ICAO English requirements changing in 2008?

[Mxsmanic]

If I understand correctly, the ICAO is putting more stringent requirements for
English for pilots and crew into effect on the first of the year. Is that
true? If so, does anyone know where I can find an official description of the
new requirements? Searching the ICAO site pointed me to a zillion different
pages.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> If I understand correctly, the ICAO is putting more stringent
> requirements for English for pilots and crew into effect on the first
> of the year. Is that true? If so, does anyone know where I can find
> an official description of the new requirements? Searching the ICAO
> site pointed me to a zillion different pages.
>

Why, you think of learning English? Probably a wise move since I don't
think Crap is going to become an ICAO language anytime soon.

Bertie

[RST Engineering]

Goddamn it Bertie, the man is a jerk, no doubt about it. But when he
doesn't come off as a pompous ass, and the question is phrased in good form,
either answer the man directly, but if you are ignorant of the answer as you
appear to be, just let it drop. Giving him grief for a well thought out
question is a sure way to make it indistinguishable to him the difference
between honest questions and most of his postings. Remember Psych 1? Or
the Fundamentals Of Learning?

It vaguely reminds me of the English Lord High Judge that passed a beggar
who had been in his court a few times for minor offenses. He pointed his
cane at him and said, "There is a rogue at the end of my cane." The beggar
said, "And at which end would that be, m'lord?"

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> If I understand correctly, the ICAO is putting more stringent
>> requirements for English for pilots and crew into effect on the first
>> of the year. Is that true? If so, does anyone know where I can find
>> an official description of the new requirements? Searching the ICAO
>> site pointed me to a zillion different pages.
>>
>
> Why, you think of learning English? Probably a wise move since I don't
> think Crap is going to become an ICAO language anytime soon.
>
> Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in
:

> Goddamn it Bertie, the man is a jerk, no doubt about it. But when he
> doesn't come off as a pompous ass, and the question is phrased in good
> form, either answer the man directly, but if you are ignorant of the
> answer as you appear to be, just let it drop.


Actuaslly, I know he answer.

Giving him grief for a
> well thought out question is a sure way to make it indistinguishable
> to him the difference between honest questions and most of his
> postings. Remember Psych 1? Or the Fundamentals Of Learning?
>

Yep.



> It vaguely reminds me of the English Lord High Judge that passed a
> beggar who had been in his court a few times for minor offenses. He
> pointed his cane at him and said, "There is a rogue at the end of my
> cane." The beggar said, "And at which end would that be, m'lord?"


Mmm, yes, Good story.

Bertie

[nobody[_2_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Goddamn it Bertie, the man is a jerk, no doubt about it. But when he
> doesn't come off as a pompous ass, and the question is phrased in good
> form, either answer the man directly, but if you are ignorant of the
> answer as you appear to be, just let it drop.

Every one of the trolls threads start this way. A simple 'honest' question.
She's very predictable.

Bertie's actually performing a public service, letting anyone who may be
tempted to answer her that they are inviting a flame war.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:15:46 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>If I understand correctly, the ICAO is putting more stringent requirements for
>English for pilots and crew into effect on the first of the year. Is that
>true? If so, does anyone know where I can find an official description of the
>new requirements? Searching the ICAO site pointed me to a zillion different
>pages.


http://www.rmitenglishworldwide.com/icao.html
The ICAO Language Proficiency Requirements
How have the language requirements for pilots and air traffic
controllers changed?
In September 2003 the International Civil Aviation Organisation
(ICAO), a division within the United Nations, announced changes to
provisions strengthening language proficiency requirements. These
requirements will come into effect from March 2008. These changes mean
that for the first time, all pilots operating on international routes
and all air traffic controllers who communicate with foreign pilots
will need to have their English language proficiency formally
assessed. The ICAO language proficiency requirement requires that
pilots and air traffic controllers be able to communicate proficiently
using both ICAO phraseology (ICAO Doc. 9832) and plain English (ICAO
Doc. 9835).

ICAO has established six levels of language proficiency:

ICAO Level 6: Expert
ICAO Level 5: Extended
ICAO Level 4: Operational
ICAO Level 3: Pre-Operational
ICAO Level 2: Elementary
ICAO Level 1: Pre-Elementary

The minimum language level for licensing purposes is ICAO Level 4.
To be assessed at ICAO Level 4 or above, a pilot or air traffic
controller must achieve Level 4 in all six of the ICAO skill areas:
Pronunciation, Structure, Vocabulary, Fluency, Comprehension and
Interactions. In other words, if a test candidate is assessed as ICAO
Level 4 in five of the six skill areas, but ICAO Level 3 in one area,
then, according to the ICAO requirement, they are assessed as ICAO
Level 3.

Where are the ICAO language proficiency requirements documented?
The strengthening of the provisions occurs as a result of changes
to ICAO Standard and Recommended Practices (SARPs) in several Annexes:
....

[Matt Whiting]

RST Engineering wrote:
> Goddamn it Bertie, the man is a jerk, no doubt about it. But when he
> doesn't come off as a pompous ass, and the question is phrased in good form,
> either answer the man directly, but if you are ignorant of the answer as you
> appear to be, just let it drop. Giving him grief for a well thought out
> question is a sure way to make it indistinguishable to him the difference
> between honest questions and most of his postings. Remember Psych 1? Or
> the Fundamentals Of Learning?

Jim,

I solved this problem by kill filtering Bertie shortly after filtering
MX. With MX filtered I was still seeing virtually all of his posts
since Bertie lacks the self-control to refrain from responding it every
single post MX makes. Once I filtered them both, things returned almost
to normal ... at least as normal as r.a.p gets these days.

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> RST Engineering wrote:
>> Goddamn it Bertie, the man is a jerk, no doubt about it. But when he
>> doesn't come off as a pompous ass, and the question is phrased in
>> good form, either answer the man directly, but if you are ignorant of
>> the answer as you appear to be, just let it drop. Giving him grief
>> for a well thought out question is a sure way to make it
>> indistinguishable to him the difference between honest questions and
>> most of his postings. Remember Psych 1? Or the Fundamentals Of
>> Learning?
>
> Jim,
>
> I solved this problem by kill filtering Bertie shortly after filtering
> MX. With MX filtered I was still seeing virtually all of his posts
> since Bertie lacks the self-control to refrain from responding it
> every single post MX makes. Once I filtered them both, things
> returned almost to normal ... at least as normal as r.a.p gets these
> days.
>

Why would I want to restrain myself? I only came here to troll him in the
first place..




Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> http://www.rmitenglishworldwide.com/icao.html

Excellent! Thanks.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 03:02:00 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote in >:

>> I solved this problem by kill filtering Bertie shortly after filtering
>> MX. With MX filtered I was still seeing virtually all of his posts
>> since Bertie lacks the self-control to refrain from responding it
>> every single post MX makes. Once I filtered them both, things
>> returned almost to normal ... at least as normal as r.a.p gets these
>> days.
>>
>
>Why would I want to restrain myself? I only came here to troll him in the
>first place..
>
>Bertie

How does your trolling Mr. A. contribute to improving the newsgroup's
signal to noise ratio?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> http://www.rmitenglishworldwide.com/icao.html
>
> Excellent! Thanks.
>

Awww, aren't we a nice little camper.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 03:02:00 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote in >:
>
>>> I solved this problem by kill filtering Bertie shortly after
>>> filtering MX. With MX filtered I was still seeing virtually all of
>>> his posts since Bertie lacks the self-control to refrain from
>>> responding it every single post MX makes. Once I filtered them
>>> both, things returned almost to normal ... at least as normal as
>>> r.a.p gets these days.
>>>
>>
>>Why would I want to restrain myself? I only came here to troll him in
>>the first place..
>>
>>Bertie
>
> How does your trolling Mr. A. contribute to improving the newsgroup's
> signal to noise ratio?
>
>

It doesn't. Why would you imagine it would?

You;re not to smart, are you Larry?


Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> Why would I want to restrain myself? I only came here to troll him in the
> first place..

And to go Brit Bashing :D

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> Why would I want to restrain myself? I only came here to troll him in
>> the first place..
>
> And to go Brit Bashing :D
>

Nah, not that many here. It's only a bonus! I get to wind up plenty RL.
It;'s a funny thing, though. Brits seem to fall into several distinct
categories that way.
Some just ask for it and they are extremely satisfying and unbelievably
easy to wind up.
Some ask for it and it sails over their heads.
Some are just too scary to wind up.
Some it just kind of fizzles out or i feel bad for doing it after.
But with some it never even crosses my mind to wind them up.



Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
>> And to go Brit Bashing :D
>>
>
> Nah, not that many here. It's only a bonus! I get to wind up plenty RL.
> It;'s a funny thing, though. Brits seem to fall into several distinct
> categories that way.
> Some just ask for it and they are extremely satisfying and unbelievably
> easy to wind up.
> Some ask for it and it sails over their heads.
> Some are just too scary to wind up.
> Some it just kind of fizzles out or i feel bad for doing it after.
> But with some it never even crosses my mind to wind them up.

Hmm...I wonder which category you've put me into? :)

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>>> And to go Brit Bashing :D
>>>
>>
>> Nah, not that many here. It's only a bonus! I get to wind up plenty RL.
>> It;'s a funny thing, though. Brits seem to fall into several distinct
>> categories that way.
>> Some just ask for it and they are extremely satisfying and unbelievably
>> easy to wind up.
>> Some ask for it and it sails over their heads.
>> Some are just too scary to wind up.
>> Some it just kind of fizzles out or i feel bad for doing it after.
>> But with some it never even crosses my mind to wind them up.
>
> Hmm...I wonder which category you've put me into? :)
>

Well, either 4 or 5. Usenet is different because there's no physical first
impression. You'd have probably been 5 if i had met you in person. Hard to
know though..


Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:04:22 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>
>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 03:02:00 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>>>> I solved this problem by kill filtering Bertie shortly after
>>>> filtering MX. With MX filtered I was still seeing virtually all of
>>>> his posts since Bertie lacks the self-control to refrain from
>>>> responding it every single post MX makes. Once I filtered them
>>>> both, things returned almost to normal ... at least as normal as
>>>> r.a.p gets these days.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Why would I want to restrain myself? I only came here to troll him in
>>>the first place..
>>>
>>>Bertie
>>
>> How does your trolling Mr. A. contribute to improving the newsgroup's
>> signal to noise ratio?
>>
>>
>
>It doesn't.

So you publicly admit that your intent in stalking Mr. A. is to
negatively impact the quality of the newsgroup by lowering the
newsgroup's signal-to-noise ratio?

>Why would you imagine it would?

Because a good netizen worthy of participation in this
world's-most-egalitarian-forum strives to improve Usenet as part of
the implicit licence granted to Usenet participants by the computer
system owners who freely donate their valuable labor and computing
resources for the noble cause that is Usenet. Usenet provides an
opportunity for mankind to demonstrate our capacity for
self-governance, the foundation of democracy. If instead we embrace
anarchy and devolution, we pathetically, publicly, parade our low,
uncivilized, brutish, feral and undignified ignobility before the
world, and shame those praiseworthy creators of Usenet upon whose
faith in the honorable capacity of mankind to act responsibly and
enlightened it rests.

>You;re not to smart, are you Larry?
>

My head may stuffed with straw, but fortunately I am smart enough not
to resort to insults in a feeble attempt to demean those who expose my
faults, for personal attacks only serve to reveal a lack of expressive
ability and cognitive resources.

>
>Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:04:22 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote in >:
>
>>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 03:02:00 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>> wrote in >:
>>>
>>>>> I solved this problem by kill filtering Bertie shortly after
>>>>> filtering MX. With MX filtered I was still seeing virtually all
of
>>>>> his posts since Bertie lacks the self-control to refrain from
>>>>> responding it every single post MX makes. Once I filtered them
>>>>> both, things returned almost to normal ... at least as normal as
>>>>> r.a.p gets these days.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why would I want to restrain myself? I only came here to troll him
in
>>>>the first place..
>>>>
>>>>Bertie
>>>
>>> How does your trolling Mr. A. contribute to improving the
newsgroup's
>>> signal to noise ratio?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>It doesn't.
>
> So you publicly admit that your intent in stalking Mr. A. is to
> negatively impact the quality of the newsgroup by lowering the
> newsgroup's signal-to-noise ratio?
>

Nope. You ever work for Fox?


>>Why would you imagine it would?
>
> Because a good netizen worthy of participation in this
> world's-most-egalitarian-forum strives to improve Usenet as part of
> the implicit licence granted to Usenet participants by the computer
> system owners who freely donate their valuable labor and computing
> resources for the noble cause that is Usenet. Usenet provides an
> opportunity for mankind to demonstrate our capacity for
> self-governance, the foundation of democracy. If instead we embrace
> anarchy and devolution, we pathetically, publicly, parade our low,
> uncivilized, brutish, feral and undignified ignobility before the
> world, and shame those praiseworthy creators of Usenet upon whose
> faith in the honorable capacity of mankind to act responsibly and
> enlightened it rests.


So what's your point here?

>
>>You;re not to smart, are you Larry?
>>
>
> My head may stuffed with straw, but fortunately I am smart enough not
> to resort to insults in a feeble attempt to demean those who expose my
> faults, for personal attacks only serve to reveal a lack of expressive
> ability and cognitive resources.
>
>>

But you're not smart enough to kill-file me even though I told you to
months ago..



Go figure.

Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:52:12 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>
>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:04:22 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>>>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 03:02:00 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>>> wrote in >:
>>>>
>>>>>> I solved this problem by kill filtering Bertie shortly after
>>>>>> filtering MX. With MX filtered I was still seeing virtually all
>of
>>>>>> his posts since Bertie lacks the self-control to refrain from
>>>>>> responding it every single post MX makes. Once I filtered them
>>>>>> both, things returned almost to normal ... at least as normal as
>>>>>> r.a.p gets these days.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Why would I want to restrain myself? I only came here to troll him
>in
>>>>>the first place..
>>>>>
>>>>>Bertie
>>>>
>>>> How does your trolling Mr. A. contribute to improving the
>newsgroup's
>>>> signal to noise ratio?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>It doesn't.
>>
>> So you publicly admit that your intent in stalking Mr. A. is to
>> negatively impact the quality of the newsgroup by lowering the
>> newsgroup's signal-to-noise ratio?
>>
>
>Nope.

Are you capable of perceiving that your trolling negatively impacts
the newsgroup's signal-to-noise ratio, or are you so self-absorbed
with your own emotional issues, that you are blind to the negative
impact your trolling causes? Are you so arrogant, that you feel that
the selfish joy you seek by trolling is more important than the good
of the newsgroup, and those fellow airmen among the readership of this
newsgroup who freely give of their knowledge and experience out of a
sense of camaraderie and goodwill toward their fellows?

Are your true motives for lowering the newsgroup's signal-to-noise
ratio a surreptitious attack to disrupt the dignity of this forum, and
drive away the valiant and altruistic contributors just to prove you
possess the power, all motivated by your self-perceived
ineffectiveness and inferiority? You're a bigger person than that,
aren't you?

>You ever work for Fox?
>
No.
>
>>>Why would you imagine it would?
>>
>> Because a good netizen worthy of participation in this
>> world's-most-egalitarian-forum strives to improve Usenet as part of
>> the implicit licence granted to Usenet participants by the computer
>> system owners who freely donate their valuable labor and computing
>> resources for the noble cause that is Usenet. Usenet provides an
>> opportunity for mankind to demonstrate our capacity for
>> self-governance, the foundation of democracy. If instead we embrace
>> anarchy and devolution, we pathetically, publicly, parade our low,
>> uncivilized, brutish, feral and undignified ignobility before the
>> world, and shame those praiseworthy creators of Usenet upon whose
>> faith in the honorable capacity of mankind to act responsibly and
>> enlightened it rests.
>
>
>So what's your point here?
>

The point you seem incapable of grasping is that your off-topic,
inane, badgering articles are beneath the dignity of humankind, not to
mention your fellow airmen. But you're just trolling me now ...

>>
>>>You;re not to smart, are you Larry?
>>>
>>
>> My head may be stuffed with straw, but fortunately I am smart enough not
>> to resort to insults in a feeble attempt to demean those who expose my
>> faults, for personal attacks only serve to reveal a lack of expressive
>> ability and cognitive resources.
>>
>>>
>
>But you're not smart enough to kill-file me even though I told you to
>months ago..
>

I prefer not to stick my head in the sand, thank you. And you
occasionally contribute worthy content, that I might miss if I were to
mask your articles from view.

>
>Go figure.
>
>Bertie

The way I figure it, you are a bit of a coward to conceal your true
identity behind a pseudonym when you attack other Usenet participants.
Why do you lack the courage and honesty to stand tall and take
responsibility for your actions? What do you fear? Are you
emotionally inferior to those who find no necessity for hiding? Such
malicious mischief cloaked in deceit is the mark of a simple child or
a roguish robber. Is deceit and cowardice really part of your true
nature? I prefer to think not, for you are a fellow airman, and I
know you are capable of exercising desecration and responsibility as
all airmen must.

So let's all take this opportunity to put our personal, petty
disagreements and prejudice feelings aside for the new year, and
embrace forgiveness and fellowship from here on.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:52:12 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote in >:
>
>>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:04:22 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>>> > wrote in >:
>>>
>>>>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 03:02:00 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>>>> wrote in >:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I solved this problem by kill filtering Bertie shortly after
>>>>>>> filtering MX. With MX filtered I was still seeing virtually all
>>of
>>>>>>> his posts since Bertie lacks the self-control to refrain from
>>>>>>> responding it every single post MX makes. Once I filtered them
>>>>>>> both, things returned almost to normal ... at least as normal as
>>>>>>> r.a.p gets these days.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why would I want to restrain myself? I only came here to troll him
>>in
>>>>>>the first place..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>> How does your trolling Mr. A. contribute to improving the
>>newsgroup's
>>>>> signal to noise ratio?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't.
>>>
>>> So you publicly admit that your intent in stalking Mr. A. is to
>>> negatively impact the quality of the newsgroup by lowering the
>>> newsgroup's signal-to-noise ratio?
>>>
>>
>>Nope.
>
> Are you capable of perceiving that your trolling negatively impacts
> the newsgroup's signal-to-noise ratio, or are you so self-absorbed
> with your own emotional issues, that you are blind to the negative
> impact your trolling causes? Are you so arrogant, that you feel that
> the selfish joy you seek by trolling is more important than the good
> of the newsgroup, and those fellow airmen among the readership of this
> newsgroup who freely give of their knowledge and experience out of a
> sense of camaraderie and goodwill toward their fellows?
>
> Are your true motives for lowering the newsgroup's signal-to-noise
> ratio a surreptitious attack to disrupt the dignity of this forum, and
> drive away the valiant and altruistic contributors just to prove you
> possess the power, all motivated by your self-perceived
> ineffectiveness and inferiority? You're a bigger person than that,
> aren't you?
>
>>You ever work for Fox?
>>
> No.
>>
>>>>Why would you imagine it would?
>>>
>>> Because a good netizen worthy of participation in this
>>> world's-most-egalitarian-forum strives to improve Usenet as part of
>>> the implicit licence granted to Usenet participants by the computer
>>> system owners who freely donate their valuable labor and computing
>>> resources for the noble cause that is Usenet. Usenet provides an
>>> opportunity for mankind to demonstrate our capacity for
>>> self-governance, the foundation of democracy. If instead we embrace
>>> anarchy and devolution, we pathetically, publicly, parade our low,
>>> uncivilized, brutish, feral and undignified ignobility before the
>>> world, and shame those praiseworthy creators of Usenet upon whose
>>> faith in the honorable capacity of mankind to act responsibly and
>>> enlightened it rests.
>>
>>
>>So what's your point here?
>>
>
> The point you seem incapable of grasping is that your off-topic,
> inane, badgering articles are beneath the dignity of humankind, not to
> mention your fellow airmen. But you're just trolling me now ...
>
>>>
>>>>You;re not to smart, are you Larry?
>>>>
>>>
>>> My head may be stuffed with straw, but fortunately I am smart enough
>>> not to resort to insults in a feeble attempt to demean those who
>>> expose my faults, for personal attacks only serve to reveal a lack
>>> of expressive ability and cognitive resources.
>>>
>>>>
>>
>>But you're not smart enough to kill-file me even though I told you to
>>months ago..
>>
>
> I prefer not to stick my head in the sand, thank you. And you
> occasionally contribute worthy content, that I might miss if I were to
> mask your articles from view.
>
>>
>>Go figure.
>>
>>Bertie
>
> The way I figure it, you are a bit of a coward to conceal your true
> identity behind a pseudonym when you attack other Usenet participants.
> Why do you lack the courage and honesty to stand tall and take
> responsibility for your actions? What do you fear? Are you
> emotionally inferior to those who find no necessity for hiding? Such
> malicious mischief cloaked in deceit is the mark of a simple child or
> a roguish robber. Is deceit and cowardice really part of your true
> nature? I prefer to think not, for you are a fellow airman, and I
> know you are capable of exercising desecration and responsibility as
> all airmen must.


Well, then what's your problem?



>
> So let's all take this opportunity to put our personal, petty
> disagreements and prejudice feelings aside for the new year, and
> embrace forgiveness and fellowship from here on.


Oh go **** yourslef Larry,.

You don't like me, then killfile me or shut the **** up.


You're a netkkkop, period.




Bertie
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:12:15 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>
>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:52:12 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>>>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:04:22 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>>>> > wrote in >:
>>>>
>>>>>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 03:02:00 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>>>>> wrote in >:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I solved this problem by kill filtering Bertie shortly after
>>>>>>>> filtering MX. With MX filtered I was still seeing virtually all
>>>of
>>>>>>>> his posts since Bertie lacks the self-control to refrain from
>>>>>>>> responding it every single post MX makes. Once I filtered them
>>>>>>>> both, things returned almost to normal ... at least as normal as
>>>>>>>> r.a.p gets these days.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why would I want to restrain myself? I only came here to troll him
>>>in
>>>>>>>the first place..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bertie
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How does your trolling Mr. A. contribute to improving the
>>>newsgroup's
>>>>>> signal to noise ratio?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It doesn't.
>>>>
>>>> So you publicly admit that your intent in stalking Mr. A. is to
>>>> negatively impact the quality of the newsgroup by lowering the
>>>> newsgroup's signal-to-noise ratio?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Nope.
>>
>> Are you capable of perceiving that your trolling negatively impacts
>> the newsgroup's signal-to-noise ratio, or are you so self-absorbed
>> with your own emotional issues, that you are blind to the negative
>> impact your trolling causes? Are you so arrogant, that you feel that
>> the selfish joy you seek by trolling is more important than the good
>> of the newsgroup, and those fellow airmen among the readership of this
>> newsgroup who freely give of their knowledge and experience out of a
>> sense of camaraderie and goodwill toward their fellows?
>>
>> Are your true motives for lowering the newsgroup's signal-to-noise
>> ratio a surreptitious attack to disrupt the dignity of this forum, and
>> drive away the valiant and altruistic contributors just to prove you
>> possess the power, all motivated by your self-perceived
>> ineffectiveness and inferiority? You're a bigger person than that,
>> aren't you?
>>
>>>You ever work for Fox?
>>>
>> No.
>>>
>>>>>Why would you imagine it would?
>>>>
>>>> Because a good netizen worthy of participation in this
>>>> world's-most-egalitarian-forum strives to improve Usenet as part of
>>>> the implicit licence granted to Usenet participants by the computer
>>>> system owners who freely donate their valuable labor and computing
>>>> resources for the noble cause that is Usenet. Usenet provides an
>>>> opportunity for mankind to demonstrate our capacity for
>>>> self-governance, the foundation of democracy. If instead we embrace
>>>> anarchy and devolution, we pathetically, publicly, parade our low,
>>>> uncivilized, brutish, feral and undignified ignobility before the
>>>> world, and shame those praiseworthy creators of Usenet upon whose
>>>> faith in the honorable capacity of mankind to act responsibly and
>>>> enlightened it rests.
>>>
>>>
>>>So what's your point here?
>>>
>>
>> The point you seem incapable of grasping is that your off-topic,
>> inane, badgering articles are beneath the dignity of humankind, not to
>> mention your fellow airmen. But you're just trolling me now ...
>>
>>>>
>>>>>You;re not to smart, are you Larry?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My head may be stuffed with straw, but fortunately I am smart enough
>>>> not to resort to insults in a feeble attempt to demean those who
>>>> expose my faults, for personal attacks only serve to reveal a lack
>>>> of expressive ability and cognitive resources.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>But you're not smart enough to kill-file me even though I told you to
>>>months ago..
>>>
>>
>> I prefer not to stick my head in the sand, thank you. And you
>> occasionally contribute worthy content, that I might miss if I were to
>> mask your articles from view.
>>
>>>
>>>Go figure.
>>>
>>>Bertie
>>
>> The way I figure it, you are a bit of a coward to conceal your true
>> identity behind a pseudonym when you attack other Usenet participants.
>> Why do you lack the courage and honesty to stand tall and take
>> responsibility for your actions? What do you fear? Are you
>> emotionally inferior to those who find no necessity for hiding? Such
>> malicious mischief cloaked in deceit is the mark of a simple child or
>> a roguish robber. Is deceit and cowardice really part of your true
>> nature? I prefer to think not, for you are a fellow airman, and I
>> know you are capable of exercising desecration and responsibility as
>> all airmen must.
>
>
>Well, then what's your problem?

You haven't been paying attention, or you lack the reading
comprehension skills necessary to understand the concepts I have
provided for you.
>
>>
>> So let's all take this opportunity to put our personal, petty
>> disagreements and prejudice feelings aside for the new year, and
>> embrace forgiveness and fellowship from here on.
>
>
>Oh go **** yourslef Larry,.
>

So you are so full of rage and indignation, that you are incapable of
conducting yourself civilly. Very disappointing....

>
>You don't like me, then killfile me or shut the **** up.
>
It's not an issue of enmity or affection; it's all about the
destruction you are perpetrating while cowering behind a false
persona. Your trolling behavior is childish, and unbecoming an
airman; I don't know whether to attribute it to emotional immaturity
or the onset of dementia.
>
>You're a netkkkop, period.
>
That's the beauty of Usenet, we are all free to express our opinions.
There is no central controlling authority, no censorship, only the
belief that mankind is capable of self-governance. Some participants
are destructive, and some are constructive, but we _ALL_ deserve
respect.

You seem to be taking this opportunity to demonstrate your
unworthiness to forego your petty emotional needs for the greater good
of the other newsgroup participants. You know you're wrong, and your
lack of a rational argument to support your actions, and your descent
into profanity only serve to publicly reveal your pathetic inability
to mount a credible defense for your cowardice and destructive
behavior. Your pseudonym won't shield you from that.
>
>Bertie

Please accept my sincere wish for a happy new year.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:12:15 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote in >:
>
>>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:52:12 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>> wrote in >:
>>>
>>>>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:04:22 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>>>>> > wrote in >:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 03:02:00 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>>>>>> wrote in >:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I solved this problem by kill filtering Bertie shortly after
>>>>>>>>> filtering MX. With MX filtered I was still seeing virtually
all
>>>>of
>>>>>>>>> his posts since Bertie lacks the self-control to refrain from
>>>>>>>>> responding it every single post MX makes. Once I filtered
them
>>>>>>>>> both, things returned almost to normal ... at least as normal
as
>>>>>>>>> r.a.p gets these days.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Why would I want to restrain myself? I only came here to troll
him
>>>>in
>>>>>>>>the first place..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Bertie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How does your trolling Mr. A. contribute to improving the
>>>>newsgroup's
>>>>>>> signal to noise ratio?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It doesn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you publicly admit that your intent in stalking Mr. A. is to
>>>>> negatively impact the quality of the newsgroup by lowering the
>>>>> newsgroup's signal-to-noise ratio?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nope.
>>>
>>> Are you capable of perceiving that your trolling negatively impacts
>>> the newsgroup's signal-to-noise ratio, or are you so self-absorbed
>>> with your own emotional issues, that you are blind to the negative
>>> impact your trolling causes? Are you so arrogant, that you feel
that
>>> the selfish joy you seek by trolling is more important than the good
>>> of the newsgroup, and those fellow airmen among the readership of
this
>>> newsgroup who freely give of their knowledge and experience out of a
>>> sense of camaraderie and goodwill toward their fellows?
>>>
>>> Are your true motives for lowering the newsgroup's signal-to-noise
>>> ratio a surreptitious attack to disrupt the dignity of this forum,
and
>>> drive away the valiant and altruistic contributors just to prove you
>>> possess the power, all motivated by your self-perceived
>>> ineffectiveness and inferiority? You're a bigger person than that,
>>> aren't you?
>>>
>>>>You ever work for Fox?
>>>>
>>> No.
>>>>
>>>>>>Why would you imagine it would?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because a good netizen worthy of participation in this
>>>>> world's-most-egalitarian-forum strives to improve Usenet as part
of
>>>>> the implicit licence granted to Usenet participants by the
computer
>>>>> system owners who freely donate their valuable labor and computing
>>>>> resources for the noble cause that is Usenet. Usenet provides an
>>>>> opportunity for mankind to demonstrate our capacity for
>>>>> self-governance, the foundation of democracy. If instead we
embrace
>>>>> anarchy and devolution, we pathetically, publicly, parade our low,
>>>>> uncivilized, brutish, feral and undignified ignobility before the
>>>>> world, and shame those praiseworthy creators of Usenet upon whose
>>>>> faith in the honorable capacity of mankind to act responsibly and
>>>>> enlightened it rests.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So what's your point here?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The point you seem incapable of grasping is that your off-topic,
>>> inane, badgering articles are beneath the dignity of humankind, not
to
>>> mention your fellow airmen. But you're just trolling me now ...
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>You;re not to smart, are you Larry?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My head may be stuffed with straw, but fortunately I am smart
enough
>>>>> not to resort to insults in a feeble attempt to demean those who
>>>>> expose my faults, for personal attacks only serve to reveal a lack
>>>>> of expressive ability and cognitive resources.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>But you're not smart enough to kill-file me even though I told you
to
>>>>months ago..
>>>>
>>>
>>> I prefer not to stick my head in the sand, thank you. And you
>>> occasionally contribute worthy content, that I might miss if I were
to
>>> mask your articles from view.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Go figure.
>>>>
>>>>Bertie
>>>
>>> The way I figure it, you are a bit of a coward to conceal your true
>>> identity behind a pseudonym when you attack other Usenet
participants.
>>> Why do you lack the courage and honesty to stand tall and take
>>> responsibility for your actions? What do you fear? Are you
>>> emotionally inferior to those who find no necessity for hiding?
Such
>>> malicious mischief cloaked in deceit is the mark of a simple child
or
>>> a roguish robber. Is deceit and cowardice really part of your true
>>> nature? I prefer to think not, for you are a fellow airman, and I
>>> know you are capable of exercising desecration and responsibility as
>>> all airmen must.
>>
>>
>>Well, then what's your problem?
>
> You haven't been paying attention, or you lack the reading
> comprehension skills necessary to understand the concepts I have
> provided for you.
>>
>>>
>>> So let's all take this opportunity to put our personal, petty
>>> disagreements and prejudice feelings aside for the new year, and
>>> embrace forgiveness and fellowship from here on.
>>
>>
>>Oh go **** yourslef Larry,.
>>
>
> So you are so full of rage and indignation, that you are incapable of
> conducting yourself civilly. Very disappointing....
>
>>
>>You don't like me, then killfile me or shut the **** up.
>>
> It's not an issue of enmity or affection; it's all about the
> destruction you are perpetrating while cowering behind a false
> persona. Your trolling behavior is childish, and unbecoming an
> airman; I don't know whether to attribute it to emotional immaturity
> or the onset of dementia.
>>
>>You're a netkkkop, period.
>>
> That's the beauty of Usenet, we are all free to express our opinions.
> There is no central controlling authority, no censorship, only the
> belief that mankind is capable of self-governance. Some participants
> are destructive, and some are constructive, but we _ALL_ deserve
> respect.
>
> You seem to be taking this opportunity to demonstrate your
> unworthiness to forego your petty emotional needs for the greater good
> of the other newsgroup participants.



Physician, heal thyself.

he who wold remove a spliner from another's eye would do wel to remove
the log form his own

I know you are but waht am I?


> You know you're wrong, and your
> lack of a rational argument to support your actions, and your descent
> into profanity only serve to publicly reveal your pathetic inability
> to mount a credible defense for your cowardice and destructive
> behavior. Your pseudonym won't shield you from that.
>>

Bwawhawhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwha hwhaw!

Shield me?

Bwawhahwhahwahhwahhwha!

You're cluelss :larry, Many people here know exactly who I am.


As to a descent into profanity, I use it where appropriate, djikkhed.





>>Bertie
>
> Please accept my sincere wish for a happy new year.
>

Please accept my invitation to go **** yourself.


Bertie
>

[Dave[_3_]]

So far.....


Bertie - 0
Nobody - 0
Larry - 5
RST - 1(+ Bonus)
MX - 2

:)

D.



On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:15:46 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>If I understand correctly, the ICAO is putting more stringent requirements for
>English for pilots and crew into effect on the first of the year. Is that
>true? If so, does anyone know where I can find an official description of the
>new requirements? Searching the ICAO site pointed me to a zillion different
>pages.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dave > wrote in
:

> So far.....
>
>
> Bertie - 0
> Nobody - 0
> Larry - 5
> RST - 1(+ Bonus)
> MX - 2
>

Jesus cried, wept and died. I guess he went up to heaven.


Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
>>> Some just ask for it and they are extremely satisfying and unbelievably
>>> easy to wind up.
>>> Some ask for it and it sails over their heads.
>>> Some are just too scary to wind up.
>>> Some it just kind of fizzles out or i feel bad for doing it after.
>>> But with some it never even crosses my mind to wind them up.
>>
>> Hmm...I wonder which category you've put me into? :)
>>
>
> Well, either 4 or 5. Usenet is different because there's no physical first
> impression. You'd have probably been 5 if i had met you in person. Hard to
> know though..

So, you either feel sorry for me, or it'd never have crossed your mind to
wind me up?

I suspect if you *had* met me in person, it is unlikely to have been the
latter :)

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>>>> Some just ask for it and they are extremely satisfying and
>>>> unbelievably easy to wind up.
>>>> Some ask for it and it sails over their heads.
>>>> Some are just too scary to wind up.
>>>> Some it just kind of fizzles out or i feel bad for doing it after.
>>>> But with some it never even crosses my mind to wind them up.
>>>
>>> Hmm...I wonder which category you've put me into? :)
>>>
>>
>> Well, either 4 or 5. Usenet is different because there's no physical
>> first impression. You'd have probably been 5 if i had met you in
>> person. Hard to know though..
>
> So, you either feel sorry for me, or it'd never have crossed your mind
> to wind me up?
>
> I suspect if you *had* met me in person, it is unlikely to have been
> the latter :)
>

He he! Mebbe!

Hard to know..

Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> He he! Mebbe!
>
> Hard to know..

Indeed. I find that the impression I get of people from the Internet is
almost certainly nothing like what they're like in real life...

Is this where we all start becoming 'facebook' friends just to see what we
look like? :)

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> He he! Mebbe!
>>
>> Hard to know..
>
> Indeed. I find that the impression I get of people from the Internet
> is almost certainly nothing like what they're like in real life...
>
> Is this where we all start becoming 'facebook' friends just to see
> what we look like? :)


Well there are one or two here who know waht I look like and at least one
who knows me RL> Am I the same RL, Rich?



Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:

> Well there are one or two here who know waht I look like and at least one
> who knows me RL> Am I the same RL, Rich?

Good god, I hope not! If you are the same, I can see now why they keep the
cockpit door firmly locked these days!

:)

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>
>> Well there are one or two here who know waht I look like and at least
>> one who knows me RL> Am I the same RL, Rich?
>
> Good god, I hope not! If you are the same, I can see now why they keep
> the cockpit door firmly locked these days!
>

Well, I have been told I do frighten some people!
usually idiot FOs who try and bull**** me.


Bertie

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Andy Hawkins > wrote in
> :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In article >,
>> Bertie the > wrote:
>>> He he! Mebbe!
>>>
>>> Hard to know..
>> Indeed. I find that the impression I get of people from the Internet
>> is almost certainly nothing like what they're like in real life...
>>
>> Is this where we all start becoming 'facebook' friends just to see
>> what we look like? :)
>
>
> Well there are one or two here who know waht I look like and at least one
> who knows me RL> Am I the same RL, Rich?

No, you're far more of a smartass in RL. One of your charms.

[Andy Hawkins]

In article . com>,
Rich > wrote:
> No, you're far more of a smartass in RL. One of your charms.

*more*?

My god...

:)

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in
ouse.com:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Andy Hawkins > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Bertie the > wrote:
>>>> He he! Mebbe!
>>>>
>>>> Hard to know..
>>> Indeed. I find that the impression I get of people from the Internet
>>> is almost certainly nothing like what they're like in real life...
>>>
>>> Is this where we all start becoming 'facebook' friends just to see
>>> what we look like? :)
>>
>>
>> Well there are one or two here who know waht I look like and at least
>> one who knows me RL> Am I the same RL, Rich?
>
> No, you're far more of a smartass in RL.

Thank God. that' what I though.

One of your charms.

naturally.

Bertie