More questions on VFR flight following.

[Tman]

OK, if i call up approach when airborne and ask for VFR flight following,
they'll want to know where I'm going. If i'm following a semi-complex
route, on V airways and going from this VOR to that, perhaps turning at an
intersection to a different V airway, do they really want to know that? Or
do they just want the destination? I know that they need the dest, since
they apparently attach it to my callsign. The impact of the route is that i
won't be making a straight line to the destination, but likely some minor
zigs and zags to get there. I often do this to steer clear of B airspace or
restricted areas, when navigating in a plane without GPS. I guess I could
give them my route of flight, but do they really want that -- or just the
final destination?

Second question since I'm on the topic. I've never flown through any class
B airspace. If i popup knocking on the door, having planned a flight to
avoid the airspace, what is the chance that they will clear me through it
for asking? For example, I'm planning a flight that will save a couple
miles if i can cut through the NY Class B, on the west side, e.g. over
Morristown field, and I may not want to get up over the 7,000 ceiling due to
winds aloft. Is it more likely to get clearance to cut a chord through the
outer ring like this -- as opposed to say expecting to, say, overfly the
Statue of Liberty vicinity at 5,500 (which is much closer to the center
rings of the Class B). I don't see any VFR transit routes from a quick
glance of the NY TAC. I guess my strategy would be to plan a circutous
route that keeps my clear of the Class B, but then when I'm close (but not
too close), ask if i can cut direct through it to my destination. IF yes,
I'll just aim for a VOR on the other side.... Any thing I can do to, perhaps
planning the right route through, to increase my chances of getting
clearance?

Thanks -- Tman!

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

I provide the destination and sometimes intermediate non-direct
waypoints if a lot different.

You can always ask to go through Class B but don't count on it.
Be sure to hear the phrase "Cleared to enter Class B" or equivalent.

Ron Lee

[Dan[_1_]]

On Jan 2, 7:46*pm, (Ron Lee) wrote:
> I provide the destination and sometimes intermediate non-direct
> waypoints if a lot different.
>
> You can always ask to go through Class B but don't count on it.
> Be sure to hear the phrase "Cleared to enter Class B" or equivalent.
>
> Ron Lee

IF they clear you into Class B, they'll likely put you on vectors.

--Dan

[[email protected]]

Tman <N/A> wrote:
> OK, if i call up approach when airborne and ask for VFR flight following,
> they'll want to know where I'm going. If i'm following a semi-complex
> route, on V airways and going from this VOR to that, perhaps turning at an
> intersection to a different V airway, do they really want to know that? Or
> do they just want the destination? I know that they need the dest, since
> they apparently attach it to my callsign. The impact of the route is that i
> won't be making a straight line to the destination, but likely some minor
> zigs and zags to get there. I often do this to steer clear of B airspace or
> restricted areas, when navigating in a plane without GPS. I guess I could
> give them my route of flight, but do they really want that -- or just the
> final destination?

All they want is the destination.

They expect you to be able to navigate to there and stay out of things
like restricted areas on your own.

They may question you on your route if it seems "strange" to them.

> Second question since I'm on the topic. I've never flown through any class
> B airspace. If i popup knocking on the door, having planned a flight to
> avoid the airspace, what is the chance that they will clear me through it
> for asking? For example, I'm planning a flight that will save a couple
> miles if i can cut through the NY Class B, on the west side, e.g. over
> Morristown field, and I may not want to get up over the 7,000 ceiling due to
> winds aloft. Is it more likely to get clearance to cut a chord through the
> outer ring like this -- as opposed to say expecting to, say, overfly the
> Statue of Liberty vicinity at 5,500 (which is much closer to the center
> rings of the Class B). I don't see any VFR transit routes from a quick
> glance of the NY TAC. I guess my strategy would be to plan a circutous
> route that keeps my clear of the Class B, but then when I'm close (but not
> too close), ask if i can cut direct through it to my destination. IF yes,
> I'll just aim for a VOR on the other side.... Any thing I can do to, perhaps
> planning the right route through, to increase my chances of getting
> clearance?

The first thing you need to do is look at the appropriate TAC.

Most class B areas have specific routes for VFR traffic that is going
through the area.

Having said that, most class B's are pretty easy going about the outer
rings if it is not an area of heavy traffic.

You can always ask; the worst that can happen is they say no.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

Tman writes:

> OK, if i call up approach when airborne and ask for VFR flight following,
> they'll want to know where I'm going.

Why?

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 09:58:12 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>Tman writes:
>
>> OK, if i call up approach when airborne and ask for VFR flight following,
>> they'll want to know where I'm going.
>
>Why?

ATC wants to know the destination, so that they can arrange for
transition through intervening terminal airspace and SU airspace, and
so that they can terminate Radar Traffic Advisory Service at the
appropriate point.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tman" <N/A> wrote in message
...
>
> OK, if i call up approach when airborne and ask for VFR flight following,
> they'll want to know where I'm going. If i'm following a semi-complex
> route, on V airways and going from this VOR to that, perhaps turning at an
> intersection to a different V airway, do they really want to know that?
> Or do they just want the destination? I know that they need the dest,
> since they apparently attach it to my callsign. The impact of the route
> is that i won't be making a straight line to the destination, but likely
> some minor zigs and zags to get there. I often do this to steer clear of
> B airspace or restricted areas, when navigating in a plane without GPS. I
> guess I could give them my route of flight, but do they really want
> that -- or just the final destination?
>

Depends what you want from them.

If it's airspace where contact with ATC is required and that's the only
reason you're calling, you don't intend to remain with them when contact is
no longer required, then all they need is a general description of your
route through the affected airspace. They don't need the destination unless
it's nearby.

If you want flight following to your destination and you'd like them to pass
that information along to other facilities along your route you'll need to
provide the destination and route in a format the computer will accept;
airways, navaids, intersections, etc. You don't have to actually fly over
them, a few miles is close enough. The easiest way to do this is to enter a
flight plan through DUAT. Select IFR flight plan and enter "VFR" as the
altitude. Approach will have all of your information when you call, they'll
assign the beacon code selected by the computer, and your information will
be sent to every facility between your departure point and destination.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> ATC wants to know the destination, so that they can arrange for
> transition through intervening terminal airspace and SU airspace, and
> so that they can terminate Radar Traffic Advisory Service at the
> appropriate point.
>

Transit through active SUA tends to defeat the purpose of establishing SUA.
VFR aircraft can transit MOAs and MTRs but there is nothing to arrange.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Tman writes:
>
>> OK, if i call up approach when airborne and ask for VFR flight
>> following, they'll want to know where I'm going.
>
> Why?
>

Why do you want to know?


Bertie

[Ron Natalie]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> Transit through active SUA tends to defeat the purpose of establishing SUA.
> VFR aircraft can transit MOAs and MTRs but there is nothing to arrange.
>
>
We've got a bunch of R areas here that the local approach control will
offer to arrange transit through if possible even when it is hot.
Margy even wrangled a transit through the coastal North Carolina
areas between Wilmington and Hatteras (although we worked out the
details on the ground before calling them up in the air when
we were coming through. We had to hold for about 2 minutes while
they safetied things so we could bring the Navions through.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>>
>> Transit through active SUA tends to defeat the purpose of establishing
>> SUA. VFR aircraft can transit MOAs and MTRs but there is nothing to
>> arrange.
>
> We've got a bunch of R areas here that the local approach control will
> offer to arrange transit through if possible even when it is hot.
> Margy even wrangled a transit through the coastal North Carolina
> areas between Wilmington and Hatteras (although we worked out the
> details on the ground before calling them up in the air when
> we were coming through. We had to hold for about 2 minutes while
> they safetied things so we could bring the Navions through.
>

That's swell, but safetying things so you can bring the Navions through
defeats the purpose of establishing the restricted areas.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Tman wrote:
> OK, if i call up approach when airborne and ask for VFR flight following,
> they'll want to know where I'm going. If i'm following a semi-complex
> route, on V airways and going from this VOR to that, perhaps turning at an
> intersection to a different V airway, do they really want to know that? Or
> do they just want the destination?

If you're not flying directly toward your destination, you'll frequently
get questions from each controller about your heading.

Here's the meat of what works for me:

Simple, but bent route:
"N9999X requests flight following to xxx via abc VOR"

Route following Victor airways:
"N9999X requests flight following to xxx via Victor airways" and let the
controller ask for more info, if wanted

I've had my route details requested only once or twice, and I don't get
the "N9999X, _where_ are you going?" as when I gave only the destination.


#2 When I go VFR into the NY Bravo, I have plans for both flying through
and avoiding it. I've never needed to avoid it yet, but they often
provide me with a specific route (ex:\\ direct Colts Neck VOR with no
altitude changes, while I'm over LI Sound)

In my experience, your initial call up to NY has a lot to do with your
clearance. If you sound like you know what you want and are
comfortable, and your airplane seems to be holding a steady course and
altitude, they're easy to deal with. Stumble, ramble, stutter, etc...
and you'll need plan B. I also find it easy if I'm already be on FF
with NY app before I get near the Bravo space.

The NY folks were even nice enough to solicit airliner PIREPS for me on
one occasion, to help me decide whether to climb over or go under a cloud.

[Mxsmanic]

Steven P. McNicoll writes:

> That's swell, but safetying things so you can bring the Navions through
> defeats the purpose of establishing the restricted areas.

That depends on why the areas are restricted.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Steven P. McNicoll writes:
>
>> That's swell, but safetying things so you can bring the Navions through
>> defeats the purpose of establishing the restricted areas.
>
> That depends on why the areas are restricted.
>

Nope



Bertie

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tman writes:

> > OK, if i call up approach when airborne and ask for VFR flight following,
> > they'll want to know where I'm going.

> Why?

Could this imply that MFS doesn't accurately simulate VFR flight?

What a surprise.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Transit through active SUA tends to defeat the purpose of establishing
> >> SUA. VFR aircraft can transit MOAs and MTRs but there is nothing to
> >> arrange.
> >
> > We've got a bunch of R areas here that the local approach control will
> > offer to arrange transit through if possible even when it is hot.
> > Margy even wrangled a transit through the coastal North Carolina
> > areas between Wilmington and Hatteras (although we worked out the
> > details on the ground before calling them up in the air when
> > we were coming through. We had to hold for about 2 minutes while
> > they safetied things so we could bring the Navions through.
> >

> That's swell, but safetying things so you can bring the Navions through
> defeats the purpose of establishing the restricted areas.

Depends on what "safetying things" means.

If it means something like establishing that the artillery battery that
was using the area took a break for lunch, so you can go through RIGHT NOW,
what's the big deal?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ross]

Ron Lee wrote:
> I provide the destination and sometimes intermediate non-direct
> waypoints if a lot different.
>
> You can always ask to go through Class B but don't count on it.
> Be sure to hear the phrase "Cleared to enter Class B" or equivalent.
>
> Ron Lee

All the times that I have used FF is just give a destination. Sometimes
ATC will come back and ask me to repeat the destination. I assume that
it is because I am not headed directly there. I tell them that I will be
flying such and such.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Could this imply that MFS doesn't accurately simulate VFR flight?

I use VATSIM for flight following, not MSFS.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Could this imply that MFS doesn't accurately simulate VFR flight?

> I use VATSIM for flight following, not MSFS.

So if it is an accurate simulation you should already know the answer.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Could this imply that MFS doesn't accurately simulate VFR flight?
>
> I use VATSIM for flight following, not MSFS.
>

Wrong

You don't fly.

Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> So if it is an accurate simulation you should already know the answer.

The answer, based on simulation, is that you are simply given a unique
transponder code and told when you are identified on radar. Thereafter, not
much unless you enter controlled airspace, except for occasional advisories.

[Jim Stewart]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>> So if it is an accurate simulation you should already know the answer.
>
> The answer, based on simulation, is that you are simply given a unique
> transponder code and told when you are identified on radar. Thereafter, not
> much unless you enter controlled airspace, except for occasional advisories.

Let it be known to rookies that "simulation" in the above
context means a guy sitting in his underwear in front of
a PC. Least it be confused with certified sim and instructor
training....

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Depends on what "safetying things" means.
>
> If it means something like establishing that the artillery battery that
> was using the area took a break for lunch, so you can go through RIGHT
> NOW, what's the big deal?
>

No big deal, but if the using agency has ceased it's activities the airspace
should be returned without request.

[Ron Natalie]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> That's swell, but safetying things so you can bring the Navions through
> defeats the purpose of establishing the restricted areas.
>
>
No it does not. It keeps the uncoordinated traffic out of there.

Listen I know your world is limited, but I used to be one of those
guys on the ground in an R area who had to suspend ops when we got an
bogey in the active restricted area. Stopping our tests for twenty
minutes or being assured that they will stay off the active range
was a whole lot better than having some lost pilot wandering through
while we were trying to get work done.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> No it does not. It keeps the uncoordinated traffic out of there.
>
> Listen I know your world is limited, but I used to be one of those
> guys on the ground in an R area who had to suspend ops when we got an
> bogey in the active restricted area. Stopping our tests for twenty
> minutes or being assured that they will stay off the active range
> was a whole lot better than having some lost pilot wandering through
> while we were trying to get work done.
>

You need to review Special Use Airspace.

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Depends on what "safetying things" means.
> >
> > If it means something like establishing that the artillery battery that
> > was using the area took a break for lunch, so you can go through RIGHT
> > NOW, what's the big deal?
> >

> No big deal, but if the using agency has ceased it's activities the airspace
> should be returned without request.

OK, so in the case of the orignal post, "safetying things" most likely
meant ATC looked up the current status as I highly doubt ATC would
keep up with the status on a minute by minute basis.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

Ross > wrote:

>All the times that I have used FF is just give a destination. Sometimes
>ATC will come back and ask me to repeat the destination. I assume that
>it is because I am not headed directly there. I tell them that I will be
>flying such and such.

Or perhaps they do not know the airport identifier/location. I will
often use Colorado Springs as my destination instead of the smaller
Meadow Lake. You can't expect ATC to know every airport code in the
US.

Ron Lee

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> OK, so in the case of the orignal post, "safetying things" most likely
> meant ATC looked up the current status as I highly doubt ATC would
> keep up with the status on a minute by minute basis.
>

Actually, ATC does keep up with the status of SUA on a real time basis.
From the context it could only mean suspending the hazardous activities in
the Restricted Area to allow the safe transit of the Navions.

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > OK, so in the case of the orignal post, "safetying things" most likely
> > meant ATC looked up the current status as I highly doubt ATC would
> > keep up with the status on a minute by minute basis.
> >

> Actually, ATC does keep up with the status of SUA on a real time basis.
> From the context it could only mean suspending the hazardous activities in
> the Restricted Area to allow the safe transit of the Navions.

I meant the individual humans who make up ATC.

Do all the people in ATC keep up with everything in real time or do
they look at things to get current status of various things when that
thing is needed?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> I meant the individual humans who make up ATC.
>

So did I.


>
> Do all the people in ATC keep up with everything in real time or do
> they look at things to get current status of various things when that
> thing is needed?
>

I don't see a practical difference. Individual controllers are supposed to
know the status of all things that affect their area of operations.

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I meant the individual humans who make up ATC.
> >

> So did I.


> >
> > Do all the people in ATC keep up with everything in real time or do
> > they look at things to get current status of various things when that
> > thing is needed?
> >

> I don't see a practical difference. Individual controllers are supposed to
> know the status of all things that affect their area of operations.

And how would they "know the status of all things" unless they look
at some thing that gives them the status, ESP?

The practical difference is you are argueing semantics.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> And how would they "know the status of all things" unless they look
> at some thing that gives them the status, ESP?
>
> The practical difference is you are argueing semantics.
>

You're the one that imagines there's a difference.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> So if it is an accurate simulation you should already know the
>> answer.
>
> The answer, based on simulation, is that you are simply given a unique
> transponder code and told when you are identified on radar.
> Thereafter, not much unless you enter controlled airspace, except for
> occasional advisories.
>


Nope.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Stewart > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> writes:
>>
>>> So if it is an accurate simulation you should already know the
>>> answer.
>>
>> The answer, based on simulation, is that you are simply given a
>> unique transponder code and told when you are identified on radar.
>> Thereafter, not much unless you enter controlled airspace, except for
>> occasional advisories.
>
> Let it be known to rookies that "simulation" in the above
> context means a guy sitting in his underwear in front of
> a PC. Least it be confused with certified sim and instructor
> training....
>
>






thanks for that image. I WAS hoping to get some sleep.

Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> Listen I know your world is limited, but I used to be one of those
> guys on the ground in an R area who had to suspend ops when we got an
> bogey in the active restricted area. Stopping our tests for twenty
> minutes or being assured that they will stay off the active range
> was a whole lot better than having some lost pilot wandering through
> while we were trying to get work done.

How often did it happen?

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Stewart writes:

> Let it be known to rookies that "simulation" in the above
> context means a guy sitting in his underwear in front of
> a PC. Least it be confused with certified sim and instructor
> training....

Simulation is the same in either case. A "certified sim" isn't anything
special, it's just certified (typically for a very narrowly defined purpose).
Having an instructor nearby doesn't change the simulation.

In this case, though, the sim was irrelevant, as the question concerned radio
communications.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jim Stewart writes:
>
>> Let it be known to rookies that "simulation" in the above
>> context means a guy sitting in his underwear in front of
>> a PC. Least it be confused with certified sim and instructor
>> training....
>
> Simulation is the same in either case. A "certified sim" isn't
> anything special, it's just certified (typically for a very narrowly
> defined purpose). Having an instructor nearby doesn't change the
> simulation.
>
> In this case, though, the sim was irrelevant, as the question
> concerned radio communications.
>

And what you have, of course, isn't a radio.


So you are talking complete crap , as always.


Bertie

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Jim Stewart writes:
>>
>>> Let it be known to rookies that "simulation" in the above
>>> context means a guy sitting in his underwear in front of
>>> a PC. Least it be confused with certified sim and instructor
>>> training....
>>
>> Simulation is the same in either case. A "certified sim" isn't
>> anything special, it's just certified (typically for a very narrowly
>> defined purpose). Having an instructor nearby doesn't change the
>> simulation.
>>
>> In this case, though, the sim was irrelevant, as the question
>> concerned radio communications.
>
> And what you have, of course, isn't a radio.

The voices in his head must do a good job of simulating radio traffic.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"John Mazor" > wrote in news:nkvfj.31$qV.14@trnddc03:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Jim Stewart writes:
>>>
>>>> Let it be known to rookies that "simulation" in the above
>>>> context means a guy sitting in his underwear in front of
>>>> a PC. Least it be confused with certified sim and instructor
>>>> training....
>>>
>>> Simulation is the same in either case. A "certified sim" isn't
>>> anything special, it's just certified (typically for a very narrowly
>>> defined purpose). Having an instructor nearby doesn't change the
>>> simulation.
>>>
>>> In this case, though, the sim was irrelevant, as the question
>>> concerned radio communications.
>>
>> And what you have, of course, isn't a radio.
>
> The voices in his head must do a good job of simulating radio traffic.
>
>
>

I dunno. I can't remember the last time I got a clearance to go on the net
and make a fjukkwit of myself. (not like I'd need one anyway!)


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

John Mazor writes:

> The voices in his head must do a good job of simulating radio traffic.

No voices in the head are required. The traffic is provided by other pilots
and controllers on the network.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Ron Lee wrote:
> Ross > wrote:
>
>> All the times that I have used FF is just give a destination. Sometimes
>> ATC will come back and ask me to repeat the destination. I assume that
>> it is because I am not headed directly there. I tell them that I will be
>> flying such and such.
>
> Or perhaps they do not know the airport identifier/location. I will
> often use Colorado Springs as my destination instead of the smaller
> Meadow Lake. You can't expect ATC to know every airport code in the
> US.

Even if they know it or or you provide it to them, I've found that ATC
sometimes can't work with a destination when entering the request in
their systems. I've been told that the systems just don't have all
domestic airports in them. For instance, every time I've requested
flight following to PJY from Minnesota for the annual Pinckneyville
fly-in I get asked to name a nearby airport instead. Now I just tell
them Marion or Carbondale.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> John Mazor writes:
>
>> The voices in his head must do a good job of simulating radio traffic.
>
> No voices in the head are required. The traffic is provided by other pilots
> and controllers on the network.

So they go away while you're on a sim? That would explain why you spend so much time on
it - kind of like the old joke about the guy who hits himself on the head with a hammer
because it feels so-o-o good when he stops.

[[email protected]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote:
> Ron Lee wrote:
> > Ross > wrote:
> >
> >> All the times that I have used FF is just give a destination. Sometimes
> >> ATC will come back and ask me to repeat the destination. I assume that
> >> it is because I am not headed directly there. I tell them that I will be
> >> flying such and such.
> >
> > Or perhaps they do not know the airport identifier/location. I will
> > often use Colorado Springs as my destination instead of the smaller
> > Meadow Lake. You can't expect ATC to know every airport code in the
> > US.

> Even if they know it or or you provide it to them, I've found that ATC
> sometimes can't work with a destination when entering the request in
> their systems. I've been told that the systems just don't have all
> domestic airports in them. For instance, every time I've requested
> flight following to PJY from Minnesota for the annual Pinckneyville
> fly-in I get asked to name a nearby airport instead. Now I just tell
> them Marion or Carbondale.

I've found that for small, GA airports ATC out of that area seldom
knows about it and it is much simpler to give them the name of at
least a class D, and sometimes class C, near to where you are going.

Once you are in the area you can tell them the true destination.

Example: I've found that no ATC outside of SoCal seems to know where
Cable (KCCB) is, though I guess they could look it up, but why bother?

I just tell them I'm going to Ontario (KONT) and they all know where
that is.

Why complicate things when I know I will get handed off to Ontario
tower anyway as I go through their airspace and Ontario tower is well
aware of where Cable is.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>> Or perhaps they do not know the airport identifier/location. I will
>> often use Colorado Springs as my destination instead of the smaller
>> Meadow Lake. You can't expect ATC to know every airport code in the
>> US.
>
>Even if they know it or or you provide it to them, I've found that ATC
>sometimes can't work with a destination when entering the request in
>their systems. I've been told that the systems just don't have all
>domestic airports in them. For instance, every time I've requested
>flight following to PJY from Minnesota for the annual Pinckneyville
>fly-in I get asked to name a nearby airport instead. Now I just tell
>them Marion or Carbondale.

I have had the same experience Rich. Once I was asked what other
airports were nearby and I had to look at the chart to find something
since it was an area new to me.

[Mxsmanic]

John Mazor writes:

> So they go away while you're on a sim?

What does?

> That would explain why you spend so much time on it - kind of like
> the old joke about the guy who hits himself on the head with a hammer
> because it feels so-o-o good when he stops.

I spend a lot of time on simulation because I like to fly.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> John Mazor writes:
>
>> So they go away while you're on a sim?
>
> What does?

Oh, dear. Looks like we need to add ADD to your list of ailments.

>> That would explain why you spend so much time on it - kind of like
>> the old joke about the guy who hits himself on the head with a hammer
>> because it feels so-o-o good when he stops.
>
> I spend a lot of time on simulation because I like to fly.

At the risk of encroaching on Bertie's schtick - that ain't flying, fjuckwit.

[Mxsmanic]

John Mazor writes:

> At the risk of encroaching on Bertie's schtick - that ain't flying, fjuckwit.

That is a matter of opinion, and viewpoint.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> John Mazor writes:
>
>> At the risk of encroaching on Bertie's schtick - that ain't flying, fjuckwit.
>
> That is a matter of opinion, and viewpoint.

No matter how much you tout the value of opinion, to the point of claiming that "my
opinion is irrefutable because it's an opinion," opinion isn't fact. It's a fact that
simming isn't flying.

Or did you mean to say that you can't tell the difference? Oh, dear. Things must be even
worse than we thought in the Atkielski garret.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> John Mazor writes:

> > At the risk of encroaching on Bertie's schtick - that ain't flying, fjuckwit.

> That is a matter of opinion, and viewpoint.

No, it is a matter of dictionary definition for rational people.


Flying

noun

1. an instance of traveling by air

verb

1. travel through the air; be airborne

2. move quickly or suddenly

3. fly a plane

4. transport by aeroplane

5. cause to fly or float

6. travel in an airplane

7. display in th eair or cause to float

8. flee, run away

9. travel over in an aircraft

adj

1. capable of or engaged in flight

2. moving swiftly

3. aflare, flaring, fluttering

Simulation

noun

1. a theoretical account based on a similarity between the model and the
phenomena that are to be explained

2. a representation of something

3. pretense, pretending



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 5 Jan, 00:46, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> John Mazor writes:
> > So they go away while you're on a sim?
>
> What does?
>
> > That would explain why you spend so much time on it - kind of like
> > the old joke about the guy who hits himself on the head with a hammer
> > because it feels so-o-o good when he stops.
>
> I spend a lot of time on simulation because I like to fly.


No, you spend a lot of time in front of a computer because you're a
jerkoff.


Bertie

[Tom[_5_]]

Hi - the thread seems to have been hijacked, but a few thoughts for
you:

Get flight following before arriving at the area - that will make
things easier.

They are pretty likely to accommodate you if you sound competent on
the radio.

You could fly a bit lower, under the class B shelf, and contact
Morristown tower for permission to transit their airspace. This will
be granted, almost certainly.

There is a VFR transit route directly through NYC, down the Hudson
River. It's a bit hard to see on the TAC, but it is there - you can
fly all the way down the Hudson as long as you stay below certain
altitudes (the lowest is 1100 ft for the bits adjacent the city). You
really should do this route, as it is a lot of fun and very very
scenic. just make sure you are well prepared, study the TAC (and the
back of the TAC too) in advance, and perhaps get the advice of a local
pilot too. I can help you with this if you want.

good luck!

Tom

>
> Second question since I'm on the topic. *I've never flown through any class
> B airspace. *If i popup knocking on the door, having planned a flight to
> avoid the airspace, what is the chance that they will clear me through it
> for asking? *For example, I'm planning a flight that will save a couple
> miles if i can cut through the NY Class B, on the west side, e.g. over
> Morristown field, and I may not want to get up over the 7,000 ceiling due to
> winds aloft. *Is it more likely to get clearance to cut a chord through the
> outer ring like this -- as opposed to say expecting to, say, overfly the
> Statue of Liberty vicinity at 5,500 (which is much closer to the center
> rings of the Class B). *I don't see any VFR transit routes from a quick
> glance of the NY TAC. *I guess my strategy would be to plan a circutous
> route that keeps my clear of the Class B, but then when I'm close (but not
> too close), ask if i can cut direct through it to my destination. *IF yes,
> I'll just aim for a VOR on the other side.... Any thing I can do to, perhaps
> planning the right route through, to increase my chances of getting
> clearance?
>
> Thanks -- Tman!

[Mxsmanic]

John Mazor writes:

> No matter how much you tout the value of opinion ...

I don't assert that opinions are valuable, because their value is very low.
However, all opinions have an equal value, and that is the important point.

> ... to the point of claiming that "my
> opinion is irrefutable because it's an opinion," opinion isn't fact.

I haven't said this, although others have said essentially the equivalent.

> It's a fact that simming isn't flying.

That depends on what you consider flying.

Is being a passenger in an aircraft flying? Is moving through the air without
flapping wings flying? Answer carefully.

[Mxsmanic]

Tom writes:

> There is a VFR transit route directly through NYC, down the Hudson
> River. It's a bit hard to see on the TAC, but it is there - you can
> fly all the way down the Hudson as long as you stay below certain
> altitudes (the lowest is 1100 ft for the bits adjacent the city). You
> really should do this route, as it is a lot of fun and very very
> scenic. just make sure you are well prepared, study the TAC (and the
> back of the TAC too) in advance, and perhaps get the advice of a local
> pilot too. I can help you with this if you want.

Is there a FLY chart for New York? I don't see one on SkyVector.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> John Mazor writes:
>
>> No matter how much you tout the value of opinion ...
>
> I don't assert that opinions are valuable, because their value is very low.
> However, all opinions have an equal value, and that is the important point.
>
>> ... to the point of claiming that "my
>> opinion is irrefutable because it's an opinion," opinion isn't fact.
>
> I haven't said this, although others have said essentially the equivalent.
>
>> It's a fact that simming isn't flying.
>
> That depends on what you consider flying.
>
> Is being a passenger in an aircraft flying? Is moving through the air without
> flapping wings flying? Answer carefully.

That depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Answer carefully.

[Tina]

MX has been known to defy conventional use of words many times.
Reading his posts is more or less like seeing a turn signal used in
Boston: all you can be sure of is the lamp isn't burned out. In his
case you can be sure he still has a connection the the 'net.








On Jan 5, 10:41*am, "John Mazor" > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > John Mazor writes:
>
> >> No matter how much you tout the value of opinion ...
>
> > I don't assert that opinions are valuable, because their value is very low.
> > However, all opinions have an equal value, and that is the important point.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Tina wrote:
> MX has been known to defy conventional use of words many times.
> Reading his posts is more or less like seeing a turn signal used in
> Boston: all you can be sure of is the lamp isn't burned out. In his
> case you can be sure he still has a connection the the 'net.

Probably paid for by someone else.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> That depends on what you consider flying.

> Is being a passenger in an aircraft flying? Is moving through the air without
> flapping wings flying? Answer carefully.

According to the dictionary they are.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> John Mazor writes:
>
>> The voices in his head must do a good job of simulating radio
>> traffic.
>
> No voices in the head are required. The traffic is provided by other
> pilots and controllers on the network.
>
Nope


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"John Mazor" > wrote in
news:68Bfj.254$Xo1.93@trnddc06:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> John Mazor writes:
>>
>>> So they go away while you're on a sim?
>>
>> What does?
>
> Oh, dear. Looks like we need to add ADD to your list of ailments.
>
>>> That would explain why you spend so much time on it - kind of like
>>> the old joke about the guy who hits himself on the head with a
>>> hammer because it feels so-o-o good when he stops.
>>
>> I spend a lot of time on simulation because I like to fly.
>
> At the risk of encroaching on Bertie's schtick - that ain't flying,
> fjuckwit.
>
>
>
>

That'#s OK. I got a million of em.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> John Mazor writes:
>
>> At the risk of encroaching on Bertie's schtick - that ain't flying,
>> fjuckwit.
>
> That is a matter of opinion, and viewpoint.
>

No, it's a matter of fact.

Bertie

[Tina]

I was thinking more the use and misuse of language than social skiills
between Anthony and Humpty (let alone Bill Clinton). But we can hope
for a great fall, can't we? Humpty had his. Anthony can't get high
enough to fall, call he? Do you think his apartment is in the
basement, and his sim starts off at - 8 feet agl?

I was drinking a cup of coffee when read where he wrote he sims
because he liikes to fly! Ut's not nice for a lady to exhale coffee
thru her nose, darn it!

Even better, he programs his flights, he says, so that they are done
mostly on autopilot. So as I understand it, you sit and drink beer
while the computer does everything.

What a life!






On Jan 5, 2:23*pm, "John Mazor" > wrote:
> "Tina" > wrote in message
>
> ...> John, are you suggesting there is a linkage here -- Bill Clinton, MX
>
> whatever, and Humpty Dumpty? It really is beginning to make sense now,
> thanks for the insight.
>
> Nah. *Doo-Doo Happens, so most things are just coincidence.
>
> For example, Anthony is no Bill Clinton when it comes to attracting women, let alone plain
> old social skills. *Speculation on any physical similarity between him and Humpty Dumpty
> is just that for now, although the Vegas betting line that he's a dead ringer for the Egg
> Man is 8 to 5.
>
> For a more incisive read into Anthony's mindset, check the E.M. Forster short story "The
> Machine Stops". *Written in 1909, it's an amazingly prescient cautionary tale written well
> before the Internet was even a gleam in ARPA's eye. *Anthony would be be one of those who
> couldn't make it out, though.
>
> On Jan 5, 1:24 pm, "John Mazor" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Tina" > wrote in message
>
> ...> MX has been
> > known to defy conventional use of words many times.
>
> > Reading his posts is more or less like seeing a turn signal used in
> > Boston: all you can be sure of is the lamp isn't burned out. In his
> > case you can be sure he still has a connection the the 'net.
>
> > Playing Humpty Dumpty with words - "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a
> > scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." -
> > leaves
> > enough wiggle room to deny anything and everything.
>
> > On Jan 5, 10:41 am, "John Mazor" > wrote:
>
> > > "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> > > > John Mazor writes:
>
> > > >> No matter how much you tout the value of opinion ...
>
> > > > I don't assert that opinions are valuable, because their value is very low.
> > > > However, all opinions have an equal value, and that is the important point.
>
> > > >> ... to the point of claiming that "my
> > > >> opinion is irrefutable because it's an opinion," opinion isn't fact..
>
> > > > I haven't said this, although others have said essentially the equivalent.
>
> > > >> It's a fact that simming isn't flying.
>
> > > > That depends on what you consider flying.
>
> > > > Is being a passenger in an aircraft flying? Is moving through the air without
> > > > flapping wings flying? Answer carefully.
>
> > > That depends on what your definition of "is" is.
>
> > > Answer carefully.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> According to the dictionary they are.

"The dictionary"? I thought there were many dictionaries.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Tina wrote:
> I was thinking more the use and misuse of language than social skiills
> between Anthony and Humpty (let alone Bill Clinton). But we can hope
> for a great fall, can't we? Humpty had his. Anthony can't get high
> enough to fall, call he? Do you think his apartment is in the
> basement, and his sim starts off at - 8 feet agl?
>
> I was drinking a cup of coffee when read where he wrote he sims
> because he liikes to fly! Ut's not nice for a lady to exhale coffee
> thru her nose, darn it!
>
> Even better, he programs his flights, he says, so that they are done
> mostly on autopilot. So as I understand it, you sit and drink beer
> while the computer does everything.

Anthony's beverage choices run a different direction. He says:

"I start by filling an ordinary coffee cup about 1/3 full with heavy
fresh cream (easy to find in France). Then I toss in several hefty
teaspoons of Ovomaltine and stir it until the lumps are out. Then I nuke
this mixture in the microwave for 90 seconds. It comes out steaming hot
and I mix it again. Then I add more heavy cream until the cup is full,
stirring all the while. The result is pure ambrosia!"

Then when he's on the Champs-Élysées, he likes to pop into McDonalds and
savor a Filet-O-Fish sandwich and a vanilla shake. He's no more a
gastronome than a pilot...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> According to the dictionary they are.
>
> "The dictionary"? I thought there were many dictionaries.
>

I'm sure you do.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:47802020$0$1125
:

> Tina wrote:
>> I was thinking more the use and misuse of language than social
skiills
>> between Anthony and Humpty (let alone Bill Clinton). But we can hope
>> for a great fall, can't we? Humpty had his. Anthony can't get high
>> enough to fall, call he? Do you think his apartment is in the
>> basement, and his sim starts off at - 8 feet agl?
>>
>> I was drinking a cup of coffee when read where he wrote he sims
>> because he liikes to fly! Ut's not nice for a lady to exhale coffee
>> thru her nose, darn it!
>>
>> Even better, he programs his flights, he says, so that they are done
>> mostly on autopilot. So as I understand it, you sit and drink beer
>> while the computer does everything.
>
> Anthony's beverage choices run a different direction. He says:
>
> "I start by filling an ordinary coffee cup about 1/3 full with heavy
> fresh cream (easy to find in France). Then I toss in several hefty
> teaspoons of Ovomaltine and stir it until the lumps are out. Then I
nuke
> this mixture in the microwave for 90 seconds. It comes out steaming
hot
> and I mix it again. Then I add more heavy cream until the cup is full,
> stirring all the while. The result is pure ambrosia!"


What have we all been missing?

>
> Then when he's on the Champs-Élysées, he likes to pop into McDonalds
and
> savor a Filet-O-Fish sandwich and a vanilla shake. He's no more a
> gastronome than a pilot...
>

Go to Paris and eat at Mcdonalds.


The French must just love him.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > According to the dictionary they are.

> "The dictionary"? I thought there were many dictionaries.

Yet again another totally correct but irrelevant attempt to back pedal
out of the corner.

Of course there are (one would think an "English teacher" would know
this) and the first two I looked at say essentially the same thing,
as one with common sense would expect.

Hmmm, I just checked a third; Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged
Dictionary of the English Language and guess what?

Same as the other two.

Are you too poor to afford a dictionary?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Then when he's on the Champs-Élysées, he likes to pop into McDonalds
> and
>> savor a Filet-O-Fish sandwich and a vanilla shake. He's no more a
>> gastronome than a pilot...
>>
>
> Go to Paris and eat at Mcdonalds.
>
>
> The French must just love him.

Not just France. He's overrun with affection wherever he goes, I'm sure.

Can't escape the damn things. As I recall, if you take the train out to
Versailles, there's either a McDonalds or a Burger King right across the
street from the station on your way to the castle.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:47803c80$0$27487
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Then when he's on the Champs-Élysées, he likes to pop into McDonalds
>> and
>>> savor a Filet-O-Fish sandwich and a vanilla shake. He's no more a
>>> gastronome than a pilot...
>>>
>>
>> Go to Paris and eat at Mcdonalds.
>>
>>
>> The French must just love him.
>
> Not just France. He's overrun with affection wherever he goes, I'm sure.
>
> Can't escape the damn things. As I recall, if you take the train out to
> Versailles, there's either a McDonalds or a Burger King right across the
> street from the station on your way to the castle.
>

Not so many in France as in other places, though. In fact, I think I heard
a lot of them are closing down in various parts of Yerp lately.


Bertie

[Tina]

Berite, that's because Anthony can't afford to eat there often.

On Jan 5, 9:35*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:47803c80$0$27487
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >>> Then when he's on the Champs-Élysées, he likes to pop into McDonalds
> >> and
> >>> savor a Filet-O-Fish sandwich and a vanilla shake. He's no more a
> >>> gastronome than a pilot...
>
> >> Go to Paris and eat at Mcdonalds.
>
> >> The French must just love him.
>
> > Not just France. He's overrun with affection wherever he goes, I'm sure.
>
> > Can't escape the damn things. As I recall, if you take the train out to
> > Versailles, there's either a McDonalds or a Burger King right across the
> > street from the station on your way to the castle.
>
> Not so many in France as in other places, though. In fact, I think I heard
> a lot of them are closing down in various parts of Yerp lately.
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Tina > wrote in
:

> Berite, that's because Anthony can't afford to eat there often.
>


Could be, though how much they made out of him going in and asking for hot
water and a packet of ketchup is questionable.


Bertie
>

[Mxsmanic]

Rich Ahrens writes:

> Can't escape the damn things. As I recall, if you take the train out to
> Versailles, there's either a McDonalds or a Burger King right across the
> street from the station on your way to the castle.

McDonald's. There are about as many Starbucks as McDonald's today.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Yet again another totally correct but irrelevant attempt to back pedal
> out of the corner.

Not really. There are many dictionaries, given many definitions of words that
can vary considerably. None is a final authority. Which dictionary did you
have in mind?

> Of course there are (one would think an "English teacher" would know
> this) and the first two I looked at say essentially the same thing,
> as one with common sense would expect.

Which two did you look at?

English teachers know that dictionaries are descriptive rather then
prescriptive.

> Are you too poor to afford a dictionary?

I'm too smart to misuse one.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Rich Ahrens writes:
>
>> Can't escape the damn things. As I recall, if you take the train out
>> to Versailles, there's either a McDonalds or a Burger King right
>> across the street from the station on your way to the castle.
>
> McDonald's. There are about as many Starbucks as McDonald's today.
>

So, you've been scaping the grounds out of their dumpsters so you can make
coffee in your rice boiler?

bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Yet again another totally correct but irrelevant attempt to back
>> pedal out of the corner.
>
> Not really.


Yes, really.

You're a liar as well as an idiot and this is just the latest in a looooong
string of obfuscations.

Ever wonder why nobody likes you?

Bet you put it down to your delusion that you are smarter than they are.


nothing could be further from the truth.

>
>> Are you too poor to afford a dictionary?
>
> I'm too smart to misuse one.
>

You mean you;re too dumb to use one.




Bertie

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> writes:
>>
>>> Yet again another totally correct but irrelevant attempt to back
>>> pedal out of the corner.
>> Not really.
>
>
> Yes, really.
>
> You're a liar as well as an idiot and this is just the latest in a looooong
> string of obfuscations.
>
> Ever wonder why nobody likes you?
>
> Bet you put it down to your delusion that you are smarter than they are.

Actually, his favorite excuse is that they're Angry Young Males. Anthony
sees Angry Young Males as the source of all that's wrong on teh interwebs.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in
. net:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> writes:
>>>
>>>> Yet again another totally correct but irrelevant attempt to back
>>>> pedal out of the corner.
>>> Not really.
>>
>>
>> Yes, really.
>>
>> You're a liar as well as an idiot and this is just the latest in a
>> looooong string of obfuscations.
>>
>> Ever wonder why nobody likes you?
>>
>> Bet you put it down to your delusion that you are smarter than they
>> are.
>
> Actually, his favorite excuse is that they're Angry Young Males.
> Anthony sees Angry Young Males as the source of all that's wrong on
> teh interwebs.
>



Ah yes.

Haven't seen that one in a while.



Bertie

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> English teachers know that dictionaries are descriptive rather then prescriptive.

Wrong. There are both types because some take a prescriptive approach. Most of their
content also could be characterized as descriptive, which is unavoidable, but their
editorial policy is to adhere to formal usage and definitions and to ignore informal use,
slang, and neologisms whenever possible.

With your Humpty Dumpty approach to semantics, which kind do you prefer?

BTW, English teachers know the difference between "then" and "than". But apparently that
doesn't include ones working for hire in Paris.

>> Are you too poor to afford a dictionary?

You are. But then, 95% of everything you know comes off of Google so you don't need an
actual printed tome.

> I'm too smart to misuse one.

You misuse - make that abuse - one every time you play Humpty Dumpty with terminilogy.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Yet again another totally correct but irrelevant attempt to back pedal
> > out of the corner.

> Not really. There are many dictionaries, given many definitions of words that
> can vary considerably. None is a final authority. Which dictionary did you
> have in mind?

Yes really.

As I said, all the dictionaries I consulted had essentially the same
definition, which is what most sane people not trying vainly to prove
their idiotic statements correct would expect.

As for which dictionary, I told you in the part you snipped out.

> > Of course there are (one would think an "English teacher" would know
> > this) and the first two I looked at say essentially the same thing,
> > as one with common sense would expect.

> Which two did you look at?

Makes no difference, the are all the same and the count is up to
three now as I said in the part you snipped in an attempt to divert
attention from the fact that you are full of ****.

> English teachers know that dictionaries are descriptive rather then
> prescriptive.

A real English teacher knows that dictionaries are definitive as
opposed to your pull-it-out-your ass, make it up as you go along
technique.

> > Are you too poor to afford a dictionary?

> I'm too smart to misuse one.

But not smart enough to answer the question that was asked.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

John Mazor writes:

> There are both types because some take a prescriptive approach.

Prescriptive grammars and dictionaries are primarily intended for
schoolchildren and foreign-speaking students of the language.

> BTW, English teachers know the difference between "then" and "than".

And how to spell _terminology_, too, if keeping score is important to you.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Makes no difference, the are all the same ...

Then why isn't there just one?

> A real English teacher knows that dictionaries are definitive as
> opposed to your pull-it-out-your ass, make it up as you go along
> technique.

Dictionaries are descriptive, as a general rule.

> But not smart enough to answer the question that was asked.

I already have a number of dictionaries. Once purchased, they cost nothing
further.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> John Mazor writes:
>
>> There are both types because some take a prescriptive approach.
>
> Prescriptive grammars and dictionaries are primarily intended for
> schoolchildren and foreign-speaking students of the language.
>
>> BTW, English teachers know the difference between "then" and "than".
>
> And how to spell _terminology_, too, if keeping score is important to
> you.
>

He's not an english teacher.

But then, neither are you, luser boi


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Makes no difference, the are all the same ...
>
> Then why isn't there just one?
>
>> A real English teacher knows that dictionaries are definitive as
>> opposed to your pull-it-out-your ass, make it up as you go along
>> technique.
>
> Dictionaries are descriptive, as a general rule.
>
>> But not smart enough to answer the question that was asked.
>
> I already have a number of dictionaries. Once purchased, they cost
> nothing further.


Evasion noted.



Bertie

[d.g.s.]

On 1/6/2008 5:39 PM Mxsmanic ignored two million years of human
evolution to write:

> Dictionaries are descriptive, as a general rule.

You whine repeatedly about how you come to this newsgroup to discuss
aviation, and whine about people not doing so.

What does this have to do with aviation?

> I already have a number of dictionaries. Once purchased, they cost nothing
> further.

What does this have to do with aviation?

If you can't be bothered discussing aviation here - LEAVE!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"d.g.s." > wrote in
:

> On 1/6/2008 5:39 PM Mxsmanic ignored two million years of human
> evolution to write:
>
>> Dictionaries are descriptive, as a general rule.
>
> You whine repeatedly about how you come to this newsgroup to discuss
> aviation, and whine about people not doing so.
>
> What does this have to do with aviation?
>
>> I already have a number of dictionaries. Once purchased, they cost
>> nothing further.
>
> What does this have to do with aviation?
>
> If you can't be bothered discussing aviation here - LEAVE!


He can't he doesn;t know anythign about it.


Bertie
>

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> John Mazor writes:
>
>> There are both types because some take a prescriptive approach.
>
> Prescriptive grammars and dictionaries are primarily intended for
> schoolchildren and foreign-speaking students of the language.

Nonsense. Many of them are considered major, authoritative sources. Adult
English-speaking writers use them all the time. I know many who do just that.

But even if you were correct, you've now admitted that your original claim was wrong.

>> BTW, English teachers know the difference between "then" and "than".
>
> And how to spell _terminology_, too, if keeping score is important to you.

It's not. But you're the one who claims to be a teacher of the language.

[Viperdoc]

It must be close to 0300 in France- Anthony, don't you have to get up for
work in the morning?

Oh wait, I forgot, you don't work, either.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
. net...

> It must be close to 0300 in France- Anthony, don't you have to get up for work in the
> morning?

He posts at those hours fairly frequently.

> Oh wait, I forgot, you don't work, either.

Well, he is a self-employed full-time troll, if that counts.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Makes no difference, the are all the same ...

> Then why isn't there just one?

The same reason there isn't just one printing of Shakespeare or Dickens.

<snip remaining babbling nonsense>


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> I spend a lot of time on simulation because I like to fly.

No you have no experience in flying so you have no frame of reference to
say you enjoy it. As a matter of fact you have stated here many many
times that you don't like many if not most of the sensory inputs you
would have to put up with to fly.

So what you like to do is simulate flying and guess what? That activity
has its very own newsgroup.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig601XLBuilder" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>>
>> I spend a lot of time on simulation because I like to fly.
>>
>
> No you have no experience in flying so you have no frame of reference to
> say you enjoy it. As a matter of fact you have stated here many many times
> that you don't like many if not most of the sensory inputs you would have
> to put up with to fly.
>
> So what you like to do is simulate flying and guess what? That activity
> has its very own newsgroup.
>

Could somebody please explain to me why anybody responds to Mxsmanic's
messages? I killfiled him long ago, but I can't filter the responses to his
messages that clutter these forums.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Could somebody please explain to me why anybody responds to Mxsmanic's
> messages? I killfiled him long ago, but I can't filter the responses to
> his messages that clutter these forums.

Wrong question.

What we really need to know is why posters feel compelled to keep telling
him what he (and we) already know. The clutter isn't from responses to his
posts -- it's the off-topic responses to HIS on-topic (if incorrect)
responses that are cluttering the forums.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig601XLBuilder" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I spend a lot of time on simulation because I like to fly.
>>>
>>
>> No you have no experience in flying so you have no frame of reference to
>> say you enjoy it. As a matter of fact you have stated here many many
>> times that you don't like many if not most of the sensory inputs you
>> would have to put up with to fly.
>>
>> So what you like to do is simulate flying and guess what? That activity
>> has its very own newsgroup.
>>
>
> Could somebody please explain to me why anybody responds to Mxsmanic's
> messages? I killfiled him long ago, but I can't filter the responses to
> his messages that clutter these forums.
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Ppsgj.25350$Ux2.459@attbi_s22...
>>
>> Could somebody please explain to me why anybody responds to Mxsmanic's
>> messages? I killfiled him long ago, but I can't filter the responses to
>> his messages that clutter these forums.
>>
>
> Wrong question.
>
> What we really need to know is why posters feel compelled to keep telling
> him what he (and we) already know. The clutter isn't from responses to
> his posts -- it's the off-topic responses to HIS on-topic (if incorrect)
> responses that are cluttering the forums.
>

Off-topic responses to HIS on-topic (if incorrect) responses are still
responses to his posts.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:Ppsgj.25350$Ux2.459@attbi_s22:

>> Could somebody please explain to me why anybody responds to
>> Mxsmanic's messages? I killfiled him long ago, but I can't filter
>> the responses to his messages that clutter these forums.
>
> Wrong question.
>
> What we really need to know is why posters feel compelled to keep
> telling him what he (and we) already know. The clutter isn't from
> responses to his posts -- it's the off-topic responses to HIS on-topic
> (if incorrect) responses that are cluttering the forums.

Go fukk yourself JAy.

When you stop making off topic posts you can throw stones you hypocitical
piece of ****.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
:

>
> "Gig601XLBuilder" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I spend a lot of time on simulation because I like to fly.
>>>
>>
>> No you have no experience in flying so you have no frame of reference
>> to say you enjoy it. As a matter of fact you have stated here many
>> many times that you don't like many if not most of the sensory inputs
>> you would have to put up with to fly.
>>
>> So what you like to do is simulate flying and guess what? That
>> activity has its very own newsgroup.
>>
>
> Could somebody please explain to me why anybody responds to Mxsmanic's
> messages?

Because it's fun? That's why I do it anyway.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
:

>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:Ppsgj.25350$Ux2.459@attbi_s22...
>>>
>>> Could somebody please explain to me why anybody responds to
>>> Mxsmanic's messages? I killfiled him long ago, but I can't filter
>>> the responses to his messages that clutter these forums.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong question.
>>
>> What we really need to know is why posters feel compelled to keep
>> telling him what he (and we) already know. The clutter isn't from
>> responses to his posts -- it's the off-topic responses to HIS
>> on-topic (if incorrect) responses that are cluttering the forums.
>>
>
> Off-topic responses to HIS on-topic (if incorrect) responses are still
> responses to his posts.
>
>
>

Like this one is , you mean?


Bertie

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Off-topic responses to HIS on-topic (if incorrect) responses are still
> responses to his posts.

Although they are posted in reaction to MX's posts, I would hardly call them
"responses" in the traditional sense. For some they seem more like an
involuntary reaction.

Posting "f&ckwit!" after every MX post, for example, could be done more
efficiently by a computer program.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:DGsgj.25377$Ux2.19443@attbi_s22:

>> Off-topic responses to HIS on-topic (if incorrect) responses are
>> still responses to his posts.
>
> Although they are posted in reaction to MX's posts, I would hardly
> call them "responses" in the traditional sense. For some they seem
> more like an involuntary reaction.
>
> Posting "f&ckwit!" after every MX post, for example, could be done
> more efficiently by a computer program.


So could your drivel, fjukkwit.

It'd have more personality as well.

Bertie

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:DGsgj.25377$Ux2.19443@attbi_s22...
>
> Although they are posted in reaction to MX's posts, I would hardly call
> them "responses" in the traditional sense. For some they seem more like
> an involuntary reaction.
>

Some should improve their self control.


>
> Posting "f&ckwit!" after every MX post, for example, could be done more
> efficiently by a computer program.
>

There are computer programs that can efficiently block his messages. Those
that use these forums for the intended purpose should use those programs.
Mxsmanic would be like the tree falling in the woods that nobody could hear.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
:

>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:DGsgj.25377$Ux2.19443@attbi_s22...
>>
>> Although they are posted in reaction to MX's posts, I would hardly
>> call them "responses" in the traditional sense. For some they seem
>> more like an involuntary reaction.
>>
>
> Some should improve their self control.
>
>
>>
>> Posting "f&ckwit!" after every MX post, for example, could be done
>> more efficiently by a computer program.
>>
>
> There are computer programs that can efficiently block his messages.
> Those that use these forums for the intended purpose should use those
> programs. Mxsmanic would be like the tree falling in the woods that
> nobody could hear.
>
>

Um he nmeant me.


He slurps Anthony because anthony is relatively nice to him.


Bertie

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> There are computer programs that can efficiently block his messages.
> Those that use these forums for the intended purpose should use those
> programs. Mxsmanic would be like the tree falling in the woods that nobody
> could hear.

It is for this reason that I've gone back to using my ISP for access to
Usenet, rather than Google Groups. I honestly miss some of the nicer
features of GG, but it sure is nice to have a respectfully cordial group
again -- even if it is artificially attained with a killfile.

And, actually, I've eliminated MX's tormentors, and left him be, for now.
He, at least, occasionally asks a good question.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Hackwit]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:s2tgj.25407$Ux2.16602@attbi_s22:

>> There are computer programs that can efficiently block his messages.
>> Those that use these forums for the intended purpose should use those
>> programs. Mxsmanic would be like the tree falling in the woods that
>> nobody could hear.
>
> It is for this reason that I've gone back to using my ISP for access
> to Usenet, rather than Google Groups.



Good move fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> There are computer programs that can efficiently block his messages. Those
> that use these forums for the intended purpose should use those programs.
> Mxsmanic would be like the tree falling in the woods that nobody could hear.
>
>

And many of those same programs can efficiently block messages that have
his name in them or any version of his name. Anyone that is going to
bitch about those of us responding to him should use those programs.

[piynuB eht eitreB[_2_]]

Gig601XLBuilder > wrote in
:

> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>>
>> There are computer programs that can efficiently block his messages.
>> Those that use these forums for the intended purpose should use those
>> programs. Mxsmanic would be like the tree falling in the woods that
>> nobody could hear.
>>
>>
>
> And many of those same programs can efficiently block messages that
> have his name in them or any version of his name. Anyone that is going
> to bitch about those of us responding to him should use those
> programs.
>

Excellent suggestion.


eitreB

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Ppsgj.25350$Ux2.459@attbi_s22...
>> Could somebody please explain to me why anybody responds to Mxsmanic's messages? I
>> killfiled him long ago, but I can't filter the responses to his messages that clutter
>> these forums.
>
> Wrong question.
>
> What we really need to know is why posters feel compelled to keep telling him what he
> (and we) already know. The clutter isn't from responses to his posts -- it's the
> off-topic responses to HIS on-topic (if incorrect) responses that are cluttering the
> forums.

Any open forum starts out with a name and theme that attracts posters, but what happens
then is that many regulars come to regard the newsgroup as one of their home pages. It's
where you hang out for conversation, argumentation, and entertainment. To varying degrees
the content will be about aviation or whatever the group theme is, but once it effectively
becomes a home page, the door is open to whatever topics are of interest to any of the
participants. This is distracting and annoying to those who only want to see aviation
content but the only way you will get that is in moderated groups. Some moderated groups
are successful but many are moribund echo chambers precisely because they censor the
free-fire off-topic exchanges that can be interesting and entertaining enough to attract
and keep readers with other points of view.

Attempts to rein in the off-topic posts in UseNet are doomed to failure and in fact only
contribute to the static noise. Your options are to drop out, start to killfile (which is
only partially effective) or learn how to skip over the threads and/or posters that don't
interest you.

And as has been noted, how is the commercial promotion of your motel in your sig germane
to legitimate aviation topics, other than that you may snag some pilots as guests?

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:s2tgj.25407$Ux2.16602@attbi_s22...

> And, actually, I've eliminated MX's tormentors, and left him be, for now. He, at least,
> occasionally asks a good question.

And then provokes scornful reponses when he wanders off into his goofball opinions.

A fool can ask more questions than an entire newsgroup can answer.

<commercial sig deleted>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"John Mazor" > wrote in
news:K6vgj.674$Z61.537@trnddc07:

>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:s2tgj.25407$Ux2.16602@attbi_s22...
>
>> And, actually, I've eliminated MX's tormentors, and left him be, for
>> now. He, at least, occasionally asks a good question.
>
> And then provokes scornful reponses when he wanders off into his
> goofball opinions.
>
> A fool can ask more questions than an entire newsgroup can answer.
>
> <commercial sig deleted>


Your patience and caginess sometimes astounds me.


Bertie

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig601XLBuilder" > wrote in message
...
>
> And many of those same programs can efficiently block messages that have
> his name in them or any version of his name. Anyone that is going to bitch
> about those of us responding to him should use those programs.
>

Or one could simply killfile those that respond to Mxsmanic. Since those
that feel the need to respond to him are also those that generally have
nothing worthwhile to contribute to these forums.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "John Mazor" > wrote in
> news:K6vgj.674$Z61.537@trnddc07:
>
>>
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> news:s2tgj.25407$Ux2.16602@attbi_s22...
>>
>>> And, actually, I've eliminated MX's tormentors, and left him be, for
>>> now. He, at least, occasionally asks a good question.
>>
>> And then provokes scornful reponses when he wanders off into his
>> goofball opinions.
>>
>> A fool can ask more questions than an entire newsgroup can answer.
>>
>> <commercial sig deleted>
>
> Your patience and caginess sometimes astounds me.

I'm an easygoing, genial guy loved by all who know me.

I just don't suffer fools gladly.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"John Mazor" > wrote in news:5Fvgj.5893$qV.3541
@trnddc03:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "John Mazor" > wrote in
>> news:K6vgj.674$Z61.537@trnddc07:
>>
>>>
>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>>> news:s2tgj.25407$Ux2.16602@attbi_s22...
>>>
>>>> And, actually, I've eliminated MX's tormentors, and left him be, for
>>>> now. He, at least, occasionally asks a good question.
>>>
>>> And then provokes scornful reponses when he wanders off into his
>>> goofball opinions.
>>>
>>> A fool can ask more questions than an entire newsgroup can answer.
>>>
>>> <commercial sig deleted>
>>
>> Your patience and caginess sometimes astounds me.
>
> I'm an easygoing, genial guy loved by all who know me.
>
> I just don't suffer fools gladly.
>
>
>
>
>

I, OTOH, just love a good fool


Bertie

[Jim Stewart]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "John Mazor" > wrote in news:5Fvgj.5893$qV.3541
> @trnddc03:
>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> "John Mazor" > wrote in
>>> news:K6vgj.674$Z61.537@trnddc07:
>>>
>>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>>>> news:s2tgj.25407$Ux2.16602@attbi_s22...
>>>>
>>>>> And, actually, I've eliminated MX's tormentors, and left him be, for
>>>>> now. He, at least, occasionally asks a good question.
>>>> And then provokes scornful reponses when he wanders off into his
>>>> goofball opinions.
>>>>
>>>> A fool can ask more questions than an entire newsgroup can answer.
>>>>
>>>> <commercial sig deleted>
>>> Your patience and caginess sometimes astounds me.
>> I'm an easygoing, genial guy loved by all who know me.
>>
>> I just don't suffer fools gladly.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> I, OTOH, just love a good fool

I'd say you gladly endeavor to make fools suffer.

[WingFlaps]

On Jan 8, 9:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "John Mazor" > wrote in news:5Fvgj.5893$qV.3541
> @trnddc03:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> "John Mazor" > wrote in
> >>news:K6vgj.674$Z61.537@trnddc07:
>
> >>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> >>>news:s2tgj.25407$Ux2.16602@attbi_s22...
>
> >>>> And, actually, I've eliminated MX's tormentors, and left him be, for
> >>>> now. He, at least, occasionally asks a good question.
>
> >>> And then provokes scornful reponses when he wanders off into his
> >>> goofball opinions.
>
> >>> A fool can ask more questions than an entire newsgroup can answer.
>
> >> Your patience and caginess sometimes *astounds me.
>
> > I'm an easygoing, genial guy loved by all who know me.
>
> > I just don't suffer fools gladly.
>
> I, OTOH, just love a good fool
>

A strawberry one is my favorite!

Cheers

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig601XLBuilder" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> And many of those same programs can efficiently block messages that have
>> his name in them or any version of his name. Anyone that is going to bitch
>> about those of us responding to him should use those programs.
>
> Or one could simply killfile those that respond to Mxsmanic. Since those that feel the
> need to respond to him are also those that generally have nothing worthwhile to
> contribute to these forums.

Roger on the killfile option, and I recommend it if you just can't stand the digressions,
but killfiling casts a wide net. Some who repond to our resident loons or go off-topic
also have useful or interesting things to say. I've never killfiled anyone in 24 years on
the Internet. I just skim new posts to look for anything that would be of interest - even
if I don't have anything to add to the discussion - and mark the rest as Read. It takes a
bit longer but it's much more rewarding.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Jim Stewart" > wrote in message
...
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "John Mazor" > wrote in news:5Fvgj.5893$qV.3541
>> @trnddc03:
>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> "John Mazor" > wrote in
>>>> news:K6vgj.674$Z61.537@trnddc07:
>>>>
>>>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>>>>> news:s2tgj.25407$Ux2.16602@attbi_s22...
>>>>>
>>>>>> And, actually, I've eliminated MX's tormentors, and left him be, for
>>>>>> now. He, at least, occasionally asks a good question.
>>>>> And then provokes scornful reponses when he wanders off into his
>>>>> goofball opinions.
>>>>>
>>>>> A fool can ask more questions than an entire newsgroup can answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> <commercial sig deleted>
>>>> Your patience and caginess sometimes astounds me.
>
>>> I'm an easygoing, genial guy loved by all who know me.
>>>
>>> I just don't suffer fools gladly.
>>
>> I, OTOH, just love a good fool
>
> I'd say you gladly endeavor to make fools suffer.

Word play! I love it! No fooling!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Stewart > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "John Mazor" > wrote in news:5Fvgj.5893$qV.3541
>> @trnddc03:
>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> "John Mazor" > wrote in
>>>> news:K6vgj.674$Z61.537@trnddc07:
>>>>
>>>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>>>>> news:s2tgj.25407$Ux2.16602@attbi_s22...
>>>>>
>>>>>> And, actually, I've eliminated MX's tormentors, and left him be,
for
>>>>>> now. He, at least, occasionally asks a good question.
>>>>> And then provokes scornful reponses when he wanders off into his
>>>>> goofball opinions.
>>>>>
>>>>> A fool can ask more questions than an entire newsgroup can answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> <commercial sig deleted>
>>>> Your patience and caginess sometimes astounds me.
>>> I'm an easygoing, genial guy loved by all who know me.
>>>
>>> I just don't suffer fools gladly.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I, OTOH, just love a good fool
>
> I'd say you gladly endeavor to make fools suffer.


Exactly. Hmm, that could be a good sig line..


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Jan 8, 9:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "John Mazor" > wrote in news:5Fvgj.5893$qV.3541
>> @trnddc03:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> >> "John Mazor" > wrote in
>> >>news:K6vgj.674$Z61.537@trnddc07:
>>
>> >>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> >>>news:s2tgj.25407$Ux2.16602@attbi_s22...
>>
>> >>>> And, actually, I've eliminated MX's tormentors, and left him be,
>> >>>> for now. He, at least, occasionally asks a good question.
>>
>> >>> And then provokes scornful reponses when he wanders off into his
>> >>> goofball opinions.
>>
>> >>> A fool can ask more questions than an entire newsgroup can
>> >>> answer.
>>
>> >> Your patience and caginess sometimes *astounds me.
>>
>> > I'm an easygoing, genial guy loved by all who know me.
>>
>> > I just don't suffer fools gladly.
>>
>> I, OTOH, just love a good fool
>>
>
> A strawberry one is my favorite!
>

OK.I like fruit and nuts.


Bertie

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Attempts to rein in the off-topic posts in UseNet are doomed to failure
> and in fact only contribute to the static noise. Your options are to drop
> out, start to killfile (which is only partially effective) or learn how to
> skip over the threads and/or posters that don't interest you.

I don't think either of us is talking about off-topic posts. Steven is
complaining about posts from/to a specific user (MX), while I am chiming in
that it's not the poster that is the problem. Rather, it's the guys who
obsessively and reflexively respond to MX's posts with abusive,
ever-less-original insults that have so polluted the group.

Mine isn't a complaint about off-topic posts at all. Rather, it's a
complaint against personal attacks on others in the group. Huge difference.

> And as has been noted, how is the commercial promotion of your motel in
> your sig germane to legitimate aviation topics, other than that you may
> snag some pilots as guests?

My signature line has remained unchanged since we opened 5+ years ago --
with large heapings of help from folks in this very newsgroup, I might add.
In it you will find links to my home page, with photos, videos, and (*gasp*)
even my real phone number and email address!

This same sig line goes on ever correspondence I send (well, okay, minus the
airplane "N" number), whether it's here, on email or snail mail. If you
choose to think of it as promotional, so be it -- I prefer to think of it as
"real" -- and this group would be a damn-sight better off if everyone so
clearly identified themselves.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:kRxgj.289927$Fc.203153@attbi_s21...
>
> I don't think either of us is talking about off-topic posts. Steven is
> complaining about posts from/to a specific user (MX), while I am chiming
> in that it's not the poster that is the problem. Rather, it's the guys
> who obsessively and reflexively respond to MX's posts with abusive,
> ever-less-original insults that have so polluted the group.
>

I have no problem with posts from Mxsmanic. I killfiled him long ago, I
never see his posts. My problem was with the clutter caused by those that
feel a need to respond to his posts.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:kRxgj.289927$Fc.203153@attbi_s21:

>> Attempts to rein in the off-topic posts in UseNet are doomed to
>> failure and in fact only contribute to the static noise. Your
>> options are to drop out, start to killfile (which is only partially
>> effective) or learn how to skip over the threads and/or posters that
>> don't interest you.
>
> I don't think either of us is talking about off-topic posts. Steven
> is complaining about posts from/to a specific user (MX), while I am
> chiming in that it's not the poster that is the problem. Rather, it's
> the guys who obsessively and reflexively respond to MX's posts with
> abusive, ever-less-original insults that have so polluted the group.
>
> Mine isn't a complaint about off-topic posts at all.


You are a liar as well as a ****heel.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
:

>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:kRxgj.289927$Fc.203153@attbi_s21...
>>
>> I don't think either of us is talking about off-topic posts. Steven
>> is complaining about posts from/to a specific user (MX), while I am
>> chiming in that it's not the poster that is the problem. Rather,
>> it's the guys who obsessively and reflexively respond to MX's posts
>> with abusive, ever-less-original insults that have so polluted the
>> group.
>>
>
> I have no problem with posts from Mxsmanic. I killfiled him long ago,
> I never see his posts. My problem was with the clutter caused by
> those that feel a need to respond to his posts.
>
>
>

Like to **** into the wind, do you?

Bertie

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:kRxgj.289927$Fc.203153@attbi_s21...
>> Attempts to rein in the off-topic posts in UseNet are doomed to failure and in fact
>> only contribute to the static noise. Your options are to drop out, start to killfile
>> (which is only partially effective) or learn how to skip over the threads and/or
>> posters that don't interest you.
>
> I don't think either of us is talking about off-topic posts. Steven is complaining
> about posts from/to a specific user (MX), while I am chiming in that it's not the poster
> that is the problem. Rather, it's the guys who obsessively and reflexively respond to
> MX's posts with abusive, ever-less-original insults that have so polluted the group.
>
> Mine isn't a complaint about off-topic posts at all. Rather, it's a complaint against
> personal attacks on others in the group. Huge difference.

Okay, fair enough - but my advice still is relevant and stands as is.

>> And as has been noted, how is the commercial promotion of your motel in your sig
>> germane to legitimate aviation topics, other than that you may snag some pilots as
>> guests?
>
> My signature line has remained unchanged since we opened 5+ years ago -- with large
> heapings of help from folks in this very newsgroup, I might add. In it you will find
> links to my home page, with photos, videos, and (*gasp*) even my real phone number and
> email address!

Then why not just put in direct links to anything related to aviation? Why the sales job?

> This same sig line goes on ever correspondence I send (well, okay, minus the airplane
> "N" number), whether it's here, on email or snail mail. If you choose to think of it as
> promotional, so be it -- I prefer to think of it as "real" -- and this group would be a
> damn-sight better off if everyone so clearly identified themselves.

So repeating the same offense over time and locations makes it acceptable? So anyone who
has something to sell to to the group should feel free to put his marketing website in his
sig? Sorry, but that carries more than a faint whiff of shameless self-promotion.

If it were a non-profit website devoted to aviation interests, that would be a different
matter. And quite honestly, I don't think we'd be having this conversation if you weren't
one of the ones complaining about content.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"John Mazor" > wrote in
news:YJygj.49642$8Z1.42567@trnddc05:

>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:kRxgj.289927$Fc.203153@attbi_s21...
>>> Attempts to rein in the off-topic posts in UseNet are doomed to
>>> failure and in fact only contribute to the static noise. Your
>>> options are to drop out, start to killfile (which is only partially
>>> effective) or learn how to skip over the threads and/or posters that
>>> don't interest you.
>>
>> I don't think either of us is talking about off-topic posts. Steven
>> is complaining about posts from/to a specific user (MX), while I am
>> chiming in that it's not the poster that is the problem. Rather,
>> it's the guys who obsessively and reflexively respond to MX's posts
>> with abusive, ever-less-original insults that have so polluted the
>> group.
>>
>> Mine isn't a complaint about off-topic posts at all. Rather, it's a
>> complaint against personal attacks on others in the group. Huge
>> difference.
>
> Okay, fair enough - but my advice still is relevant and stands as is.
>
>>> And as has been noted, how is the commercial promotion of your motel
>>> in your sig germane to legitimate aviation topics, other than that
>>> you may snag some pilots as guests?
>>
>> My signature line has remained unchanged since we opened 5+ years ago
>> -- with large heapings of help from folks in this very newsgroup, I
>> might add. In it you will find links to my home page, with photos,
>> videos, and (*gasp*) even my real phone number and email address!
>
> Then why not just put in direct links to anything related to aviation?
> Why the sales job?
>
>> This same sig line goes on ever correspondence I send (well, okay,
>> minus the airplane "N" number), whether it's here, on email or snail
>> mail. If you choose to think of it as promotional, so be it -- I
>> prefer to think of it as "real" -- and this group would be a
>> damn-sight better off if everyone so clearly identified themselves.
>
> So repeating the same offense over time and locations makes it
> acceptable? So anyone who has something to sell to to the group
> should feel free to put his marketing website in his sig? Sorry, but
> that carries more than a faint whiff of shameless self-promotion.
>
> If it were a non-profit website devoted to aviation interests, that
> would be a different matter. And quite honestly, I don't think we'd
> be having this conversation if you weren't one of the ones complaining
> about content.
>
>
>
>

Yer wasting yer time on this one, John. Self promotion is the ONLY
reason he's here.


Bertie

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Jay Honeck schrieb:

>> And as has been noted, how is the commercial promotion of your motel in
>> your sig germane to legitimate aviation topics, other than that you may
>> snag some pilots as guests?
>
> My signature line has remained unchanged since we opened 5+ years ago --
> with large heapings of help from folks in this very newsgroup, I might add.
> In it you will find links to my home page, with photos, videos, and (*gasp*)
> even my real phone number and email address!

a signature on usenet is almost never a topic for discussions. It is
broadly accepted to have his own signature (completely not-related to a
specific group or topic), correctly seperated by "-- " (note the
space!), followed by a maximum of *4* lines.

#m

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

John Mazor schrieb:

> Then why not just put in direct links to anything related to aviation? Why the sales job?
>
>> This same sig line goes on ever correspondence I send (well, okay, minus the airplane
>> "N" number), whether it's here, on email or snail mail. If you choose to think of it as
>> promotional, so be it -- I prefer to think of it as "real" -- and this group would be a
>> damn-sight better off if everyone so clearly identified themselves.
>
> So repeating the same offense over time and locations makes it acceptable? So anyone who
> has something to sell to to the group should feel free to put his marketing website in his
> sig? Sorry, but that carries more than a faint whiff of shameless self-promotion.
>
> If it were a non-profit website devoted to aviation interests, that would be a different
> matter. And quite honestly, I don't think we'd be having this conversation if you weren't
> one of the ones complaining about content.

sorry, but you're wrong. A signature has nothing to do with a specific
group or topic, one should refrain from permanently only replying to a
posting with a full signature and a "me too" or "I agree", though. So
yes: whatever you put in your (*4*!) lines of signature (and hopefully
with a correct "-- " to separate the .sig and unless it is not illegal
you're free to write there whatever you want. This is widely accepted
within the community.

#m
--
This is a signature. I can write there whatever I want.
This could be a political statement, a joke or a link to a website.
like this one: http://www.hotze.priv.at/centerfold.jpg
uh-ohhhh. ... ah. and this is only to fill up the 4 lines. done!

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message ...
> John Mazor schrieb:
>
>> Then why not just put in direct links to anything related to aviation? Why the sales
>> job?
>>
>>> This same sig line goes on ever correspondence I send (well, okay, minus the airplane
>>> "N" number), whether it's here, on email or snail mail. If you choose to think of it
>>> as promotional, so be it -- I prefer to think of it as "real" -- and this group would
>>> be a damn-sight better off if everyone so clearly identified themselves.
>>
>> So repeating the same offense over time and locations makes it acceptable? So anyone
>> who has something to sell to to the group should feel free to put his marketing website
>> in his sig? Sorry, but that carries more than a faint whiff of shameless
>> self-promotion.
>>
>> If it were a non-profit website devoted to aviation interests, that would be a
>> different matter. And quite honestly, I don't think we'd be having this conversation
>> if you weren't one of the ones complaining about content.
>
> sorry, but you're wrong. A signature has nothing to do with a specific group or topic,
> one should refrain from permanently only replying to a posting with a full signature and
> a "me too" or "I agree", though. So yes: whatever you put in your (*4*!) lines of
> signature (and hopefully with a correct "-- " to separate the .sig and unless it is not
> illegal you're free to write there whatever you want. This is widely accepted within the
> community.
>
> #m
> --
> This is a signature. I can write there whatever I want.
> This could be a political statement, a joke or a link to a website.
> like this one: http://www.hotze.priv.at/centerfold.jpg
> uh-ohhhh. ... ah. and this is only to fill up the 4 lines. done!

Oh, come on now. The criticisms here had nothing to do with arcane "standards". They had
everything to do with consistency vs. hypocrisy regarding criticisms by certain posters
over others' content.

--
Who gives a damn what I put here
as a sig as long as it isn't offensive?
If anyone can provide a URL to the "standards"
cited by the poster here, please post it for our benefit.
"A Funny Thing Happened to Me on the Way to the UseNet Forum..."
(Hah, hah, and apologies to Zero Mostel)
By the way, has anyone looked at
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/
lately? It's got nothing to do with aviation
but it's a good place to chcck the campaign
rhetoric that sometimes gets bandied about here.

-- John Mazor
"The search for wisdom is asymptotic."

"Except for Internet newsgroups, where it is divergent..."
-- R J Carpenter

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Oh, come on now. The criticisms here had nothing to do with arcane
> "standards". They had everything to do with consistency vs. hypocrisy
> regarding criticisms by certain posters over others' content.

You're trying to equate my inclusion of a web address in my signature line
with my opposition to personal attack posts on this newsgroup?

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

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:gDDgj.26138$Ux2.14938@attbi_s22:

>> Oh, come on now. The criticisms here had nothing to do with arcane
>> "standards". They had everything to do with consistency vs.
>> hypocrisy regarding criticisms by certain posters over others'
>> content.
>
> You're trying to equate my inclusion of a web address in my signature
> line with my opposition to personal attack posts on this newsgroup?


Well then how about your personal attacks, then ?

Not to mention your behind the back attempts to ostracise posters as well
as your netkkkoping?


Scumball.

Bertie

[Jim Logajan]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>> You're trying to equate my inclusion of a web address in my signature
>> line with my opposition to personal attack posts on this newsgroup?
>
>
> Well then how about your personal attacks, then ?
>
> Not to mention your behind the back attempts to ostracise posters as
> well as your netkkkoping?
>
>
> Scumball.


Can't we all just not get along?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in news:Xns9A1EDD1476E5JamesLLugojcom@
216.168.3.30:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>>> You're trying to equate my inclusion of a web address in my signature
>>> line with my opposition to personal attack posts on this newsgroup?
>>
>>
>> Well then how about your personal attacks, then ?
>>
>> Not to mention your behind the back attempts to ostracise posters as
>> well as your netkkkoping?
>>
>>
>> Scumball.
>
>
> Can't we all just not get along?
>

I'm getting on great!

You?

Bertie

[Jim Logajan]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote in
> news:Xns9A1EDD1476E5JamesLLugojcom@ 216.168.3.30:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>>>> You're trying to equate my inclusion of a web address in my
>>>> signature line with my opposition to personal attack posts on this
>>>> newsgroup?
>>>
>>>
>>> Well then how about your personal attacks, then ?
>>>
>>> Not to mention your behind the back attempts to ostracise posters as
>>> well as your netkkkoping?
>>>
>>>
>>> Scumball.
>>
>>
>> Can't we all just not get along?
>>
>
> I'm getting on great!
>
> You?

I need practice. Just don't have much time for it. While I'm here...

Don't you have someplace to fly to?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan > wrote in
>> news:Xns9A1EDD1476E5JamesLLugojcom@ 216.168.3.30:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>>>>> You're trying to equate my inclusion of a web address in my
>>>>> signature line with my opposition to personal attack posts on this
>>>>> newsgroup?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well then how about your personal attacks, then ?
>>>>
>>>> Not to mention your behind the back attempts to ostracise posters
as
>>>> well as your netkkkoping?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Scumball.
>>>
>>>
>>> Can't we all just not get along?
>>>
>>
>> I'm getting on great!
>>
>> You?
>
> I need practice. Just don't have much time for it. While I'm here...
>
> Don't you have someplace to fly to?

Not at the moment.

Been out building instead.

Bertie
>

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:gDDgj.26138$Ux2.14938@attbi_s22...
>> Oh, come on now. The criticisms here had nothing to do with arcane "standards". They
>> had everything to do with consistency vs. hypocrisy regarding criticisms by certain
>> posters over others' content.
>
> You're trying to equate my inclusion of a web address in my signature line with my
> opposition to personal attack posts on this newsgroup?
>
> Wow.

Okay, I went back and reviewed your material. I apparently
was conflating your views, but in fairness your 1/1/08 post,

"And I have yet to see anyone blast anyone else, which is
truly refreshing. Imagine -- an entire conversation about flying
without anyone shouting "f*ckwit" ??

"It's sad to think that there are now so few threads here
that aren't polluted with that kind of crap. *Aside from it taking
people's attention away from talking about piloting,* it's just
depressing to read stuff like that every day." (emphasis added)

*could* have been interpreted as a complaint about off-topic posting.

And your 1/7/08 post,

"What we really need to know is why posters feel compelled
to keep telling him what he (and we) already know. The clutter isn't from
responses to his posts -- it's the off-topic responses to HIS on-topic (if
incorrect) responses that are cluttering the forums."

definitely sounds like the same kind of complaint, so I
wasn't totally imagining it.

However, a fair reading of your other comments made me
reconsider, and I apologize for mischaracterizing your views
on off-topic posts. Your main objection is the tone of some posts.

I still find the commercial blurb in your sig objectionable,
a violation of the spirit if not the letter of UseNet
protocols, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree
on that.

[Jim Logajan]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> Jim Logajan > wrote in
>>> news:Xns9A1EDD1476E5JamesLLugojcom@ 216.168.3.30:
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>>>>>> You're trying to equate my inclusion of a web address in my
>>>>>> signature line with my opposition to personal attack posts on this
>>>>>> newsgroup?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well then how about your personal attacks, then ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not to mention your behind the back attempts to ostracise posters
> as
>>>>> well as your netkkkoping?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Scumball.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can't we all just not get along?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm getting on great!
>>>
>>> You?
>>
>> I need practice. Just don't have much time for it. While I'm here...
>>
>> Don't you have someplace to fly to?
>
> Not at the moment.
>
> Been out building instead.

If you're off to your Hatz, my hat's off to you.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> Jim Logajan > wrote in
>>>> news:Xns9A1EDD1476E5JamesLLugojcom@ 216.168.3.30:
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>>>>>>> You're trying to equate my inclusion of a web address in my
>>>>>>> signature line with my opposition to personal attack posts on
this
>>>>>>> newsgroup?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well then how about your personal attacks, then ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not to mention your behind the back attempts to ostracise posters
>> as
>>>>>> well as your netkkkoping?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Scumball.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can't we all just not get along?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm getting on great!
>>>>
>>>> You?
>>>
>>> I need practice. Just don't have much time for it. While I'm here...
>>>
>>> Don't you have someplace to fly to?
>>
>> Not at the moment.
>>
>> Been out building instead.
>
> If you're off to your Hatz, my hat's off to you.

Thanks!

Bertie
>

[WingFlaps]

On Jan 8, 10:08*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 9:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> "John Mazor" > wrote in news:5Fvgj.5893$qV.3541
> >> @trnddc03:
>
> >> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> >> .. .
> >> >> "John Mazor" > wrote in
> >> >>news:K6vgj.674$Z61.537@trnddc07:
>
> >> >>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> >> >>>news:s2tgj.25407$Ux2.16602@attbi_s22...
>
> >> >>>> And, actually, I've eliminated MX's tormentors, and left him be,
> >> >>>> for now. He, at least, occasionally asks a good question.
>
> >> >>> And then provokes scornful reponses when he wanders off into his
> >> >>> goofball opinions.
>
> >> >>> A fool can ask more questions than an entire newsgroup can
> >> >>> answer.
>
> >> >> Your patience and caginess sometimes *astounds me.
>
> >> > I'm an easygoing, genial guy loved by all who know me.
>
> >> > I just don't suffer fools gladly.
>
> >> I, OTOH, just love a good fool
>
> > A strawberry one is my favorite!
>
> OK.I like fruit and nuts.
>

Yes we know, and that would be a well whipped fool to boot.

Cheers

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

John Mazor schrieb:

> I still find the commercial blurb in your sig objectionable,

hu?

> a violation of the spirit if not the letter of UseNet
> protocols, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree
> on that.

no, this is NOT a violation. One might have Jay reduce his signature
down to *4* lines, but that's it. The content of a signature is almost
never topic of a discussion (unless one is out of arguments).

#m
--
I am not a terrorist <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 12:48:58 +0100, Martin Hotze >
wrote in >:

>John Mazor schrieb:
>
>> I still find the commercial blurb in your sig objectionable,
>
>hu?
>
>> a violation of the spirit if not the letter of UseNet
>> protocols, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree
>> on that.
>
>no, this is NOT a violation. One might have Jay reduce his signature
>down to *4* lines, but that's it. The content of a signature is almost
>never topic of a discussion (unless one is out of arguments).
>
>#m

While I tend to agree with you, it is not born out in these documents:
http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3676.txt

And the information provided by this pseudo Usenet expert isn't much
help at all: http://www.albion.com/netiquette/book/0963702513p62.html

However there is a clue here:
http://blog.entourage.mvps.org/2007/06/signature_blocks_and_netiquett.html

and here:
http://www.answers.com/topic/mcquary-limit-computer-jargon?cat=technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlording
http://lipas.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/signatur.html
http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/home/leagal/netguide/signat.txt

But I was unable to find mention of commercial content contained in
Usenet signatures mentioned in any of the reference articles during my
research of the subject with this exception:
http://www.sideroad.com/Netiquette/signature-files.html