in the future if I happen to state pi to extend it to it's
>>maximum
>
> It's 22/7 You can't get closer than that. <:-))
>
>>just for this newsgroup's more intellectual readers.
>
> We have intellectuals on here?

Sometimes I wonder, but there actually ARE some really intelligent people on
this group. One thing I've noticed though....most who fit the description
have real names. :-)
Dudley

Dudley Henriques

May 5th 05, 05:00 AM

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 02 May 2005 16:08:12 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>
>>Actually, being retired, I really never give it a thought either way since
>>I
>>won't be flying again. It's apparently only a big deal for a few specific
>>morons on Usenet. My family, my friends, my professional associates past
>>and
>>present, and indeed even my country's government at the highest level seem
>>to be quite happy with things just the way they are.
>>Only on Usenet will one find the idiots an issue like this one will
>>attract.
>
> Oh, they exist IRL as well, but they can't hide behind anonymous
> signatures so they are less prone to expressing themselves. It's far
> more hazardous there. <:-)) So they tend to talk among themselves
> where they might find some one who will listen.

Yep, true enough, but believe it or not, (maybe I'm some kind of exception),
but most of the people I've known professionally were straight shooters.
Of course a lot of the people I've known in aviation worked daily in it's
most dangerous environment. When you work in this arena, you have a tendency
to learn early on what's important and what isn't important in life. The
back stabbing and nit picking found at almost every level of the outside
professional work place for the most part doesn't exist with these people.
For the most part, it's a no nonsense, performance based world, and bull
**** walks there faster than any place else I've been to in my life.
Sort of the opposite of Usenet I guess :-))
Dudley

W P Dixon

May 5th 05, 05:04 AM

Don't sweat the idiots to much Dudley, I'd fly with ya anywhere!

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

Dudley Henriques

May 5th 05, 05:41 AM

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 02:19:24 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:

> The thing on the newsgroups is you can be any one. Only after
> developing a posting history do any of us gain or lose credibility.

This is both true and false in my experience with Usenet. A posting history
involving qualified and obviously experienced posters produces credibility
only with those on the group who know and appreciate sound knowledge and
information. With these people over time, posting is executed in an arena of
mutual respect for both sides of an issue.

Unfortunately, there exists on Usenet, an element that never actually enters
into the credibility equation because credibility isn't their main interest
when it comes to a specific poster. This element exists in an emotional
world where feelings govern actions.
You can have all the credibility in the world with the knowledgeable posters
on a group and you will simply never have credibility with this second
element.
So in the end, a typical Usenet experience for a credible poster will be a
mixture of intelligent discourse with the folks who know....and a constantly
deteriorating experience with the second element.
Every poster will react differently to this Usenet experience. The bottom
line on how long a credible poster will hang in on Usenet won't be found in
that poster's experience with other credible posters. Invariably, it will
depend entirely on just how much effect the poster absorbs from that second
undesirable element. Everyone has a different tolerance level. Some quit
early. Some don't mind it at all. Some like me just lose respect slowly for
the Usenet concept and drift in and out as the mood hits them. For me, it's
simply gone from useful and mutually respectful communication to what it is
now......not much of anything really....just a sparring match every now and
then with faceless people I don't know, and who surely don't know me!
Dudley

[email protected]

May 5th 05, 11:31 AM

On Thu, 05 May 2005 02:08:25 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
<dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 05 May 2005 01:13:06 GMT, "John R. Copeland"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
ink.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kind of makes you wonder what it must have been like for Alan Shepard
>>>> sitting on top of that Redstone just before they lit it....put together
>>>> by
>>>> government workers after being assigned the job of building it as the
>>>> lowest
>>>> bidder for the contract.
>>>> :-))
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>
>>>
>>>I thought Wally Schirra said that.
>>
>> and I thought it was the private sector that bid on government
>> contracts, not "government workers".
>
>Remind me in the future if I happen to state pi to extend it to it's maximum
>just for this newsgroup's more intellectual readers.
>Dudley Henriques
>

Well, then you would indeed have something to boast about, since it's
never been done.

Matt Whiting

May 5th 05, 11:49 AM

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> "Rich Lemert" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>>>.......or what has come to be for me at least; the ultimate mystery of
>>>Usenet......that being the existence of people out here who actually will
>>>wait patiently for a particular poster they don't like to post
>>>something....ANYTHING......and then check every word...every
>>>statement......every meaning....in the twisted hope that the poster they
>>>don't particularly like very well will make a mistake.....no matter how
>>>tiny a mistake or error...that THEY can jump on immediately to use as
>>>"absolute proof" that the object of their "exposure" is flawed!
>>
>> Consider yourself lucky if they're actually waiting for you to post
>>something so they can try to embarass you with it. I've been a regular
>>in sci.research.careers, and they've got a guy over there who doesn't
>>even bother waiting for me to post something in order to mis-represent
>>my views.
>>
>>Rich Lemert
>
>
> It's become more or less expected on these groups by many who post on them.
> It's no big deal really, but it takes a lot of the fun out of posting and
> eventually runs a lot of fairly well qualified and experienced people off
> the groups, or as it has done in my case, turns them into totally hostile
> posters.
> My Usenet persona has come 180 degrees from when I first arrived on Usenet 6
> years ago, especially on this group right here. I used to assume a neutral
> or even friendly atmosphere from posters until shown otherwise. I now assume
> a totally hostile environment unless I know the poster I'm dealing with (and
> there are indeed some very fine people here) or the people posting with me
> demonstrate to me that they are not hostile.
> Dudley Henriques

I've been using usenet for 10+ years and have found that people tend to
come across as more hostile in writing than they really are in person.
This happens in email as well. You don't have the inflection and other
nonverbal cues that you get in mano-y-mano conversation and it is easy
for things to escalate well beyond what anyone intended.

Sure, some folks are that way naturally, but I think fairly few in
reality. I think much more is inadvertant than intentional.

MAtt

Dave A.

May 5th 05, 01:35 PM

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
ink.net...
> Of course a lot of the people I've known in aviation worked daily in it's
> most dangerous environment. When you work in this arena, you have a
> tendency to learn early on what's important and what isn't important in
> life. The back stabbing and nit picking found at almost every level of the
> outside professional work place for the most part doesn't exist with these
> people.

Forgive me if this comes out wrong, bit this reminds me of a few things I
discussed with my wife. She had problems with a few acquaintances that
imposed themselves as friends. They would set lunch dates with her and give
her grief if she did not accept or would cancel. Each meeting she would
find draining because these "friends" would complain about their lives
endlessly.

So I had to tell her a little thing I learned years ago that helped change
things, "Just because the phone rings doesn't mean you have to answer it."
This helped me when I was an Auxiliary police officer here in New York. An
unarmed volunteer in a very real police uniform walking the beat in Queens.
There you learn early on that just because a person is yelling profanity
doesn't mean you have to yell back.
You learn that flashing a badge doesn't mean squat to a person that is just
plain ****ed off, and also that no amount of reasoning will stop a person
that wants to rant. Working in this capacity one would think "well, real
cops have it easier because they have guns and people respect that." Well,
that isn't true. They have it worse.
You would think you could tell a person while in a police uniform that
"there is a power line down ahead, you can't drive down this road," that
they would not yell at you " I HAVE to get down that road. Nope.
You know what works best there? You say, "well you can't" and you direct
your attention elsewhere. They mutter and drive off. Arguing just prolongs
the incident.
So,

This brings me to my way if dealing with Usenet and it has a lot to do with
what you say here;
"you have a tendency to learn early on what's important and what isn't
important in life"

ignoring the knuckleheads "phone calls" is the first step to getting
something from usenet besides a headache.

--
Dave A
Aging Student Pilot

>
> "Roger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 02 May 2005 16:08:12 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
>> <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>>
>>>Actually, being retired, I really never give it a thought either way
>>>since I
>>>won't be flying again. It's apparently only a big deal for a few
>>>specific
>>>morons on Usenet. My family, my friends, my professional associates past
>>>and
>>>present, and indeed even my country's government at the highest level
>>>seem
>>>to be quite happy with things just the way they are.
>>>Only on Usenet will one find the idiots an issue like this one will
>>>attract.
>>
>> Oh, they exist IRL as well, but they can't hide behind anonymous
>> signatures so they are less prone to expressing themselves. It's far
>> more hazardous there. <:-)) So they tend to talk among themselves
>> where they might find some one who will listen.
>
> Yep, true enough, but believe it or not, (maybe I'm some kind of
> exception), but most of the people I've known professionally were straight
> shooters.
> For the most part, it's a no nonsense, performance based world, and bull
> **** walks there faster than any place else I've been to in my life.
> Sort of the opposite of Usenet I guess :-))
> Dudley
>

Dudley Henriques

May 5th 05, 03:43 PM

"Dave A." > wrote in message
news:bqoee.15830$c86.1122@trndny09...
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> Of course a lot of the people I've known in aviation worked daily in it's
>> most dangerous environment. When you work in this arena, you have a
>> tendency to learn early on what's important and what isn't important in
>> life. The back stabbing and nit picking found at almost every level of
>> the outside professional work place for the most part doesn't exist with
>> these people.
>
> Forgive me if this comes out wrong, bit this reminds me of a few things I
> discussed with my wife. She had problems with a few acquaintances that
> imposed themselves as friends. They would set lunch dates with her and
> give her grief if she did not accept or would cancel. Each meeting she
> would find draining because these "friends" would complain about their
> lives endlessly.
>
> So I had to tell her a little thing I learned years ago that helped change
> things, "Just because the phone rings doesn't mean you have to answer it."
> This helped me when I was an Auxiliary police officer here in New York.
> An unarmed volunteer in a very real police uniform walking the beat in
> Queens. There you learn early on that just because a person is yelling
> profanity doesn't mean you have to yell back.
> You learn that flashing a badge doesn't mean squat to a person that is
> just plain ****ed off, and also that no amount of reasoning will stop a
> person that wants to rant. Working in this capacity one would think
> "well, real cops have it easier because they have guns and people respect
> that." Well, that isn't true. They have it worse.
> You would think you could tell a person while in a police uniform that
> "there is a power line down ahead, you can't drive down this road," that
> they would not yell at you " I HAVE to get down that road. Nope.
> You know what works best there? You say, "well you can't" and you direct
> your attention elsewhere. They mutter and drive off. Arguing just
> prolongs the incident.
> So,
>
> This brings me to my way if dealing with Usenet and it has a lot to do
> with what you say here;
> "you have a tendency to learn early on what's important and what isn't
> important in life"
>
> ignoring the knuckleheads "phone calls" is the first step to getting
> something from usenet besides a headache.
>
>
> --
> Dave A
> Aging Student Pilot

The first thing you learn in flying is NEVER to put much faith in general
analogies. They don't work for various reasons.
On Usenet, the old "ignore them" analogy usually ends up right back out here
on Usenet, being laid out by someone for someone else, as nothing more than
absolute proof that the analogy doesn't work in the first place.
:-)
No my friend....unfortunately it's man's basic flaws and individual
personalities that will determine how communication is carried out on
Usenet, not the old "ignore um" analogy.
But it sounds good anyway :-)))))

Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques

May 5th 05, 03:47 PM

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 02:08:25 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>
>>
> wrote in message
...
>>> On Thu, 05 May 2005 01:13:06 GMT, "John R. Copeland"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
ink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind of makes you wonder what it must have been like for Alan Shepard
>>>>> sitting on top of that Redstone just before they lit it....put
>>>>> together
>>>>> by
>>>>> government workers after being assigned the job of building it as the
>>>>> lowest
>>>>> bidder for the contract.
>>>>> :-))
>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I thought Wally Schirra said that.
>>>
>>> and I thought it was the private sector that bid on government
>>> contracts, not "government workers".
>>
>>Remind me in the future if I happen to state pi to extend it to it's
>>maximum
>>just for this newsgroup's more intellectual readers.
>>Dudley Henriques
>>
>
>
> Well, then you would indeed have something to boast about, since it's
> never been done.

Try giving it a rest. Break for lunch or something.

Dudley Henriques

[email protected]

May 5th 05, 04:22 PM

On Thu, 05 May 2005 14:47:51 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
<dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:

>>>Remind me in the future if I happen to state pi to extend it to it's
>>>maximum
>>>just for this newsgroup's more intellectual readers.
>>>Dudley Henriques
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, then you would indeed have something to boast about, since it's
>> never been done.
>
>Try giving it a rest. Break for lunch or something.
>
>Dudley Henriques

C'mon, Dudster.

Lighten up. Don't take yourself so seriously.

John Ousterhout

May 5th 05, 05:03 PM

Dudley Henriques wrote:>
>
> Sometimes I wonder, but there actually ARE some really intelligent people on
> this group. One thing I've noticed though....most who fit the description
> have real names. :-)

It was once said that if an infinite number of monkeys were placed at
typeriters that one would immediately write a great work of literature.

Nowadays, thanks to Usenet, we know that's not true :-)

http://www.ousterhout.net/funny/usenet.jpg

- John (my real name) Ousterhout -

Dudley Henriques

May 5th 05, 05:06 PM

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 14:47:51 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>
>>>>Remind me in the future if I happen to state pi to extend it to it's
>>>>maximum
>>>>just for this newsgroup's more intellectual readers.
>>>>Dudley Henriques
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, then you would indeed have something to boast about, since it's
>>> never been done.
>>
>>Try giving it a rest. Break for lunch or something.
>>
>>Dudley Henriques
>
>
> C'mon, Dudster.
>
> Lighten up. Don't take yourself so seriously.

Let me enlighten you on something my friend. I DO take myself QUITE
seriously and if you intend posting to me and desire intelligent and
meaningful dialog in return, I strongly suggest you try and refrain from
using a smart, superior, and condescending tone with me. I don't like it,
and it marks you as just one more Usenet "correction artist" to be avoided.
Here's a Henriques Usenet hint for you. If you are NOT posting to me in the
manner I've described above, USE A ****ING :-) and avoid the predictable
second post where you start telling someone who has taken what you have said
to them in the EXACT context it was written; how they should be "taking
themselves"
Trust me, it will save a whole lot of this type of bull **** when dealing
with me.

Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques

May 5th 05, 05:13 PM

"John Ousterhout" > wrote in
message news:ftree.49608$r53.36068@attbi_s21...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:>
>>
>> Sometimes I wonder, but there actually ARE some really intelligent people
>> on this group. One thing I've noticed though....most who fit the
>> description have real names. :-)
>
>
> It was once said that if an infinite number of monkeys were placed at
> typeriters that one would immediately write a great work of literature.
>
> Nowadays, thanks to Usenet, we know that's not true :-)
>
> http://www.ousterhout.net/funny/usenet.jpg
>
> - John (my real name) Ousterhout -

Or perhaps reversing the equation to read ;
1 Chimpanzee at a single typewriter eventually typing "War and Peace" :-)
I think perhaps using either formula will find us still seeking an answer
for Usenet!
:-)

Dudley Henriques

[email protected]

May 5th 05, 05:35 PM

On Thu, 05 May 2005 16:06:19 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
<dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:

>>>Try giving it a rest. Break for lunch or something.
>>>
>>>Dudley Henriques
>>
>>
>> C'mon, Dudster.
>>
>> Lighten up. Don't take yourself so seriously.
>
>Let me enlighten you on something my friend. I DO take myself QUITE
>seriously and if you intend posting to me and desire intelligent and
>meaningful dialog in return, I strongly suggest you try and refrain from
>using a smart, superior, and condescending tone with me. I don't like it,
>and it marks you as just one more Usenet "correction artist" to be avoided.
>Here's a Henriques Usenet hint for you. If you are NOT posting to me in the
>manner I've described above, USE A ****ING :-) and avoid the predictable
>second post where you start telling someone who has taken what you have said
>to them in the EXACT context it was written; how they should be "taking
>themselves"
>Trust me, it will save a whole lot of this type of bull **** when dealing
>with me.
>
>Dudley Henriques
>
>

Hey, Your Dudship,

Now you are not only taking yourself too seriously, you have obviously
just confused me with someone who gives a good **** what you think
about anything.

And let me assure you that I do not expect anything intelligent and
meaningful in any of your responses. So don't feel you are
disappointing me in any way.

So once again, lighten up. You'll live longer. And don't waste your
time and bandwidth on what you call "Henriques Usenet hints". I'm
sure to ignore them.

But thanks anyway, for the offer.

Matt Barrow

May 5th 05, 05:48 PM

Blanche

May 5th 05, 06:13 PM

They just didn't believe me when I tried to explain what would happen
when they started selling computers at the grocery store...

I plonked cefeye/whatever a long time ago.

Dudley Henriques

May 5th 05, 06:54 PM

> wrote in message
...
> On 05 May 2005 17:13:52 GMT, Blanche > wrote:
>
>>They just didn't believe me when I tried to explain what would happen
>>when they started selling computers at the grocery store...
>>
>>I plonked cefeye/whatever a long time ago.
>
>
> If you get plonked in a forest and there's no one around to hear it,
> does it really happen?

See......with an intellectual level this low, you and I would have nothing
to share anyway, so nothing lost.
DH (not worth the signature :-)

Dudley Henriques

May 5th 05, 07:00 PM

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 16:06:19 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>
>>>>Try giving it a rest. Break for lunch or something.
>>>>
>>>>Dudley Henriques
>>>
>>>
>>> C'mon, Dudster.
>>>
>>> Lighten up. Don't take yourself so seriously.
>>
>>Let me enlighten you on something my friend. I DO take myself QUITE
>>seriously and if you intend posting to me and desire intelligent and
>>meaningful dialog in return, I strongly suggest you try and refrain from
>>using a smart, superior, and condescending tone with me. I don't like it,
>>and it marks you as just one more Usenet "correction artist" to be
>>avoided.
>>Here's a Henriques Usenet hint for you. If you are NOT posting to me in
>>the
>>manner I've described above, USE A ****ING :-) and avoid the predictable
>>second post where you start telling someone who has taken what you have
>>said
>>to them in the EXACT context it was written; how they should be "taking
>>themselves"
>>Trust me, it will save a whole lot of this type of bull **** when dealing
>>with me.
>>
>>Dudley Henriques
>>
>>
>
> Hey, Your Dudship,
>
> Now you are not only taking yourself too seriously, you have obviously
> just confused me with someone who gives a good **** what you think
> about anything.

If this is true, why are you keep posting to me continiously when I don't
post to you initially? You won't find one post from me to you that wasn't an
answering post to you from some idiotic comment you felt you just HAD to
make!!
:-)
>
> And let me assure you that I do not expect anything intelligent and
> meaningful in any of your responses. So don't feel you are
> disappointing me in any way.

And based on your posting history to me, this is EXACTLY what you will get
if anything, so why post to me at all. Simply pass me up since I'm so
distasteful to you. :-)
>
> So once again, lighten up. You'll live longer. And don't waste your
> time and bandwidth on what you call "Henriques Usenet hints". I'm
> sure to ignore them.

Actually...as has been proved by this post, you haven't ignored them though
have you? :-)
>
> But thanks anyway, for the offer.

Junior High School stuff! Try something else less predictable. I'm a chess
player and tend to enjoy the game, but you're no challenge at all .
:-)
DH (not really worth the signature)

Dudley Henriques

May 5th 05, 07:08 PM

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 05 May 2005 16:06:19 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
>> <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>>
>> >>>Try giving it a rest. Break for lunch or something.
>> >>>
>> >>>Dudley Henriques
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> C'mon, Dudster.
>> >>
>> >> Lighten up. Don't take yourself so seriously.
>> >
>> >Let me enlighten you on something my friend. I DO take myself QUITE
>> >seriously and if you intend posting to me and desire intelligent and
>> >meaningful dialog in return, I strongly suggest you try and refrain from
>> >using a smart, superior, and condescending tone with me. I don't like
>> >it,
>> >and it marks you as just one more Usenet "correction artist" to be
> avoided.
>> >Here's a Henriques Usenet hint for you. If you are NOT posting to me in
> the
>> >manner I've described above, USE A ****ING :-) and avoid the
>> >predictable
>> >second post where you start telling someone who has taken what you have
> said
>> >to them in the EXACT context it was written; how they should be "taking
>> >themselves"
>> >Trust me, it will save a whole lot of this type of bull **** when
>> >dealing
>> >with me.
>> >
>> >Dudley Henriques
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Hey, Your Dudship,
>
> <PLONK> and **** you very much!

Sometimes, first impressions on Usenet are wrong , and when that happens,
two intelligent people usually discover it through further dialog and over
time take steps to correct it.
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques

May 5th 05, 07:10 PM

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
> They just didn't believe me when I tried to explain what would happen
> when they started selling computers at the grocery store...
>
> I plonked cefeye/whatever a long time ago.

Sounds like a plan BC; but being the lightning rod I seem to be around here,
I better run over to the grocery store and buy me a larger hard drive! :-)
Dudley

Dudley Henriques

May 5th 05, 07:46 PM

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 17:54:11 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>
>>
> wrote in message
...
>>> On 05 May 2005 17:13:52 GMT, Blanche > wrote:
>>>
>>>>They just didn't believe me when I tried to explain what would happen
>>>>when they started selling computers at the grocery store...
>>>>
>>>>I plonked cefeye/whatever a long time ago.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you get plonked in a forest and there's no one around to hear it,
>>> does it really happen?
>>
>>See......with an intellectual level this low, you and I would have nothing
>>to share anyway, so nothing lost.
>>DH (not worth the signature :-)
>>
>
> Dudski, Dudski. This shows how even a superior intellect can
> occasionally be wrong.
>
> We share the idea that nothing is lost if you don't respond.

I would assume since I have never posted initially to you, that you and I
have nothing in common. Whether I respond or don't respond is no biggie I'm
sure for either one of us. I have simply chosen to respond this time.
Trust me, as soon as this exchange has ended, I will revert back to my
policy of not posting to anything you have to say on Usenet, and if we ever
"meet" again on this group, it will be because you again did as you have
done here; which is to post to me. At that time I'll again make a decision
whether or not I wish to deal with you.
But you're right about one thing. Nothing in the way of useful information
will ever pass between us, so I agree that nothing is lost.
DH

Andrew Gideon

May 5th 05, 07:51 PM

Matt Whiting wrote:

> I've been using usenet for 10+ years and have found that people tend to
> come across as more hostile in writing than they really are in person.
> This happens in email as well.Â*Â*YouÂ*don'tÂ*haveÂ*theÂ*inflectionÂ*andÂ*o ther
> nonverbal cues that you get in mano-y-mano conversation and it is easy
> for things to escalate well beyond what anyone intended.

I've been USENETing since at least 84 (according to DejaGoogle), and I
agree. For a while, I resisted using those "emotocon" glyphs reasoning
that words should be sufficient in a written medium.

Eventually, I gave that up. Too many read perhaps every other, or every
third, word. Any possible subtlety is lost when reading is so sparse.
Spoonfeeding is required.

- Andrew

Dudley Henriques

May 5th 05, 08:05 PM

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 18:00:22 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>
>>Junior High School stuff! Try something else less predictable. I'm a chess
>>player and tend to enjoy the game, but you're no challenge at all .
>>:-)
>>DH (not really worth the signature)
>
>
> Duds,
>
> One thing is for sure. You will never die of terminal humility.
>
> Let me guess here. The king in your chess set is a hand carved
> likeness of yourself.
>
> I know I'm right about this, so don't deny it.

Tell me, is there something about your deliberate misuse of a person's name
in your openings that turns you on...or makes you feel more powerful behind
all that anonymity people like you enjoy in front of that computer screen?
:-)
Let me clue you in on something in case it's been missed in your Usenet
education. The practice of misusing a person's name like you have been doing
with mine for just about every post you have made on this thread doesn't
make people like myself angry. It only serves to weaken whatever case you're
trying to make and marks you to anyone with intelligence reading your
posts....well, almost everyone. There will always be the "tag on's" who
don't like somebody who jump in like Hyenas to take their own shots at a
specific individual, be it me or someone else.
Again....you will have much more credibility on Usenet if you refrain from
the "twisting the name into sarcastic context" game. :-)
DH

Dudley Henriques

May 5th 05, 08:27 PM

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
gonline.com...
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> I've been using usenet for 10+ years and have found that people tend to
>> come across as more hostile in writing than they really are in person.
>> This happens in email as well. You don't have the inflection and other
>> nonverbal cues that you get in mano-y-mano conversation and it is easy
>> for things to escalate well beyond what anyone intended.
>
> I've been USENETing since at least 84 (according to DejaGoogle), and I
> agree. For a while, I resisted using those "emotocon" glyphs reasoning
> that words should be sufficient in a written medium.
>
> Eventually, I gave that up. Too many read perhaps every other, or every
> third, word. Any possible subtlety is lost when reading is so sparse.
> Spoonfeeding is required.
>
> - Andrew

Your choice of the word "spoonfeeding" here is indicative of the problems
found in email and posting communication. Taken in context, the word
"spoonfeeding" as you have used it can indicate a deficiency on the part of
the receiver of the communication. To focus in any way on the receiver of a
communication is to mask the responsibility of the writer of the
communication to make EVERY effort to convey the "mood" and "tone" of the
communication.
This is why we use emoticons for electronic visual communication.
The problem is that many people are intimidated by the use of an emoticon;
feeling that their use implies a lesser level of intelligence.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
There are few people in this world with the natural writing skill to
completely convey with a zero error margin, the tone and mood of a written
thought.
Your use of the word "spoonfeeding" is a perfect example of what I'm talking
about. Your thought was correct. Your statement was correct. The writer does
indeed have to be extremely careful when trying to convey the mood and tone
of a letter.
But the use of the word "spoonfeeding" would not be my first choice to
describe what is required.
:-))))) This is much less "threatening" than the word "spoonfeeding". Do
YOU like the thought that someone thinks in order for you to understand what
has been written to you, that you have to be "spoon-fed" the information?
Think about it! :-)
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques

May 5th 05, 08:28 PM

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 18:46:57 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>
>>I would assume since I have never posted initially to you, that you and I
>>have nothing in common. Whether I respond or don't respond is no biggie
>>I'm
>>sure for either one of us. I have simply chosen to respond this time.
>>Trust me, as soon as this exchange has ended, I will revert back to my
>>policy of not posting to anything you have to say on Usenet, and if we
>>ever
>>"meet" again on this group, it will be because you again did as you have
>>done here; which is to post to me. At that time I'll again make a decision
>>whether or not I wish to deal with you.
>>But you're right about one thing. Nothing in the way of useful information
>>will ever pass between us, so I agree that nothing is lost.
>>DH
>
>
> Why do you always use 150 words when about 15 will accomplish the
> task?

Bye! How's this?

[email protected]

May 5th 05, 08:32 PM

On Thu, 05 May 2005 19:28:44 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
<dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 05 May 2005 18:46:57 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
>> <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>>
>>>I would assume since I have never posted initially to you, that you and I
>>>have nothing in common. Whether I respond or don't respond is no biggie
>>>I'm
>>>sure for either one of us. I have simply chosen to respond this time.
>>>Trust me, as soon as this exchange has ended, I will revert back to my
>>>policy of not posting to anything you have to say on Usenet, and if we
>>>ever
>>>"meet" again on this group, it will be because you again did as you have
>>>done here; which is to post to me. At that time I'll again make a decision
>>>whether or not I wish to deal with you.
>>>But you're right about one thing. Nothing in the way of useful information
>>>will ever pass between us, so I agree that nothing is lost.
>>>DH
>>
>>
>> Why do you always use 150 words when about 15 will accomplish the
>> task?
>
>Bye! How's this?
>

Better.

Andrew Gideon

May 5th 05, 09:26 PM

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Taken in context, the word
> "spoonfeeding" as you have used it can indicate a deficiency on the part
> of the receiver of the communication.

Or the medium. Try eating soup with a fork, for example.

- Andrew

gregg

May 5th 05, 09:50 PM

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> The first thing you learn in flying is NEVER to put much faith in general
> analogies. They don't work for various reasons.
> On Usenet, the old "ignore them" analogy usually ends up right back out
> here on Usenet, being laid out by someone for someone else, as nothing
> more than absolute proof that the analogy doesn't work in the first place.
> :-)
> No my friend....unfortunately it's man's basic flaws and individual
> personalities that will determine how communication is carried out on
> Usenet, not the old "ignore um" analogy.
> But it sounds good anyway :-)))))
>
> Dudley Henriques

Dudley,

When you use the word "analogy" do you mean, like, "rule of thumb" or
"method"?

Just asking.

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

Dudley Henriques

May 5th 05, 10:32 PM

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> Taken in context, the word
>> "spoonfeeding" as you have used it can indicate a deficiency on the part
>> of the receiver of the communication.
>
> Or the medium. Try eating soup with a fork, for example.
>
> - Andrew

True.

All the more the need for the simple approach like that ridiculous looking
little emoticon :-). So simple....so effective. No mistakes. Says it all
mood and tone wise all in a simple key hit! Occam's Razor at it's finest!
:-))
Dudley

Morgans

May 5th 05, 10:44 PM

"Dave A." > wrote

Snippage of a fine bit of wisdom

> ignoring the knuckleheads "phone calls" is the first step to getting
> something from usenet besides a headache.

Some of the best thoughts I have seen. Keep it up!
--
Jim in NC

Morgans

May 5th 05, 10:53 PM

> So once again, lighten up. You'll live longer. And don't waste your
> time and bandwidth on what you call "Henriques Usenet hints". I'm
> sure to ignore them.
>
> But thanks anyway, for the offer.

It is a real shame that dudley does not have a personality to go with his
experience on the subject of aviation. I had a few run-ins with him a few
years ago, starting from a comment that was in no way deserving of the
response he gave. Take it from me - ignore him when he goes off, or just
kill-file him. His approach will not change, and you are only an inferior
pimple on his ass to be eliminated, as far as he is concerned.
--
Jim in NC

Roger

May 5th 05, 10:57 PM

On Thu, 05 May 2005 04:00:27 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
<dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 02 May 2005 16:08:12 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
>> <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>>
>>>Actually, being retired, I really never give it a thought either way since
>>>I
>>>won't be flying again. It's apparently only a big deal for a few specific
>>>morons on Usenet. My family, my friends, my professional associates past
>>>and
>>>present, and indeed even my country's government at the highest level seem
>>>to be quite happy with things just the way they are.
>>>Only on Usenet will one find the idiots an issue like this one will
>>>attract.
>>
>> Oh, they exist IRL as well, but they can't hide behind anonymous
>> signatures so they are less prone to expressing themselves. It's far
>> more hazardous there. <:-)) So they tend to talk among themselves
>> where they might find some one who will listen.
>
>Yep, true enough, but believe it or not, (maybe I'm some kind of exception),
>but most of the people I've known professionally were straight shooters.
>Of course a lot of the people I've known in aviation worked daily in it's
>most dangerous environment. When you work in this arena, you have a tendency

As most know from my sig I'm also a Ham (Amateur Radio Operator). I
built my own tower and still do some tower climbing at my age. Early
on in life I was a farmer, but gave that up a bit after turning 21 as
I figured there had to be a better way to make a living, or at least
more to my liking without getting

As to that 97' tower in the back yard, I still do my own maintenance
and make at least half a dozen trips to the top for no other reason
than to take a panoramic photo of the entire area. It drives the
color balance on the digital cameras nuts. But, at any rate I go up
and stand on the tower top plate to shoot the photos.
(Yes, I do use safety equipment). I had one on the web but at 68 megs
it didn't get a lot of viewing, but now that there are a lot more high
speed connections I may just put a new one up.

(Joyce put her foot down and I no longer climb for others or for hire.
I don't even carry insurance any more so no one would hire me anyway.)

I've also done a lot of photography and shot the Michigan Professional
Road Rally two years running. I spent nearly an hour strapped onto a
heli shooting down two trackers with a pilot who was also a crop
duster. I have some shots where I couldn't zoom back far enough to
get anything other than the driver's face in the windshield.

Joyce sat in the middle, changing film for me. When the pilot found
that neither of us were bothered by the motion, nor scared, he let "er
all hang out. <:-)) That was the most fun I ever had flying (when I
wasn't the pilot)

>to learn early on what's important and what isn't important in life. The

Which is my point with all of the above. All would be considered
risky (yes they do contain varying amounts of risk) and the unknowing,
general public and press would probably call it a number of things I
wouldn't. All are environments where a mistake can lead to some very
unpleasant consequences.

All involve trust. You can't have trust when there is back stabbing
and nit picking going on. Then again, how many of the general public
would climb a 100' radio tower to shoot photos of a sunset, or get on
the skid of a helicopter to shoot photos of race cars on a sand trail
in the woods. BTW, It took a week for some of the welts to go away
from the tree branches. I did get swatted a few times.

When we were waiting to the Heli a TV crew was getting ready to go
out. That they really didn't want to go was quite evident. Joyce
mentioned that they'd be able to get much better shots if they took
the door off. The cameraman said that if she found someone crazy
enough to do that he'd let him use the camera. She said, "Ask the
little, ball headed guy over there", but they flew and shot with the
door on.

I should put some of the shots up on my page. It was a three day
event and I shot from both the air and ground.

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

>back stabbing and nit picking found at almost every level of the outside
>professional work place for the most part doesn't exist with these people.
>For the most part, it's a no nonsense, performance based world, and bull
>**** walks there faster than any place else I've been to in my life.
>Sort of the opposite of Usenet I guess :-))
>Dudley
>

Morgans

May 5th 05, 10:57 PM

Andrew, check your settings. I believe that you are posting in HTML,
instead of the preferred plan text.
--
Jim in NC

Roger

May 5th 05, 11:08 PM

On 05 May 2005 17:13:52 GMT, Blanche > wrote:

>They just didn't believe me when I tried to explain what would happen
>when they started selling computers at the grocery store...
>
>I plonked cefeye/whatever a long time ago.

At least twice <:-))

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

Roger

May 5th 05, 11:30 PM

On Thu, 05 May 2005 04:41:22 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
<dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 05 May 2005 02:19:24 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
>> <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>
>> The thing on the newsgroups is you can be any one. Only after
>> developing a posting history do any of us gain or lose credibility.
>
>This is both true and false in my experience with Usenet. A posting history
>involving qualified and obviously experienced posters produces credibility
>only with those on the group who know and appreciate sound knowledge and
>information. With these people over time, posting is executed in an arena of
>mutual respect for both sides of an issue.
>
>Unfortunately, there exists on Usenet, an element that never actually enters
>into the credibility equation because credibility isn't their main interest
>when it comes to a specific poster. This element exists in an emotional
>world where feelings govern actions.
>You can have all the credibility in the world with the knowledgeable posters
>on a group and you will simply never have credibility with this second
>element.

It may be that way for some, but "I think" which of course means I
don't know for sure, that it's that credibility that makes a sizeable
element jealous and it becomes their goal to destroy that credibility
while hiding behind an anomyous name.

>So in the end, a typical Usenet experience for a credible poster will be a
>mixture of intelligent discourse with the folks who know....and a constantly
>deteriorating experience with the second element.

True, whether the second element is that way due to jealousy or lack
of knowledge, or ... lack of ethics.

>Every poster will react differently to this Usenet experience. The bottom
>line on how long a credible poster will hang in on Usenet won't be found in
>that poster's experience with other credible posters. Invariably, it will
>depend entirely on just how much effect the poster absorbs from that second
>undesirable element. Everyone has a different tolerance level. Some quit
>early. Some don't mind it at all. Some like me just lose respect slowly for
>the Usenet concept and drift in and out as the mood hits them. For me, it's

I guess I probably fall into that as I may not read the groups for a
week of so and then I'm back to checking them while working on "other
stuff".

>simply gone from useful and mutually respectful communication to what it is
>now......not much of anything really....just a sparring match every now and
>then with faceless people I don't know, and who surely don't know me!

I think Mike got at least part of it with people coming across as more
hostile on the news groups and even in e-mail as it is difficult to
write what you are thinking in such a manner that those reading it get
what your meant.

The English language is full of ambiguities and much of our
communications depends on inflection as well as proper use. Most of
us have a terrible time conveying some concepts in speech. To get the
same thing across properly in a typed message might take volumes.

Like many of us who tend to get a bit...well... wordy... (like
listening to an engineer explain something by starting with the
details) people lose interest, or lost track of where we were going by
the time we get to the point.

However I do think there is a large element that feels invulnerable by
remaining anomyous. An element that tends to be a bit
antiauthoritarian and can not stand to be challenged or shown to be
wrong. What are those rules in aviation. Antiauthoritarian,
invulnerable, ... ?

They basically get to act like little kids who didn't get their own
way and can throw a tantrum because they figure no one will find out
who they are.

There have been proposals made that may end up doing away with the
mail and news group anomizers. We may all have to post with valid
addresses some day even if those addresses need to be changed every
month or so. .

>Dudley
>

Roger

Dudley Henriques

May 5th 05, 11:37 PM

What you have described here is a large part of each of our personalities,
and explains partially why you and I have been friends on Usenet for many
years.
Dudley

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 04:00:27 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Mon, 02 May 2005 16:08:12 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
>>> <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Actually, being retired, I really never give it a thought either way
>>>>since
>>>>I
>>>>won't be flying again. It's apparently only a big deal for a few
>>>>specific
>>>>morons on Usenet. My family, my friends, my professional associates past
>>>>and
>>>>present, and indeed even my country's government at the highest level
>>>>seem
>>>>to be quite happy with things just the way they are.
>>>>Only on Usenet will one find the idiots an issue like this one will
>>>>attract.
>>>
>>> Oh, they exist IRL as well, but they can't hide behind anonymous
>>> signatures so they are less prone to expressing themselves. It's far
>>> more hazardous there. <:-)) So they tend to talk among themselves
>>> where they might find some one who will listen.
>>
>>Yep, true enough, but believe it or not, (maybe I'm some kind of
>>exception),
>>but most of the people I've known professionally were straight shooters.
>>Of course a lot of the people I've known in aviation worked daily in it's
>>most dangerous environment. When you work in this arena, you have a
>>tendency
>
> As most know from my sig I'm also a Ham (Amateur Radio Operator). I
> built my own tower and still do some tower climbing at my age. Early
> on in life I was a farmer, but gave that up a bit after turning 21 as
> I figured there had to be a better way to make a living, or at least
> more to my liking without getting
>
> As to that 97' tower in the back yard, I still do my own maintenance
> and make at least half a dozen trips to the top for no other reason
> than to take a panoramic photo of the entire area. It drives the
> color balance on the digital cameras nuts. But, at any rate I go up
> and stand on the tower top plate to shoot the photos.
> (Yes, I do use safety equipment). I had one on the web but at 68 megs
> it didn't get a lot of viewing, but now that there are a lot more high
> speed connections I may just put a new one up.
>
> (Joyce put her foot down and I no longer climb for others or for hire.
> I don't even carry insurance any more so no one would hire me anyway.)
>
> I've also done a lot of photography and shot the Michigan Professional
> Road Rally two years running. I spent nearly an hour strapped onto a
> heli shooting down two trackers with a pilot who was also a crop
> duster. I have some shots where I couldn't zoom back far enough to
> get anything other than the driver's face in the windshield.
>
> Joyce sat in the middle, changing film for me. When the pilot found
> that neither of us were bothered by the motion, nor scared, he let "er
> all hang out. <:-)) That was the most fun I ever had flying (when I
> wasn't the pilot)
>
>>to learn early on what's important and what isn't important in life. The
>
> Which is my point with all of the above. All would be considered
> risky (yes they do contain varying amounts of risk) and the unknowing,
> general public and press would probably call it a number of things I
> wouldn't. All are environments where a mistake can lead to some very
> unpleasant consequences.
>
> All involve trust. You can't have trust when there is back stabbing
> and nit picking going on. Then again, how many of the general public
> would climb a 100' radio tower to shoot photos of a sunset, or get on
> the skid of a helicopter to shoot photos of race cars on a sand trail
> in the woods. BTW, It took a week for some of the welts to go away
> from the tree branches. I did get swatted a few times.
>
> When we were waiting to the Heli a TV crew was getting ready to go
> out. That they really didn't want to go was quite evident. Joyce
> mentioned that they'd be able to get much better shots if they took
> the door off. The cameraman said that if she found someone crazy
> enough to do that he'd let him use the camera. She said, "Ask the
> little, ball headed guy over there", but they flew and shot with the
> door on.
>
> I should put some of the shots up on my page. It was a three day
> event and I shot from both the air and ground.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>>back stabbing and nit picking found at almost every level of the outside
>>professional work place for the most part doesn't exist with these people.
>>For the most part, it's a no nonsense, performance based world, and bull
>>**** walks there faster than any place else I've been to in my life.
>>Sort of the opposite of Usenet I guess :-))
>>Dudley
>>
>

Dudley Henriques

May 5th 05, 11:59 PM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>> So once again, lighten up. You'll live longer. And don't waste your
>> time and bandwidth on what you call "Henriques Usenet hints". I'm
>> sure to ignore them.
>>
>> But thanks anyway, for the offer.
>
> It is a real shame that dudley does not have a personality to go with his
> experience on the subject of aviation. I had a few run-ins with him a few
> years ago, starting from a comment that was in no way deserving of the
> response he gave. Take it from me - ignore him when he goes off, or just
> kill-file him. His approach will not change, and you are only an inferior
> pimple on his ass to be eliminated, as far as he is concerned.
> --
> Jim in NC

Would it be too much to ask you to actually kill file me instead of just
talking about it? PLEASE!!!!!!!
DH

Jimbob

May 6th 05, 04:37 AM

On Thu, 05 May 2005 14:51:27 -0400, Andrew Gideon >
wrote:

>Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> I've been using usenet for 10+ years and have found that people tend to
>> come across as more hostile in writing than they really are in person.
>> This happens in email as well.**You*don't*have*the*inflection*and*other
>> nonverbal cues that you get in mano-y-mano conversation and it is easy
>> for things to escalate well beyond what anyone intended.
>
>I've been USENETing since at least 84 (according to DejaGoogle), and I
>agree. For a while, I resisted using those "emotocon" glyphs reasoning
>that words should be sufficient in a written medium.

70% of face-to-face communication is non-verbal. We take that for
granted when we are on the internet. It tends to be hard to convery
the true spirit of a thought via text to a person that you have never
met before.

Jim

http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org

Highflyer

May 6th 05, 05:20 AM

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
ink.net...
>

>
> Sometimes I wonder, but there actually ARE some really intelligent people
> on this group. One thing I've noticed though....most who fit the
> description have real names. :-)
> Dudley
>

Thanks, Dudley!

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

Remember, rec.aviation annual flyin at Pinckneyville is May 20, 21, and 22
this year. Let Mary know you are coming at so we don't run
out of steaks at the dinner. :-)

Highflyer

May 6th 05, 05:24 AM

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 16:06:19 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>
>>>>Try giving it a rest. Break for lunch or something.
>>>>
>>>>Dudley Henriques
>>>
>>>
>>> C'mon, Dudster.
>>>
>>> Lighten up. Don't take yourself so seriously.
>>
>>Let me enlighten you on something my friend. I DO take myself QUITE
>>seriously and if you intend posting to me and desire intelligent and
>>meaningful dialog in return, I strongly suggest you try and refrain from
>>using a smart, superior, and condescending tone with me. I don't like it,
>>and it marks you as just one more Usenet "correction artist" to be
>>avoided.
>>Here's a Henriques Usenet hint for you. If you are NOT posting to me in
>>the
>>manner I've described above, USE A ****ING :-) and avoid the predictable
>>second post where you start telling someone who has taken what you have
>>said
>>to them in the EXACT context it was written; how they should be "taking
>>themselves"
>>Trust me, it will save a whole lot of this type of bull **** when dealing
>>with me.
>>
>>Dudley Henriques
>>
>>
>
> Hey, Your Dudship,
>
> Now you are not only taking yourself too seriously, you have obviously
> just confused me with someone who gives a good **** what you think
> about anything.
>
> And let me assure you that I do not expect anything intelligent and
> meaningful in any of your responses. So don't feel you are
> disappointing me in any way.
>
> So once again, lighten up. You'll live longer. And don't waste your
> time and bandwidth on what you call "Henriques Usenet hints". I'm
> sure to ignore them.
>
> But thanks anyway, for the offer.

Well, now we know EXACTLY what this characters advice is worth. Back to
John's monkeys! :-)

Highflyer

Highflyer

May 6th 05, 05:30 AM

"Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>
>> Let me enlighten you on something my friend. I DO take myself QUITE
>> seriously and if you intend posting to me and desire intelligent and
>> meaningful dialog in return, I strongly suggest you try and refrain from
>> using a smart, superior, and condescending tone with me.
>
> Like I said, a self-aggrandizing piece of ****. You are nothing! THANK
> Dog you're OLD and will DIE fairly soon.
>
> **** you and the horse you rode in on, DUHdley.

Some one out here hiding behind a most appropriate moniker seems to be the
kind of person who should have been strangled at birth. It is too bad they
were not taken care of correctly at that time.

Highflyer

Highflyer

May 6th 05, 05:38 AM

"Rich Lemert" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> .......or what has come to be for me at least; the ultimate mystery of
>> Usenet......that being the existence of people out here who actually will
>> wait patiently for a particular poster they don't like to post
>> something....ANYTHING......and then check every word...every
>> statement......every meaning....in the twisted hope that the poster they
>> don't particularly like very well will make a mistake.....no matter how
>> tiny a mistake or error...that THEY can jump on immediately to use as
>> "absolute proof" that the object of their "exposure" is flawed!
>
> Consider yourself lucky if they're actually waiting for you to post
> something so they can try to embarass you with it. I've been a regular
> in sci.research.careers, and they've got a guy over there who doesn't
> even bother waiting for me to post something in order to mis-represent
> my views.
>
> Rich Lemert
>

Rich,

It is much easier to create a "man of straw" and hang a sign on it and then
attack it that it is to attack a real person who might actually foil the
misdirected and misbegotten attack with truth and evidence. I have noticed
many people posting on the news groups who cling to their invalid
preconceptions and errors in the face of overwhelming evidence to the
contrary. I can only assume that their self esteem is so vanishingly small
that the mere possibility of admitting they might have been misadvised about
something at sometime in their life would destroy them completely. It is
quite a pity and those poor idiots are probably more to be pitied than
censured.

Ignorance is something we all share to some extent. Fortunately ignorance
is easily corrected. All it requires is a bit of study and education.
Stupidity, on the other hand, goes to the bone and is by nature
incorrectible.

Highflyer

Brooks Hagenow

May 6th 05, 06:31 AM

Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube wrote:
> In article >,
> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>
>
>>get lost, you idiots. Lynne and you.
>>
>>Have you noticed how much of a coward you are not even using a real
>>name? We don't need nor want you here. Just leave.
>
>
> I suggest you make your best effort to force me to do so, sir. Take your
> best shot.
>
> Too afraid to to that? Then SHUT THE **** UP.

Says the one who won't give a name...

Dave A.

May 6th 05, 02:10 PM

>The first thing you learn in flying is NEVER to put much faith in general
>analogies.

Well now no one said to apply the idea generally onto all of Usenet : ) I
think the point of when it applies is clear.

> No my friend....unfortunately it's man's basic flaws and individual
> personalities that will determine how communication is carried out on
> Usenet, not the old "ignore um" analogy.
> But it sounds good anyway :-)))))
>
> Dudley Henriques

Actually, when you consider no one on Usenet can do anything to you, (or if
they perceive they can, they are wrong) then it begs the question, why do
you care what they think? If you don't care why argue? Once there is no
pointless argument there is no headache.
"Ignore them" is not the point I make, "Know yourself and be self aware" is
more like it.
Now I'm not saying stay away from intelligent debate. I'm talking about
"Knuckleheads."

Further more, my last piece of wisdom on "who cares about Usenet anyway?" is
that it is rare to find anyone who's mind can be changed through Usenet
(R.A.S. seems to be a wonderful exception, but I digress). Knowing that, why
try go crazy defending against or trying to prove nothing? Personally,
anything I read on Usenet is always taken with a grain of salt, no matter
who writes it. Shouldn't it be that way?

In any case, the approach is hardly "ignore them." My thoughts on the
subject come from the course the NYPD put us through called Verbal Judo
http://www.verbaljudo.org/verbaljudolawenforcement.html

--
Dave A
Aging Student Pilot

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Dave A." > wrote in message
> news:bqoee.15830$c86.1122@trndny09...
>> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message

>> Forgive me if this comes out wrong, bit this reminds me of a few things I
>> discussed with my wife. She had problems with a few acquaintances that
>> imposed themselves as friends. They would set lunch dates with her and
>> give her grief if she did not accept or would cancel. Each meeting she
>> would find draining because these "friends" would complain about their
>> lives endlessly.
>>
>> So I had to tell her a little thing I learned years ago that helped
>> change things, "Just because the phone rings doesn't mean you have to
>> answer it."
>> This helped me when I was an Auxiliary police officer here in New York.
>> An unarmed volunteer in a very real police uniform walking the beat in
>> Queens. There you learn early on that just because a person is yelling
>> profanity doesn't mean you have to yell back.
>> You learn that flashing a badge doesn't mean squat to a person that is
>> just plain ****ed off, and also that no amount of reasoning will stop a
>> person that wants to rant. Working in this capacity one would think
>> "well, real cops have it easier because they have guns and people respect
>> that." Well, that isn't true. They have it worse.
>> You would think you could tell a person while in a police uniform that
>> "there is a power line down ahead, you can't drive down this road," that
>> they would not yell at you " I HAVE to get down that road. Nope.
>> You know what works best there? You say, "well you can't" and you direct
>> your attention elsewhere. They mutter and drive off. Arguing just
>> prolongs the incident.
>> So,
>>
>> This brings me to my way if dealing with Usenet and it has a lot to do
>> with what you say here;
>> "you have a tendency to learn early on what's important and what isn't
>> important in life"
>>
>> ignoring the knuckleheads "phone calls" is the first step to getting
>> something from usenet besides a headache.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave A
>> Aging Student Pilot

>
>

Dudley Henriques

May 6th 05, 02:44 PM

"Highflyer" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>
>>
>> Sometimes I wonder, but there actually ARE some really intelligent people
>> on this group. One thing I've noticed though....most who fit the
>> description have real names. :-)
>> Dudley
>>
>
> Thanks, Dudley!
>
> Highflyer
> Highflight Aviation Services
> Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

With a few exceptions of course :-)

D

Dudley Henriques

May 6th 05, 03:37 PM

"Dave A." > wrote in message
news:s1Kee.28$7G.0@trndny01...
> >The first thing you learn in flying is NEVER to put much faith in general
> >analogies.
>
> Well now no one said to apply the idea generally onto all of Usenet : )
> I think the point of when it applies is clear.

Not really, but there is merit in what you are saying and a total ignore
protocol will indeed serve a specific function; that being to avoid the
flame posts which obviously take two or more people for engagement to occur.
It should be noted however, that when there is a real name and reputation
involved in the scenario due to one or both participants using a real name,
the protocol of ignoring the post is flawed. You can still ignore the
attack, which will solve for the flame equation, but the potential
consequences are much different than they would have been if complete
anonymity through pseudonym had been present in the attack equation.
Personally, I believe it would be better if no real names were used on
Usenet. If there is one thing I would change had I the chance to do it over
again, I would never have appeared on Usenet using my own name.

>
>> No my friend....unfortunately it's man's basic flaws and individual
>> personalities that will determine how communication is carried out on
>> Usenet, not the old "ignore um" analogy.
>> But it sounds good anyway :-)))))
>>
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> Actually, when you consider no one on Usenet can do anything to you, (or
> if they perceive they can, they are wrong) then it begs the question, why
> do you care what they think?

This is where you are totally mistaken. People who use their real names on
Usenet can indeed be traced and located as evidenced by specific phone calls
we have received here at home. I am at present in contact with no less than
20 people first known to me through real name contact on Usenet.
The analogy that "on the net, no one knows you're a dog" only works for
pseudonym posters.

> "Ignore them" is not the point I make, "Know yourself and be self aware"
> is more like it.

No, in effect, you are making the "ignore them: argument, which is fine as I
said for the poster not using a real name. If someone is here in reality,
using their own name, then it simply becomes an issue of how much unanswered
attack you wish to leave out here going unanswered.

The bottom line in all this is really the pseudonym option rather than the
real name option. In this scenario, the "ignore the attack" protocol will
function to the benefit of all concerned.

> Further more, my last piece of wisdom on "who cares about Usenet anyway?"
> is that it is rare to find anyone who's mind can be changed through Usenet

True enough.

> (R.A.S. seems to be a wonderful exception, but I digress).

This is correct, and the main reason I came on Usenet to begin with.

Personally,
> anything I read on Usenet is always taken with a grain of salt, no matter
> who writes it. Shouldn't it be that way?

I'd like to think not. Otherwise, I've been wasting my time advising student
pilots on Usenet for many years. But it's true that all information from
Usenet should be verified by competent authority. There are people out here
who know Dudley Henriques IS Dudley Henriques. For those who don't know me I
could also be a 94 year old woman with a big wart on my ass,sitting in a
dark room in front of a computer monitor with a cigarette dangling out of my
toothless mouth, pushing my cat off the keyboard so I can bull**** the world
into thinking I'm Dudley Henriques.
The real answer to using the established Usenet protocols lies in using a
false name instead of a real name. As I said, if I had it to do again, that
is absolutely the way it would be.
In the meantime, I'm afraid I'll just have to deal with the nut cases as
they come up. I'll ignore them if I can, if that helps any :-))
Dudley

>
> In any case, the approach is hardly "ignore them." My thoughts on the
> subject come from the course the NYPD put us through called Verbal Judo
> http://www.verbaljudo.org/verbaljudolawenforcement.html
>
> --
> Dave A
> Aging Student Pilot
>
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Dave A." > wrote in message
>> news:bqoee.15830$c86.1122@trndny09...
>>> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
>
>>> Forgive me if this comes out wrong, bit this reminds me of a few things
>>> I discussed with my wife. She had problems with a few acquaintances
>>> that imposed themselves as friends. They would set lunch dates with her
>>> and give her grief if she did not accept or would cancel. Each meeting
>>> she would find draining because these "friends" would complain about
>>> their lives endlessly.
>>>
>>> So I had to tell her a little thing I learned years ago that helped
>>> change things, "Just because the phone rings doesn't mean you have to
>>> answer it."
>>> This helped me when I was an Auxiliary police officer here in New York.
>>> An unarmed volunteer in a very real police uniform walking the beat in
>>> Queens. There you learn early on that just because a person is yelling
>>> profanity doesn't mean you have to yell back.
>>> You learn that flashing a badge doesn't mean squat to a person that is
>>> just plain ****ed off, and also that no amount of reasoning will stop a
>>> person that wants to rant. Working in this capacity one would think
>>> "well, real cops have it easier because they have guns and people
>>> respect that." Well, that isn't true. They have it worse.
>>> You would think you could tell a person while in a police uniform that
>>> "there is a power line down ahead, you can't drive down this road," that
>>> they would not yell at you " I HAVE to get down that road. Nope.
>>> You know what works best there? You say, "well you can't" and you
>>> direct your attention elsewhere. They mutter and drive off. Arguing
>>> just prolongs the incident.
>>> So,
>>>
>>> This brings me to my way if dealing with Usenet and it has a lot to do
>>> with what you say here;
>>> "you have a tendency to learn early on what's important and what isn't
>>> important in life"
>>>
>>> ignoring the knuckleheads "phone calls" is the first step to getting
>>> something from usenet besides a headache.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dave A
>>> Aging Student Pilot
>
>>
>>
>
>

Andrew Gideon

May 6th 05, 06:06 PM

Morgans wrote:

> Andrew, check your settings. I believe that you are posting in HTML,
> instead of the preferred plan text.

I'm not (or at least not in the message to which you replied). The content
type of the message to which you replied was:

text/plain; charset=utf-8

I suspect instead that you're experiencing some difficulty with the
character set, but that's pretty much a guess.

My default character set is standard ascii. However, when I quote someone
I'm occasionally forced to use utf-8. I've not figured out why.

If there was some different message you think I posted in HTML, please give
me a message ID or something else I can use to identify it. I'd be happy
to check, just in case I am. But I've certainly told my newsreader to not
do so.

Thanks...

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon

May 6th 05, 06:08 PM

Jimbob wrote:

> 70% of face-to-face communication is non-verbal.

Have you a citation for this? It's a topic in which I'm interested. I'm
also interested in what percentage is "verbal" but invisible in a written
medium (ie. tone, inflection, etc.).

- Andrew

Peter Duniho

May 6th 05, 08:00 PM

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
agonline.com...
> [...]
> My default character set is standard ascii. However, when I quote someone
> I'm occasionally forced to use utf-8. I've not figured out why.
>
> If there was some different message you think I posted in HTML, please
> give
> me a message ID or something else I can use to identify it. I'd be happy
> to check, just in case I am. But I've certainly told my newsreader to not
> do so.

He probably is under the mistaken impression that you used HTML because your
post showed up in his newsreader with a different font that what he's used
to. Outlook Express, for example, uses a proportional-spaced font for plain
text 8-bit posts, even when you've set it to use a fixed-spaced font for
plain text posts.

Since HTML posts are usually in a proportional-spaced font, a person might
(incorrectly) assume that any post shown in a proportional-spaced font is
HTML.

As for why YOUR news reader insists on using 8-bit when 7-bit would do, I
don't know. You'd have to ask the KNode folks about that. I didn't see
anything in the post you made in 8-bit, nor the post to which you replied
(which was itself 7-bit) that would have suggested 8-bit encoding needed to
be used.

Pete

Andrew Gideon

May 6th 05, 11:45 PM

Peter Duniho wrote:

> He probably is under the mistaken impression that you used HTML because
> your post showed up in his newsreader with a different font that what he's
> used
> to. Outlook Express, for example, uses a proportional-spaced font for
> plain text 8-bit posts, even when you've set it to use a fixed-spaced font
> for plain text posts.

Ah. Thanks. I'd thought that it might have been the font, but I didn't
have the background to explain how it could be the case; I know
little-to-nothing about MSFT products. More, I'm sufficiently stuck in my
ways that I've tried very few NNTP readers even on my platform of choice.

[...]

> As for why YOUR news reader insists on using 8-bit when 7-bit would do, I
> don't know. You'd have to ask the KNode folks about that. I didn't see
> anything in the post you made in 8-bit, nor the post to which you replied
> (which was itself 7-bit) that would have suggested 8-bit encoding needed
> to be used.

I'd always assumed that it was because I was quoting from an 8-bit message.
However, this incident caused me to check and that is not the case.

Puzzling.

- Andrew

Dave A.

May 7th 05, 03:56 AM

> I'd like to think not. Otherwise, I've been wasting my time advising
> student pilots on Usenet for many years. But it's true that all
> information from Usenet should be verified by competent authority. There
> are people out here who know Dudley Henriques IS Dudley Henriques.

In fact, I don't know you as Dudley Henriques, I know you as the guy that
posts a lot of well thought out information. That means more to me than
Googling the name. If you knew my last name and Googled it it would come
back as a Major in the Army, Field artillery, currently stationed in Iraq.
But that's not me, just a guy with the same name. Imagine what I could do
with that on Usenet if I were a schmuck. ( He contacted me from Iraq BTW,
because he googled himself and found me LOL)

You are what you post on Usenet, not what you say you are. : ) Any way,
food for thought I hope, and don't sign of like the guy that started this
thread.

--
Dave A
Aging Student Pilot

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Dave A." > wrote in message
> news:s1Kee.28$7G.0@trndny01...
>> >The first thing you learn in flying is NEVER to put much faith in
>> >general analogies.
>>
>> Well now no one said to apply the idea generally onto all of Usenet : )
>> I think the point of when it applies is clear.
>
> Not really, but there is merit in what you are saying and a total ignore
> protocol will indeed serve a specific function; that being to avoid the
> flame posts which obviously take two or more people for engagement to
> occur.
> It should be noted however, that when there is a real name and reputation
> involved in the scenario due to one or both participants using a real
> name, the protocol of ignoring the post is flawed. You can still ignore
> the attack, which will solve for the flame equation, but the potential
> consequences are much different than they would have been if complete
> anonymity through pseudonym had been present in the attack equation.
> Personally, I believe it would be better if no real names were used on
> Usenet. If there is one thing I would change had I the chance to do it
> over again, I would never have appeared on Usenet using my own name.
>
>
>>
>>> No my friend....unfortunately it's man's basic flaws and individual
>>> personalities that will determine how communication is carried out on
>>> Usenet, not the old "ignore um" analogy.
>>> But it sounds good anyway :-)))))
>>>
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>>
>> Actually, when you consider no one on Usenet can do anything to you, (or
>> if they perceive they can, they are wrong) then it begs the question, why
>> do you care what they think?
>

>
>
>> "Ignore them" is not the point I make, "Know yourself and be self aware"
>> is more like it.
>
> No, in effect, you are making the "ignore them: argument, which is fine as
> I said for the poster not using a real name. If someone is here in
> reality, using their own name, then it simply becomes an issue of how much
> unanswered attack you wish to leave out here going unanswered.
>
> The bottom line in all this is really the pseudonym option rather than the
> real name option. In this scenario, the "ignore the attack" protocol will
> function to the benefit of all concerned.
>
>> Further more, my last piece of wisdom on "who cares about Usenet anyway?"
>> is that it is rare to find anyone who's mind can be changed through
>> Usenet
>
> True enough.
>
>> (R.A.S. seems to be a wonderful exception, but I digress).
>
> This is correct, and the main reason I came on Usenet to begin with.
>
>
> Personally,
>> anything I read on Usenet is always taken with a grain of salt, no matter
>> who writes it. Shouldn't it be that way?
>
For those who don't know me I
> could also be a 94 year old woman with a big wart on my ass,sitting in a
> dark room in front of a computer monitor with a cigarette dangling out of
> my toothless mouth, pushing my cat off the keyboard so I can bull**** the
> world into thinking I'm Dudley Henriques.
> The real answer to using the established Usenet protocols lies in using a
> false name instead of a real name. As I said, if I had it to do again,
> that is absolutely the way it would be.
> In the meantime, I'm afraid I'll just have to deal with the nut cases as
> they come up. I'll ignore them if I can, if that helps any :-))
> Dudley
>
>
>>
>> In any case, the approach is hardly "ignore them." My thoughts on the
>> subject come from the course the NYPD put us through called Verbal Judo
>> http://www.verbaljudo.org/verbaljudolawenforcement.html
>>
>> --
>> Dave A
>> Aging Student Pilot
>>
>> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Dave A." > wrote in message
>>> news:bqoee.15830$c86.1122@trndny09...
>>>> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
>>
>>>> Forgive me if this comes out wrong, bit this reminds me of a few things
>>>> I discussed with my wife. She had problems with a few acquaintances
>>>> that imposed themselves as friends. They would set lunch dates with
>>>> her and give her grief if she did not accept or would cancel. Each
>>>> meeting she would find draining because these "friends" would complain
>>>> about their lives endlessly.
>>>>
>>>> So I had to tell her a little thing I learned years ago that helped
>>>> change things, "Just because the phone rings doesn't mean you have to
>>>> answer it."
>>>> This helped me when I was an Auxiliary police officer here in New York.
>>>> An unarmed volunteer in a very real police uniform walking the beat in
>>>> Queens. There you learn early on that just because a person is yelling
>>>> profanity doesn't mean you have to yell back.
>>>> You learn that flashing a badge doesn't mean squat to a person that is
>>>> just plain ****ed off, and also that no amount of reasoning will stop a
>>>> person that wants to rant. Working in this capacity one would think
>>>> "well, real cops have it easier because they have guns and people
>>>> respect that." Well, that isn't true. They have it worse.
>>>> You would think you could tell a person while in a police uniform that
>>>> "there is a power line down ahead, you can't drive down this road,"
>>>> that they would not yell at you " I HAVE to get down that road. Nope.
>>>> You know what works best there? You say, "well you can't" and you
>>>> direct your attention elsewhere. They mutter and drive off. Arguing
>>>> just prolongs the incident.
>>>> So,
>>>>
>>>> This brings me to my way if dealing with Usenet and it has a lot to do
>>>> with what you say here;
>>>> "you have a tendency to learn early on what's important and what isn't
>>>> important in life"
>>>>
>>>> ignoring the knuckleheads "phone calls" is the first step to getting
>>>> something from usenet besides a headache.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dave A
>>>> Aging Student Pilot
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Dudley Henriques

May 7th 05, 04:32 AM

"Dave A." > wrote in message
news:x7Wee.3098$w56.1294@trndny08...
>> I'd like to think not. Otherwise, I've been wasting my time advising
>> student pilots on Usenet for many years. But it's true that all
>> information from Usenet should be verified by competent authority. There
>> are people out here who know Dudley Henriques IS Dudley Henriques.
>
> In fact, I don't know you as Dudley Henriques, I know you as the guy that
> posts a lot of well thought out information. That means more to me than
> Googling the name.

The problem with people like me ( not that I'm anything special) is that
I'm in print enough throughout the world that there are many in aviation who
recognize the name. Although It's true the average poster on Usenet wouldn't
know if the person posting with this name was actually me, there are enough
people out here both in my profession and on Usenet who actually know me
personally that it's not all that hard to put the post to the name.
It is a bit different for people on Usenet who use their real names than it
is for the pseudonym posters. Actually, as I have said many times, if I had
it to do over again, I would not have come to Usenet as Dudley Henriques.
DH

Roger

May 7th 05, 07:01 AM

On Thu, 5 May 2005 23:38:46 -0500, "Highflyer" wrote:

>
>Ignorance is something we all share to some extent. Fortunately ignorance
>is easily corrected. All it requires is a bit of study and education.
>Stupidity, on the other hand, goes to the bone and is by nature
>incorrectible.

True, but nature has a way of weeding out some through "Natural
Selection". Unfortunately, although quite efficient in the long run
the law some times breaks down on short term problems.

For one a, person's sig says a lot about them. I think your's is apt
and am well aware as to why<:-))

They couldn't get tot he Deb until next week, so I hope they have it
done in time.

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

>
>Highflyer
>

Roger

May 7th 05, 07:05 AM

On Fri, 06 May 2005 13:08:29 -0400, Andrew Gideon >
wrote:

>Jimbob wrote:
>
>> 70% of face-to-face communication is non-verbal.
>
>Have you a citation for this? It's a topic in which I'm interested. I'm
>also interested in what percentage is "verbal" but invisible in a written
>medium (ie. tone, inflection, etc.).

I've seen something similar to that posted some where, some time...
which being the case, I feel great in just remembering that I may have
heard it.

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

Mortimer Schnerd, RN

May 7th 05, 01:47 PM

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
ink.net...
> The problem with people like me ( not that I'm anything special) is that
> I'm in print enough throughout the world that there are many in aviation
> who recognize the name. Although It's true the average poster on Usenet
> wouldn't know if the person posting with this name was actually me, there
> are enough people out here both in my profession and on Usenet who
> actually know me personally that it's not all that hard to put the post to
> the name.

I can tel when it's you not by looking at the properties of the message, but
rather the content. You have a body of knowledge most of us lack. I don't
believe it can be faked.

> It is a bit different for people on Usenet who use their real names than
> it is for the pseudonym posters. Actually, as I have said many times, if I
> had it to do over again, I would not have come to Usenet as Dudley
> Henriques.

I long ago came to the same conclusion, hence the Mortimer Schnerd moniker.
Obviously, that's not my real name but I am accessible through it. I don't
keep my real name a secret with email... only in Usenet.

Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Dudley Henriques

May 7th 05, 04:07 PM

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
news:ON2fe.2579$sy6.393@lakeread04...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> The problem with people like me ( not that I'm anything special) is that
>> I'm in print enough throughout the world that there are many in aviation
>> who recognize the name. Although It's true the average poster on Usenet
>> wouldn't know if the person posting with this name was actually me, there
>> are enough people out here both in my profession and on Usenet who
>> actually know me personally that it's not all that hard to put the post
>> to the name.
>
>
> I can tel when it's you not by looking at the properties of the message,
> but rather the content. You have a body of knowledge most of us lack. I
> don't believe it can be faked.

I believe the legitimate pilots on these groups, especially the ones who
have lived through a career or have spent their lives in aviation in one
form or another each have a unique experience to bring to the information
table. I as well believe these pilots for the most part recognize each other
through just the process you have described above; the quality of
information that's passed back and forth through posting. They know it's
fact because they have lived the fact...in one form or another.
These pilots have no problems at all with each other on Usenet.
After all is said and done with the rest of what one has to put up with from
the trolls and idiots on these groups, it's only the recognition and
acceptance of the people "in the know" for each other that keeps the groups
alive.
>
>
>> It is a bit different for people on Usenet who use their real names than
>> it is for the pseudonym posters. Actually, as I have said many times, if
>> I had it to do over again, I would not have come to Usenet as Dudley
>> Henriques.
>
>
> I long ago came to the same conclusion, hence the Mortimer Schnerd
> moniker. Obviously, that's not my real name but I am accessible through
> it. I don't keep my real name a secret with email... only in Usenet.

I do exactly the same thing :-)

Dudley Henriques