Kennedy gets his own TFR

[Steve Foley]

FDC 8/8593 ZBW MA.. FLIGHT RESTRICTION HYANNIS, MA EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY
UNTIL 0805272200 UTC. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR SECTION 91.137(A)(1), TEMPORARY
FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT DUE TO SAFETY OF FLIGHT WITHIN A 3
NAUTICAL MILE RADIUS OF 413749N/0701812W OR THE MVY VORTAC 060 DEGREE RADIAL
AT 19.8 NAUTICAL MILES UP TO AND INCLUDING 5000 MSL. ALL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
WITHIN THE AREA LISTED ABOVE ARE PROHIBITED EXCEPT FOR: FEDERAL, STATE,
LOCAL MEDEVAC AND MILITARY AIRCRAFT. VFR AND IFR OPPERATIONS TO AND FROM HYA
ARE AUTHORIZED. AIRCRAFT IN DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS WITH ATC ARE ALLOWED. NO
LOITERING, NO PRACTICE APPROACHES OR PATTERN WORK. CAPE APCH, 508-968-7126,
AND OR BOSTON ARTCC /ZBW/, 603-879-6655, ARE THE COORDINATION FACILITIES.


He gets the cape to himself for the holiday weekend.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Steve Foley" > wrote:

[TFR snipped]
>
> He gets the cape to himself for the holiday weekend.

Should we start a pool on how many pilots violate this TFR over
the weekend? Sunday looks a perfect day for flying over the
cape.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Tina]

It looks like the only restrictions are sightseeing and messing around
flights in that airspace -- vfr operations into Hyannis are allowed,
as are most other 'going somewhere' flights.

Could this be construed as an anti-press restriction, keeping CNN and
others from getting too close to his sailboat?

By the way, in spite of rumors otherwise, his 50 footer is fully
capable of turning to the right. Unless Sen Kerry is aboard, of
course, in which case it takes three lefts to make a right. Oh, all
right, three port turns to make a starboard.

By the way, since sails often do act like vertical wings generating
lift (thanks to the lift fairies) including sailing comments is still
on topic.




On May 24, 6:42 am, Bob Noel >
wrote:
> In article >,
> "Steve Foley" > wrote:
>
> [TFR snipped]
>
>
>
> > He gets the cape to himself for the holiday weekend.
>
> Should we start a pool on how many pilots violate this TFR over
> the weekend? Sunday looks a perfect day for flying over the
> cape.
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> (goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Lou]

>
> By the way, in spite of rumors otherwise, his 50 footer is fully
> capable of turning to the right. Unless Sen Kerry is aboard, of
> course, in which case it takes three lefts to make a right. Oh, all
> right, three port turns to make a starboard.
>

You gotta love a sense of humor!!!!!!!!
Lou

[Bob Fry]

Looks like it's designed to keep out the paparrazi and looky-loos: 3nm
radius, sfc-5000 ft.
--
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the
silence of our friends.
~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

[More_Flaps]

On May 24, 11:57*pm, Tina > wrote:

>
> By the way, since sails often do act like vertical wings generating
> lift (thanks to the lift fairies) including sailing comments is still
> on topic.
>

Nope. Sails work by deflecting sea sprites. From personal experience,
I can tell you that a particular class of sprite sprite called sojo
(in Japanese) can be extremely troublesome and can loose you a lot of
sailing races -if you have alcohol on board. Lift faries like to sit
on wings (when they are not flying) and have no interest in vertical
sails at all.

Cheers

[More_Flaps]

On May 24, 9:57*pm, "Steve Foley" > wrote:

> He gets the cape to himself for the holiday weekend.

Is he really that important?

Cheers

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

More_Flaps wrote:
> On May 24, 9:57 pm, "Steve Foley" > wrote:
>
>> He gets the cape to himself for the holiday weekend.
>
> Is he really that important?
>

No.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
m:

> More_Flaps wrote:
>> On May 24, 9:57 pm, "Steve Foley" > wrote:
>>
>>> He gets the cape to himself for the holiday weekend.
>>
>> Is he really that important?
>>
>
> No.
>
>
>

Can you be sure?

Bertie

[Tina]

I do not like the man, but would say his privacy should be respected.
If good taste won't keep people away, this minor inconvenience to
pilots is fine. Although, given the tastelessness of many who would
get close, the zone should be defined as anything within range of say
a 50 caliber round.


shoOn May 24, 11:59 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote innews:Xv6dndHFYIQAp6XVnZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@earthlink. com:
>
> > More_Flaps wrote:
> >> On May 24, 9:57 pm, "Steve Foley" > wrote:
>
> >>> He gets the cape to himself for the holiday weekend.
>
> >> Is he really that important?
>
> > No.
>
> Can you be sure?
>
> Bertie

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

shoOn May 24, 11:59 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> Can you be sure?
>
> Bertie
>

Absolutely.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Tina wrote:
> I do not like the man, but would say his privacy should be respected.
> If good taste won't keep people away, this minor inconvenience to
> pilots is fine. Although, given the tastelessness of many who would
> get close, the zone should be defined as anything within range of say
> a 50 caliber round.
>
>
> shoOn May 24, 11:59 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote innews:Xv6dndHFYIQAp6XVnZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@earthlink. com:
>>
>>> More_Flaps wrote:
>>>> On May 24, 9:57 pm, "Steve Foley" > wrote:
>>>>> He gets the cape to himself for the holiday weekend.
>>>> Is he really that important?
>>> No.
>> Can you be sure?
>>
>> Bertie
>
I agree. Like him or not, (and I can't stand the guy believe me ) his
"position" in the government warrants protection. It's a sad testimony
to aviation if some of those who fly can't make this simple distinction.
We live in difficult times. When and if we reach the point where both
sides of a political equation start wishing each other harm and deride a
Senator's (ANY Senator's) right to personal protection, we have reached
a point fraught with danger for the country.

--
Dudley Henriques

[More_Flaps]

On May 25, 5:49*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Tina wrote:
> > I do not like the man, but would say his privacy should be respected.
> > If good taste won't keep people away, this minor inconvenience to
> > pilots is fine. Although, given the tastelessness of many who would
> > get close, the zone should be defined as anything within range of say
> > a 50 caliber round.
>
> > *shoOn May 24, 11:59 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote innews:Xv6dndHFYIQAp6XVnZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@earthlink. com:
>
> >>> More_Flaps wrote:
> >>>> On May 24, 9:57 pm, "Steve Foley" > wrote:
> >>>>> He gets the cape to himself for the holiday weekend.
> >>>> Is he really that important?
> >>> No.
> >> Can you be sure?
>
> >> Bertie
>
> I agree. Like him or not, (and I can't stand the guy believe me ) his
> "position" in the government warrants protection. It's a sad testimony
> to aviation if some of those who fly can't make this simple distinction.
> We live in difficult times. When and if we reach the point where both
> sides of a political equation start wishing each other harm and deride a
> Senator's (ANY Senator's) right to personal protection, we have reached
> a point fraught with danger for the country.
>

What I don't see is why some people think he merits airspace
restictions. Is it at likely that a threat to him will be made from
the air? Is he going to have a coastguard escort too? What about other
senators then? To be honest, I think its self promoting
grandstanding..

Cheers

[Tina]

You are assuming it is a TSR he requested. It's possible the FAA,
knowing how stupid some people are, did it on their own. If he wanted
printer's ink he would not have requested the restriction.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

More_Flaps wrote:
> On May 25, 5:49 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Tina wrote:
>>> I do not like the man, but would say his privacy should be respected.
>>> If good taste won't keep people away, this minor inconvenience to
>>> pilots is fine. Although, given the tastelessness of many who would
>>> get close, the zone should be defined as anything within range of say
>>> a 50 caliber round.
>>> shoOn May 24, 11:59 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote innews:Xv6dndHFYIQAp6XVnZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@earthlink. com:
>>>>> More_Flaps wrote:
>>>>>> On May 24, 9:57 pm, "Steve Foley" > wrote:
>>>>>>> He gets the cape to himself for the holiday weekend.
>>>>>> Is he really that important?
>>>>> No.
>>>> Can you be sure?
>>>> Bertie
>> I agree. Like him or not, (and I can't stand the guy believe me ) his
>> "position" in the government warrants protection. It's a sad testimony
>> to aviation if some of those who fly can't make this simple distinction.
>> We live in difficult times. When and if we reach the point where both
>> sides of a political equation start wishing each other harm and deride a
>> Senator's (ANY Senator's) right to personal protection, we have reached
>> a point fraught with danger for the country.
>>
>
> What I don't see is why some people think he merits airspace
> restictions. Is it at likely that a threat to him will be made from
> the air? Is he going to have a coastguard escort too? What about other
> senators then? To be honest, I think its self promoting
> grandstanding..
>
> Cheers

Difference of opinion is what makes Usenet interesting isn't it :-) ?

--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> I agree. Like him or not, (and I can't stand the guy believe me ) his
> "position" in the government warrants protection. It's a sad testimony
> to aviation if some of those who fly can't make this simple distinction.
> We live in difficult times. When and if we reach the point where both
> sides of a political equation start wishing each other harm and deride a
> Senator's (ANY Senator's) right to personal protection, we have reached
> a point fraught with danger for the country.

There are 100 senators and 435 representatives in the United States Congress.
If all of them are accorded similar TFRs, these TFRs together would cover an
area about half the size of Louisiana (just over 20,000 square miles). Is
that really what you want?

Why are there no restrictions on road vehicles within a 3-nm radius? And what
about boats?

[More_Flaps]

On May 25, 6:06*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> More_Flaps wrote:
> > On May 25, 5:49 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Tina wrote:
> >>> I do not like the man, but would say his privacy should be respected.
> >>> If good taste won't keep people away, this minor inconvenience to
> >>> pilots is fine. Although, given the tastelessness of many who would
> >>> get close, the zone should be defined as anything within range of say
> >>> a 50 caliber round.
> >>> *shoOn May 24, 11:59 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >>>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote innews:Xv6dndHFYIQAp6XVnZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@earthlink. com:
> >>>>> More_Flaps wrote:
> >>>>>> On May 24, 9:57 pm, "Steve Foley" > wrote:
> >>>>>>> He gets the cape to himself for the holiday weekend.
> >>>>>> Is he really that important?
> >>>>> No.
> >>>> Can you be sure?
> >>>> Bertie
> >> I agree. Like him or not, (and I can't stand the guy believe me ) his
> >> "position" in the government warrants protection. It's a sad testimony
> >> to aviation if some of those who fly can't make this simple distinction..
> >> We live in difficult times. When and if we reach the point where both
> >> sides of a political equation start wishing each other harm and deride a
> >> Senator's (ANY Senator's) right to personal protection, we have reached
> >> a point fraught with danger for the country.
>
> > What I don't see is why some people think he merits airspace
> > restictions. Is it at likely that a threat to him will be made from
> > the air? Is he going to have a coastguard escort too? What about other
> > senators then? To be honest, I think its self promoting
> > grandstanding..
>
> > Cheers
>
> Difference of opinion is what makes Usenet interesting isn't it :-) ?
>

Of course, and at it's best when civil and respectful :-)
It's a shame that some others here don't appreciate that.

Cheers

[Tina]

Here speaks a man (?) who makes interesting assumptions and
extensions, then posts something as idiotic as this.


On May 24, 2:15 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
> > I agree. Like him or not, (and I can't stand the guy believe me ) his
> > "position" in the government warrants protection. It's a sad testimony
> > to aviation if some of those who fly can't make this simple distinction.
> > We live in difficult times. When and if we reach the point where both
> > sides of a political equation start wishing each other harm and deride a
> > Senator's (ANY Senator's) right to personal protection, we have reached
> > a point fraught with danger for the country.
>
> There are 100 senators and 435 representatives in the United States Congress.
> If all of them are accorded similar TFRs, these TFRs together would cover an
> area about half the size of Louisiana (just over 20,000 square miles). Is
> that really what you want?
>
> Why are there no restrictions on road vehicles within a 3-nm radius? And what
> about boats?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> I agree. Like him or not, (and I can't stand the guy believe me ) his
>> "position" in the government warrants protection. It's a sad testimony
>> to aviation if some of those who fly can't make this simple distinction.
>> We live in difficult times. When and if we reach the point where both
>> sides of a political equation start wishing each other harm and deride a
>> Senator's (ANY Senator's) right to personal protection, we have reached
>> a point fraught with danger for the country.
>
> There are 100 senators and 435 representatives in the United States Congress.
> If all of them are accorded similar TFRs, these TFRs together would cover an
> area about half the size of Louisiana (just over 20,000 square miles). Is
> that really what you want?
>
> Why are there no restrictions on road vehicles within a 3-nm radius? And what
> about boats?

Can't speak to the specifics of this decision. Don't know why it was
made. If you question it, that is of course your right. Asking questions
of me won't fill in any answers for you.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques schrieb:

> We live in difficult times.

Bah. Don't **** your pants.
Sorry, but it's what you make out of it.

#m

BTW: Trim your posts!

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> Dudley Henriques schrieb:
>
>> We live in difficult times.
>
> Bah. Don't **** your pants.
> Sorry, but it's what you make out of it.
>
> #m
>
> BTW: Trim your posts!

Mensa perhaps?

Dudley Henriques

[Tina]

Would Wensa upside down be Wause? Sounds like one.

On May 24, 3:29 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Martin Hotze wrote:
> > Dudley Henriques schrieb:
>
> >> We live in difficult times.
>
> > Bah. Don't **** your pants.
> > Sorry, but it's what you make out of it.
>
> > #m
>
> > BTW: Trim your posts!
>
> Mensa perhaps?
>
> Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Tina wrote:
> Would Wensa upside down be Wause? Sounds like one.

Sats in education. Works for me.

Bari IS beautiful this time of year :-))

DH
>
> On May 24, 3:29 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Martin Hotze wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques schrieb:
>>>> We live in difficult times.
>>> Bah. Don't **** your pants.
>>> Sorry, but it's what you make out of it.
>>> #m
>>> BTW: Trim your posts!
>> Mensa perhaps?
>>
>> Dudley Henriques
>


--
Dudley Henriques

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> I agree. Like him or not, (and I can't stand the guy believe me ) his
>> "position" in the government warrants protection. It's a sad
>> testimony to aviation if some of those who fly can't make this simple
>> distinction. We live in difficult times. When and if we reach the
>> point where both sides of a political equation start wishing each
>> other harm and deride a Senator's (ANY Senator's) right to personal
>> protection, we have reached a point fraught with danger for the
>> country.
>
> There are 100 senators and 435 representatives in the United States
> Congress. If all of them are accorded similar TFRs, these TFRs
> together would cover an area about half the size of Louisiana (just
> over 20,000 square miles). Is that really what you want?
>
> Why are there no restrictions on road vehicles within a 3-nm radius?
> And what about boats?

You're an idiot.

[Dave S]

Tina wrote:
> Although, given the tastelessness of many who would
> get close, the zone should be defined as anything within range of say
> a 50 caliber round.
>

That would limit you to about 1 mile effective range.

[Blueskies]

"Tina" > wrote in message
...
>I do not like the man, but would say his privacy should be respected.
> If good taste won't keep people away, this minor inconvenience to
> pilots is fine. Although, given the tastelessness of many who would
> get close, the zone should be defined as anything within range of say
> a 50 caliber round.
>

What about no boat/sail zones?

[Jim Logajan]

Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Like him or not, (and I can't stand the guy believe me ) his
> "position" in the government warrants protection.

I think you need to be specific about "position", otherwise I have no idea
which of the absurdly broad or absurdly narrow assertion to disagree with:

The position of him being an elected official? Or the position of being an
ill elected official? Or the position of being an ill elected official with
the last name of Kennedy?

> It's a sad testimony
> to aviation if some of those who fly can't make this simple
> distinction.

Please understand that flying has absolutely nothing to do with the fact
that a principle inimical to everyone else's freedom is being invoked: that
the rights of private individuals to wander about public airspace are
conditional and subservient to an alleged public servant's fears (or even
mild dislike!)

> We live in difficult times.

A statement valid throughout known human history.

> When and if we reach the
> point where both sides of a political equation start wishing each
> other harm and deride a Senator's (ANY Senator's) right to personal
> protection, we have reached a point fraught with danger for the
> country.

I'm sorry, but this isn't an issue involving only a "right to personal
protection." He could secure that right ON HIS OWN if he were willing to
make HIS OWN SACRIFICE TO SECURE IT. This is an issue where THE RIGHTS OF
OTHERS TO ENJOY THE PUBLIC AIRSPACE ARE SACRIFICED so that HE DOESN'T HAVE
TO MAKE ANY SACRIFICES.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Like him or not, (and I can't stand the guy believe me ) his
>> "position" in the government warrants protection.
>
> I think you need to be specific about "position", otherwise I have no idea
> which of the absurdly broad or absurdly narrow assertion to disagree with:
>
> The position of him being an elected official? Or the position of being an
> ill elected official? Or the position of being an ill elected official with
> the last name of Kennedy?
>
>> It's a sad testimony
>> to aviation if some of those who fly can't make this simple
>> distinction.
>
> Please understand that flying has absolutely nothing to do with the fact
> that a principle inimical to everyone else's freedom is being invoked: that
> the rights of private individuals to wander about public airspace are
> conditional and subservient to an alleged public servant's fears (or even
> mild dislike!)
>
>> We live in difficult times.
>
> A statement valid throughout known human history.
>
>> When and if we reach the
>> point where both sides of a political equation start wishing each
>> other harm and deride a Senator's (ANY Senator's) right to personal
>> protection, we have reached a point fraught with danger for the
>> country.
>
> I'm sorry, but this isn't an issue involving only a "right to personal
> protection." He could secure that right ON HIS OWN if he were willing to
> make HIS OWN SACRIFICE TO SECURE IT. This is an issue where THE RIGHTS OF
> OTHERS TO ENJOY THE PUBLIC AIRSPACE ARE SACRIFICED so that HE DOESN'T HAVE
> TO MAKE ANY SACRIFICES.

One thing about these political exchanges on Usenet is that they are
never rectified. Everyone has an opinion and I assume this one is yours.
I have an absolute 0 interest in arguing a point past an initial
comment and/or changing anyone's mind who disagrees with an off topic
comment such as this one that I make.


--
Dudley Henriques

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 24 May 2008 04:57:59 -0700 (PDT), Tina >
wrote:

>It looks like the only restrictions are sightseeing and messing around
>flights in that airspace -- vfr operations into Hyannis are allowed,
>as are most other 'going somewhere' flights.

Did ya' happen to notice the size and ceiling of the TFR is 5 miles
and 5000'?

Not the 3 miles and 3000' required for security" over stadiums with
100,000 people in them.

It's BS! Plain and simple...

[Blueskies]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message ...
> I agree. Like him or not, (and I can't stand the guy believe me ) his "position" in the government warrants
> protection. It's a sad testimony to aviation if some of those who fly can't make this simple distinction.
> We live in difficult times. When and if we reach the point where both sides of a political equation start wishing each
> other harm and deride a Senator's (ANY Senator's) right to personal protection, we have reached a point fraught with
> danger for the country.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques


Absolutely no need to provide 'special' protections. I just watched Carl Levin (senator, MI) walking down a parade route
the other day, just walking along waving to everyone. No visible 'special' security anywhere, and no TFR for sure.

[Jim Logajan]

Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> One thing about these political exchanges on Usenet is that they are
> never rectified. Everyone has an opinion and I assume this one is
> yours.
> I have an absolute 0 interest in arguing a point past an initial
> comment and/or changing anyone's mind who disagrees with an off topic
> comment such as this one that I make.

Ironically(?), what you state above is similar to my position.

You stated your opinion, so I stated mine. I'm sure you weren't expecting
to change anyone's mind with your post, and I wasn't expecting to
accomplish that either. But if you are like me, then you hold some tiny
expectation that publicly stating your opinion has some subtle influence
somehow - else why would any of us ever bother posting our opinions at all?
;-)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> One thing about these political exchanges on Usenet is that they are
>> never rectified. Everyone has an opinion and I assume this one is
>> yours.
>> I have an absolute 0 interest in arguing a point past an initial
>> comment and/or changing anyone's mind who disagrees with an off topic
>> comment such as this one that I make.
>
> Ironically(?), what you state above is similar to my position.
>
> You stated your opinion, so I stated mine. I'm sure you weren't expecting
> to change anyone's mind with your post, and I wasn't expecting to
> accomplish that either. But if you are like me, then you hold some tiny
> expectation that publicly stating your opinion has some subtle influence
> somehow - else why would any of us ever bother posting our opinions at all?
> ;-)

No offense meant Jim ; just an observation from years and years of
Usenet experience :-))). I'm sure you know what I mean.

Somebody posts something that involves an issue where just about every
answer down the line will reflect at least SOME kind of agenda based
"feeling". My post will be no different.
What I usually try to do is pass on these political things to begin
with. When I do give in to temptation and post some kind of comment, I
expect I'll get answers ranging from "Attaboy Dud, you tell um" to "Get
a f*****g life you f*****g idiot". :-)
Being as I'm at least trying to enjoy my Usenet experience, I've made a
pact with myself to simply allow anyone who opposes something I say to
pass on in peace :-)
Can't win at these things, so I simply don't try very hard any more to
make a political point.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Tina > wrote in
:

> I do not like the man, but would say his privacy should be respected.
> If good taste won't keep people away, this minor inconvenience to
> pilots is fine. Although, given the tastelessness of many who would
> get close, the zone should be defined as anything within range of say
> a 50 caliber round.
>
>
>


Yeah, I'd have a hard time disagreeing with any of that..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
m:

> shoOn May 24, 11:59 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> Can you be sure?
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Absolutely.
>
>
>

How#'s that? Can you be absolutely sure beyond any shadow of doubt that he
isn't the second coming?


Bertie

[Jim Logajan]

Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> One thing about these political exchanges on Usenet is that they are
>>> never rectified. Everyone has an opinion and I assume this one is
>>> yours.
>>> I have an absolute 0 interest in arguing a point past an initial
>>> comment and/or changing anyone's mind who disagrees with an off
>>> topic comment such as this one that I make.
>>
>> Ironically(?), what you state above is similar to my position.
>>
>> You stated your opinion, so I stated mine. I'm sure you weren't
>> expecting to change anyone's mind with your post, and I wasn't
>> expecting to accomplish that either. But if you are like me, then you
>> hold some tiny expectation that publicly stating your opinion has
>> some subtle influence somehow - else why would any of us ever bother
>> posting our opinions at all? ;-)
>
> No offense meant Jim ; just an observation from years and years of
> Usenet experience :-))). I'm sure you know what I mean.

No offense taken - and by your tone, none inflicted! ;-)

> Somebody posts something that involves an issue where just about every
> answer down the line will reflect at least SOME kind of agenda based
> "feeling". My post will be no different.
> What I usually try to do is pass on these political things to begin
> with. When I do give in to temptation and post some kind of comment, I
> expect I'll get answers ranging from "Attaboy Dud, you tell um" to
> "Get a f*****g life you f*****g idiot". :-)
> Being as I'm at least trying to enjoy my Usenet experience, I've made
> a pact with myself to simply allow anyone who opposes something I say
> to pass on in peace :-)
> Can't win at these things, so I simply don't try very hard any more to
> make a political point.

We may have differing opinions on some things, but in spite of the tone
of my opinionated post, I do normally try to follow the same precepts
that you've just outlined. And as it happens, I regretted my post a few
moments after making it. Post in haste, repent at leisure.

As a side note, I sometimes think I have a vague idea of the way a post
should be written if it hopes to assert some influence, however tiny -
and first and foremost it shouldn't appear confrontational. It should
avoid the appearance of being absolutist. It should attempt to first find
common grounds of agreement with the audience. It should should attempt
to show sympathy for the goals or motivation of the other peson, if
possible. It should keep an even emotional tone. And so on.

My post failed those criteria on all accounts! :-(

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> One thing about these political exchanges on Usenet is that they are
>>>> never rectified. Everyone has an opinion and I assume this one is
>>>> yours.
>>>> I have an absolute 0 interest in arguing a point past an initial
>>>> comment and/or changing anyone's mind who disagrees with an off
>>>> topic comment such as this one that I make.
>>> Ironically(?), what you state above is similar to my position.
>>>
>>> You stated your opinion, so I stated mine. I'm sure you weren't
>>> expecting to change anyone's mind with your post, and I wasn't
>>> expecting to accomplish that either. But if you are like me, then you
>>> hold some tiny expectation that publicly stating your opinion has
>>> some subtle influence somehow - else why would any of us ever bother
>>> posting our opinions at all? ;-)
>> No offense meant Jim ; just an observation from years and years of
>> Usenet experience :-))). I'm sure you know what I mean.
>
> No offense taken - and by your tone, none inflicted! ;-)
>
>> Somebody posts something that involves an issue where just about every
>> answer down the line will reflect at least SOME kind of agenda based
>> "feeling". My post will be no different.
>> What I usually try to do is pass on these political things to begin
>> with. When I do give in to temptation and post some kind of comment, I
>> expect I'll get answers ranging from "Attaboy Dud, you tell um" to
>> "Get a f*****g life you f*****g idiot". :-)
>> Being as I'm at least trying to enjoy my Usenet experience, I've made
>> a pact with myself to simply allow anyone who opposes something I say
>> to pass on in peace :-)
>> Can't win at these things, so I simply don't try very hard any more to
>> make a political point.
>
> We may have differing opinions on some things, but in spite of the tone
> of my opinionated post, I do normally try to follow the same precepts
> that you've just outlined. And as it happens, I regretted my post a few
> moments after making it. Post in haste, repent at leisure.
>
> As a side note, I sometimes think I have a vague idea of the way a post
> should be written if it hopes to assert some influence, however tiny -
> and first and foremost it shouldn't appear confrontational. It should
> avoid the appearance of being absolutist. It should attempt to first find
> common grounds of agreement with the audience. It should should attempt
> to show sympathy for the goals or motivation of the other peson, if
> possible. It should keep an even emotional tone. And so on.
>
> My post failed those criteria on all accounts! :-(

I know what you mean. I try to deal with this myself almost every day on
Usenet. I don't always succeed :-))

I have a theory about Usenet. If two people posting with each other
sense an online relationship worth saving , they'll find a way to make
that happen .
If the "relationship" isn't worth saving, either one or both will know
it in short order. :-))



--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Blueskies writes:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message ...
> > I agree. Like him or not, (and I can't stand the guy believe me ) his "position" in the government warrants
> > protection. It's a sad testimony to aviation if some of those who fly can't make this simple distinction.
> > We live in difficult times. When and if we reach the point where both sides of a political equation start wishing each
> > other harm and deride a Senator's (ANY Senator's) right to personal protection, we have reached a point fraught with
> > danger for the country.
> >
> > --
> > Dudley Henriques
>
>
> Absolutely no need to provide 'special' protections. I just watched Carl Levin (senator, MI) walking down a parade route
> the other day, just walking along waving to everyone. No visible 'special' security anywhere, and no TFR for sure.
>

[Mxsmanic]

Blueskies writes:

> Absolutely no need to provide 'special' protections. I just watched
> Carl Levin (senator, MI) walking down a parade route the other day,
> just walking along waving to everyone. No visible 'special' security
> anywhere, and no TFR for sure.

Being a senator isn't nearly as important as being a Kennedy. Don't forget
the efforts made at taxpayer expense to find the last Kennedy who disappeared
in an airplane.

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques schrieb:
> No offense meant Jim ; just an observation from years and years of
> Usenet experience :-))). I'm sure you know what I mean.

In all those years: have you never trimmed your posts? you've been told
a couple of times by now from different people. Please: TRIM YOUR POSTS!

#m

f-up2poster

[150flivver]

ThisTFR like many have nothing to do with national security. It's
simply an inappropriate method of keeping paparazzi at bay just like
Disney's TFR keeps those pesky banner tow'rs from freely advertising
to park visitors. It's as effective at stopping a terrorist attack as
posting a sign on a building banning concealed weapons--only the law
abiding will honor it.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Blueskies writes:
>
>> Absolutely no need to provide 'special' protections. I just watched
>> Carl Levin (senator, MI) walking down a parade route the other day,
>> just walking along waving to everyone. No visible 'special' security
>> anywhere, and no TFR for sure.
>
> Being a senator isn't nearly as important as being a Kennedy. Don't
> forget the efforts made at taxpayer expense to find the last Kennedy
> who disappeared in an airplane.
>

Anthony's got a bad case of penis envy.

[Tina]

There are several assumptions implicit in your "What's that smell"
question that could be very wrong. The first is, the smell would be
different than that which comes from him apartment most of the time,
and the second is his neighbors would know his name is 'Anthony'.

Wouldn't you think the first to miss him would be members of this
newsgroup?


On May 25, 2:31 am, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Mxsmanic >
>
> >Being a senator isn't nearly as important as being a Kennedy. Don't forget
> >the efforts made at taxpayer expense to find the last Kennedy who disappeared
> >in an airplane.
>
> Like it or not, some people are more important than others.
> When you disappear, the investigation will end at, "Gee, I
> wonder what happened to MX".
> Or, more likely, "What's that smell coming from Anthony's apt.".
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: N/A
>
> iQCVAwUBSDku5ZMoscYxZNI5AQEsiQQAqKBVVbJV1NR0SUO3o5 +KCZ92hhovnBBX
> em2bEfMQZJJlbxnFY8kJzFboggm2Q3fGXo1XyyBSBcOqcB74Vy MqcFLjqoUwrx+E
> l57hadfwS/6BgZ84kdApHtA16jee2fb9QO+RouSgeIuilH6Rwyv1HE24pxAu xA1q
> +s8sf+GGa0o=
> =aGqK
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> Dudley Henriques schrieb:
>> No offense meant Jim ; just an observation from years and years of
>> Usenet experience :-))). I'm sure you know what I mean.
>
> In all those years: have you never trimmed your posts? you've been told
> a couple of times by now from different people. Please: TRIM YOUR POSTS!
>
> #m
>
> f-up2poster

Listen up short round. I'll trim my posts as I see fit. Use a killfile
if you don't like seeing them, or post these endless netcop responses as
you wish.
For your information, if I leave a post untrimmed it's because I want it
untrimmed. If I trim it, it's my decision to do that and not yours or
the other netcop who hangs around here, so get lost or stay as you wish.
--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> Dudley Henriques schrieb:
>> No offense meant Jim ; just an observation from years and years of
>> Usenet experience :-))). I'm sure you know what I mean.
>
> In all those years: have you never trimmed your posts? you've been told
> a couple of times by now from different people. Please: TRIM YOUR POSTS!
>
> #m
>
> f-up2poster

.....and furthermore short round, I have YET to find a post from you
dealing with an aviation issue rather than you playing net cop with me.
You find that post and send it to me and I'll revisit you as a posting
partner. Until then, you'll get no "cooperation" from me. I don't
respond well to being ordered around on Usenet.
--
Dudley Henriques

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques schrieb:
> Listen up short round. (...)

Ah well - and I thought that you're a grown-up. Sorry to see that it is
otherwise [1]. You add(ed) much to this group (and besides your almost
_never_ trimming I mostly enjoyed your postings), seems that I have to
life without your postings.

bye.

#m

[1] Men tend to behave like little kids as they get older.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-05-25, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> For your information, if I leave a post untrimmed it's because I want it
> untrimmed. If I trim it, it's my decision to do that and not yours or
> the other netcop who hangs around here, so get lost or stay as you wish.

I don't know if you're referring to me...but I'm not a netcop; I'm just
someone who thinks that following Usenet etiquette as it's been for the past
couple of decades is a really good idea. Bottom-posting without trimming
wastes bandwidth and makes it difficult to read one's words, as well as
providing ammunition to top-posters.

I think you've got a lot to contribute to the group, but when I see a
180-line posting with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > halfway down the first
screen, I just hit n.

Let me ask you this: Why *don't* you trim? What are you trying to
accomplish?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> Dudley Henriques schrieb:
>> Listen up short round. (...)
>
> Ah well - and I thought that you're a grown-up. Sorry to see that it is
> otherwise [1]. You add(ed) much to this group (and besides your almost
> _never_ trimming I mostly enjoyed your postings), seems that I have to
> life without your postings.
>
> bye.
>
> #m
>
> [1] Men tend to behave like little kids as they get older.

You haven't "enjoyed" anything junior. You've never once engaged me in
anything useful aviation wise. Anything useful you've gleaned from my
posting on aviation you have gotten lurking me, not in useful dialog.
All you seem capable of doing is posting this endless net cop crap that
nobody in their right mind would take in a positive manner.
"I've told you before....TRIM YOUR POSTS!" Give me a break. If anyone
here needs some growing up, it's people like you.
Lurk or leave as you wish. Since you have not engaged me aviation wise,
it would appear that neither of us would be losing anything.
To parrot your own sophomoric remark..... "bye" :-)
--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jay Maynard wrote:


> Let me ask you this: Why *don't* you trim? What are you trying to
> accomplish?

I am in total agreement with you on this, and trimming is indeed the
correct way to go. The simple answer to why I don't trim as much as I
should is that I simply forget to do it. A reminder such as you have
posted here will always be accepted by me as something to act on.
Thanks for taking the time to remind me without acting like a two year
old with a tantrum going on about editing posts.
I'll make an effort to remember to trim my responses. If I screw up
again, just remind me. I'm not as sharp remembering to do this as I
should be.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-05-25, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> I'll make an effort to remember to trim my responses. If I screw up
> again, just remind me. I'm not as sharp remembering to do this as I
> should be.

Okkay, I'll accept that. Thanks.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Tina]

I will make the observation that your untrimmed posts often offer more
aviation content than many others who do trim.

No one is obligated to read postings: each of us decides if it's a net
loss or gain. You have not diminished the utility of the newsgroup,
but others surely have. "Boys will be boys" is hardly an excuse for
second grade behavior, especially in a group where superior judgment
should be the standard.



On May 25, 9:54 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Jay Maynard wrote:
> > Let me ask you this: Why *don't* you trim? What are you trying to
> > accomplish?
>
> I am in total agreement with you on this, and trimming is indeed the
> correct way to go. The simple answer to why I don't trim as much as I
> should is that I simply forget to do it. A reminder such as you have
> posted here will always be accepted by me as something to act on.
> Thanks for taking the time to remind me without acting like a two year
> old with a tantrum going on about editing posts.
> I'll make an effort to remember to trim my responses. If I screw up
> again, just remind me. I'm not as sharp remembering to do this as I
> should be.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Tina writes:

> I will make the observation that your untrimmed posts often offer more
> aviation content than many others who do trim.

Most of what posters trim is backquoting of others; so you're saying that the
main aviation content is in the backquotes, which isn't terribly flattering.

[Tina]

What an astute reader would have inferred is that I think Dudley's
contribution to the aviation content of this group is high, even if he
chooses, or forgets, to trim his posts to meet some standards others
wish to impose.

Some may disagree.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 25 May 2008 07:51:53 -0700 (PDT), Tina >
wrote in
>:

>What an astute reader would have inferred is that I think Dudley's
>contribution to the aviation content of this group is high, even if he
>chooses, or forgets, to trim his posts to meet some standards others
>wish to impose.
>
>Some may disagree.


The general rule is that the authors' of follow up articles should
attempt to include equal or more new text than that which they have
quoted from a previous article.

Also, top-posting is a sign of nubieism, as it breaks the
chronological flow of thought. The two rules go hand-in-hand for
obvious reasons.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-05-25, Tina > wrote:
> What an astute reader would have inferred is that I think Dudley's
> contribution to the aviation content of this group is high, even if he
> chooses, or forgets, to trim his posts to meet some standards others
> wish to impose.

I don't disagree about Dudley's contributions in the slightest. It is only
that I wish to see more people take advantage of his expertise that I asked
him to follow longstanding Usenet etiquette.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[The Visitor]

Jay Maynard wrote:
.....I asked him to follow longstanding Usenet etiquette.

When does etiquette change. So much has changed in society. It will of
course change in usenet also. Manners are not what they used to be. Such
as table manners or wearing hats in front of ladies. Is ettiquete
defined by popular standards of society? Should it flex with time as it has?

I for one will top post if I am not necassarily adding "in line" to
something. But here I am.

I am not offended by top posting, so to me it isn't a breach of
ettiquete. Is anyone truely "offended"?

John

[Peter Dohm]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
...
> FDC 8/8593 ZBW MA.. FLIGHT RESTRICTION HYANNIS, MA EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY
> UNTIL 0805272200 UTC. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR SECTION 91.137(A)(1), TEMPORARY
> FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT DUE TO SAFETY OF FLIGHT WITHIN A 3
> NAUTICAL MILE RADIUS OF 413749N/0701812W OR THE MVY VORTAC 060 DEGREE
> RADIAL AT 19.8 NAUTICAL MILES UP TO AND INCLUDING 5000 MSL. ALL AIRCRAFT
> OPERATIONS WITHIN THE AREA LISTED ABOVE ARE PROHIBITED EXCEPT FOR:
> FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL MEDEVAC AND MILITARY AIRCRAFT. VFR AND IFR
> OPPERATIONS TO AND FROM HYA ARE AUTHORIZED. AIRCRAFT IN DIRECT
> COMMUNICATIONS WITH ATC ARE ALLOWED. NO LOITERING, NO PRACTICE APPROACHES
> OR PATTERN WORK. CAPE APCH, 508-968-7126, AND OR BOSTON ARTCC /ZBW/,
> 603-879-6655, ARE THE COORDINATION FACILITIES.
>
>
> He gets the cape to himself for the holiday weekend.
>
What is he supposedly doing there all by himself on a late sprind holiday
weekend?

I must admit that I am no fan of his; but the location suggests a sailing
regatta, which could be an alternate explanation, and that is a little out
of my searching specialties...

Peter

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Nomen Nescio > wrote in
:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Mxsmanic >
>
>>Being a senator isn't nearly as important as being a Kennedy. Don't
>>forget the efforts made at taxpayer expense to find the last Kennedy
>>who disappeared in an airplane.
>
> Like it or not, some people are more important than others.
> When you disappear, the investigation will end at, "Gee, I
> wonder what happened to MX".
> Or, more likely, "What's that smell coming from Anthony's apt.".


OR even more likely "what's that new smell coming form anthony's
apartment?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_27_]]

On 25 May 2008, you wrote in rec.aviation.piloting:

> Dudley Henriques schrieb:
>> No offense meant Jim ; just an observation from years and years of
>> Usenet experience :-))). I'm sure you know what I mean.
>
> In all those years: have you never trimmed your posts? you've been told
> a couple of times by now from different people. Please: TRIM YOUR POSTS!
>



Or what, ze Russian Front?



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 25 May 2008 07:51:53 -0700 (PDT), Tina >
> wrote in
> >:
>
>>What an astute reader would have inferred is that I think Dudley's
>>contribution to the aviation content of this group is high, even if he
>>chooses, or forgets, to trim his posts to meet some standards others
>>wish to impose.
>>
>>Some may disagree.
>
>
> The general rule is that the authors' of follow up articles should
> attempt to include equal or more new text than that which they have
> quoted from a previous article.
>
> Also, top-posting is a sign of nubieism, as it breaks the
> chronological flow of thought. The two rules go hand-in-hand for
> obvious reasons.
>

Depends



Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 25 May 2008 15:06:41 -0400, The Visitor
> wrote in
>:

>
>Jay Maynard wrote:
>....I asked him to follow longstanding Usenet etiquette.
>
>When does etiquette change. So much has changed in society. It will of
>course change in usenet also.

There is an established formal method of changing Usenet policy via
RFCs.

>Manners are not what they used to be. Such as table manners or
>wearing hats in front of ladies.

That may be the case where you reside, but it has no bearing on
Usenet.

Usenet conventions are the result of thoughtful debate, and careful
design.

>Is ettiquete defined by popular standards of society?

Usenet netiquette is defined here:
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/doc/zen/zen-1.0_toc.html#SEC44

Please also see: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/doc/zen/zen-1.0_6.html

>Should it flex with time as it has?

Usenet is made possible through the generosity of those computer
system owners who provide the resources upon which it depends. Usenet
is intended to be an exercise in self-governance. Those Usenet
participants who are not evolved enough to be capable of
self-governance are easily distinguished from responsible netizins.

>I for one will top post if I am not necassarily adding "in line" to
>something.

Top-posting in follow up articles fractures the chronology of the
thoughts expressed in proceeding articles, thus making it exceedingly
difficult for future researchers of the GoogleGroups (nee dejavu)
Usenet archive to follow the message thread.

>But here I am.
>
>I am not offended by top posting, so to me it isn't a breach of
>ettiquete.

While I truly respect individualism, failure to follow netiquette
conventions will not earn you respect among its participants.

[[email protected]]

On May 24, 11:15 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
> > I agree. Like him or not, (and I can't stand the guy believe me ) his
> > "position" in the government warrants protection. It's a sad testimony
> > to aviation if some of those who fly can't make this simple distinction.
> > We live in difficult times. When and if we reach the point where both
> > sides of a political equation start wishing each other harm and deride a
> > Senator's (ANY Senator's) right to personal protection, we have reached
> > a point fraught with danger for the country.
>
> There are 100 senators and 435 representatives in the United States Congress.
> If all of them are accorded similar TFRs, these TFRs together would cover an
> area about half the size of Louisiana (just over 20,000 square miles). Is
> that really what you want?
>
> Why are there no restrictions on road vehicles within a 3-nm radius? And what
> about boats?

There were my thoughts exactly.
There is no reason for TK to have any more attention than any other
senator.

Here in AZ, McCain is hosting several VIPs who might be VP nominees.
I don't recall seeing any TFR for that particular confab. (Apologies
if I missed it.)
There is too much gaga over Kennedys. (Kennedies?) (Kennedy's?) The
Kennedy clan.

[clint]

Your a seniour what can you expect? Seniour moments!
on 5/25/2008, Dudley Henriques supposed :
> I'll make an effort to remember to trim my responses. If I screw up again,
> just remind me. I'm not as sharp remembering to do this as I should be.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

clint wrote:
> Your a seniour what can you expect? Seniour moments!
> on 5/25/2008, Dudley Henriques supposed :

Not really. I'm simply extremely busy and haven't paid as much attention
to proper Usenet protocol as I might have done otherwise. Being busy, I
have a tendency to concentrate more on the content of what I'm saying as
opposed to the protocol on how it's presented.

The answer of course is a compromise. I'm simply reminded to make an
effort toward the more accepted standards concerned with Usenet.

Anyone believing me to be a dottering old man could easily be in for one
hell of a surprise. To anyone thinking of taking that approach with me,
I would respectfully suggest a serious rethinking of that incorrect
position:-)



--
Dudley Henriques

[The Visitor]

But Larry, all that was said about the degradation of social ettiquete.
(One could virtually substitute "social" for "usenet".

And yes social ettiquete was definded in books also. Such as sending a
thank you note after attending a dinner party. There was a rule for
everything.
Those who broke the rules were respected less and lost social standing.
If we tried to get by with our knowledge of ettiqute and manners in old
society, we would be social outcasts for sure.

My point is I think we are witnessing a change.
Like it or not.
Times are changing.
Conventions are changing.
We are in a state of change.
20 or 30 years from now I expect things to be very different.


John
(low class usenet user)
=================
Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sun, 25 May 2008 15:06:41 -0400, The Visitor
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>
>>Jay Maynard wrote:
>>....I asked him to follow longstanding Usenet etiquette.
>>
>>When does etiquette change. So much has changed in society. It will of
>>course change in usenet also.
>
>
> There is an established formal method of changing Usenet policy via
> RFCs.
>
>
>>Manners are not what they used to be. Such as table manners or
>>wearing hats in front of ladies.
>
>
> That may be the case where you reside, but it has no bearing on
> Usenet.
>
> Usenet conventions are the result of thoughtful debate, and careful
> design.
>
>
>>Is ettiquete defined by popular standards of society?
>
>
> Usenet netiquette is defined here:
> http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/doc/zen/zen-1.0_toc.html#SEC44
>
> Please also see: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/doc/zen/zen-1.0_6.html
>
>
>>Should it flex with time as it has?
>
>
> Usenet is made possible through the generosity of those computer
> system owners who provide the resources upon which it depends. Usenet
> is intended to be an exercise in self-governance. Those Usenet
> participants who are not evolved enough to be capable of
> self-governance are easily distinguished from responsible netizins.
>
>
>>I for one will top post if I am not necassarily adding "in line" to
>>something.
>
>
> Top-posting in follow up articles fractures the chronology of the
> thoughts expressed in proceeding articles, thus making it exceedingly
> difficult for future researchers of the GoogleGroups (nee dejavu)
> Usenet archive to follow the message thread.
>
>
>>But here I am.
>>
>>I am not offended by top posting, so to me it isn't a breach of
>>ettiquete.
>
>
> While I truly respect individualism, failure to follow netiquette
> conventions will not earn you respect among its participants.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

The Visitor wrote:

> My point is I think we are witnessing a change.
> Like it or not.
> Times are changing.
> Conventions are changing.
> We are in a state of change.
> 20 or 30 years from now I expect things to be very different.

Change is a universal happening. It's constant. (Oxymoron of the day :-)
Change might very well be man's ultimate paradox, as man requires some
form of social structure to exist, but as change progresses onward, what
was socially acceptable yesterday might very well be today's chaos.
It's interesting to watch this happen.
Man seems destined not to be able to cope with the answer.
Rules...rules......rules......some can withstand the test of time while
others become obsolete even as they are written.
Sometimes even the origin of a "rule" or protocol is lost as time
marches on. Yet man will cling to some obscure "rule" long since in need
of major overhaul, trying desperately to maintain what worked yesterday,
fighting in some endless useless conflict with his fellow humans to
convince them that the "rule" MUST be followed.
Perhaps the answer lies in man finally coming to the conclusion that
there is a dichotomy that exists between man's need for social structure
and the simple truth that change exists and dealing with change is
necessary.



--
Dudley Henriques

[Tina]

In communication, it's content over format. Content can be enhanced by
prudent trimming, of course, but the point is to get the author's idea
into the reader's brain in an understandable way. Except, maybe,
here.





On May 26, 12:27 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> The Visitor wrote:
> > My point is I think we are witnessing a change.
> > Like it or not.
> > Times are changing.
> > Conventions are changing.
> > We are in a state of change.
> > 20 or 30 years from now I expect things to be very different.
>
> Change is a universal happening. It's constant. (Oxymoron of the day :-)
> Change might very well be man's ultimate paradox, as man requires some
> form of social structure to exist, but as change progresses onward, what
> was socially acceptable yesterday might very well be today's chaos.
> It's interesting to watch this happen.
> Man seems destined not to be able to cope with the answer.
> Rules...rules......rules......some can withstand the test of time while
> others become obsolete even as they are written.
> Sometimes even the origin of a "rule" or protocol is lost as time
> marches on. Yet man will cling to some obscure "rule" long since in need
> of major overhaul, trying desperately to maintain what worked yesterday,
> fighting in some endless useless conflict with his fellow humans to
> convince them that the "rule" MUST be followed.
> Perhaps the answer lies in man finally coming to the conclusion that
> there is a dichotomy that exists between man's need for social structure
> and the simple truth that change exists and dealing with change is
> necessary.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

[Shirl]

Tina > wrote:
> In communication, it's content over format. Content can be
> enhanced by prudent trimming, of course, but the point is to
> get the author's idea into the reader's brain in an understandable
> way. Except, maybe, here.

Some confuse "rules" with etiquette/netiquette. Etiquette/Netiquette is
an accepted guideline, not a *requirement*, and it's each person's
decision to follow it or not. Thank God, as *some* etiquette is just
plain silly.

I appreciate prudent trimming -- I hate having to scroll through miles
of already quoted and no longer pertinent >>>>>s to get to the new
stuff, especially when it's only a one-line quip or insult! But I'm with
you re content over format ... and you *do* get to know, in short order,
which authors are worth scrolling through all the superfluous quotes for
and which are not.

[Tina]

My newsgroup reader -- the often put down Google one -- is happy to
list theads by date or by reply. If I'm following a particular sub
topic there's little reason to reread the prior messages. Carrying
forward the earlier text, uncut, might be useful for someone coming in
cold on the subtopic.

Most often, my posts are a reply to someone, and that thread to the
two of us I hope makes sense. Others may eavesdrop as they like.

It's all fun, though, isn't it?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Tina wrote:
> In communication, it's content over format. Content can be enhanced by
> prudent trimming, of course, but the point is to get the author's idea
> into the reader's brain in an understandable way. Except, maybe,
> here.


This is true, especially on Usenet. It can get extremely confusing as
threads increase in size on a forum dealing with technical and or
scientific information such as aviation.

This really can get confusing when a reply to a posting involving
something highly technical, especially where a correction is involved,
might require a multiple reference to information posted by separate
individuals running a range of posts involving several different posters
in order for an answer to convey what the author intends.



--
Dudley Henriques

[Shirl]

Tina > wrote:
> My newsgroup reader -- the often put down Google one -- is happy to
> list theads by date or by reply. If I'm following a particular sub
> topic there's little reason to reread the prior messages. Carrying
> forward the earlier text, uncut, might be useful for someone coming in
> cold on the subtopic.
>
> Most often, my posts are a reply to someone, and that thread to the
> two of us I hope makes sense. Others may eavesdrop as they like.
>
> It's all fun, though, isn't it?

;-) That, it is.
I meant to mention, in my prior post, that I *do* consider Dudley to be
one of the authors that *is* worth scrolling down to the bottom of a
mile of untrimmed quotes for ... though I'm thankful for a little
editing of the stuff that's no longer pertinent.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Tina wrote:
> In communication, it's content over format. Content can be enhanced by
> prudent trimming, of course, but the point is to get the author's idea
> into the reader's brain in an understandable way.

I've always maintained proper trimming makes the top / bottom posting
debate almost moot.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 26 May 2008 10:18:53 -0700, Shirl >
wrote in
>:

>But I'm with you re content over format ...

Many of the initial Usenet participants were programmers. Programmers
are professional formatters; formatting is essential to maintainable
code.

[Tina]

This TFR probably was intended to protect the Figawi (I am NOT joking
about the name) race, goes from one of the islands to Hyannis. The
Boston Globe wrote

Kennedy completes Figawi Race
Email|Print|Single Page| Text size – + By David Abel
Globe Staff / May 26, 2008

HYANNIS PORT -- Under pristine skies and with strong gusts, Senator
Edward M. Kennedy this afternoon steered his 50-foot schooner from
Nantucket to a mooring beside his beach-front compound, leading many
of the sailboats in the final leg of the annual Figawi Race.
more stories like this

It took Kennedy only about 2.5 hours to make the journey across
Nantucket Sound in a trip that many thought he wouldn't take after
being diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor last week. He finished
second in his division.

He arrived at the dock in a blue windbreaker and Red Sox cap with
Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd. His wife, Victoria Reggie Kennedy, and
sons Teddy and Patrick at his side.

"It couldn't be a more beautiful day," he said. "We're with friends
and family and it's a great tradition out here. We always enjoy it. I
think we ended up in the front part of the fleet."

-------------------------------------------------------------------
As I wrote before, I don't like this man, but this kind of perq is
pretty minor for someone with his influence. It may be one of the last
times he sales this course.

I don't remember, but was anyone in this newsgroup upset that Senator
John Glenn got to ride in one of the shuttles for some 'scientific'
reason after he left the senate? It was, of course, made up science.







that On May 24, 5:57 am, "Steve Foley" >
wrote:
> FDC 8/8593 ZBW MA.. FLIGHT RESTRICTION HYANNIS, MA EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY
> UNTIL 0805272200 UTC. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR SECTION 91.137(A)(1), TEMPORARY
> FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT DUE TO SAFETY OF FLIGHT WITHIN A 3
> NAUTICAL MILE RADIUS OF 413749N/0701812W OR THE MVY VORTAC 060 DEGREE RADIAL
> AT 19.8 NAUTICAL MILES UP TO AND INCLUDING 5000 MSL. ALL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
> WITHIN THE AREA LISTED ABOVE ARE PROHIBITED EXCEPT FOR: FEDERAL, STATE,
> LOCAL MEDEVAC AND MILITARY AIRCRAFT. VFR AND IFR OPPERATIONS TO AND FROM HYA
> ARE AUTHORIZED. AIRCRAFT IN DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS WITH ATC ARE ALLOWED. NO
> LOITERING, NO PRACTICE APPROACHES OR PATTERN WORK. CAPE APCH, 508-968-7126,
> AND OR BOSTON ARTCC /ZBW/, 603-879-6655, ARE THE COORDINATION FACILITIES.
>

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Tina > wrote:

> This TFR probably was intended to protect the Figawi (I am NOT joking
> about the name) race, goes from one of the islands to Hyannis.

That TFR wouldn't protect much of this race.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

gregvk > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g1cpcj$41u$1
> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>
>> On 25 May 2008, you wrote in rec.aviation.piloting:
>>
>>> Dudley Henriques schrieb:
>>>> No offense meant Jim ; just an observation from years and years of
>>>> Usenet experience :-))). I'm sure you know what I mean.
>>>
>>> In all those years: have you never trimmed your posts? you've been
>>> told a couple of times by now from different people. Please: TRIM
>>> YOUR POSTS!
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Or what, ze Russian Front?
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You are hereby ordered, under penalties too shocking to be described
> in public, to trim your posts. This is your final warning.
>
> <aside> Goddamn bunyips. </aside>
>

But by not trimming my poasts I get people to squeal!


Bertie

[Tony]

I assume the alternative to not trimming posts is that some may choose
not to read them. What is the big deal?

It's up to the writer to decide how he (or she) chooses to
communicate. It;s up to the reader to decide if it's acceptable.



On May 26, 11:55 pm, gregvk > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g1cpcj$41u$1
> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>
>
>
> > On 25 May 2008, you wrote in rec.aviation.piloting:
>
> >> Dudley Henriques schrieb:
> >>> No offense meant Jim ; just an observation from years and years of
> >>> Usenet experience :-))). I'm sure you know what I mean.
>
> >> In all those years: have you never trimmed your posts? you've been told
> >> a couple of times by now from different people. Please: TRIM YOUR POSTS!
>
> > Or what, ze Russian Front?
>
> > Bertie
>
> You are hereby ordered, under penalties too shocking to be described in
> public, to trim your posts. This is your final warning.
>
> <aside> Goddamn bunyips. </aside>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Tony > wrote in
:

> I assume the alternative to not trimming posts is that some may choose
> not to read them. What is the big deal?
>
> It's up to the writer to decide how he (or she) chooses to
> communicate. It;s up to the reader to decide if it's acceptable.
>

Top poasting newbie...



PLINK!



Bertie
>
>
> On May 26, 11:55 pm, gregvk > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g1cpcj$41u$1
>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 25 May 2008, you wrote in rec.aviation.piloting:
>>
>> >> Dudley Henriques schrieb:
>> >>> No offense meant Jim ; just an observation from years and years
>> >>> of Usenet experience :-))). I'm sure you know what I mean.
>>
>> >> In all those years: have you never trimmed your posts? you've been
>> >> told a couple of times by now from different people. Please: TRIM
>> >> YOUR POSTS!
>>
>> > Or what, ze Russian Front?
>>
>> > Bertie
>>
>> You are hereby ordered, under penalties too shocking to be described
>> in public, to trim your posts. This is your final warning.
>>
>> <aside> Goddamn bunyips. </aside>
>
>

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Tue, 27 May 2008 12:35:21 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>gregvk > wrote in
:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g1cpcj$41u$1
>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>
>>> On 25 May 2008, you wrote in rec.aviation.piloting:
>>>
>>>> Dudley Henriques schrieb:
>>>>> No offense meant Jim ; just an observation from years and years of
>>>>> Usenet experience :-))). I'm sure you know what I mean.
>>>>
>>>> In all those years: have you never trimmed your posts? you've been
>>>> told a couple of times by now from different people. Please: TRIM
>>>> YOUR POSTS!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Or what, ze Russian Front?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> You are hereby ordered, under penalties too shocking to be described
>> in public, to trim your posts. This is your final warning.
>>
>> <aside> Goddamn bunyips. </aside>
>>
>
>But by not trimming my poasts I get people to squeal!
>
>
>Bertie

Bertie what is a poast?
I asked the sooth effrikun expats at work today which african country
used 'poast' as the word for post.
they shook heads and said none of them.

you talk about trimming your poasts. what is a poast?
(or do you have fat fingers on the <s> key?

Stealth Pilot

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 27 May 2008 12:35:21 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>gregvk > wrote in
:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g1cpcj$41u$1
>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>
>>>> On 25 May 2008, you wrote in rec.aviation.piloting:
>>>>
>>>>> Dudley Henriques schrieb:
>>>>>> No offense meant Jim ; just an observation from years and years
of
>>>>>> Usenet experience :-))). I'm sure you know what I mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> In all those years: have you never trimmed your posts? you've been
>>>>> told a couple of times by now from different people. Please: TRIM
>>>>> YOUR POSTS!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or what, ze Russian Front?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> You are hereby ordered, under penalties too shocking to be described
>>> in public, to trim your posts. This is your final warning.
>>>
>>> <aside> Goddamn bunyips. </aside>
>>>
>>
>>But by not trimming my poasts I get people to squeal!
>>
>>
>>Bertie
>
> Bertie what is a poast?
> I asked the sooth effrikun expats at work today which african country
> used 'poast' as the word for post.
> they shook heads and said none of them.
>
> you talk about trimming your poasts. what is a poast?
> (or do you have fat fingers on the <s> key?
>
> Stealth Pilot
>

You need to go chekc out some of the trolllz froups. Mis-spelling is a
common technique used to hook fjukkwits like Maxwell. they're keen to
jump in and shriek about the poaster's pudgy fingers and what not. The
mis-spellings are a convention in themselves to some degree. Poast is
usualy (mis) spelled that way as is froup, lits (list) and a number of
others . Makes it an "in" joke as well.

And why the **** would you ask a Yarpie anything unless it's how to arm
your BMW X5 to the teeth?




Bertie




Bertie

[The Visitor]

B A R R Y wrote:

> I've always maintained proper trimming makes the top / bottom posting
> debate almost moot.

Absolutely.

[Mxsmanic]

Tina writes:

> I don't remember, but was anyone in this newsgroup upset that Senator
> John Glenn got to ride in one of the shuttles for some 'scientific'
> reason after he left the senate? It was, of course, made up science.

I thought his trip was useful because it made it clear that age isn't the
obstacle that many believe it to be.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Tina writes:
>
>> I don't remember, but was anyone in this newsgroup upset that Senator
>> John Glenn got to ride in one of the shuttles for some 'scientific'
>> reason after he left the senate? It was, of course, made up science.
>
> I thought his trip was useful because it made it clear that age isn't the
> obstacle that many believe it to be.
>

Wo! just think! you'll be able to not fly airpalnes well into your
nineties!



Bertie

[Tina]

Glenn's trip was a "Thank you" from NASA. It was junk science, nothing
seems to have appeared in the professional literature.

Who cares about the cost, it's other people's money.

It made NOTHING clear. scientifically except a useless agency knows
where its funding comes from.




On May 27, 3:36 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tina writes:
> > I don't remember, but was anyone in this newsgroup upset that Senator
> > John Glenn got to ride in one of the shuttles for some 'scientific'
> > reason after he left the senate? It was, of course, made up science.
>
> I thought his trip was useful because it made it clear that age isn't the
> obstacle that many believe it to be.

[clint]

Soupy Sales was a seniour
Tina wrote on 5/26/2008 :
> As I wrote before, I don't like this man, but this kind of perq is
> pretty minor for someone with his influence. It may be one of the last
> times he *SALES* this course.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Tue, 27 May 2008 14:43:24 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:
>
>> On Tue, 27 May 2008 12:35:21 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>gregvk > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g1cpcj$41u$1
>>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On 25 May 2008, you wrote in rec.aviation.piloting:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques schrieb:
>>>>>>> No offense meant Jim ; just an observation from years and years
>of
>>>>>>> Usenet experience :-))). I'm sure you know what I mean.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In all those years: have you never trimmed your posts? you've been
>>>>>> told a couple of times by now from different people. Please: TRIM
>>>>>> YOUR POSTS!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or what, ze Russian Front?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>> You are hereby ordered, under penalties too shocking to be described
>>>> in public, to trim your posts. This is your final warning.
>>>>
>>>> <aside> Goddamn bunyips. </aside>
>>>>
>>>
>>>But by not trimming my poasts I get people to squeal!
>>>
>>>
>>>Bertie
>>
>> Bertie what is a poast?
>> I asked the sooth effrikun expats at work today which african country
>> used 'poast' as the word for post.
>> they shook heads and said none of them.
>>
>> you talk about trimming your poasts. what is a poast?
>> (or do you have fat fingers on the <s> key?
>>
>> Stealth Pilot
>>
>
>You need to go chekc out some of the trolllz froups. Mis-spelling is a
>common technique used to hook fjukkwits like Maxwell. they're keen to
>jump in and shriek about the poaster's pudgy fingers and what not. The
>mis-spellings are a convention in themselves to some degree. Poast is
>usualy (mis) spelled that way as is froup, lits (list) and a number of
>others . Makes it an "in" joke as well.
>
>And why the **** would you ask a Yarpie anything unless it's how to arm
>your BMW X5 to the teeth?
>
>
>
>
>Bertie
>
>
>
>
>Bertie

it is an australian tradition that we talk kindly to our bunyips :-)

btw in this post trimming serious business have you noticed that I'm
really on to the guys request. :-)
next he'll be asking that we dont hit 'post to all newsgroups' :-)
Stealth Pilot

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> How#'s that? Can you be absolutely sure beyond any shadow of doubt that he
> isn't the second coming?
>
>
> Bertie

What a dumb ass.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...

> One thing about these political exchanges on Usenet is that they are never
> rectified.

No, just not to YOUR satisfaction.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...

> What I usually try to do is pass on these political things to begin with.

Then why didn't you?

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> I'm sorry, but this isn't an issue involving only a "right to personal
> protection." He could secure that right ON HIS OWN if he were willing to
> make HIS OWN SACRIFICE TO SECURE IT. This is an issue where THE RIGHTS OF
> OTHERS TO ENJOY THE PUBLIC AIRSPACE ARE SACRIFICED so that HE DOESN'T HAVE
> TO MAKE ANY SACRIFICES.

Exactly the point.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques schrieb:
>> No offense meant Jim ; just an observation from years and years of Usenet
>> experience :-))). I'm sure you know what I mean.
>
> In all those years: have you never trimmed your posts? you've been told a
> couple of times by now from different people. Please: TRIM YOUR POSTS!
>
> #m
>
> f-up2poster

Oh hell no, he's Dudley the magnificent.

Read about him on Wikipeidia, if they haven't thrown him off yet.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> Depends
>
>
>
> Bertie

No it doesn't.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...

Exactly correct.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> The Visitor wrote:
>
>> My point is I think we are witnessing a change.
>> Like it or not.
>> Times are changing.
>> Conventions are changing.
>> We are in a state of change.
>> 20 or 30 years from now I expect things to be very different.
>
> Change is a universal happening. It's constant. (Oxymoron of the day :-)
> Change might very well be man's ultimate paradox, as man requires some
> form of social structure to exist, but as change progresses onward, what
> was socially acceptable yesterday might very well be today's chaos.
> It's interesting to watch this happen.
> Man seems destined not to be able to cope with the answer.
> Rules...rules......rules......some can withstand the test of time while
> others become obsolete even as they are written.
> Sometimes even the origin of a "rule" or protocol is lost as time marches
> on. Yet man will cling to some obscure "rule" long since in need of major
> overhaul, trying desperately to maintain what worked yesterday, fighting
> in some endless useless conflict with his fellow humans to convince them
> that the "rule" MUST be followed.
> Perhaps the answer lies in man finally coming to the conclusion that there
> is a dichotomy that exists between man's need for social structure and the
> simple truth that change exists and dealing with change is necessary.
>

If you cant dazzlem with brilliance, bafflem with bull****.

Why dont you make up your own traffic patterns the next time you fly. You
seem good at making your own rules.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Shirl" > wrote in message
...

> I meant to mention, in my prior post, that I *do* consider Dudley to be
> one of the authors that *is* worth scrolling down to the bottom of a
> mile of untrimmed quotes for ...

Sorry, but many others do not.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:Rgc%j.101958$y05.26122
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Depends
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> No it doesn't.
>
>
>

Yes it does.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dudley Henriques schrieb:
>>> No offense meant Jim ; just an observation from years and years of
>>> Usenet experience :-))). I'm sure you know what I mean.
>>
>> In all those years: have you never trimmed your posts? you've been
>> told a couple of times by now from different people. Please: TRIM
>> YOUR POSTS!
>>
>> #m
>>
>> f-up2poster
>
> Oh hell no, he's Dudley the magnificent.
>
> Read about him on Wikipeidia, if they haven't thrown him off yet.
>
>
>

Snort!

PKB

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:aic%j.101959$y05.10842
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> Exactly correct.
>
>
>

No it isn't. Fjukktard


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:Skc%j.101961$y05.81439
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Shirl" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I meant to mention, in my prior post, that I *do* consider Dudley to be
>> one of the authors that *is* worth scrolling down to the bottom of a
>> mile of untrimmed quotes for ...
>
> Sorry, but many others do not.
>
>
>

Idiots like you who don;'t know what a pilot or a killifle is.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The Visitor wrote:
>>
>>> My point is I think we are witnessing a change.
>>> Like it or not.
>>> Times are changing.
>>> Conventions are changing.
>>> We are in a state of change.
>>> 20 or 30 years from now I expect things to be very different.
>>
>> Change is a universal happening. It's constant. (Oxymoron of the day
>> :-) Change might very well be man's ultimate paradox, as man requires
>> some form of social structure to exist, but as change progresses
>> onward, what was socially acceptable yesterday might very well be
>> today's chaos. It's interesting to watch this happen.
>> Man seems destined not to be able to cope with the answer.
>> Rules...rules......rules......some can withstand the test of time
>> while others become obsolete even as they are written.
>> Sometimes even the origin of a "rule" or protocol is lost as time
>> marches on. Yet man will cling to some obscure "rule" long since in
>> need of major overhaul, trying desperately to maintain what worked
>> yesterday, fighting in some endless useless conflict with his fellow
>> humans to convince them that the "rule" MUST be followed.
>> Perhaps the answer lies in man finally coming to the conclusion that
>> there is a dichotomy that exists between man's need for social
>> structure and the simple truth that change exists and dealing with
>> change is necessary.
>>
>
> If you cant dazzlem with brilliance, bafflem with bull****.
>
> Why dont you make up your own traffic patterns the next time you fly.
> You seem good at making your own rules.
>

Nope, worng agin, fjukkwit.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> How#'s that? Can you be absolutely sure beyond any shadow of doubt
>> that he isn't the second coming?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> What a dumb ass.
>
>

You got proof he ain't, fjukktard?

You come from jesusland, you wil believe anything!





Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> One thing about these political exchanges on Usenet is that they are
>> never rectified.
>
> No, just not to YOUR satisfaction.
>

Bwawhahwhawhahhwhahwhahwhhah!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> I'm sorry, but this isn't an issue involving only a "right to
>> personal protection." He could secure that right ON HIS OWN if he
>> were willing to make HIS OWN SACRIFICE TO SECURE IT. This is an issue
>> where THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS TO ENJOY THE PUBLIC AIRSPACE ARE
>> SACRIFICED so that HE DOESN'T HAVE TO MAKE ANY SACRIFICES.
>
> Exactly the point.
>
>

No it isn't


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> What I usually try to do is pass on these political things to begin
>> with.
>
> Then why didn't you?
>
>
>

Why don'[t you?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

gregvk > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g1ke3s$g2l$3
> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:aic%j.101959$y05.10842
>> @newsfe22.lga:
>>
>>>
>>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Exactly correct.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No it isn't. Fjukktard
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> "Larry Diarrea" is another hilarious name. Even better than "Jim
> Logjam".


Hmm, kinda two sides of the same coin when you put it like that..
>
> RAP sure has lots of guys with funny names.
>

That is does, but "maxwell"

Bwawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhhahwh!


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>>
>
> Idiots like you who don;'t know what a pilot or a killifle is.
>
>
> Bertie

You calling someone an idiot is the functional equiv of Mx calling someone
stupid.

You couldn't find your fat ass with both hands.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> But by not trimming my poasts I get people to squeal!
>
>
> Bertie

And raising the noise level is your top priority.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>
> Bertie what is a poast?

That's a drunken fat fingered dyslexics idea of a post.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>
>> Exactly the point.
>>
>>
>
> No it isn't
>
>
> Bertie

Bull****. You wouldn't get the point if someone stuck you in your fat ass
with it.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>
> Bertie what is a poast?

Bertie thinks writing at the third grade level makes him look cool. You
know, like a worldly troll.

It's all part of his sickness, like cross posting everything to obscure
troll groups, and posting replies that make no sense. All the while
insisting he is playing all the people that laugh at him.

Mx has many of the same problems, but expresses them in other ways.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>
>> Idiots like you who don;'t know what a pilot or a killifle is.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You calling someone an idiot is the functional equiv of Mx calling
> someone stupid.
>
> You couldn't find your fat ass with both hands.
>


Sure I can, you're right here!



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>
>>> Exactly the point.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No it isn't
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Bull****. You wouldn't get the point if someone stuck you in your fat
> ass with it.
>

Someone poking you? I never felt it...



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> But by not trimming my poasts I get people to squeal!
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> And raising the noise level is your top priority.
>
>

Why would I bother doing that when I can get k00ks to do it for me?



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Bertie what is a poast?
>
> That's a drunken fat fingered dyslexics idea of a post.
>

Excellent.




Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
>> You couldn't find your fat ass with both hands.
>>
>
>
> Sure I can, you're right here!
>
>
>
> Bertie
>

See, I knew you were still lost.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:qOl%j.32$U_5.31
@newsfe15.lga:

>
> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Bertie what is a poast?
>
> Bertie thinks writing at the third grade level makes him look cool.
You
> know, like a worldly troll.
>
> It's all part of his sickness, like cross posting everything to
obscure
> troll groups, and posting replies that make no sense. All the while
> insisting he is playing all the people that laugh at him.
>

But you just said I wasn't funny in any way , k00kie boi..

> Mx has many of the same problems, but expresses them in other ways.
>

Uh yeh...


Bertie
>
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:oWl%j.38$U_5.19
@newsfe15.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> You couldn't find your fat ass with both hands.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sure I can, you're right here!
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> See, I knew you were still lost.
>

Sheesh..


C'mon mxie, get back in the program.. You know, for one of my
sockpuppets you're a bit of a disappointement.



Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> But you just said I wasn't funny in any way , k00kie boi..
>
>> Mx has many of the same problems, but expresses them in other ways.
>>
>
> Uh yeh...
>
>
> Bertie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Lame, D-.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Sheesh..
>
>
> C'mon mxie, get back in the program.. You know, for one of my
> sockpuppets you're a bit of a disappointement.
>
>
>
> Bertie

As a wanna be troll, you;re a complete zip.

c-

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>>
>> That's a drunken fat fingered dyslexics idea of a post.
>>
>
> Excellent.
>
>
>
>
> Bertie

C+

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>>
>> And raising the noise level is your top priority.
>>
>>
>
> Why would I bother doing that when I can get k00ks to do it for me?
>
>
>
> Bertie

Fantasy again, same day. F, zero, nada.

[[email protected]]

On May 26, 8:20 pm, Tina > wrote:

> As I wrote before, I don't like this man, but this kind of perq is
> pretty minor for someone with his influence. It may be one of the last
> times he sales this course.
>
> I don't remember, but was anyone in this newsgroup upset that Senator
> John Glenn got to ride in one of the shuttles for some 'scientific'
> reason after he left the senate? It was, of course, made up science.
>

While some may complain about the cost of such a trip for Glenn, I
probably won't. John Glenn is nearly unique in his background. But
other than some tax money, his trip affected no one.
Ted Kennedy is one of many hundreds of Senators past and present. A
TFR affects many people, mostly in a negative vein. He does not
warrant that as a senator. If he did, so do the other senators. And
if we had a TFR for all of them, we could pretty much shut the country
down.

Tina wrote"
<This TFR probably was intended to protect the Figawi (I am NOT joking
<about the name) race, goes from one of the islands to Hyannis. The
<Boston Globe wrote

Were TFRs issued for the previous races? I don't know. If not, then
the TFR was for Kennedy. If they were, then this discussion is moot.
8<)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:owm%j.52$kR5.18
@newsfe24.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> But you just said I wasn't funny in any way , k00kie boi..
>>
>>> Mx has many of the same problems, but expresses them in other ways.
>>>
>>
>> Uh yeh...
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> Lame, D-.
>
>
>

Nope. Just went over your pointy head.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:iFm%j.67$kR5.18
@newsfe24.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>>
>>> That's a drunken fat fingered dyslexics idea of a post.
>>>
>>
>> Excellent.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> C+
>
>
>


Everything i post i beyond measurement. It's all Zen..


Fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:_Fm%j.68$kR5.5
@newsfe24.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>>
>>> And raising the noise level is your top priority.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Why would I bother doing that when I can get k00ks to do it for me?
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Fantasy again, same day. F, zero, nada.
>
>

God I love my k00ks.


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:_zm%j.59$kR5.19
@newsfe24.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> Sheesh..
>>
>>
>> C'mon mxie, get back in the program.. You know, for one of my
>> sockpuppets you're a bit of a disappointement.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> As a wanna be troll, you;re a complete zip.
>
> c-
>
>
>

Obviously.

I never sucker anyone into protracted dispalys of idiocy as it says
right here on page 4 of teh troll manual.



Bertie

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>> I don't remember, but was anyone in this newsgroup upset that Senator
>> John Glenn got to ride in one of the shuttles for some 'scientific'
>> reason after he left the senate? It was, of course, made up science.
>
> I thought his trip was useful because it made it clear that age isn't the
> obstacle that many believe it to be.

Giving an elderly astronaut-hero-senator a free ride on the shuttle (which,
after all, has the capacity to carry him at no extra charge) is a far cry
from denying all pilots the right to overfly a dying politician sitting on
his yacht. There is no moral equivalence in the two examples.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

wrote:
>>
>> I don't remember, but was anyone in this newsgroup upset that Senator
>> John Glenn got to ride in one of the shuttles for some 'scientific'
>> reason after he left the senate? It was, of course, made up science.
>>
>
> While some may complain about the cost of such a trip for Glenn, I
> probably won't. John Glenn is nearly unique in his background. But
> other than some tax money, his trip affected no one.
>

The "made up science" was a study of the effect of weightlessness on the
elderly. It was stated at the time that Glenn was chosen because data
during the shuttle flight could be compared to data collected during his
Mercury flight in 1962. By that reasoning Alan Shepard or Wally Schirra or
Gordon Cooper would have been better choices. Shepard had medical data from
Mercury-Redstone 3 in 1961 and Apollo 14 in 1971 to compare with data
obtained from riding the Shuttle. Schirra had data from Mercury-Atlas 8 in
1962, Gemini 6 in 1965, and Apollo 7 in 1968. Gordon Cooper had data from
Mercury-Atlas 9 in 1963 and Gemini 5 in 1965.

Glenn's shuttle ride was most likely a reward for his role in thwarting the
Senate investigation of the illegal fundraising activities of Bill Clinton
and the Democratic Party.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> Glenn's shuttle ride was most likely a reward for his role in thwarting the
> Senate investigation of the illegal fundraising activities of Bill Clinton
> and the Democratic Party.

or possibly an attempt to get rid of Sen Glenn so the vast right wing conspiracy
could try again... yeah, that's what it was...

;-)

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Robert M. Gary]

Not good to see anyone get sick but he's still outlived Mary Jo
Kopechne by about 40 years. I'm sure each of those years her parents
wished Teddy was behind bars for killing their daughter.

-Robert

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>> Glenn's shuttle ride was most likely a reward for his role in
>> thwarting the Senate investigation of the illegal fundraising
>> activities of Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party.
>
> or possibly an attempt to get rid of Sen Glenn so the vast right wing
> conspiracy could try again... yeah, that's what it was...
>

Gee, another conspiracy nut.

[Helen Waite]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:V0z%j.185288$yE1.118457@attbi_s21:

>>> I don't remember, but was anyone in this newsgroup upset that
>>> Senator John Glenn got to ride in one of the shuttles for some
>>> 'scientific' reason after he left the senate? It was, of course,
>>> made up science.
>>
>> I thought his trip was useful because it made it clear that age isn't
>> the obstacle that many believe it to be.
>
> Giving an elderly astronaut-hero-senator a free ride on the shuttle
> (which, after all, has the capacity to carry him at no extra charge)
> is a far cry from denying all pilots the right to overfly a dying
> politician sitting on his yacht. There is no moral equivalence in the
> two examples.

No extra charge? You are nuts. Go learn about the cost of carrying each
pound into orbit.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-05-30, Helen Waite > wrote:
> No extra charge? You are nuts. Go learn about the cost of carrying each
> pound into orbit.

I strongly suspect the price/kg into orbit is calculated as total cost
of mission divided by payload, to give you the launch price.

If the launch vehicle is going *anyway*, the incremental cost of putting
John Glenn in there is probably a fraction of the per kg. cost that is
stated as the Shuttle price/kg launched into low Earth orbit.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Gezellig]

On Thu, 29 May 2008 17:33:10 -0500, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> Bob Noel wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>
>>> Glenn's shuttle ride was most likely a reward for his role in
>>> thwarting the Senate investigation of the illegal fundraising
>>> activities of Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party.
>>
>> or possibly an attempt to get rid of Sen Glenn so the vast right wing
>> conspiracy could try again... yeah, that's what it was...
>>
>
> Gee, another conspiracy nut.

In a conspiratorial world. Damn, imagine that.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:_Fm%j.68$kR5.5
> @newsfe24.lga:
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>>>
>>>> And raising the noise level is your top priority.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why would I bother doing that when I can get k00ks to do it for me?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Fantasy again, same day. F, zero, nada.
>>
>>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:owm%j.52$kR5.18
> @newsfe24.lga:
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>>
>>> But you just said I wasn't funny in any way , k00kie boi..
>>>
>>>> Mx has many of the same problems, but expresses them in other ways.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Uh yeh...
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> Lame, D-.
>>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:iFm%j.67$kR5.18
> @newsfe24.lga:
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>>>
>>>> That's a drunken fat fingered dyslexics idea of a post.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Excellent.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> C+
>>
>>
>>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:_zm%j.59$kR5.19
> @newsfe24.lga:
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>>
>>> Sheesh..
>>>
>>>
>>> C'mon mxie, get back in the program.. You know, for one of my
>>> sockpuppets you're a bit of a disappointement.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> As a wanna be troll, you;re a complete zip.
>>
>> c-
>>
>>
>>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:cSK0k.3157$t07.1908
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:iFm%j.67$kR5.18
>> @newsfe24.lga:
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a drunken fat fingered dyslexics idea of a post.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Excellent.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> C+
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Lamne


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:qSK0k.3158$t07.1829
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:_zm%j.59$kR5.19
>> @newsfe24.lga:
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>>
>>>> Sheesh..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> C'mon mxie, get back in the program.. You know, for one of my
>>>> sockpuppets you're a bit of a disappointement.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> As a wanna be troll, you;re a complete zip.
>>>
>>> c-
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Snort!

bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:XRK0k.3156$t07.1605
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:owm%j.52$kR5.18
>> @newsfe24.lga:
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>>
>>>> But you just said I wasn't funny in any way , k00kie boi..
>>>>
>>>>> Mx has many of the same problems, but expresses them in other
ways.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Uh yeh...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Lame, D-.
>>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Oink!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:ERK0k.3155$t07.826
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:_Fm%j.68$kR5.5
>> @newsfe24.lga:
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>>>
>>>>> And raising the noise level is your top priority.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why would I bother doing that when I can get k00ks to do it for me?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Fantasy again, same day. F, zero, nada.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Oh no! I'm getting tired!

oh wait,

I'm not.

bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

You're too stupid to get tired.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:0e21k.292$js1.224
@newsfe24.lga:

> You're too stupid to get tired.
>
>
>

Mebber, but whatever th ereason, I'll answer your every post.


Forever.


And ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever
and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever
and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever
and ever


Bertie