An Unexpected Finding Among Commercial Pilots

[javawizard]

A newspaper reporter discovered that 41 commercial airline pilots in
Minnesota have had their car drivers' licenses revoked due to drunken
driving, yet they are still flying jumbo jets. - from the
Transportation section of www.odd-info.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

javawizard > wrote in news:197e6b90-d7a2-4839-93ce-
:

> A newspaper reporter discovered that 41 commercial airline pilots in
> Minnesota have had their car drivers' licenses revoked due to drunken
> driving, yet they are still flying jumbo jets. -


Why only 747 drivers?


Urp.

'scuse me.


Bertie

[Jules]

Okay maybe there is something to that other thread, in which airline
pilots had the number 2 most dangerous job.

javawizard wrote:
> A newspaper reporter discovered that 41 commercial airline pilots in
> Minnesota have had their car drivers' licenses revoked due to drunken
> driving, yet they are still flying jumbo jets. - from the
> Transportation section of www.odd-info.com

[F. Baum]

On Nov 29, 8:24 am, javawizard > wrote:
> A newspaper reporter discovered that 41 commercial airline pilots in
> Minnesota have had their car drivers' licenses revoked due to drunken
> driving, yet they are still flying jumbo jets. -

Jay Dubya,
I am not sure if this post is a gag but I will answer it as if you are
serious. Dont believe the junk you read on these websites. Under the
current laws this is not possible.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

F. Baum wrote:
> On Nov 29, 8:24 am, javawizard > wrote:
>> A newspaper reporter discovered that 41 commercial airline pilots in
>> Minnesota have had their car drivers' licenses revoked due to drunken
>> driving, yet they are still flying jumbo jets. -
>
> Jay Dubya,
> I am not sure if this post is a gag but I will answer it as if you are
> serious. Dont believe the junk you read on these websites. Under the
> current laws this is not possible.

Especially not that website. The cite for that story is.

Bibliography -83: ABC News (Television)

A: March 25, 1990



Not even the orginal source material.

[Phil]

On Nov 29, 9:53 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> javawizard > wrote in news:197e6b90-d7a2-4839-93ce-
> :
>
> > A newspaper reporter discovered that 41 commercial airline pilots in
> > Minnesota have had their car drivers' licenses revoked due to drunken
> > driving, yet they are still flying jumbo jets. -
>
> Why only 747 drivers?
>
> Urp.
>
> 'scuse me.
>
> Bertie

Beer goggles. When they're drunk, the pilots think the 747s look like
Learjets!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Phil > wrote in news:0fe594ca-f613-4488-bba3-
:

> On Nov 29, 9:53 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> javawizard > wrote in news:197e6b90-d7a2-4839-93ce-
>> :
>>
>> > A newspaper reporter discovered that 41 commercial airline pilots in
>> > Minnesota have had their car drivers' licenses revoked due to drunken
>> > driving, yet they are still flying jumbo jets. -
>>
>> Why only 747 drivers?
>>
>> Urp.
>>
>> 'scuse me.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Beer goggles. When they're drunk, the pilots think the 747s look like
> Learjets!
>
And they think A380's look like Claudia Schiffer

Bertie

[Phil]

On Nov 29, 7:59 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Phil > wrote in news:0fe594ca-f613-4488-bba3-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 29, 9:53 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> javawizard > wrote in news:197e6b90-d7a2-4839-93ce-
> >> :
>
> >> > A newspaper reporter discovered that 41 commercial airline pilots in
> >> > Minnesota have had their car drivers' licenses revoked due to drunken
> >> > driving, yet they are still flying jumbo jets. -
>
> >> Why only 747 drivers?
>
> >> Urp.
>
> >> 'scuse me.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Beer goggles. When they're drunk, the pilots think the 747s look like
> > Learjets!
>
> And they think A380's look like Claudia Schiffer
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That's a stretch. Even with a huge snootful, I'd say the best you can
get from an A380 is Rosie O'Donnell.

Phil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Phil > wrote in
:

> On Nov 29, 7:59 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Phil > wrote in news:0fe594ca-f613-4488-bba3-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 29, 9:53 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> javawizard > wrote in
>> >> news:197e6b90-d7a2-4839-93ce-
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > A newspaper reporter discovered that 41 commercial airline
>> >> > pilots in Minnesota have had their car drivers' licenses revoked
>> >> > due to drunken driving, yet they are still flying jumbo jets. -
>>
>> >> Why only 747 drivers?
>>
>> >> Urp.
>>
>> >> 'scuse me.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Beer goggles. When they're drunk, the pilots think the 747s look
>> > like Learjets!
>>
>> And they think A380's look like Claudia Schiffer
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> That's a stretch. Even with a huge snootful, I'd say the best you can
> get from an A380 is Rosie O'Donnell.
>

Yeah, it's really pretty unappealing from every angle, isn't it?


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

javawizard writes:

> A newspaper reporter discovered that 41 commercial airline pilots in
> Minnesota have had their car drivers' licenses revoked due to drunken
> driving, yet they are still flying jumbo jets. - from the
> Transportation section of www.odd-info.com

So are they commercial pilots, or commercial pilots who fly 747s? And how
many such pilots are there in total, for purposes of comparison?

It is a bit odd that the FAA has such strict medicals but still allows pilots
to take recreational drugs on a regular basis.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> javawizard writes:
>
>> A newspaper reporter discovered that 41 commercial airline pilots in
>> Minnesota have had their car drivers' licenses revoked due to drunken
>> driving, yet they are still flying jumbo jets. - from the
>> Transportation section of www.odd-info.com
>
> So are they commercial pilots, or commercial pilots who fly 747s? And
> how many such pilots are there in total, for purposes of comparison?
>
> It is a bit odd that the FAA has such strict medicals but still allows
> pilots to take recreational drugs on a regular basis.


Yep, they do.


Don;'t like it, don;'t fly.

Oh wait, You don't


Bertie

[Phil]

On Nov 29, 9:02 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Phil > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 29, 7:59 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Phil > wrote in news:0fe594ca-f613-4488-bba3-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Nov 29, 9:53 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> javawizard > wrote in
> >> >> news:197e6b90-d7a2-4839-93ce-
> >> >> :
>
> >> >> > A newspaper reporter discovered that 41 commercial airline
> >> >> > pilots in Minnesota have had their car drivers' licenses revoked
> >> >> > due to drunken driving, yet they are still flying jumbo jets. -
>
> >> >> Why only 747 drivers?
>
> >> >> Urp.
>
> >> >> 'scuse me.
>
> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> > Beer goggles. When they're drunk, the pilots think the 747s look
> >> > like Learjets!
>
> >> And they think A380's look like Claudia Schiffer
>
> >> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > That's a stretch. Even with a huge snootful, I'd say the best you can
> > get from an A380 is Rosie O'Donnell.
>
> Yeah, it's really pretty unappealing from every angle, isn't it?
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It sorta looks like it has some kind of medical condition.

Phil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Phil > wrote in
:

> On Nov 29, 9:02 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Phil > wrote
>> innews:f143e190-f616-4cfa-89b5-

>> m:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 29, 7:59 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Phil > wrote in
>> >> news:0fe594ca-f613-4488-bba3-
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > On Nov 29, 9:53 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> javawizard > wrote in
>> >> >> news:197e6b90-d7a2-4839-93ce-
>> >> >> :
>>
>> >> >> > A newspaper reporter discovered that 41 commercial airline
>> >> >> > pilots in Minnesota have had their car drivers' licenses
>> >> >> > revoked due to drunken driving, yet they are still flying
>> >> >> > jumbo jets. -
>>
>> >> >> Why only 747 drivers?
>>
>> >> >> Urp.
>>
>> >> >> 'scuse me.
>>
>> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> > Beer goggles. When they're drunk, the pilots think the 747s
>> >> > look like Learjets!
>>
>> >> And they think A380's look like Claudia Schiffer
>>
>> >> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > That's a stretch. Even with a huge snootful, I'd say the best you
>> > can get from an A380 is Rosie O'Donnell.
>>
>> Yeah, it's really pretty unappealing from every angle, isn't it?
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> It sorta looks like it has some kind of medical condition.

Yeah. You're right.
Like gout or whatever it was that the elephant man had.


Bertie

[Big John]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:24:42 -0800 (PST), javawizard
> wrote:

>A newspaper reporter discovered that 41 commercial airline pilots in
>Minnesota have had their car drivers' licenses revoked due to drunken
>driving, yet they are still flying jumbo jets. - from the
>Transportation section of www.odd-info.com


What does a car drivers license have to do with flying a jet
transport?


Big John

[Maxwell]

"Some Other Guy" > wrote in message
...
> Big John wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:24:42 -0800 (PST), javawizard >
> wrote:
>>>A newspaper reporter discovered that 41 commercial airline pilots in
>>>Minnesota have had their car drivers' licenses revoked due to drunken
>>>driving, yet they are still flying jumbo jets. - from the
>>>Transportation section of www.odd-info.com
>>
>> What does a car drivers license have to do with flying a jet
>> transport?
>
> In Ontario, Canada, they can technically charge you with drunk driving and
> suspend your driver's license if you are over the limit on a sailboat or
> even a bicycle.
>
> What does a bicycle or sailboat have to do with a motor vehicle? Beats
> me.
>

You're "drinking" record.

[Mxsmanic]

Big John writes:

> What does a car drivers license have to do with flying a jet
> transport?

Operating both types of vehicles represent an activity that is seriously
impaired by the use of recreational drugs such as alcohol. And people who are
willing to drive drunk are generally willing to fly drunk as well.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Big John writes:
>
>> What does a car drivers license have to do with flying a jet
>> transport?
>
> Operating both types of vehicles represent an activity that is
> seriously impaired by the use of recreational drugs such as alcohol.

Or being a fjukkwuit


> And people who are willing to drive drunk are generally willing to fly
> drunk as well.
>


Nope


Bertie

[Big John]

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:06:12 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Big John writes:
>
>> What does a car drivers license have to do with flying a jet
>> transport?
>
>Operating both types of vehicles represent an activity that is seriously
>impaired by the use of recreational drugs such as alcohol. And people who are
>willing to drive drunk are generally willing to fly drunk as well.


Your an idiot.

You must have some experience with a drinking problem?

I can rinse my mouth out with a mouth wash that contains alcohol and I
then cannot pass the 'breathalizer' test.

If I don't fly (legally) drunk (test does not evaluate your ability to
make correct decisions and act accordingly) what is it of interest
what I do on my time off if I meet the 12 hours from bottle to stick.

You need personal experience (with the use of alcohol which I have) to
comment on the stupid original posting.

Big John

[nobody[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> And people who are willing to drive drunk are generally willing to fly
> drunk as well.

I disagree. I know hundreds of pilots, but not a single one who will fly
after drinking. I know plenty if people who will drive after drinking. I
mistrust your sample.

[Mxsmanic]

Big John writes:

> You must have some experience with a drinking problem?

I don't use recreational or illicit drugs at all.

> I can rinse my mouth out with a mouth wash that contains alcohol and I
> then cannot pass the 'breathalizer' test.

So? You won't fail a blood test.

> If I don't fly (legally) drunk (test does not evaluate your ability to
> make correct decisions and act accordingly) what is it of interest
> what I do on my time off if I meet the 12 hours from bottle to stick.

Twelve hours should be sufficient for most purposes. It would be better not
to drink at all, but I realize how addicted some people are to the drug.

> You need personal experience (with the use of alcohol which I have) to
> comment on the stupid original posting.

Drinkers often try to rationalize their reckless use of the drug, a behavior
that is common to substance abusers in general.

[Mxsmanic]

nobody writes:

> I disagree. I know hundreds of pilots, but not a single one who will fly
> after drinking.

How many of them have been cited for driving while intoxicated?

> I know plenty if people who will drive after drinking. I
> mistrust your sample.

How many pilots do you know who will drive after drinking but won't fly?

In general, if a drinker manages to rationalize driving under the influence,
it's not really any different to rationalize flying under the influence. Even
airline pilots are caught at this.

[nobody[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> nobody writes:
>
>> I disagree. I know hundreds of pilots, but not a single one who will fly
>> after drinking.
>
> How many of them have been cited for driving while intoxicated?

None.

>
> How many pilots do you know who will drive after drinking but won't fly?

I can think of at least ten


> In general, if a drinker manages to rationalize driving under the
> influence,
> it's not really any different to rationalize flying under the influence.

As I said, I mistrust your sample. I socialize with pilots and non-pilots.
How many pilots do you socialize with?

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> nobody writes:
>
>> I disagree. I know hundreds of pilots, but not a single
>> one who will fly
>> after drinking.
>
> How many of them have been cited for driving while
> intoxicated?
>
>> I know plenty if people who will drive after drinking. I
>> mistrust your sample.
>
> How many pilots do you know who will drive after drinking
> but won't fly?

Quite a few.

> In general, if a drinker manages to rationalize driving
> under the influence,
> it's not really any different to rationalize flying under
> the influence.

Wrong. Loss of judgment due to addiction is incremental,
not a binary state.

> Even airline pilots are caught at this.

Almost always only after they have reached an advanced stage
in their addiction.

[Mxsmanic]

nobody writes:

> None.

Then your pilot friends are not representative of the pilots under discussion.
The pilots being discussed are those who drink and drive. Obviously, if
someone is careful not to drink and drive, he'll probably be at least as
careful not to drink and fly.

> I can think of at least ten

How many of them are still alive?

> As I said, I mistrust your sample. I socialize with pilots and non-pilots.
> How many pilots do you socialize with?

I don't socialize at all. I rely on studies with sound methodologies rather
than anecdotal personal experience.

[Mxsmanic]

John Mazor writes:

> Almost always only after they have reached an advanced stage
> in their addiction.

Drinking and driving alone doesn't count as an advanced stage of addiction?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I don't socialize at all.

Is there anyone surprised by this?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> nobody writes:
>
>> I disagree. I know hundreds of pilots, but not a single one who will
>> fly after drinking.
>
> How many of them have been cited for driving while intoxicated?
>
>> I know plenty if people who will drive after drinking. I
>> mistrust your sample.
>
> How many pilots do you know who will drive after drinking but won't
> fly?


Dozens.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> nobody writes:
>
>> None.
>
> Then your pilot friends are not representative of the pilots under
> discussion. The pilots being discussed are those who drink and drive.
> Obviously, if someone is careful not to drink and drive, he'll
> probably be at least as careful not to drink and fly.
>
>> I can think of at least ten
>
> How many of them are still alive?
>
>> As I said, I mistrust your sample. I socialize with pilots and
>> non-pilots. How many pilots do you socialize with?
>
> I don't socialize at all.


Surprise surprise.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> John Mazor writes:
>
>> Almost always only after they have reached an advanced stage
>> in their addiction.
>
> Drinking and driving alone doesn't count as an advanced stage of
> addiction?
>

Nope.


Bertie

[Big John]

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:18:55 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Big John writes:
>
>> You must have some experience with a drinking problem?
>
>I don't use recreational or illicit drugs at all.
>
>> I can rinse my mouth out with a mouth wash that contains alcohol and I
>> then cannot pass the 'breathalizer' test.
>
>So? You won't fail a blood test.
>
>> If I don't fly (legally) drunk (test does not evaluate your ability to
>> make correct decisions and act accordingly) what is it of interest
>> what I do on my time off if I meet the 12 hours from bottle to stick.
>
>Twelve hours should be sufficient for most purposes. It would be better not
>to drink at all, but I realize how addicted some people are to the drug.
>
>> You need personal experience (with the use of alcohol which I have) to
>> comment on the stupid original posting.
>
>Drinkers often try to rationalize their reckless use of the drug, a behavior
>that is common to substance abusers in general.


Again nothing but idiot remarks. Please get with it. Since you
apparently don't fly yiu don't know the rules thuddddddddddddddddddd.

You keep talking about drugs. What drugs are you talking about?

Big John

[Big John]

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:20:10 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>nobody writes:
>
>> I disagree. I know hundreds of pilots, but not a single one who will fly
>> after drinking.
>
>How many of them have been cited for driving while intoxicated?
>
>> I know plenty if people who will drive after drinking. I
>> mistrust your sample.
>
>How many pilots do you know who will drive after drinking but won't fly?
>
>In general, if a drinker manages to rationalize driving under the influence,
>it's not really any different to rationalize flying under the influence. Even
>airline pilots are caught at this.


I'm getting to feel more like Bertie. Your not only a closet idiot but
a big A** hole.

I'm gone. Have a bad day. I can't waste my more time with A** holes.

Big John

[Big John]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 01:13:39 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Mxsmanic > wrote in
:
>
>> nobody writes:
>>
>>> None.
>>
>> Then your pilot friends are not representative of the pilots under
>> discussion. The pilots being discussed are those who drink and drive.
>> Obviously, if someone is careful not to drink and drive, he'll
>> probably be at least as careful not to drink and fly.
>>
>>> I can think of at least ten
>>
>> How many of them are still alive?
>>
>>> As I said, I mistrust your sample. I socialize with pilots and
>>> non-pilots. How many pilots do you socialize with?
>>
>> I don't socialize at all.
>
>
>Surprise surprise.
>
>
>
>Bertie
______________________________________________-

Bertie

I'm off this bottom feeder. He's all yours :o)

Big John

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Big John > wrote in
:


>>
>>Bertie
> ______________________________________________-
>
> Bertie
>
> I'm off this bottom feeder. He's all yours :o)
>

Thanks! More for me!

Bertie

[nobody[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> nobody writes:
>
>> None.
>
> Then your pilot friends are not representative of the pilots under
> discussion.
> The pilots being discussed are those who drink and drive.

Drinking and driving is different than being cited for drinking and driving.
Sorry, I assumed an english teacher would know that.

>
>> I can think of at least ten
>
> How many of them are still alive?

100%

>
> I don't socialize at all.

That makes your sample size zero, and your argument pure speculation.

[nobody[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> John Mazor writes:
>
>> Almost always only after they have reached an advanced stage
>> in their addiction.
>
> Drinking and driving alone doesn't count as an advanced stage of
> addiction?

No.

[Mxsmanic]

Big John writes:

> Again nothing but idiot remarks. Please get with it. Since you
> apparently don't fly yiu don't know the rules thuddddddddddddddddddd.

I don't have to fly to know the rules.

> You keep talking about drugs. What drugs are you talking about?

Alcohol, in this case.

[Mxsmanic]

nobody writes:

> Drinking and driving is different than being cited for drinking and driving.

You can't be cited for it unless you're doing it.

[Mxsmanic]

nobody writes:

> No.

If drinking and driving isn't addiction, what is? Risking your life just to
take a recreational drug sounds like quite an obsession to me.

[Tina]

Mx's "virtue" may be driven by his circumstances -- middle aged, poor,
unable to afford wine, and often not even a Big Mac.

But, there is one virtue we can cheer: he doesn't socialize. There may
be no one in Paris worthy of his company: he seeks recognition and
peership here. The plea for recognition is most likely the only reason
for his many posts: he is NOT a reliable source of information.

Which of course raises an interesting point. His website offers his
services as a tour guide. Potential customers, doing due diligence, if
they google him, will learn something of the personality he presents
here compared to the one he uses when he offers his services there.

They will have to decide if they want this arrogant obese shorts and
hiking boot wearing person serving as their guide. .

He's really augering in, isn't he?



On Dec 2, 11:53 am, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:
>
> > nobody writes:
>
> >> No.
>
> > If drinking and driving isn't addiction, what is? Risking your life
> > just to take a recreational drug sounds like quite an obsession to me.
>
> It's clear that you don't understand addiction at all. There is ample
> information available on the web that you should be able to enlighten
> yourself about addiction without too much difficulty.
>
> There are *many* reasons why flying after even a single drink is not
> equivalent to driving under the same conditions. I know of no one of the
> hundreds of members in our flying club who will fly after a drink.
>
> There is also a reason why no DUI laws begin at 0.001%. Apparently, you
> don't understand any of those reasons, either.
>
> Neil

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> nobody writes:
>
>> Drinking and driving is different than being cited for drinking and
>> driving.
>
> You can't be cited for it unless you're doing it.

Why do you always sound like you have been drinking and deriving. You can
never seem do deduce zip ****.

Maybe we need to put a blow and go on your computer. But then you would
proably misunderstand and misuse it through simlation as well.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> John Mazor writes:
>
>> Almost always only after they have reached an advanced
>> stage
>> in their addiction.
>
> Drinking and driving alone doesn't count as an advanced
> stage of addiction?

If it is habitual and not a rare event, then yes, but you
didn't specify that. You made an absolute declaration.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> nobody writes:
>
>> None.
>
> Then your pilot friends are not representative of the
> pilots under discussion.
> The pilots being discussed are those who drink and drive.
> Obviously, if
> someone is careful not to drink and drive, he'll probably
> be at least as
> careful not to drink and fly.
>
>> I can think of at least ten
>
> How many of them are still alive?
>
>> As I said, I mistrust your sample. I socialize with
>> pilots and non-pilots.
>> How many pilots do you socialize with?
>
> I don't socialize at all. I rely on studies with sound
> methodologies rather
> than anecdotal personal experience.

Which would explain your armchair "knowledge" of aviation,
not to mention human behavior and life in general.

It also suggests why you don't socialize - who wants to hang
around a know-it-all who doesn't know it all and doesn't
even know that he doesn't know it all?

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> nobody writes:
>
>> No.
>
> If drinking and driving isn't addiction, what is? Risking your life
> just to take a recreational drug sounds like quite an obsession to me.
>
It's clear that you don't understand addiction at all. There is ample
information available on the web that you should be able to enlighten
yourself about addiction without too much difficulty.

There are *many* reasons why flying after even a single drink is not
equivalent to driving under the same conditions. I know of no one of the
hundreds of members in our flying club who will fly after a drink.

There is also a reason why no DUI laws begin at 0.001%. Apparently, you
don't understand any of those reasons, either.

Neil

[nobody[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> nobody writes:
>
>> Drinking and driving is different than being cited for drinking and
>> driving.
>
> You can't be cited for it unless you're doing it.

That does not prove the corollary.

(Sorry, if that's too complex for you to under stand, it means that you can
drink and drive without being cited)

[nobody[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> nobody writes:
>
>> No.
>
> If drinking and driving isn't addiction, what is?

Living in a dumpster because you spent your rent money on drugs, and you're
too high to coordinate a robbery for your next fix.

> Risking your life just to take a recreational drug sounds like quite an
> obsession to me.

We were discussing addictions, not obsessions.

Short Term memory issues too?

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Why do you always sound like you have been drinking and deriving.

Deriving what?

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> It's clear that you don't understand addiction at all. There is ample
> information available on the web that you should be able to enlighten
> yourself about addiction without too much difficulty.

There's also plenty of information on the Web indicating why it's stupid to
take drugs and operate vehicles at the same time.

> There are *many* reasons why flying after even a single drink is not
> equivalent to driving under the same conditions. I know of no one of the
> hundreds of members in our flying club who will fly after a drink.

And they are willing to drive after drinking?

> There is also a reason why no DUI laws begin at 0.001%.

Some do. They are called zero-tolerance laws, and are based on the premise
that no impairment is small enough to be acceptable impairment.

[Mxsmanic]

nobody writes:

> Living in a dumpster because you spent your rent money on drugs, and you're
> too high to coordinate a robbery for your next fix.

I know people who spend several hundred dollars a month on cigarettes and/or
alcohol. Are they addicted? I know people who can't go an hour without a
cigarette or a day without alcohol. Are they addicted?

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> Mental or physical pain during withdrawal to the point that you can't
> lead a normal life without regularly taking the drug.

What causes mental pain?

> An obsession is not addiction. Anyhow, there's little obsession
> involved. The majority of people who drive their car after having had a
> small glass of beer think nothing of it, especially not that they're
> risking their lives. The fact that you might think differently is
> irrelevant to them.

The fact that some of them die in consequence doesn't seem to be relevant to
you, either.

[Mxsmanic]

John Mazor writes:

> If it is habitual and not a rare event, then yes, but you
> didn't specify that.

Is daily consumption of alcohol habitual?

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> I know a couple. They will happily drive their car after having a glass
> of beer, but the same people would never think of flying a plane after
> the same beer.

Why do they make the distinction? Car accidents are much more common than
airplane accidents, and typically 50% involve alcohol. How do they justify
driving under the influence of the drug? And if they think it's okay, how can
one be sure that they won't make the same mistake when flying?

> Apparently many other people think they're different.

Yes. That's why so many people die in vehicular accidents after consuming
alcohol. They always think they are special.

[nobody[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> I know people who spend several hundred dollars a month on cigarettes
> and/or
> alcohol. Are they addicted?

Which is it, cigarettes or alcohol?

One could easily spend several hundered dollars on one bottle of wine per
month. I don't wouldn't consider that addicted.

A pack-a-day smoker spends more then 'several hunderd dollars' a month on
cigarettes.

> I know people who can't go an hour without a cigarette

You should stay far away from these people. They're likely to burn down
their home smoking while they're sleeping

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Maxwell writes:

> > Why do you always sound like you have been drinking and deriving.

> Deriving what?

Nothing of value, obviously.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Why do you always sound like you have been drinking and deriving.
>
> Deriving what?

Deriving the wrong conclusions from much of your "research".

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Why do you always sound like you have been drinking and deriving.
>
> Deriving what?

Thanks, that's an excellent example.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Wolfgang Schwanke writes:
>
>> I know a couple. They will happily drive their car after having a glass
>> of beer, but the same people would never think of flying a plane after
>> the same beer.
>
> Why do they make the distinction?

What a retard. Shut up, your digging a hole Mr. Haveneverflown.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> It's clear that you don't understand addiction at all. There is ample
>> information available on the web that you should be able to enlighten
>> yourself about addiction without too much difficulty.
>
> There's also plenty of information on the Web indicating why it's stupid to
> take drugs and operate vehicles at the same time.
>
>> There are *many* reasons why flying after even a single drink is not
>> equivalent to driving under the same conditions. I know of no one of the
>> hundreds of members in our flying club who will fly after a drink.
>
> And they are willing to drive after drinking?
>
>> There is also a reason why no DUI laws begin at 0.001%.
>
> Some do. They are called zero-tolerance laws, and are based on the premise
> that no impairment is small enough to be acceptable impairment.

Then they must get a lot of cases that go to court because that's bad science. You
can get a non-zero reading without consuming alcohol, even with lab-grade equipment.
That's why the FAA allows up to a .02% BAC reading before flying. (Balloon tests,
often used in driving enforcement, are inherently less accurate than lab
breathalyzers or a blood sample, which is why they aren't used in enforcing the
FARs.)

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> John Mazor writes:
>
>> If it is habitual and not a rare event, then yes, but you
>> didn't specify that.
>
> Is daily consumption of alcohol habitual?

Did you specify "daily" in your sweeping statement?

No... so are we to conclude that you're looking for help in self-diagnosis, or just
jinking to avoid having to admit your error?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> John Mazor writes:
>
>> If it is habitual and not a rare event, then yes, but you
>> didn't specify that.
>
> Is daily consumption of alcohol habitual?



This from someone who lives in France.

In fact, until fairly recently, French pilots were allowed to have a glass
of wine with theiir dinner inflight..



Fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"John Mazor" > wrote in news:7gB4j.3418$RB.565
@trnddc03:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> nobody writes:
>>
>>> None.
>>
>> Then your pilot friends are not representative of the
>> pilots under discussion.
>> The pilots being discussed are those who drink and drive.
>> Obviously, if
>> someone is careful not to drink and drive, he'll probably
>> be at least as
>> careful not to drink and fly.
>>
>>> I can think of at least ten
>>
>> How many of them are still alive?
>>
>>> As I said, I mistrust your sample. I socialize with
>>> pilots and non-pilots.
>>> How many pilots do you socialize with?
>>
>> I don't socialize at all. I rely on studies with sound
>> methodologies rather
>> than anecdotal personal experience.
>
> Which would explain your armchair "knowledge" of aviation,
> not to mention human behavior and life in general.
>
> It also suggests why you don't socialize - who wants to hang
> around a know-it-all who doesn't know it all and doesn't
> even know that he doesn't know it all?

Himself and his Josie and the Pussycats action figures?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Wolfgang Schwanke writes:
>
>> I know a couple. They will happily drive their car after having a
>> glass of beer, but the same people would never think of flying a
>> plane after the same beer.
>
> Why do they make the distinction? Car accidents are much more common
> than airplane accidents, and typically 50% involve alcohol.


No, they don't.

Which makes you a liar as well as an idiot.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Wolfgang Schwanke writes:
>
>> Mental or physical pain during withdrawal to the point that you can't
>> lead a normal life without regularly taking the drug.
>
> What causes mental pain?


If you were sitting here reading what I am....

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> nobody writes:
>
>> Drinking and driving is different than being cited for drinking and
>> driving.
>
> You can't be cited for it unless you're doing it.
>


Of course you can, you moron!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Why do you always sound like you have been drinking and deriving.
>
> Deriving what?


As a troll, you suck even more than you do as a know it all.


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> nobody writes:
>
>> No.
>
> If drinking and driving isn't addiction, what is?

You are an idiot.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> It's clear that you don't understand addiction at all. There is ample
>> information available on the web that you should be able to enlighten
>> yourself about addiction without too much difficulty.
>
> There's also plenty of information on the Web indicating why it's
> stupid to take drugs and operate vehicles at the same time.


Wow, where would you be without the web?

Oh I know. Ranting to people on the street



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> nobody writes:
>
>> Living in a dumpster because you spent your rent money on drugs, and
>> you're too high to coordinate a robbery for your next fix.
>
> I know people who spend several hundred dollars a month on cigarettes
> and/or alcohol. Are they addicted? I know people who can't go an
> hour without a cigarette or a day without alcohol. Are they addicted?
>

Yes, so what, fjukkwit?


You're a million miles away from your original assertation.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Big John writes:
>
>> Again nothing but idiot remarks. Please get with it. Since you
>> apparently don't fly yiu don't know the rules thuddddddddddddddddddd.
>
> I don't have to fly to know the rules.
>
But you have to fly to understand them. You don't fly.



>> You keep talking about drugs. What drugs are you talking about?
>
> Alcohol, in this case.


Why, what are you on?


Bertie

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Wolfgang Schwanke > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>
>> There is also a reason why no DUI laws begin at 0.001%.
>
> There are many countries in the world where it's 0.0%
>
Of course, I was referring to the US, as I have no idea of DUI laws
elsewhere. Aside from countries where consumption of alcohol may be
illegal, which countries have a zero tolerance for drinking and driving?

Neil

[Stefan]

Neil Gould schrieb:

> Aside from countries where consumption of alcohol may be
> illegal, which countries have a zero tolerance for drinking and driving?

An overview of the Situation in Europe:
http://www.tcs.ch/etc/medialib/main/karten/tourismus.Par.0002.File.tmp/EUR_alcoolemie_carte.gif

[Mxsmanic]

John Mazor writes:

> Then they must get a lot of cases that go to court because that's bad science.

They get a lot of cases because some people still cannot prevent themselves
from drinking and driving. Those people often go to jail. There's nothing
wrong with the science.

> You can get a non-zero reading without consuming alcohol, even with
> lab-grade equipment.

All you have to do is prove that it's not alcohol.

> That's why the FAA allows up to a .02% BAC reading before flying.

It should be zero.

[Mxsmanic]

nobody writes:

> Which is it, cigarettes or alcohol?

Both addictions can cost hundreds of dollars a month.

> One could easily spend several hundered dollars on one bottle of wine per
> month. I don't wouldn't consider that addicted.

That's not what the addicts do. They spend their money on cheaper beverages,
often with more alcohol content.

> A pack-a-day smoker spends more then 'several hunderd dollars' a month on
> cigarettes.

Yes. Drug addiction has many common traits irrespective of the drug being
abused.

> You should stay far away from these people. They're likely to burn down
> their home smoking while they're sleeping

I do, or at least I try. Unfortunately, I still must breathe their
second-hand smoke on occasion. A large percentage of home fires are due to
smoking.

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> The withdrawal of the drug.

What unavoidable biological mechanism cause mental pain?

> What gives you that idea?

Sorry, I misunderstood.

[Mxsmanic]

John Mazor writes:

> Did you specify "daily" in your sweeping statement?

Answer my question first.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> John Mazor writes:
>
>> Then they must get a lot of cases that go to court because that's bad
>> science.
>
> They get a lot of cases because some people still cannot prevent
> themselves from drinking and driving. Those people often go to jail.
> There's nothing wrong with the science.
>
>> You can get a non-zero reading without consuming alcohol, even with
>> lab-grade equipment.
>
> All you have to do is prove that it's not alcohol.
>
>> That's why the FAA allows up to a .02% BAC reading before flying.
>
> It should be zero.
>

no it souldn't moron.

Besides, you don't fly so it's none of your business


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> nobody writes:
>
>> Which is it, cigarettes or alcohol?
>
> Both addictions can cost hundreds of dollars a month.
>
>> One could easily spend several hundered dollars on one bottle of wine
>> per month. I don't wouldn't consider that addicted.
>
> That's not what the addicts do. They spend their money on cheaper
> beverages, often with more alcohol content.


No, they don't, proving once again that there isn't an area under the sun
that you have even the remotest grasp of.
>
> I do, or at least I try.


More likely they stay away from you.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Wolfgang Schwanke writes:
>
>> The withdrawal of the drug.
>
> What unavoidable biological mechanism cause mental pain?
>
>> What gives you that idea?
>
> Sorry, I misunderstood.
>



Because you're an idiot.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> John Mazor writes:
>
>> Did you specify "daily" in your sweeping statement?
>
> Answer my question first.
>

You didn't ask one moron, that's th epoint.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Stefan > wrote in
:

> Neil Gould schrieb:
>
>> Aside from countries where consumption of alcohol may be
>> illegal, which countries have a zero tolerance for drinking and
>> driving?
>
> An overview of the Situation in Europe:
> http://www.tcs.ch/etc/medialib/main/karten/tourismus.Par.0002.File.tmp/
> EUR_alcoolemie_carte.gif
>

Actually, in Poland and Lithuania, I think those are the minimums..


Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

>>> You keep talking about drugs. What drugs are you talking about?
>>
>> Alcohol, in this case.
>
>
> Why, what are you on?

The question should be, "what drugs are you _not_ on, that you should be
taking?

That says volumes.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in news:21H4j.90$gJ2.33
@newsfe05.lga:

>>>> You keep talking about drugs. What drugs are you talking about?
>>>
>>> Alcohol, in this case.
>>
>>
>> Why, what are you on?
>
> The question should be, "what drugs are you _not_ on, that you should be
> taking?
>
> That says volumes.

I prescribe a 2X4 upside the head..


Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Tina" < wrote

> Which of course raises an interesting point. His website offers his
> services as a tour guide. Potential customers, doing due diligence, if
> they google him, will learn something of the personality he presents
> here compared to the one he uses when he offers his services there.
>
> They will have to decide if they want this arrogant obese shorts and
> hiking boot wearing person serving as their guide. .
>
> He's really augering in, isn't he?

This brings up an important fact that he does not realize.

The first rule for getting yourself out of a hole, is to stop digging.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Wolfgang Schwanke" > wrote
>
> Addicts get so used to the positive feelings induced by the drug that
> they get strong depressions when sober. They need to take the drug
> again and again to to protect them from these depressions and to go on
> with their lives at all. It's a vicious circle, that's what drug
> addiction is all about. The euphoria they originally took the drug for
> has long gone.

You are talking about addiction all in a recreational sense.

Prescribed narcotics for pain control are just as addictive, and difficult
to withdraw from, and euphoria is not a sensation that is present, or
desired.

This fact does not make the withdrawal process any less difficult.

There are very real physical sensations that make ordinary living quite
impossible, if the withdrawal of the narcotic is too sudden. It is quite
incapacitating.

That being said, the use of the narcotic is the only thing that makes life
possible, for some people in some situations. Without them, I suspect that
there would be many suicides, because the pain of the subject is so severe,
that any escape from the pain would be considered, including the taking of
one's life.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
. ..
> Neil Gould schrieb:
>
>> Aside from countries where consumption of alcohol may be
>> illegal, which countries have a zero tolerance for drinking and driving?
>
> An overview of the Situation in Europe:
> http://www.tcs.ch/etc/medialib/main/karten/tourismus.Par.0002.File.tmp/EUR_alcoolemie_carte.gif

Man, you can get pretty drunk in most of western Europe and Great Britain,
and still be legal, compared to the USA. I'm surprised, but not surprised.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> Addicts get so used to the positive feelings induced by the drug that
> they get strong depressions when sober.

But that is their choice, not an effect of the drug. It's part of the
addictive personality.

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> Prescribed narcotics for pain control are just as addictive, and difficult
> to withdraw from, and euphoria is not a sensation that is present, or
> desired.

Prescription narcotics are incompatible with flying and driving if they impair
the pilot/driver. However, opioids are generally less impairing than alcohol,
so it makes little sense to worry about prescription painkillers unless
alcohol is completely excluded first.

Antihistamines are fairly harmless overall but they can cause considerable
impairment in the form of drowsiness, a good example of an innocuous drug that
is nevertheless incompatible with operation of a vehicle.

> There are very real physical sensations that make ordinary living quite
> impossible, if the withdrawal of the narcotic is too sudden. It is quite
> incapacitating.

Opioid withdrawal is less debilitating than alcohol withdrawal. And neither
is impossible; if they were impossible, nobody would ever be able to stop
taking these drugs, and yet people manage to do so every day.

The primary barrier is psychological, particularly in people who are
predisposed to addictive behaviors. If they aren't hooked on booze, they are
hooked on pot, or something else.

> That being said, the use of the narcotic is the only thing that makes life
> possible, for some people in some situations. Without them, I suspect that
> there would be many suicides, because the pain of the subject is so severe,
> that any escape from the pain would be considered, including the taking of
> one's life.

There is no reason to skimp on the use of painkillers just because of taboos
over their use. Morphine and the other opioids are still the gold standard
for pain relief, and when used legitimately for pain relief there isn't any
reason to be nervous about them. Most people who take opioids only for pain
relief do not become addicted, even though they develop a dependence on the
drugs in time. And even if they did become addicted, that would still be
preferable to a life of severe pain.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tina" < wrote
>
>> Which of course raises an interesting point. His website offers his
>> services as a tour guide. Potential customers, doing due diligence, if
>> they google him, will learn something of the personality he presents
>> here compared to the one he uses when he offers his services there.
>>
>> They will have to decide if they want this arrogant obese shorts and
>> hiking boot wearing person serving as their guide. .
>>
>> He's really augering in, isn't he?
>
> This brings up an important fact that he does not realize.
>
> The first rule for getting yourself out of a hole, is to stop digging.

He's addicted to digging.

[Big John]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 19:39:56 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Mxsmanic > wrote in
:
>
>> John Mazor writes:
>>
>>> If it is habitual and not a rare event, then yes, but you
>>> didn't specify that.
>>
>> Is daily consumption of alcohol habitual?
>
>
>
>This from someone who lives in France.
>
>In fact, until fairly recently, French pilots were allowed to have a glass
>of wine with theiir dinner inflight..
>
>
>
>Fjukkwit.
>
>Bertie
----------------

Bertie

errata

I was liaison aboard the French Aircraft Carrier, Joan D'Arc (sp) and
they had two 20,000 gallon stainless tanks built into ship for wine.
Crew drank 1000 liters of wine each day.

Just glad they were not driving a super tanker.

They figured the wine would last to Australia and there they told me
they would fill the tanks with Aussie beer to go the rest of the way
home to France :o)

From my experience, the French turn a blind eye to drinking.

Big John

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> John Mazor writes:
>
>> Did you specify "daily" in your sweeping statement?
>
> Answer my question first.

Why? It's not relevant to your error.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> John Mazor writes:
>
>> Then they must get a lot of cases that go to court because that's bad science.
>
> They get a lot of cases because some people still cannot prevent themselves
> from drinking and driving. Those people often go to jail. There's nothing
> wrong with the science.

If the law will convict anyone on 0.01% BAC then the law is a ass.

>> You can get a non-zero reading without consuming alcohol, even with
>> lab-grade equipment.
>
> All you have to do is prove that it's not alcohol.

1. One kind of false positive doesn't involve ingestible alcohol.
2. And "consuming" is a clue to a second source of false positives.

>> That's why the FAA allows up to a .02% BAC reading before flying.
>
> It should be zero.

Nope. That would be bad science.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Big John > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 19:39:56 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Mxsmanic > wrote in
:
>>
>>> John Mazor writes:
>>>
>>>> If it is habitual and not a rare event, then yes, but you
>>>> didn't specify that.
>>>
>>> Is daily consumption of alcohol habitual?
>>
>>
>>
>>This from someone who lives in France.
>>
>>In fact, until fairly recently, French pilots were allowed to have a
>>glass of wine with theiir dinner inflight..
>>
>>
>>
>>Fjukkwit.
>>
>>Bertie
> ----------------
>
> Bertie
>
> errata
>
> I was liaison aboard the French Aircraft Carrier, Joan D'Arc (sp) and
> they had two 20,000 gallon stainless tanks built into ship for wine.
> Crew drank 1000 liters of wine each day.
>
> Just glad they were not driving a super tanker.
>
> They figured the wine would last to Australia and there they told me
> they would fill the tanks with Aussie beer to go the rest of the way
> home to France :o)
>
> From my experience, the French turn a blind eye to drinking

They did, but that's all gone now. JARS put an end to that.

Someone did an article in Flying or Air progress years ago where they
reckoned that someone could learn to fly drunk and get to reasonable
competence provided they were drunk 24/7.
Why they looked into this I have no idea, but they actually took someone
who could already fly and started him off from scratch again teaching
him while he was pie eyed.
I have met a guy or two that could have saved them the trouble.


Bertie
>

[Yes - I have a name[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

>
> There's also plenty of information on the Web indicating why it's stupid
to
> take drugs and operate vehicles at the same time.
>

Information on the web is unreliable.

[Mxsmanic]

John Mazor writes:

> If the law will convict anyone on 0.01% BAC then the law is a ass.

Why? Because it inconveniences people who want to take drugs all the time,
even while driving or flying?

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> There's no choice, addicts are not in control. There was a point in
> time when they lost control, but that was in the past and they didn't
> know it then. A person who can at will stop using the drug is not an
> addict by definition.

The first step in overcoming addiction is reasserting control. Addicts who
claim that they have no control over their addictions remain addicts for life
(often a short life).

[Mxsmanic]

Big John writes:

> From my experience, the French turn a blind eye to drinking.

I recall seeing French pilots drinking just before an airline flight, which I
found shocking. Their addictions are strong. Often in the subway in the
morning I encounter people who already reek of alcohol.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Big John writes:
>
>> From my experience, the French turn a blind eye to drinking.
>
> I recall seeing French pilots drinking just before an airline flight,
> which I found shocking.


Really?

Where and when fjukiwt?
Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> John Mazor writes:
>
>> If the law will convict anyone on 0.01% BAC then the law is a ass.
>
> Why? Because it inconveniences people who want to take drugs all the
> time, even while driving or flying?
>

Whoosh,.

Well, it's pretty obvious why you don't feel the need to take drugs,
anyway..





Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Wolfgang Schwanke writes:
>
>> There's no choice, addicts are not in control. There was a point in
>> time when they lost control, but that was in the past and they didn't
>> know it then. A person who can at will stop using the drug is not an
>> addict by definition.
>
> The first step in overcoming addiction is reasserting control.
> Addicts who claim that they have no control over their addictions
> remain addicts for life (often a short life).
>

Oh borhter, now he's a counseler.


Bertie

[nobody[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Addicts who claim that they have no control over their addictions remain
> addicts for life

There is no published report that supports this statement.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

nobody wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Addicts who claim that they have no control over their addictions
>> remain addicts for life
>
> There is no published report that supports this statement.

Not to mention it is exactly opposite the 12 step programs where you MUST
admit that you have no control and turn yourself over to a "Higher Power."

[Mxsmanic]

nobody writes:

> There is no published report that supports this statement.

Why is a published report needed?

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> nobody writes:
>
>> There is no published report that supports this statement.
>
> Why is a published report needed?

Because you are just trolling now, or trying to.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 29, 11:18 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> javawizard writes:
> > A newspaper reporter discovered that 41 commercial airline pilots in
> > Minnesota have had their car drivers' licenses revoked due to drunken
> > driving, yet they are still flying jumbo jets. - from the
> > Transportation section ofwww.odd-info.com
>
> So are they commercial pilots, or commercial pilots who fly 747s? And how
> many such pilots are there in total, for purposes of comparison?
>
> It is a bit odd that the FAA has such strict medicals but still allows pilots
> to take recreational drugs on a regular basis.

Anthony, why do you insist on posting to this forum? Are you a
masochist?

If you like getting reamed so much, why don't you just walk into a gay
bar, drop trou, bend over and yell out "take me, I'm yours". That's
pretty much what you are doing posting here on RAP.

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

> Anthony, why do you insist on posting to this forum? Are you a
> masochist?
>
> If you like getting reamed so much, why don't you just walk into a gay
> bar, drop trou, bend over and yell out "take me, I'm yours". That's
> pretty much what you are doing posting here on RAP.

He will be here until he is ignored, and nobody responds to his posts... and
I fear that will never happen. I don't know why people feel the need to
respond, but respond, they do.

I don't think there is much more time left until there are few left to
respond. Many have already left; more are leaving all the time. Many more
will follow.

It is a pity to see a group lose their focus, all because of one person. I
think that is his primary goal, perhaps. He will never amount to anything
that would allow him to join the flying, so wipe out something that real
pilots enjoy; deprive them of something, because he is deprived of something
they can do.

I have no doubt that if he were to seek mental health professionals, they
would find some real and classifiable conditions, and could be helped to
lead a more normal life, in time. Doubtful that will ever happen, either.

So the status quo continues. He makes stupid posts, people insult him, and
on it goes, where it stops, nobody knows.
--
Jim in NC

[Al G[_1_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote
>
>> Anthony... snip

>
> He will be here until he is ignored, and nobody responds to his posts...
> and I fear that will never happen. I don't know why people feel the need
> to respond, but respond, they do.
>

I agree.


> I don't think there is much more time left until there are few left to
> respond. Many have already left; more are leaving all the time. Many
> more will follow.
>

Agree here too, however, people also check back to see if the smoke has
cleared yet.

> It is a pity to see a group lose their focus, all because of one person.

Not exactly 1 person. Bertie & Mx have enough traffic to set up their
own group.

The people who respond to each and every nonsense post are apprentice
enablers.

I've blocked MX, but when he posts something, there is a veritable storm
of responses by people trying to straighten him out. Why Bother? Who Cares
if MX thinks that he can now tell his ass from a hole in the ground. Why get
all gleeful about telling an idiot he is an idiot? Do these folks think the
idiot listens? Or cares? Bertie claims he can do this forever. So? Why would
anyone want to?

Historically, our ancestors didn't have to worry about entertaining the
MX's of the world. Natural selection kept them out of our way. Now, we are
keeping them alive, for whatever reason, and the rest of us have to deal
with them even if it is only to step over them. If someone wants to play
with them, fine, but do it outside.

Never try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the
pig.

Al G, a real CFI in real aircraft.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> ... why do you insist on posting to this forum? Are you a
> masochist?

No. But I have a great deal of experience dealing with online discussion
forums and I am impervious to personal attacks. I post to and read the
newsgroup because I'm interested in aviation.

> If you like getting reamed so much, why don't you just walk into a gay
> bar, drop trou, bend over and yell out "take me, I'm yours". That's
> pretty much what you are doing posting here on RAP.

Perhaps it seems that way to you, but as I've said, I'm impervious to personal
attacks. Apart from raising the noise level of the newsgroup a bit, they are
insignificant.

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> He will be here until he is ignored, and nobody responds to his posts... and
> I fear that will never happen.

Especially if you admonish people to ignore him after each of his posts.

> I don't know why people feel the need to respond, but respond, they do.

Physician, heal thyself.

> I don't think there is much more time left until there are few left to
> respond. Many have already left; more are leaving all the time. Many more
> will follow.

Actually, there has been no mass exodus, beyond the usual turnover. There may
be one or two who have assumed or will assume a low profile after attempting
things that they should not have. However, the bulk of newsgroup participants
are not bothered by me (or by you) and are completely indifferent to my
participation. It's a big group, and there are only a handful of bullies and
whiners on it, vocal though they might be.

> It is a pity to see a group lose their focus, all because of one person.

For someone who considers me unimportant, you certainly have an exaggerated
notion of my influence.

> I think that is his primary goal, perhaps.

I think that a few people here are irritated with me to the point of
preoccupation. That is their problem, not mine.

It reminds me a bit of an old Hitchcock movie in which the protagonist is
obsessed with knives, and in a dinner-table conversation with others the only
word he ever seems to hear clearly is "knife." The others are not talking
about knives, but that is all he is interested in hearing, so to him the
dinner party is obsessed with cutlery.

> He will never amount to anything
> that would allow him to join the flying, so wipe out something that real
> pilots enjoy; deprive them of something, because he is deprived of something
> they can do.

I'm surprised you haven't thrown in a threat to world peace and prosperity.

> So the status quo continues. He makes stupid posts, people insult him, and
> on it goes, where it stops, nobody knows.

Hmm.

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Morgans wrote:

>I have no doubt that if he were to seek mental health professionals, they
>would find some real and classifiable conditions, and could be helped to
>lead a more normal life, in time. Doubtful that will ever happen, either.

It is obvious that the person identifying himself as "Mxmanic" enjoys some
kind of reward reading abuse directed at him.
He continues to participate in a forum where he receives it.
That is an unfortunate character trait and he would be wise to examine that
tendency.

I agree that the quality of discourse in this forum will improve if entries
by "Mxmanic" are largely ignored.

JMHO as I enjoy this resource and find it has some value apart from the
frequent useless exchanges.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200712/1

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> nobody wrote:
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Addicts who claim that they have no control over their addictions
>>> remain addicts for life
>>
>> There is no published report that supports this statement.
>
> Not to mention it is exactly opposite the 12 step programs where you MUST
> admit that you have no control and turn yourself over to a "Higher Power."

240 Volt?

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> ... why do you insist on posting to this forum? Are you a
>> masochist?
>
> No. But I have a great deal of experience dealing with online discussion
> forums and I am impervious to personal attacks. I post to and read the
> newsgroup because I'm interested in aviation.
>

You're a liar, and anyone that studies your posting habits can easily see
that your only interest is cause confusion and discontent.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:


>
> Actually, there has been no mass exodus, beyond the usual turnover.
> There may be one or two who have assumed or will assume a low profile
> after attempting things that they should not have.


What, like your sockpuppets?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in
news:7c35647343ea6@uwe:

> Morgans wrote:
>
>>I have no doubt that if he were to seek mental health professionals,
>>they would find some real and classifiable conditions, and could be
>>helped to lead a more normal life, in time. Doubtful that will ever
>>happen, either.
>
> It is obvious that the person identifying himself as "Mxmanic" enjoys
> some kind of reward reading abuse directed at him.
> He continues to participate in a forum where he receives it.
> That is an unfortunate character trait and he would be wise to examine
> that tendency.
>


But he won't

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> ... why do you insist on posting to this forum? Are you a
>> masochist?
>
> No. But I have a great deal of experience dealing with online
> discussion forums and I am impervious to personal attacks.


No, you aren't.


I post to
> and read the newsgroup because I'm interested in aviation.


No, you aren't.

>
>> If you like getting reamed so much, why don't you just walk into a
>> gay bar, drop trou, bend over and yell out "take me, I'm yours".
>> That's pretty much what you are doing posting here on RAP.
>
> Perhaps it seems that way to you, but as I've said, I'm impervious to
> personal attacks. Apart from raising the noise level of the newsgroup
> a bit, they are insignificant.



No they aren't


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> writes:
>>
>>> ... why do you insist on posting to this forum? Are you a
>>> masochist?
>>
>> No. But I have a great deal of experience dealing with online
>> discussion forums and I am impervious to personal attacks. I post to
>> and read the newsgroup because I'm interested in aviation.
>>
>
> You're a liar, and anyone that studies your posting habits can easily
> see that your only interest is cause confusion and discontent.
>
>
>

Which he's not very good at either.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> nobody writes:
>
>> There is no published report that supports this statement.
>
> Why is a published report needed?

Because only someone with the IQ of a salamander would take your word for
anything.

Bertie

[Tina]

What do you have against salamanders?

On Dec 5, 7:24 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > nobody writes:
>
> >> There is no published report that supports this statement.
>
> > Why is a published report needed?
>
> Because only someone with the IQ of a salamander would take your word for
> anything.
>
> Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Al G" > wrote in
:

>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote
>>
>>> Anthony... snip
>
>>
>> He will be here until he is ignored, and nobody responds to his
>> posts... and I fear that will never happen. I don't know why people
>> feel the need to respond, but respond, they do.
>>
>
> I agree.
>
>
>> I don't think there is much more time left until there are few left
>> to respond. Many have already left; more are leaving all the time.
>> Many more will follow.
>>
>
> Agree here too, however, people also check back to see if the
> smoke has
> cleared yet.
>
>> It is a pity to see a group lose their focus, all because of one
>> person.
>
> Not exactly 1 person. Bertie & Mx have enough traffic to set up
> their
> own group.
>


I have my own group!

alt.fan.bertie-the-bunyip!


Bertie
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Tina > wrote in
:

> What do you have against salamanders?
>

Bunyips have a history with them.


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> No. But I have a great deal of experience dealing with online
> discussion forums and I am impervious to personal attacks.


With your vast experience could you please point be to one, single online
discussion forum where your opinion is welcome and accepted as having any
merit what so ever?

[Al G[_1_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Al G" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote
>>>
>>>> Anthony... snip
>>
>>>
>>> He will be here until he is ignored, and nobody responds to his
>>> posts... and I fear that will never happen. I don't know why people
>>> feel the need to respond, but respond, they do.
>>>
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>>
>>> I don't think there is much more time left until there are few left
>>> to respond. Many have already left; more are leaving all the time.
>>> Many more will follow.
>>>
>>
>> Agree here too, however, people also check back to see if the
>> smoke has
>> cleared yet.
>>
>>> It is a pity to see a group lose their focus, all because of one
>>> person.
>>
>> Not exactly 1 person. Bertie & Mx have enough traffic to set up
>> their
>> own group.
>>
>
>
> I have my own group!
>
> alt.fan.bertie-the-bunyip!
>
>

Cool. Any chance you and Anthony could wander off into the sunset
somewhere?

Al G

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Al G" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Al G" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> > wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Anthony... snip
>>>
>>>>
>>>> He will be here until he is ignored, and nobody responds to his
>>>> posts... and I fear that will never happen. I don't know why
>>>> people feel the need to respond, but respond, they do.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I don't think there is much more time left until there are few left
>>>> to respond. Many have already left; more are leaving all the time.
>>>> Many more will follow.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agree here too, however, people also check back to see if the
>>> smoke has
>>> cleared yet.
>>>
>>>> It is a pity to see a group lose their focus, all because of one
>>>> person.
>>>
>>> Not exactly 1 person. Bertie & Mx have enough traffic to set up
>>> their
>>> own group.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I have my own group!
>>
>> alt.fan.bertie-the-bunyip!
>>
>>
>
> Cool. Any chance you and Anthony could wander off into the
> sunset
> somewhere?

Well, I can cross post to it, but I doubt Anthony will come. He never
even replies to my posts ;(



Really, though, if you don't know how to use akillfile, you really
should learn.


Bertie

[Doug Carter]

On 2007-12-05, Kloudy via AviationKB.com <u33403@uwe> wrote:

> I agree that the quality of discourse in this forum will improve if entries
> by "Mxmanic" are largely ignored.

You are quite correct. Sadly, many enjoy poking trolls with a stick just to
hear 'em howl. Kinda sick in my opinion.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Doug Carter > wrote in
:

> On 2007-12-05, Kloudy via AviationKB.com <u33403@uwe> wrote:
>
>> I agree that the quality of discourse in this forum will improve if
>> entries by "Mxmanic" are largely ignored.
>
> You are quite correct. Sadly, many enjoy poking trolls with a stick
> just to hear 'em howl. Kinda sick in my opinion.
>


Everyone needs a hobby.

Bertie

[Al G[_1_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Al G" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> "Al G" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> Anthony... snip
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He will be here until he is ignored, and nobody responds to his
>>>>> posts... and I fear that will never happen. I don't know why
>>>>> people feel the need to respond, but respond, they do.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I don't think there is much more time left until there are few left
>>>>> to respond. Many have already left; more are leaving all the time.
>>>>> Many more will follow.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Agree here too, however, people also check back to see if the
>>>> smoke has
>>>> cleared yet.
>>>>
>>>>> It is a pity to see a group lose their focus, all because of one
>>>>> person.
>>>>
>>>> Not exactly 1 person. Bertie & Mx have enough traffic to set up
>>>> their
>>>> own group.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have my own group!
>>>
>>> alt.fan.bertie-the-bunyip!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Cool. Any chance you and Anthony could wander off into the
>> sunset
>> somewhere?
>
> Well, I can cross post to it, but I doubt Anthony will come. He never
> even replies to my posts ;(
>
>
>
> Really, though, if you don't know how to use akillfile, you really
> should learn.
>
>
> Bertie
>
Like I said, I have killed Anthony. It is YOU I'm considering. On
one hand you seem to have genuine knowledge of aircraft and how to stay
alive in them. On the other hand, I have to wade through 30+ "You're an
idiot" messages to read anything you have to say. Maybe you could settle on
some code like "This is a message To/From Idiots", and that way the rest of
us could just filter the crap out.

I have to admit, even the "Idiot" posts have their moment...

From a recent thread:

"Is not."

"Is too."

"Is not."

"Is too."

"Did you just stamp your foot?"



Al G

[Yes - I have a name[_2_]]

"Al G" > wrote in message
...

> Like I said, I have killed Anthony. It is YOU I'm considering. On
> one hand you seem to have genuine knowledge of aircraft and how to stay
> alive in them. On the other hand, I have to wade through 30+ "You're an
> idiot" messages to read anything you have to say. Maybe you could settle
on
> some code like "This is a message To/From Idiots", and that way the rest
of
> us could just filter the crap out.
>

There were instructions posted earlier this year (February, I believe) how
to killfile the eunich and any replies to her posts. It was specific to
Outlook

It was along the lines of:

if the eunich posts, mark the thread as ignored

change settings to not show ignored threads.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> With your vast experience could you please point be to one, single online
> discussion forum where your opinion is welcome and accepted as having any
> merit what so ever?

Many participants do not express an opinion. One should not assume that those
who yell the loudest are necessarily speaking for the silent majority.

[Al G[_1_]]

"Yes - I have a name" > wrote in message
news:cDB5j.8114$gs.1913@trndny08...
> "Al G" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Like I said, I have killed Anthony. It is YOU I'm considering. On
>> one hand you seem to have genuine knowledge of aircraft and how to stay
>> alive in them. On the other hand, I have to wade through 30+ "You're an
>> idiot" messages to read anything you have to say. Maybe you could settle
> on
>> some code like "This is a message To/From Idiots", and that way the rest
> of
>> us could just filter the crap out.
>>
>
> There were instructions posted earlier this year (February, I believe) how
> to killfile the eunich and any replies to her posts. It was specific to
> Outlook
>
> It was along the lines of:
>
> if the eunich posts, mark the thread as ignored
>
> change settings to not show ignored threads.
>
>

Thanks, I remember seeing it at the time, but thought it would remove to
much. I'll re-examine it.

Al G

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Al G" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Al G" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> "Al G" > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anthony... snip
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He will be here until he is ignored, and nobody responds to his
>>>>>> posts... and I fear that will never happen. I don't know why
>>>>>> people feel the need to respond, but respond, they do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think there is much more time left until there are few
>>>>>> left to respond. Many have already left; more are leaving all
>>>>>> the time. Many more will follow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Agree here too, however, people also check back to see if the
>>>>> smoke has
>>>>> cleared yet.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a pity to see a group lose their focus, all because of one
>>>>>> person.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not exactly 1 person. Bertie & Mx have enough traffic to set
>>>>> up their
>>>>> own group.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have my own group!
>>>>
>>>> alt.fan.bertie-the-bunyip!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Cool. Any chance you and Anthony could wander off into the
>>> sunset
>>> somewhere?
>>
>> Well, I can cross post to it, but I doubt Anthony will come. He never
>> even replies to my posts ;(
>>
>>
>>
>> Really, though, if you don't know how to use akillfile, you really
>> should learn.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> Like I said, I have killed Anthony. It is YOU I'm considering.
> On


So killfile me.


> one hand you seem to have genuine knowledge of aircraft and how to
> stay alive in them. On the other hand, I have to wade through 30+
> "You're an idiot" messages to read anything you have to say. Maybe you
> could settle on some code like "This is a message To/From Idiots", and
> that way the rest of us could just filter the crap out.


Used to just use the Bunyip handle for flaming and another for making
"regular " posts, but now I'm too lazy to change my handle from one to
another.

>
> I have to admit, even the "Idiot" posts have their moment...
>
> From a recent thread:
>
> "Is not."
>
> "Is too."
>
> "Is not."
>
> "Is too."
>
> "Did you just stamp your foot?"
>



I'm worth it.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Al G" > wrote in
:

>
> "Yes - I have a name" > wrote in message
> news:cDB5j.8114$gs.1913@trndny08...
>> "Al G" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Like I said, I have killed Anthony. It is YOU I'm
>>> considering. On
>>> one hand you seem to have genuine knowledge of aircraft and how to
>>> stay alive in them. On the other hand, I have to wade through 30+
>>> "You're an idiot" messages to read anything you have to say. Maybe
>>> you could settle
>> on
>>> some code like "This is a message To/From Idiots", and that way the
>>> rest
>> of
>>> us could just filter the crap out.
>>>
>>
>> There were instructions posted earlier this year (February, I
>> believe) how to killfile the eunich and any replies to her posts. It
>> was specific to Outlook
>>
>> It was along the lines of:
>>
>> if the eunich posts, mark the thread as ignored
>>
>> change settings to not show ignored threads.
>>
>>
>
> Thanks, I remember seeing it at the time, but thought it would
> remove to
> much. I'll re-examine it


Well, sometimes people actually have intelligent discussions in the wake
of his posts.

I studiously avoid that for that very reason.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> With your vast experience could you please point be to one, single
>> online discussion forum where your opinion is welcome and accepted as
>> having any merit what so ever?
>
> Many participants do not express an opinion.

I do!

You're an asshole!


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> With your vast experience could you please point be to one, single
>> online discussion forum where your opinion is welcome and accepted
>> as having any merit what so ever?
>
> Many participants do not express an opinion. One should not assume
> that those who yell the loudest are necessarily speaking for the
> silent majority.

Are you completely unable to answer a simple question? Let me repeat.

Please point me to one, single online discussion forum where your opinion is
welcome and accepted as having any merit what so ever?

[[email protected]]

On Dec 5, 12:29 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
> >> With your vast experience could you please point be to one, single
> >> online discussion forum where your opinion is welcome and accepted
> >> as having any merit what so ever?
>
> > Many participants do not express an opinion. One should not assume
> > that those who yell the loudest are necessarily speaking for the
> > silent majority.
>
> Are you completely unable to answer a simple question? Let me repeat.
>
> Please point me to one, single online discussion forum where your opinion is
> welcome and accepted as having any merit what so ever?

You didn't use small enough words for him to understand the question...

[Gig 601XL Builder]

wrote:
> On Dec 5, 12:29 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>>
>>>> With your vast experience could you please point be to one, single
>>>> online discussion forum where your opinion is welcome and accepted
>>>> as having any merit what so ever?
>>
>>> Many participants do not express an opinion. One should not assume
>>> that those who yell the loudest are necessarily speaking for the
>>> silent majority.
>>
>> Are you completely unable to answer a simple question? Let me repeat.
>>
>> Please point me to one, single online discussion forum where your
>> opinion is welcome and accepted as having any merit what so ever?
>
> You didn't use small enough words for him to understand the
> question...

Of course not but if I had asked, "Is there anyone anywhere that likes you
even a little." He would have responded, "I am not interested in
interpersonal relationships." I had to be specific because I really want to
check the place out if it is out there. Talk about a freak show.

[Jim Logajan]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
[ Directed to someone else: ]
> Please point me to one, single online discussion forum where your
> opinion is welcome and accepted as having any merit what so ever?

Heh. I don't know that my opinion, per se, is welcome anywhere. Heck, I
don't think my opinion should be given any merit either. But that's just my
opinion. ;-)

Hmm, maybe I shouldn't mention any of that. :-)