On Anonymity, Moderated Fora, and Usenet

[Michael[_1_]]

I'm seeing a lot of people leaving usenet quite publicly, in favor of
a moderated forum, because the signal to noise ratio on the group has
become so poor. This is of course their right and decision. I don't
intend to follow them, and that of course is mine. I will, however,
point out some major advantages of an unmoderated, anonymous forum -
like this one - for some of the topics we discuss.

Aviation is a highly regulated activity. In fact, I can't think of
any activity undertaken primarily for personal convenience or
recreation that is regulated at anythink like the level of personal
aviaiton. Cars, boats, motorcycles, parachutes, scuba - you name it,
and the level of regulation is much, much lower. What's more, the
regulations are out of touch with reality. Many are broken on a
routine basis, especially by the more experienced pilots.

At the same time, the FAA is full of busybody inspectors, some
actually willing to follow up allegations of pilot infraction
submitted by third parties. Any forum will, unfortunately, eventually
contain a snitch - someone willing to take what is said on the forum
and pass the information on to a third party in order to hurt the
poster. It was done here, and as a result many went anonymous.

Thus any forum that lacks effective anonymity limits discussion
tremendously - it would be like a motorcycle forum where everyone had
to pretend that we all ride the speed limit or less all the time,
because if you admitted to intentionally taking those 45 mph curves at
70 or disabling your rev limiter, someone could call the highway
patrol and get you investigated, and maybe get you fined or get your
license suspended.

Here's an example: There is a saying that if the pilot survives the
accident, you will never learn what really happened. This is true -
but incomplete. I've observed several accident and one incident (in-
flight control failure not leading to an accident) investigations
where I had inside knowledge - meaning I knew the people,
organizations, and aircraft involved - and in no case did that
critical inside knowledge wind up in the report. People were covering
their asses - and understandably so. I wasn't about to say anything
tot he feds either. As a result the NTSB reports read like works of
fiction, and there was nothing useful to learn from them. With
anonymity, I can (and have) posted such details here for people to
learn from. That's not something I can reasonably do without
anonymity.

Note that what I'm talking about here is minimally effective anonymity
- not enough to really keep anyone reasonably bright from figuring out
who you are, but the sort that would give you plausible deniability
and would significantly slow down a busybody FAA inspector. That's
really all that any of the long time posters here have.

The other issue is moderation. Moderation does generally help keep
the off-topic backbiting to a minimum - but at a price. The price is
that it has a chilling effect on controversy. It only chops off a
fraction of 1% of the on-topic posts - but they're the most
controversial fraction, the ones that challenge your most fundamental
core beliefs, the ones that have the potential to teach you the most.
That's the sort of thing that gets filtered by moderation. Too
inflammatory. They're VERY hard to write, very time consuming to
research, and nobody will bother if the moderator might just decide to
kill it.

Here's an example: Imagine if being a more conservative pilot made you
more dangerous, not safer. And that most private pilots would be
safer if they were less conservative, not more. That has to be
wrong. Doesn't it? It goes against the grain. I can make a very
solid case for it being true - here. Where some moderator doesn't
decide to filter it out because it can't be right. Not on a moderated
forum. No matter what the moderation policy might say about being
only to keep the discussion on topic, there are some things you just
can't say. Check out this link for a better explanation:
http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

There's no question that if all you are looking for is an online
version of the pilot's lounge, a moderated forum is the way to go. It
will be more polite, more congenial, more like a real pilot's lounge.
Only if that's your goal - why not just go hang out at the real
pilot's lounge at the airport? But hey - that's not my call to make.
It's your choice.

Michael

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 07:07:49 -0700 (PDT), Michael
> wrote in
>:

>Note that what I'm talking about here is minimally effective anonymity
>- not enough to really keep anyone reasonably bright from figuring out
>who you are, but the sort that would give you plausible deniability
>and would significantly slow down a busybody FAA inspector. That's
>really all that any of the long time posters here have.


So it would seem:

Whois Record

OrgName: Maytag Corporation
OrgID: MAYTAG
Address: 403 W. 4th St. N.
City: Newton
StateProv: IA
PostalCode: 50208
Country: US

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 07:07:49 -0700 (PDT), Michael
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>Note that what I'm talking about here is minimally effective anonymity
>>- not enough to really keep anyone reasonably bright from figuring out
>>who you are, but the sort that would give you plausible deniability
>>and would significantly slow down a busybody FAA inspector. That's
>>really all that any of the long time posters here have.
>
>
> So it would seem:
>
> Whois Record
>
> OrgName: Maytag Corporation
> OrgID: MAYTAG
> Address: 403 W. 4th St. N.
> City: Newton
> StateProv: IA
> PostalCode: 50208
> Country: US
>

Good god.


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 07:07:49 -0700 (PDT), Michael
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>>Note that what I'm talking about here is minimally effective anonymity
>>>- not enough to really keep anyone reasonably bright from figuring out
>>>who you are, but the sort that would give you plausible deniability
>>>and would significantly slow down a busybody FAA inspector. That's
>>>really all that any of the long time posters here have.
>>
>>
>> So it would seem:
>>
>> Whois Record
>>
>> OrgName: Maytag Corporation
>> OrgID: MAYTAG
>> Address: 403 W. 4th St. N.
>> City: Newton
>> StateProv: IA
>> PostalCode: 50208
>> Country: US
>>
>
> Good god.
>
>
> Bertie

Well Larry, looks like the wannabe moderator caught ya.

Morning Mr. Needsalife.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 16:57:30 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote in >:

>Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.alien.v ampire.flonk.flonk.flonk

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Michael wrote:

> There's no question that if all you are looking for is an online
> version of the pilot's lounge, a moderated forum is the way to go. It
> will be more polite, more congenial, more like a real pilot's lounge.
> Only if that's your goal - why not just go hang out at the real
> pilot's lounge at the airport? But hey - that's not my call to make.
> It's your choice.
>
> Mich

Your observations are respected of course but are not correct in my
opinion. Anonymity has nothing at all to do with the quality of dialog
on discussion groups. Anonymity is simply a tool of choice for the
poster. The quality of information will either be good or bad as posted.

Actually, the ONLY positive/negative aspect to anonymity that I have
experienced on Usenet is the somewhat enlightening factor that defines
every.....and I mean EVERY instance where a negative aspect can be
attached to a specific poster on Usenet, that poster was/is using an
online persona and not a real name. On the other hand, I've seen very
few instances where a poster using a real name (and I mean first AND
last name) was posting the kind of utter crap we've all been subjected
to lately here on RAP :-)

Your comment about "visiting a pilot's lounge" by visiting a moderated
forum is in my opinion on it's face ridiculous. The discussion on the
moderated forum is simply kept on topic by force instead of left to the
individual poster.

The truth is that BOTH Usenet and moderated forums can be useful IF the
posters themselves can control the venue. Usenet, at least Usenet on the
pilots forums, have demonstrated, and are demonstrating as we speak,
inability to do this.
THIS is the reason pilots are leaving these forums for the moderated forums.
As you can see, I'm still posting here on this forum. I will suggest to
you that what you will most likely see appear posted as answers to this
post might very well finish making my argument. :-)

Anyway, nice talking to you today.
--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Michael wrote:
> I'm seeing a lot of people leaving usenet quite publicly, in favor of
> a moderated forum, because the signal to noise ratio on the group has
> become so poor. This is of course their right and decision. I don't
> intend to follow them, and that of course is mine. I will, however,
> point out some major advantages of an unmoderated, anonymous forum -
> like this one - for some of the topics we discuss.

> Michael

Yes, by all means let's take a look at some of the advantages of an
unmoderated Usenet forum..........like this gem for example, posted
yesterday by some idiot posting here on this Usenet forum using a false
name.

"Dudley Henriques blithered dramatically whilst picking the gonad hairs
from his teeth once fluffy on the testicles of his retaded son "

Of course this Usenet moron has no idea that we just buried our son
after losing him to cancer.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Michael[_1_]]

On Jun 9, 2:31*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>The quality of information will either be good or bad as posted.

Except of course some information is too dangerous to post without
anonymity.

> Actually, the ONLY positive/negative aspect to anonymity that I have
> experienced on Usenet is the somewhat enlightening factor that defines
> every.....and I mean EVERY instance where a negative aspect can be
> attached to a specific poster on Usenet, that poster was/is using an
> online persona and not a real name.

Demonstrably false. The most famous counter-example in the
rec.aviation hierarchy would be Robert L. Bass.

Michael

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Michael wrote:


> Demonstrably false. The most famous counter-example in the
> rec.aviation hierarchy would be Robert L. Bass.
>
> Michael

I don't agree. Bass was an unusual case, and I emphasize the word case :-)
Nobody said it's a perfect world out here. I'm simply making the case
that moderated forums are a viable alternative to the Usenet open forum
and for many people might be a better alternative.
I agree with you that it's a choice decision and must be made by
everyone based on their own personal views, and I respect your right to
disagree with me or anyone else.
For you and I, Usenet seems to work, but I can tell you from personal
experience, that the majority body count on bad posting and harassment
comes from those using a pseudonym on Usenet, Bass or no Bass! (is that
a question? :-)
--
Dudley Henriques

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Jun 9, 10:07 am, Michael > wrote:
> I'm seeing a lot of people leaving usenet quite publicly, in favor of
> a moderated forum, because the signal to noise ratio on the group has
> become so poor. This is of course their right and decision. I don't
> intend to follow them, and that of course is mine. I will, however,
> point out some major advantages of an unmoderated, anonymous forum -
> like this one - for some of the topics we discuss.
>
> Aviation is a highly regulated activity. In fact, I can't think of
> any activity undertaken primarily for personal convenience or
> recreation that is regulated at anythink like the level of personal
> aviaiton. Cars, boats, motorcycles, parachutes, scuba - you name it,
> and the level of regulation is much, much lower. What's more, the
> regulations are out of touch with reality. Many are broken on a
> routine basis, especially by the more experienced pilots.
>
> At the same time, the FAA is full of busybody inspectors, some
> actually willing to follow up allegations of pilot infraction
> submitted by third parties. Any forum will, unfortunately, eventually
> contain a snitch - someone willing to take what is said on the forum
> and pass the information on to a third party in order to hurt the
> poster. It was done here, and as a result many went anonymous.
>
> Thus any forum that lacks effective anonymity limits discussion
> tremendously - it would be like a motorcycle forum where everyone had
> to pretend that we all ride the speed limit or less all the time,
> because if you admitted to intentionally taking those 45 mph curves at
> 70 or disabling your rev limiter, someone could call the highway
> patrol and get you investigated, and maybe get you fined or get your
> license suspended.
>
> Here's an example: There is a saying that if the pilot survives the
> accident, you will never learn what really happened. This is true -
> but incomplete. I've observed several accident and one incident (in-
> flight control failure not leading to an accident) investigations
> where I had inside knowledge - meaning I knew the people,
> organizations, and aircraft involved - and in no case did that
> critical inside knowledge wind up in the report. People were covering
> their asses - and understandably so. I wasn't about to say anything
> tot he feds either. As a result the NTSB reports read like works of
> fiction, and there was nothing useful to learn from them. With
> anonymity, I can (and have) posted such details here for people to
> learn from. That's not something I can reasonably do without
> anonymity.
>
> Note that what I'm talking about here is minimally effective anonymity
> - not enough to really keep anyone reasonably bright from figuring out
> who you are, but the sort that would give you plausible deniability
> and would significantly slow down a busybody FAA inspector. That's
> really all that any of the long time posters here have.
>
> The other issue is moderation. Moderation does generally help keep
> the off-topic backbiting to a minimum - but at a price. The price is
> that it has a chilling effect on controversy. It only chops off a
> fraction of 1% of the on-topic posts - but they're the most
> controversial fraction, the ones that challenge your most fundamental
> core beliefs, the ones that have the potential to teach you the most.
> That's the sort of thing that gets filtered by moderation. Too
> inflammatory. They're VERY hard to write, very time consuming to
> research, and nobody will bother if the moderator might just decide to
> kill it.
>
> Here's an example: Imagine if being a more conservative pilot made you
> more dangerous, not safer. And that most private pilots would be
> safer if they were less conservative, not more. That has to be
> wrong. Doesn't it? It goes against the grain. I can make a very
> solid case for it being true - here. Where some moderator doesn't
> decide to filter it out because it can't be right. Not on a moderated
> forum. No matter what the moderation policy might say about being
> only to keep the discussion on topic, there are some things you just
> can't say. Check out this link for a better explanation:http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
>
> There's no question that if all you are looking for is an online
> version of the pilot's lounge, a moderated forum is the way to go. It
> will be more polite, more congenial, more like a real pilot's lounge.
> Only if that's your goal - why not just go hang out at the real
> pilot's lounge at the airport? But hey - that's not my call to make.
> It's your choice.
>
> Michael

ASRS is a good example of anonymous reporting. But it is not fully
anonymous because someone at NASA reviews your information and then
strips your name from your message. They are effectively the
moderators. I would be fine with a usenet group which is anonymous but
moderated.

However, it is an undeniable fact that people who use their full real
names on usenet have rarely posted inflammatory messages.

The one big factor in favor of usenet is that it is fully archived and
searchable by google. There is literally millions of pieces of great
information from past discussions that you can't find anywhere else.
But if there is a way to allow google to search these private forums
as well, that difference would go away.

[Jim Logajan]

Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Of course this Usenet moron has no idea that we just buried our son
> after losing him to cancer.

I am very saddened to hear of your loss. I do not know you except by your
postings, and by them you have always struck me as a helpful, intelligent,
and decent person. The apple never falls far from the tree, the old proverb
allegedly goes, so I have no doubts that he lived up to the same standards
as his old man.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, by all means let's take a look at some of the advantages of an
> unmoderated Usenet forum..........like this gem for example, posted
> yesterday by some idiot posting here on this Usenet forum using a false
> name.
>
> "Dudley Henriques blithered dramatically whilst picking the gonad hairs
> from his teeth once fluffy on the testicles of his retaded son "
>
> Of course this Usenet moron has no idea that we just buried our son after
> losing him to cancer.
>

Truly sorry to hear of your loss Dudley.

Kind of ironic that you and the person that said that, both sock puppet for
the same wannabe troll.

From my perspective, you must share some of the responsibility for the
sleezeball joining our group.

Truly sad.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Michael wrote:
>
> Your observations are respected of course but are not correct in my
> opinion. Anonymity has nothing at all to do with the quality of dialog on
> discussion groups. Anonymity is simply a tool of choice for the poster.
> The quality of information will either be good or bad as posted.
>
> Actually, the ONLY positive/negative aspect to anonymity that I have
> experienced on Usenet is the somewhat enlightening factor that defines
> every.....and I mean EVERY instance where a negative aspect can be
> attached to a specific poster on Usenet, that poster was/is using an
> online persona and not a real name. On the other hand, I've seen very few
> instances where a poster using a real name (and I mean first AND last
> name) was posting the kind of utter crap we've all been subjected to
> lately here on RAP :-)
>
> Your comment about "visiting a pilot's lounge" by visiting a moderated
> forum is in my opinion on it's face ridiculous. The discussion on the
> moderated forum is simply kept on topic by force instead of left to the
> individual poster.
>
> The truth is that BOTH Usenet and moderated forums can be useful IF the
> posters themselves can control the venue. Usenet, at least Usenet on the
> pilots forums, have demonstrated, and are demonstrating as we speak,
> inability to do this.
> THIS is the reason pilots are leaving these forums for the moderated
> forums.
> As you can see, I'm still posting here on this forum. I will suggest to
> you that what you will most likely see appear posted as answers to this
> post might very well finish making my argument. :-)
>
> Anyway, nice talking to you today.
> --
> Dudley Henriques

I'm afraid I'll have to agree with Michael. If moderated groups are so
wonderful, and full of so many wonderful people, what are you doing still
here recruiting?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Michael wrote:
>>
>> Your observations are respected of course but are not correct in my
>> opinion. Anonymity has nothing at all to do with the quality of dialog on
>> discussion groups. Anonymity is simply a tool of choice for the poster.
>> The quality of information will either be good or bad as posted.
>>
>> Actually, the ONLY positive/negative aspect to anonymity that I have
>> experienced on Usenet is the somewhat enlightening factor that defines
>> every.....and I mean EVERY instance where a negative aspect can be
>> attached to a specific poster on Usenet, that poster was/is using an
>> online persona and not a real name. On the other hand, I've seen very few
>> instances where a poster using a real name (and I mean first AND last
>> name) was posting the kind of utter crap we've all been subjected to
>> lately here on RAP :-)
>>
>> Your comment about "visiting a pilot's lounge" by visiting a moderated
>> forum is in my opinion on it's face ridiculous. The discussion on the
>> moderated forum is simply kept on topic by force instead of left to the
>> individual poster.
>>
>> The truth is that BOTH Usenet and moderated forums can be useful IF the
>> posters themselves can control the venue. Usenet, at least Usenet on the
>> pilots forums, have demonstrated, and are demonstrating as we speak,
>> inability to do this.
>> THIS is the reason pilots are leaving these forums for the moderated
>> forums.
>> As you can see, I'm still posting here on this forum. I will suggest to
>> you that what you will most likely see appear posted as answers to this
>> post might very well finish making my argument. :-)
>>
>> Anyway, nice talking to you today.
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I'm afraid I'll have to agree with Michael. If moderated groups are so
> wonderful, and full of so many wonderful people, what are you doing still
> here recruiting?
>
>

I've never left, never said I was leaving, and won't be leaving. No need
too. Giving people an alternative place to post serious aviation
discussion is simply my project of the day so to speak.

Oh BTW, those two alternatives for friendly and serious aviation
discussion are;

>http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=5
>
> http://www.purpleboard.net/~purplebo/forums/index.php

Thank you Max for the continuing opportunity of accomplishing two things
at one time, first demonstrating why these alternatives might be
seriously considered by some, and secondly, affording me the opportunity
of reposting the links just in case some have missed seeing them.
--
Dudley Henriques

[Paul Riley]

Hi Dudley,

My sincere condolences to you and your wife--I know how devastating it must
be for you.
My thoughts and prayers are with you at this difficult time.

Paul

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Michael wrote:
>> I'm seeing a lot of people leaving usenet quite publicly, in favor of
>> a moderated forum, because the signal to noise ratio on the group has
>> become so poor. This is of course their right and decision. I don't
>> intend to follow them, and that of course is mine. I will, however,
>> point out some major advantages of an unmoderated, anonymous forum -
>> like this one - for some of the topics we discuss.
>
>> Michael
>
> Yes, by all means let's take a look at some of the advantages of an
> unmoderated Usenet forum..........like this gem for example, posted
> yesterday by some idiot posting here on this Usenet forum using a false
> name.
>
> "Dudley Henriques blithered dramatically whilst picking the gonad hairs
> from his teeth once fluffy on the testicles of his retaded son "
>
> Of course this Usenet moron has no idea that we just buried our son after
> losing him to cancer.
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Of course this Usenet moron has no idea that we just buried our son
>> after losing him to cancer.
>
> I am very saddened to hear of your loss. I do not know you except by your
> postings, and by them you have always struck me as a helpful, intelligent,
> and decent person. The apple never falls far from the tree, the old proverb
> allegedly goes, so I have no doubts that he lived up to the same standards
> as his old man.
Thank you Jim;

Dave was a wonderful man, and losing him was the saddest thing we've
ever had to endure. We are left with wonderful memories of him and the
time all of us had together. He was an inspiration to us all, and even
in the time his Melanoma tore at his body and drove him closer to death,
he spent his days trying to help US deal with what was happening.
Your thoughts were greatly appreciated and I will be sharing them with
my wife tonight. I'm sure she as well would echo what I have said here
to you.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Yes, by all means let's take a look at some of the advantages of an
>> unmoderated Usenet forum..........like this gem for example, posted
>> yesterday by some idiot posting here on this Usenet forum using a false
>> name.
>>
>> "Dudley Henriques blithered dramatically whilst picking the gonad hairs
>> from his teeth once fluffy on the testicles of his retaded son "
>>
>> Of course this Usenet moron has no idea that we just buried our son after
>> losing him to cancer.
>>
>
> Truly sorry to hear of your loss Dudley.
>
> Kind of ironic that you and the person that said that, both sock puppet for
> the same wannabe troll.
>
> From my perspective, you must share some of the responsibility for the
> sleezeball joining our group.
>
> Truly sad.
>
>
>
>
>

If you don't mind, I'll simply take your first sentence and thank you
for that, and do my very best to block the rest of it from my mind.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Paul Riley wrote:
> Hi Dudley,
>
> My sincere condolences to you and your wife--I know how devastating it must
> be for you.
> My thoughts and prayers are with you at this difficult time.
>
> Paul
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Michael wrote:
>>> I'm seeing a lot of people leaving usenet quite publicly, in favor of
>>> a moderated forum, because the signal to noise ratio on the group has
>>> become so poor. This is of course their right and decision. I don't
>>> intend to follow them, and that of course is mine. I will, however,
>>> point out some major advantages of an unmoderated, anonymous forum -
>>> like this one - for some of the topics we discuss.
>>> Michael
>> Yes, by all means let's take a look at some of the advantages of an
>> unmoderated Usenet forum..........like this gem for example, posted
>> yesterday by some idiot posting here on this Usenet forum using a false
>> name.
>>
>> "Dudley Henriques blithered dramatically whilst picking the gonad hairs
>> from his teeth once fluffy on the testicles of his retaded son "
>>
>> Of course this Usenet moron has no idea that we just buried our son after
>> losing him to cancer.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
Thank you Paul. It's been a while now (several months)since we lost Dave
and the hardest part has passed.

--
Dudley Henriques

[More_Flaps]

On Jun 10, 7:11*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

>
> Of course this Usenet moron has no idea that we just buried our son
> after losing him to cancer.
>

Please accept my condolences for your loss. There is no way that the
immature cretins who delight in posting slurs on other posters could
achive the strength of character that you just displayed in not going
into a rage at the post above. As I have got older I have come to
accept that death is inevitable, the only question is when it will
come and the quality of the life before that event. I will meet you
one day and on that day I will shake your hand.

Regards, More_Flaps.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

More_Flaps wrote:
> On Jun 10, 7:11 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> Of course this Usenet moron has no idea that we just buried our son
>> after losing him to cancer.
>>
>
> Please accept my condolences for your loss. There is no way that the
> immature cretins who delight in posting slurs on other posters could
> achive the strength of character that you just displayed in not going
> into a rage at the post above. As I have got older I have come to
> accept that death is inevitable, the only question is when it will
> come and the quality of the life before that event. I will meet you
> one day and on that day I will shake your hand.
>
> Regards, More_Flaps.

Thank you Flaps. I deeply appreciate your post, and I hope we meet
someday for that handshake.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

on 6/9/2008 3:14 PM Maxwell said the following:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Yes, by all means let's take a look at some of the advantages of an
>> unmoderated Usenet forum..........like this gem for example, posted
>> yesterday by some idiot posting here on this Usenet forum using a false
>> name.
>>
>> "Dudley Henriques blithered dramatically whilst picking the gonad hairs
>> from his teeth once fluffy on the testicles of his retaded son "
>>
>> Of course this Usenet moron has no idea that we just buried our son after
>> losing him to cancer.
>>
>
> Truly sorry to hear of your loss Dudley.
>
> Kind of ironic that you and the person that said that, both sock puppet for
> the same wannabe troll.
>
> From my perspective, you must share some of the responsibility for the
> sleezeball joining our group.
>
> Truly sad.

If there were any doubt in anyone's mind whether you're a dickhead, you
just put it to rest once and for all.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> Of course this Usenet moron has no idea that we just buried our son
>>> after losing him to cancer.
>>
>> I am very saddened to hear of your loss. I do not know you except by your
>> postings, and by them you have always struck me as a helpful,
>> intelligent, and decent person. The apple never falls far from the tree,
>> the old proverb allegedly goes, so I have no doubts that he lived up to
>> the same standards as his old man.
> Thank you Jim;
>
> Dave was a wonderful man, and losing him was the saddest thing we've ever
> had to endure. We are left with wonderful memories of him and the time all
> of us had together. He was an inspiration to us all, and even in the time
> his Melanoma tore at his body and drove him closer to death, he spent his
> days trying to help US deal with what was happening.
> Your thoughts were greatly appreciated and I will be sharing them with my
> wife tonight. I'm sure she as well would echo what I have said here to
> you.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

How old was he Dudley, and when did he pass.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
ouse.com...
> on 6/9/2008 3:14 PM Maxwell said the following:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Yes, by all means let's take a look at some of the advantages of an
>>> unmoderated Usenet forum..........like this gem for example, posted
>>> yesterday by some idiot posting here on this Usenet forum using a false
>>> name.
>>>
>>> "Dudley Henriques blithered dramatically whilst picking the gonad hairs
>>> from his teeth once fluffy on the testicles of his retaded son "
>>>
>>> Of course this Usenet moron has no idea that we just buried our son
>>> after losing him to cancer.
>>>
>>
>> Truly sorry to hear of your loss Dudley.
>>
>> Kind of ironic that you and the person that said that, both sock puppet
>> for the same wannabe troll.
>>
>> From my perspective, you must share some of the responsibility for the
>> sleezeball joining our group.
>>
>> Truly sad.
>
> If there were any doubt in anyone's mind whether you're a dickhead, you
> just put it to rest once and for all.

And by virtue of the fact you are also a proud suckpuppet (or suck ass) for
Bertie. You must also share a good bit of the responsibility yourself.

In fact, I'd like to take the time to thank Bertie and all his sock puppets,
for the not only the cross posting, forging and lying that you all as a
group have sponsored to this forum, but also some of the world class filth
you have brought to the group as well.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> Thank you Max for the continuing opportunity of accomplishing two things
> at one time, first demonstrating why these alternatives might be seriously
> considered by some, and secondly, affording me the opportunity of
> reposting the links just in case some have missed seeing them.
> --

Well you certainly don't need my reminder. You have only been gone three
days, but have already spammed us more than a dozen times.

Perhaps you should be asking donations for the Red Cross as well.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Of course this Usenet moron has no idea that we just buried our son
>>>> after losing him to cancer.
>>> I am very saddened to hear of your loss. I do not know you except by your
>>> postings, and by them you have always struck me as a helpful,
>>> intelligent, and decent person. The apple never falls far from the tree,
>>> the old proverb allegedly goes, so I have no doubts that he lived up to
>>> the same standards as his old man.
>> Thank you Jim;
>>
>> Dave was a wonderful man, and losing him was the saddest thing we've ever
>> had to endure. We are left with wonderful memories of him and the time all
>> of us had together. He was an inspiration to us all, and even in the time
>> his Melanoma tore at his body and drove him closer to death, he spent his
>> days trying to help US deal with what was happening.
>> Your thoughts were greatly appreciated and I will be sharing them with my
>> wife tonight. I'm sure she as well would echo what I have said here to
>> you.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> How old was he Dudley, and when did he pass.
>
>
I'm really at a total loss as to how to answer this question from you.
If I thought you actually cared about our loss and wanted to know I
would gladly discuss my son with you. I'm sorry but the trust just isn't
there between us for me to take the chance.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

on 6/9/2008 6:13 PM Maxwell said the following:
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> ouse.com...
>> on 6/9/2008 3:14 PM Maxwell said the following:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Yes, by all means let's take a look at some of the advantages of an
>>>> unmoderated Usenet forum..........like this gem for example, posted
>>>> yesterday by some idiot posting here on this Usenet forum using a false
>>>> name.
>>>>
>>>> "Dudley Henriques blithered dramatically whilst picking the gonad hairs
>>>> from his teeth once fluffy on the testicles of his retaded son "
>>>>
>>>> Of course this Usenet moron has no idea that we just buried our son
>>>> after losing him to cancer.
>>>>
>>> Truly sorry to hear of your loss Dudley.
>>>
>>> Kind of ironic that you and the person that said that, both sock puppet
>>> for the same wannabe troll.
>>>
>>> From my perspective, you must share some of the responsibility for the
>>> sleezeball joining our group.
>>>
>>> Truly sad.
>> If there were any doubt in anyone's mind whether you're a dickhead, you
>> just put it to rest once and for all.
>
> And by virtue of the fact you are also a proud suckpuppet (or suck ass) for
> Bertie. You must also share a good bit of the responsibility yourself.

You really need to check in with reality once in a while. You might find
you actually like it. At least outside of Oklahoma...

> In fact, I'd like to take the time to thank Bertie and all his sock puppets,
> for the not only the cross posting, forging and lying that you all as a
> group have sponsored to this forum, but also some of the world class filth
> you have brought to the group as well.

You, as a prime example...

You've crossposted far more than I have, by simple virtue of the massive
volume of crap you've posted. And I challenge you to find an example of
me forging or lying. No, Maxie, you are the best example of everything
you rant about.

And it's a newsgroup, you idiot.

[Peter Dohm]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> Of course this Usenet moron has no idea that we just buried our son
>>> after losing him to cancer.
>>
>> I am very saddened to hear of your loss. I do not know you except by your
>> postings, and by them you have always struck me as a helpful,
>> intelligent, and decent person. The apple never falls far from the tree,
>> the old proverb allegedly goes, so I have no doubts that he lived up to
>> the same standards as his old man.
> Thank you Jim;
>
> Dave was a wonderful man, and losing him was the saddest thing we've ever
> had to endure. We are left with wonderful memories of him and the time all
> of us had together. He was an inspiration to us all, and even in the time
> his Melanoma tore at his body and drove him closer to death, he spent his
> days trying to help US deal with what was happening.
> Your thoughts were greatly appreciated and I will be sharing them with my
> wife tonight. I'm sure she as well would echo what I have said here to
> you.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

I am sorry to read of this as well.

There is far too much cancer in the world today, and
it has affected too many people who I know or know of.

Peter

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
ouse.com...
> on 6/9/2008 6:13 PM Maxwell said the following:

>> In fact, I'd like to take the time to thank Bertie and all his sock
>> puppets, for the not only the cross posting, forging and lying that you
>> all as a group have sponsored to this forum, but also some of the world
>> class filth you have brought to the group as well.

>
> You, as a prime example...
>
> You've crossposted far more than I have, by simple virtue of the massive
> volume of crap you've posted. And I challenge you to find an example of me
> forging or lying. No, Maxie, you are the best example of everything you
> rant about.
>
> And it's a newsgroup, you idiot.


If you don't want to be associated with Bertie, quit swinging from his coat
tales, lamer.

You hitched your name to his cause all by yourself.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

on 6/9/2008 7:48 PM Maxwell said the following:
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> ouse.com...
>> on 6/9/2008 6:13 PM Maxwell said the following:
>
>>> In fact, I'd like to take the time to thank Bertie and all his sock
>>> puppets, for the not only the cross posting, forging and lying that you
>>> all as a group have sponsored to this forum, but also some of the world
>>> class filth you have brought to the group as well.
>
>> You, as a prime example...
>>
>> You've crossposted far more than I have, by simple virtue of the massive
>> volume of crap you've posted. And I challenge you to find an example of me
>> forging or lying. No, Maxie, you are the best example of everything you
>> rant about.
>>
>> And it's a newsgroup, you idiot.
>
> If you don't want to be associated with Bertie, quit swinging from his coat
> tales, lamer.
>
> You hitched your name to his cause all by yourself.

Only in your worm-ridden brain.

I'm through arguing with an idiot. You just keep on digging your hole,
Maxie. Everyone can see you for what you are.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Jun 9, 3:11 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

>
> Yes, by all means let's take a look at some of the advantages of an
> unmoderated Usenet forum..........like this gem for example, posted
> yesterday by some idiot posting here on this Usenet forum using a false
> name.
>
> "Dudley Henriques blithered dramatically whilst picking the gonad hairs
> from his teeth once fluffy on the testicles of his retaded son "
>
> Of course this Usenet moron has no idea that we just buried our son
> after losing him to cancer.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Very saddened to hear the news, and I can't even imagine your pain.
Burying ones own child must be one of the most painful events in any
persons life. Please accept my condolences.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> On Jun 9, 3:11 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> Yes, by all means let's take a look at some of the advantages of an
>> unmoderated Usenet forum..........like this gem for example, posted
>> yesterday by some idiot posting here on this Usenet forum using a false
>> name.
>>
>> "Dudley Henriques blithered dramatically whilst picking the gonad hairs
>> from his teeth once fluffy on the testicles of his retaded son "
>>
>> Of course this Usenet moron has no idea that we just buried our son
>> after losing him to cancer.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Very saddened to hear the news, and I can't even imagine your pain.
> Burying ones own child must be one of the most painful events in any
> persons life. Please accept my condolences.
>
Thank you Andrew. I appreciate your post very much.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Dave was a wonderful man, and losing him was the saddest thing we've
> ever had to endure. We are left with wonderful memories of him and the
> time all of us had together. He was an inspiration to us all, and even
> in the time his Melanoma tore at his body and drove him closer to death,
> he spent his days trying to help US deal with what was happening.
> Your thoughts were greatly appreciated and I will be sharing them with
> my wife tonight. I'm sure she as well would echo what I have said here
> to you.

Please accept our sincere condolences, Dudley.
--
Jay, Mary, Joe & Becca Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim Logajan]

HARRY POTTER > wrote:
> I really don't
> understand why ANYONE here would want to post with their real name?

All the good handles were taken.

> What on earth does it benefit the poster that uses their real name?

I don't want the payments to go into someone else's account.

Look what happened when Bob Gardner used his real name - and then
publicly announced he was leaving the group. It's amazing how someone who
didn't post that often could generate such a following to other forums.
Bob hasn't been the first one to publicly leave this board and announce
where else to find him, but he was the first one to do so who had enough
real-world cred to draw a crowd with him. But I'm not sure that will
prove anything to you.

> It just boggles my mind.

People who have boggled minds are advised not to use their real names.
;-)

> I've been using internet message boards for
> years now, all of which are ones where the users use screen names
> instead of their real names.

I think I've been reading Usenet for almost 20 years now. Back in those
days real names were used more often than pseudonyms. Except for Kibo -
it's all his fault.

> Yet I'm just not seeing the same kind of
> anarchy proponents of real-name-posters seem to think anonymity
> brings... Heck I can name you a few dozen Usenet groups where everyone
> is anonymous, yet order is preserved.

Which groups are those?
And how precisely is order preserved?
And what do you define as order?

> I come here to learn about aviation. Period. I'm not here to make
> friends, I'm not here to make a name for myself, I'm just here to get
> a glimpse of aviation that you just can't get reading published books.

That's sort of fine - but you make a mistake in presuming everyone must
have the same motivations. Or that only your motivations are valid. There
is also a certain unfortunate, if not absurdist, aspect in watching
asocial and antisocial people make posts to Usenet - which is an
inherently _socializing_ mechanism.

> Also, since
> aviation is so small, its a lot more easy to get yourself noticed,
> which I'm guessing is the reason many here post with their real name.
> They hope some reputation they earn here will carry over to real life.
> Either that, of they hope that their real life reputation will carry
> over online. Either way, to me it's just sad and pathetic.

It appears that in your last paragraph you crossed the line from not
being here to making friends to using your anonymity to make a sweeping
generalization against every person who ever used their real names. A
classic flame or troll. The irony is that you claim in the same post how
you don't see anonymous posters as agents of chaos.

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > HARRY POTTER > writes:

>I come here to learn about aviation. Period. I'm not here to make friends,
>I'm not here to make a name for myself, I'm just here to get a glimpse of
>aviation that you just can't get reading published books.

I find that the better quality comments come from folks who are willing
to use their real names. They tend to stand behind what they say.

Don't think that anonymity makes you safe from the feds. If they
want you, they can find you.

Alan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:osd3k.1358$Jh7.331
@newsfe21.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Larry Dighera > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 07:07:49 -0700 (PDT), Michael
>>> > wrote in
>>> >:
>>>
>>>>Note that what I'm talking about here is minimally effective
anonymity
>>>>- not enough to really keep anyone reasonably bright from figuring
out
>>>>who you are, but the sort that would give you plausible deniability
>>>>and would significantly slow down a busybody FAA inspector. That's
>>>>really all that any of the long time posters here have.
>>>
>>>
>>> So it would seem:
>>>
>>> Whois Record
>>>
>>> OrgName: Maytag Corporation
>>> OrgID: MAYTAG
>>> Address: 403 W. 4th St. N.
>>> City: Newton
>>> StateProv: IA
>>> PostalCode: 50208
>>> Country: US
>>>
>>
>> Good god.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Well Larry, looks like the wannabe moderator caught ya.
>
> Morning Mr. Needsalife.
>

Morning?



Bertie
>
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 16:57:30 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote in >:
>
>>Newsgroups:
>>rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.alien.v ampire.flonk.flonk.fl
>>onk
>

Thanks. Almost forgot the flonk.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

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

>
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> ouse.com...
>> on 6/9/2008 6:13 PM Maxwell said the following:
>
>>> In fact, I'd like to take the time to thank Bertie and all his sock
>>> puppets, for the not only the cross posting, forging and lying that
>>> you all as a group have sponsored to this forum, but also some of
>>> the world class filth you have brought to the group as well.
>
>>
>> You, as a prime example...
>>
>> You've crossposted far more than I have, by simple virtue of the
>> massive volume of crap you've posted. And I challenge you to find an
>> example of me forging or lying. No, Maxie, you are the best example
>> of everything you rant about.
>>
>> And it's a newsgroup, you idiot.
>
>
> If you don't want to be associated with Bertie, quit swinging from his
> coat tales, lamer.
>


and how exactly is he doing that, maderator wannabe?



> You hitched your name to his cause all by yourself.
>

Waht cause?


Smacking ****s like you over the head?



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

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

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Yes, by all means let's take a look at some of the advantages of an
>> unmoderated Usenet forum..........like this gem for example, posted
>> yesterday by some idiot posting here on this Usenet forum using a
>> false name.
>>
>> "Dudley Henriques blithered dramatically whilst picking the gonad
>> hairs from his teeth once fluffy on the testicles of his retaded son
>> "
>>
>> Of course this Usenet moron has no idea that we just buried our son
>> after losing him to cancer.
>>
>
> Truly sorry to hear of your loss Dudley.
>
> Kind of ironic that you and the person that said that, both sock
> puppet for the same wannabe troll.
>
> From my perspective, you must share some of the responsibility for the
> sleezeball joining our group.
>
> Truly sad.
>

You are indeed.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in
. net:

> on 6/9/2008 7:48 PM Maxwell said the following:
>> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
>> ouse.com...
>>> on 6/9/2008 6:13 PM Maxwell said the following:
>>
>>>> In fact, I'd like to take the time to thank Bertie and all his sock
>>>> puppets, for the not only the cross posting, forging and lying that
>>>> you all as a group have sponsored to this forum, but also some of
>>>> the world class filth you have brought to the group as well.
>>
>>> You, as a prime example...
>>>
>>> You've crossposted far more than I have, by simple virtue of the
>>> massive volume of crap you've posted. And I challenge you to find an
>>> example of me forging or lying. No, Maxie, you are the best example
>>> of everything you rant about.
>>>
>>> And it's a newsgroup, you idiot.
>>
>> If you don't want to be associated with Bertie, quit swinging from
>> his coat tales, lamer.
>>
>> You hitched your name to his cause all by yourself.
>
> Only in your worm-ridden brain.
>
> I'm through arguing with an idiot. You just keep on digging your hole,
> Maxie. Everyone can see you for what you are.
>

To be fair, that doesn't make him any less entertaining.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

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

>
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> ouse.com...
>> on 6/9/2008 3:14 PM Maxwell said the following:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Yes, by all means let's take a look at some of the advantages of an
>>>> unmoderated Usenet forum..........like this gem for example, posted
>>>> yesterday by some idiot posting here on this Usenet forum using a
>>>> false name.
>>>>
>>>> "Dudley Henriques blithered dramatically whilst picking the gonad
>>>> hairs from his teeth once fluffy on the testicles of his retaded
>>>> son "
>>>>
>>>> Of course this Usenet moron has no idea that we just buried our son
>>>> after losing him to cancer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Truly sorry to hear of your loss Dudley.
>>>
>>> Kind of ironic that you and the person that said that, both sock
>>> puppet for the same wannabe troll.
>>>
>>> From my perspective, you must share some of the responsibility for
>>> the sleezeball joining our group.
>>>
>>> Truly sad.
>>
>> If there were any doubt in anyone's mind whether you're a dickhead,
>> you just put it to rest once and for all.
>
> And by virtue of the fact you are also a proud suckpuppet (or suck
> ass) for Bertie. You must also share a good bit of the responsibility
> yourself.
>
> In fact, I'd like to take the time to thank Bertie and all his sock
> puppets, for the not only the cross posting, forging and lying that
> you all as a group have sponsored to this forum, but also some of the
> world class filth you have brought to the group as well.

I thought you were here before, slimebucket.


Waht's next on your calender, mocking some kids with MS?


Bertie
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> HARRY POTTER > wrote:
>> I really don't
>> understand why ANYONE here would want to post with their real name?
>
> All the good handles were taken.
>

Snort!

I got some spares if you like.

Otto Preminger's goldfish was always one of my favorites.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

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

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Thank you Max for the continuing opportunity of accomplishing two
>> things at one time, first demonstrating why these alternatives might
>> be seriously considered by some, and secondly, affording me the
>> opportunity of reposting the links just in case some have missed
>> seeing them. --
>
> Well you certainly don't need my reminder. You have only been gone
> three days, but have already spammed us more than a dozen times.
>
> Perhaps you should be asking donations for the Red Cross as well.
>
>

The *******!


Bertie

[Michael[_1_]]

On Jun 9, 4:00 pm, Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> ASRS is a good example of anonymous reporting. But it is not fully
> anonymous because someone at NASA reviews your information and then
> strips your name from your message. They are effectively the
> moderators. I would be fine with a usenet group which is anonymous but
> moderated.

Unfortunately, ASRS is also a good example of how that system fails.
It fails because the 'get out of jail free' provision is null and void
if the violation is 'intentional' - and you don't get to decide if
it's intentional, the FAA inspector does. Thus much of what you read
has also been tainted by large doses of CYA. I have, more than once,
participated as an advisor when an ASRS form was written by
committee. By the time we were done, we were as sure as we could be
that nobody could reasonably consider the violation intentional. Of
course in the process, the educational value was lost. There was no
real chance you could figure out what actually happened by reading it.

> However, it is an undeniable fact that people who use their full real
> names on usenet have rarely posted inflammatory messages.

Really? What do you define as rare? If you mean less common than
those who use their full real names (as far as you know - I've seen
more than one person use a real, full name - just not his) then I
actually agree with you. But if you mean too rare to matter (as in -
it would be a nice place if we could just keep out the anonymous ones)
then I don't. Robert L. Bass is just one counterexample, and he was
probably the most inflammatory individual ever to participate here -
right down to complaining to the employer of one of the regulars here,
trying to get the man fired or silenced. But if you want to go for
garden variety inflammatory, I also recall Craig Wall and Juan Jimenez
- and I'm absolutely terrible with names.

Michael

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Michael" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 9, 4:00 pm, Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>
>> However, it is an undeniable fact that people who use their full real
>> names on usenet have rarely posted inflammatory messages.
>
> Really? What do you define as rare? If you mean less common than
> those who use their full real names (as far as you know - I've seen
> more than one person use a real, full name - just not his) then I
> actually agree with you. But if you mean too rare to matter (as in -
> it would be a nice place if we could just keep out the anonymous ones)
> then I don't. Robert L. Bass is just one counterexample, and he was
> probably the most inflammatory individual ever to participate here -
> right down to complaining to the employer of one of the regulars here,
> trying to get the man fired or silenced. But if you want to go for
> garden variety inflammatory, I also recall Craig Wall and Juan Jimenez
> - and I'm absolutely terrible with names.
>
> Michael

Not to mention Dudley Henriques and Rich Ahrens.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Dave was a wonderful man, and losing him was the saddest thing we've
>> ever had to endure. We are left with wonderful memories of him and the
>> time all of us had together. He was an inspiration to us all, and even
>> in the time his Melanoma tore at his body and drove him closer to
>> death, he spent his days trying to help US deal with what was happening.
>> Your thoughts were greatly appreciated and I will be sharing them with
>> my wife tonight. I'm sure she as well would echo what I have said here
>> to you.
>
> Please accept our sincere condolences, Dudley.

Thank you.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Michael[_1_]]

On Jun 9, 11:37*pm, HARRY POTTER > wrote:
> I come here to learn about aviation. Period. I'm not here to make friends,
> I'm not here to make a name for myself, I'm just here to get a glimpse of
> aviation that you just can't get reading published books.

And there is much to learn that you can't publish in a book. I
remember a conversation with a friend of mine - an active GA pilot and
captain of a major airline - and we were talking about writing a book
about GA IFR. Something that would teach you to really do it, and
where the pitfalls are - not something to pass the test or make the
scan, approaches, or holds easier. He pointed out to me that there
was no way that he could sign his name to that, and I shouldn't
either. It would have to be by Captain X and Dr. Y.

But I can (and do) post that stuff here. So do some others. Not too
many left, though.

> The point you hit
> upon about the FAA enforcing what you might say here is also very
> interesting.

The average FAA inspector isn't really bright enough to pierce even
the shallowest veil of anonymity. I've known a couple who were - but
they were also bright enough to know you can't operate by all the
rules all the time, and would certainly not consider combing usenet to
find people to bust. They had more important things to do. Neither
one is with the FAA anymore anyway.

> Not a single person here has never broke, or even who never breaks on
> regular basis, some kind of aviation regulation. But you're never going to
> see any of the real name posters admitting any of this, because that would
> be stupid.

Exactly.

> People who post with their real name post as if
> they are being watched. They have to tiptoe their way through certain
> topics, and really watch what they say here, because of the consequences.
> Me, on the other hand, I say whatever the **** I want. In that way, I think
> I am more of an asset to the group. I'll admit when I did something wrong
> without worrying about someone ratting me out to the feds. There are very
> few people on here who have that liberty.

There are lots who have it - and damn few who make use of it. That's
the problem. You would like to think that those who post anonymously
would primarily use that to present educational things. Stories of
accidents that occurred where we knew the entire chain of events, but
the NTSB never found out because nobody was going to rat out himself
or his friends. Which regs can be broken with reasonable safety - and
how to do it without unduly endangering skin, tin, or ticket. Things
like that. In reality, anonymity is rarely used that way. Mostly,
people use an anonymous presence like they would any other.
Relatively often, they use it for pointless flamewars. I understand
the people who don't like the anonymous component of usenet - I just
think that making the discussion more civil (which eliminating
anonymity would certainly help) isn't worth losing the unique
advantage of being able to share information without risking ticket.

Off the top of my head, I can think of a dozen topics we should be
discussing:

In r.a.piloting:
Overgross Operations - how to figure out what your safety margin is,
and how to do it without killing yourself
Aerobatics in non-aerobatic airplanes - what you can reasonably do
without killing yourself, and how - also how not to - do it
How not to get busted for 'holding out' or 'operating for hire' when
someone is paying for your gas
How to handle being stuck on top of a cloud layer without declaring an
emergency
NTSB reports I know - what the NTSB found, and what they got wrong
Low VFR (or scud running) - how to do it and not die

In r.a.owning:
What maintenance you can really do yourself, and how
Substituting parts - when it's a good idea (meaning the non-certified
part is actually better), when it's just OK, and when it's a truly
dumb idea
Field repairs to get you home

In r.a.ifr
Busting Minimums - when you can, when you can't, how to do it, how to
handle the missed approach
Using the VFR GPS and/or LORAN for IFR approaches
Designing your own IFR approach for a strip that doesn't have one, and
how to use it without getting busted
How to deal with known ice in a non-deiced airplane - how much is too
much, and how to keep your options open

These are all things that happen all the time, and they're things that
people usually wind up figuring out on their own, through trial and
error. Just follow all the rules all the time works about as well as
just say no. It's the error part that's problematic. We should be
using the anonymity we have available to share the experiences of the
trials - and the errors. But like I said - sometimes we are, but
mostly we're not.

> Another reason why anonymous posting is hard to come upon is because
> aviation is so small. It's hard to talk about the plane you fly, the
> airports you fly out of, etc. without it giving you away.

Impossible, actually, if the person who is trying to figure out who
you are has a clue. But that's OK. You're not looking to protect
yourself from those people - just the clueless ones.

> Also, since
> aviation is so small, its a lot more easy to get yourself noticed, which
> I'm guessing is the reason many here post with their real name. They hope
> some reputation they earn here will carry over to real life.

You don't need a real name for that either. There was this one time a
pilot in Europe decided (solely on the basis of stuff I've posted over
the years) that he wanted to train with me. He didn't have any
trouble finding me on the alien flight student website and applying.
It's not like any of us have made any real effort to cover our tracks.

The email address I post with goes nowhere - literally. There is no
such domain anymore. There was always too much spam in it, and
sometimes I would get sucked into pointless discussions with the
clueless ones who would email me there. Thus I decided that if
someone wanted to get hold of me, well, it was certainly easy enough
without maintaining that address. Works fine.

Michael

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Michael wrote:
>
>
>> Demonstrably false. The most famous counter-example in the
>> rec.aviation hierarchy would be Robert L. Bass.
>>
>> Michael
>
> I don't agree. Bass was an unusual case, and I emphasize the word case
> :-) Nobody said it's a perfect world out here. I'm simply making the
> case that moderated forums are a viable alternative to the Usenet open
> forum and for many people might be a better alternative.
> I agree with you that it's a choice decision and must be made by
> everyone based on their own personal views, and I respect your right
> to disagree with me or anyone else.
> For you and I, Usenet seems to work, but I can tell you from personal
> experience, that the majority body count on bad posting and harassment
> comes from those using a pseudonym on Usenet, Bass or no Bass! (is
> that a question? :-)

He's still around, BTW. if you feel the need to push his buttons. He was
even more entertaining than Maxie!

Even got his own honorary group.
alt.fan.beavis-and-basshole


Bertie

[Michael[_1_]]

On Jun 9, 3:11*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Yes, by all means let's take a look at some of the advantages of an
> unmoderated Usenet forum..........like this gem for example, posted
> yesterday by some idiot posting here on this Usenet forum using a false
> name.

There are no unalloyed benefits. Everything has a downside.

I'm going to take off on a tangent. There was a very good movie made
years ago - it was called Gideon's Trumpet. It was about the landmark
case, Gideon v. Wainwright, that established the precedent that the
accused was entitled to a lawyer, whether he could afford one or not.

It was made into a movie because it made a good morality story.
Gideon was innocent, but was wrongly convicted because he had no legal
counsel.

No movie will ever be made about Miranda v. Arizona, even though the
miranda rights against self-incrimination are perhaps more
fundamental. You see, Miranda was guilty as sin (and admitted it
later). He brutalized a little girl. And he went free.

I'm glad that the justices of the supreme court made the decision they
did - to limit the power and authority of the police to extract
confessions - even if that meant that in this one case, justice was
not done and a guilty man went free. Often it doesn't go that way.
The long term benefit of a freer society with more limited police
power is often hard to see in the short term - when an innocent person
is brutalized, and the offender remains unpunished. Hard cases make
bad law. But this time that didn't happen.

Of course my tangent was only marginally relevant. One can't really
compare the right not to incriminate oneself to the privilege of
speakig anonymously - and yet there is value to the analogy. In each
case we make a tradeoff between a more orderly community and a freer
one.

Whenever there is a freedom - any freedom, including the freedom to
post anonymously - it is a certainty that someone will abuse it.
There are those who believe that the solution is to create authority,
to create rules, to limit the freedom (in this case moderation) - and
thus limit the abuse. And then there are those who believe that rules
in general are a bad thing, and authority is not to be trusted. And
never the twain shall meet.

Those are the extremes, and as always there is a continuum between the
extremes. There is also a continuum of options online. There is a
level of authority - or anarchy - to suit any taste. Just don't
pretend that by increasing authority, you lose nothing. If you
consider the tradeoff acceptable - well, that's your choice.

Michael

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:21:23 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Michael wrote:
>
>
>> Demonstrably false. The most famous counter-example in the
>> rec.aviation hierarchy would be Robert L. Bass.
>>
>> Michael
>
>I don't agree. Bass was an unusual case, and I emphasize the word case :-)
>Nobody said it's a perfect world out here. I'm simply making the case
>that moderated forums are a viable alternative to the Usenet open forum
>and for many people might be a better alternative.
>I agree with you that it's a choice decision and must be made by
>everyone based on their own personal views, and I respect your right to
>disagree with me or anyone else.
>For you and I, Usenet seems to work, but I can tell you from personal
>experience, that the majority body count on bad posting and harassment
>comes from those using a pseudonym on Usenet, Bass or no Bass! (is that
>a question? :-)

sci.aeronautics is a stand out success as a moderated news group.
it is a vibrant and very busy news group ....if you live in geological
time.

Stealth Pilot

[[email protected]]

On Jun 9, 3:14 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Yes, by all means let's take a look at some of the advantages of an
> > unmoderated Usenet forum..........like this gem for example, posted
> > yesterday by some idiot posting here on this Usenet forum using a false
> > name.
>
> > "Dudley Henriques blithered dramatically whilst picking the gonad hairs
> > from his teeth once fluffy on the testicles of his retaded son "
>
> > Of course this Usenet moron has no idea that we just buried our son after
> > losing him to cancer.
>
> Truly sorry to hear of your loss Dudley.
>
> Kind of ironic that you and the person that said that, both sock puppet for
> the same wannabe troll.
>
> From my perspective, you must share some of the responsibility for the
> sleezeball joining our group.
>
> Truly sad.

You not only have a total lack of class but one would hope that you
have not had any offspring either.

You sir, in another time and place, would receive a sound thrashing at
the very least, and deservedly so!

Do us all a favor and get lost.

Thanks!

[[email protected]]

On Jun 9, 6:13 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
>
> ouse.com...
>
>
>
> > on 6/9/2008 3:14 PM Maxwell said the following:
> >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> Yes, by all means let's take a look at some of the advantages of an
> >>> unmoderated Usenet forum..........like this gem for example, posted
> >>> yesterday by some idiot posting here on this Usenet forum using a false
> >>> name.
>
> >>> "Dudley Henriques blithered dramatically whilst picking the gonad hairs
> >>> from his teeth once fluffy on the testicles of his retaded son "
>
> >>> Of course this Usenet moron has no idea that we just buried our son
> >>> after losing him to cancer.
>
> >> Truly sorry to hear of your loss Dudley.
>
> >> Kind of ironic that you and the person that said that, both sock puppet
> >> for the same wannabe troll.
>
> >> From my perspective, you must share some of the responsibility for the
> >> sleezeball joining our group.
>
> >> Truly sad.
>
> > If there were any doubt in anyone's mind whether you're a dickhead, you
> > just put it to rest once and for all.
>
> And by virtue of the fact you are also a proud suckpuppet (or suck ass) for
> Bertie. You must also share a good bit of the responsibility yourself.
>
> In fact, I'd like to take the time to thank Bertie and all his sock puppets,
> for the not only the cross posting, forging and lying that you all as a
> group have sponsored to this forum, but also some of the world class filth
> you have brought to the group as well.

This is not a forum.

But you are also not a man either, but merely a child trapped in a
man's body.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:45:41 +0000 (UTC),
(Alan) wrote:

>In article > HARRY POTTER > writes:
>
>>I come here to learn about aviation. Period. I'm not here to make friends,
>>I'm not here to make a name for myself, I'm just here to get a glimpse of
>>aviation that you just can't get reading published books.
>
> I find that the better quality comments come from folks who are willing
>to use their real names. They tend to stand behind what they say.
>
> Don't think that anonymity makes you safe from the feds. If they
>want you, they can find you.
>
> Alan

nonsense. the better quality comments come from those with knowledge
and experience.

I've yet to find an anonymous poster who doesnt respond in an email
with real world details.

Stealth Pilot ( actually a contraction of a stupid claim made by our
ATC provider - that people who endanger others by not turning the
transponder on are the lowest of the low. my aircraft has never had a
transponder so I will always be a "CASA certified Stealth Pilot")

[[email protected]]

On Jun 9, 10:18 pm, HARRY POTTER > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > Michael wrote:
> >> I'm seeing a lot of people leaving usenet quite publicly, in favor of
> >> a moderated forum, because the signal to noise ratio on the group has
> >> become so poor. This is of course their right and decision. I don't
> >> intend to follow them, and that of course is mine. I will, however,
> >> point out some major advantages of an unmoderated, anonymous forum -
> >> like this one - for some of the topics we discuss.
>
> >> Michael
>
> > Yes, by all means let's take a look at some of the advantages of an
> > unmoderated Usenet forum..........like this gem for example, posted
> > yesterday by some idiot posting here on this Usenet forum using a false
> > name.
>
> > "Dudley Henriques blithered dramatically whilst picking the gonad hairs
> > from his teeth once fluffy on the testicles of his retaded son "
>
> > Of course this Usenet moron has no idea that we just buried our son
> > after losing him to cancer.
>
> If you can't take comments like that, then why do you post with your real
> name on an unmoderated forum?

So pathetic as to make excuses for the behaviour of an ass?

Do you blame rape victims for the crime too? How about leaving your
car parked outside overnight? Is that 'asking' some lowlife dirtball
to come along and vandalize it? Where does personal accountability
fit into your world view?

It's folks with your mindset that create a society of immediate
gratification at the cost of long term good, i.e., if I want it then I
should have it...if I want to slam someone in a cowardly fashion, I
should do that too.

And he never said he couldn't take it.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 06:04:50 -0700 (PDT), Michael
> wrote:

the american constitution defends the right to free speech but I've
never heard of it defending the right to blather.

speech has the connotation of a well formed argument delivered orally.

blather on the other hand is rarely well formed.

Stealth Pilot

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Michael wrote:
> On Jun 9, 3:11 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Yes, by all means let's take a look at some of the advantages of an
>> unmoderated Usenet forum..........like this gem for example, posted
>> yesterday by some idiot posting here on this Usenet forum using a false
>> name.
>
> There are no unalloyed benefits. Everything has a downside.
>
> I'm going to take off on a tangent. There was a very good movie made
> years ago - it was called Gideon's Trumpet. It was about the landmark
> case, Gideon v. Wainwright, that established the precedent that the
> accused was entitled to a lawyer, whether he could afford one or not.
>
> It was made into a movie because it made a good morality story.
> Gideon was innocent, but was wrongly convicted because he had no legal
> counsel.
>
> No movie will ever be made about Miranda v. Arizona, even though the
> miranda rights against self-incrimination are perhaps more
> fundamental. You see, Miranda was guilty as sin (and admitted it
> later). He brutalized a little girl. And he went free.
>
> I'm glad that the justices of the supreme court made the decision they
> did - to limit the power and authority of the police to extract
> confessions - even if that meant that in this one case, justice was
> not done and a guilty man went free. Often it doesn't go that way.
> The long term benefit of a freer society with more limited police
> power is often hard to see in the short term - when an innocent person
> is brutalized, and the offender remains unpunished. Hard cases make
> bad law. But this time that didn't happen.
>
> Of course my tangent was only marginally relevant. One can't really
> compare the right not to incriminate oneself to the privilege of
> speakig anonymously - and yet there is value to the analogy. In each
> case we make a tradeoff between a more orderly community and a freer
> one.
>
> Whenever there is a freedom - any freedom, including the freedom to
> post anonymously - it is a certainty that someone will abuse it.
> There are those who believe that the solution is to create authority,
> to create rules, to limit the freedom (in this case moderation) - and
> thus limit the abuse. And then there are those who believe that rules
> in general are a bad thing, and authority is not to be trusted. And
> never the twain shall meet.
>
> Those are the extremes, and as always there is a continuum between the
> extremes. There is also a continuum of options online. There is a
> level of authority - or anarchy - to suit any taste. Just don't
> pretend that by increasing authority, you lose nothing. If you
> consider the tradeoff acceptable - well, that's your choice.
>
> Michael

Making the analogy for freedom vs authority has it's limitations when
used to profile Usenet vs Moderated forum structure. As always, the
devil is in the details :-)

Usenet is perhaps one of the ultimate tests of man's ability to
communicate freely with one another, unhampered by restraint. Even in
this wide open context, someone somewhere in the great cyber void
submitted a set of protocols for Usenet behavior, realizing that in any
cohesive society, some form of control is necessary.

So as each and every one of us enter the (as you say) free expression
world of Usenet, we are told up front and often how we will behave, and
exactly what is expected of us in the way of accepted protocols every
time we hit the keys of our computers and post something to Usenet.

I mention this only to emphasize the fact that even Usenet has it's
limitations, it's protocols, and indeed, it's moderation. The only
difference in this "authority" between Usenet and an officially
moderated forum is in how the moderation is applied.

It's nice that you consider Usenet to be a "free and open" method of
communication, and in effect, it should be exactly this, but when viewed
realistically, Usenet isn't as "free and open" as one might imagine at
first glance. Usenet has it's limitations. Granted, they are self
imposed limitations, but limitations none the less. You violate these
limitations and you will be "moderated" in short order, by many more
than the one moderator you will usually find on a moderated forum.

My point is that BOTH forms of forum are actually moderated venues.
You post something nasty on Usenet, the moderators (other posters) will
tear you apart. You post something nasty on a "moderated forum", and
you're history.

The ultimate choice of which venue is best is not solvable to a single
answer. If there is any answer at all to this issue, it has to be that
man, if left to govern himself and his interface with his fellow human
beings, will meet with partial success and have to pay a price for both
his failures and the failures of others. This is Usenet. This is what
you have called "freedom".

If man however, decides to do as man has done all over the world, and
allow his actions to be judged by another human being, man has entered
into the more structured environment that defines what man has decided
since time immemorial will be the standard by which man exists on the
planet; that being a structured society with it's corresponding
authority. This forms the venue we know as the "moderated forum".

I don't pretend to know which of these two venues best suits mankind.
As you say, each must find their own way. I've seen many successes on
Usenet and I believe man can function there if determined to follow the
protocols, but I don't see the protocols being followed; a fatal flaw in
the Usenet system; man's inability to govern himself.

On the other hand, allowing another to judge what can be said an not
said can have severe consequences as relates to loss of freedom of
expression since the ultimate decision on what can be expressed now lies
with another and not oneself.

It's interesting really, thinking about which venue best serves one's
needs.
Perhaps the ultimate answer is that man, left to his own devices, is
incapable of sustained human relationship without authority. Perhaps for
us all, it will boil down to re-writing "The Lord of the Flies" :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[romeomike]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

>
> Of course this Usenet moron has no idea that we just buried our son
> after losing him to cancer.
>
>

My heartfelt sympathy. I know firsthand what cancer does to its victims
and their family.

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Michael schrieb:
> The email address I post with goes nowhere - literally. There is no
> such domain anymore.

there could be within seconds. And then you're using that domain.

> There was always too much spam in it, and
> sometimes I would get sucked into pointless discussions with the
> clueless ones who would email me there. Thus I decided that if
> someone wanted to get hold of me, well, it was certainly easy enough
> without maintaining that address. Works fine.

on your end, maybe. but this is not good 'netcitizenship'.

> Michael

#m

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

romeomike wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>>
>> Of course this Usenet moron has no idea that we just buried our son
>> after losing him to cancer.
>>
>>
>
> My heartfelt sympathy. I know firsthand what cancer does to its victims
> and their family.
Thank you. I appreciate your post.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>
> He's still around, BTW. if you feel the need to push his buttons. He was
> even more entertaining than Maxie!
>
> Even got his own honorary group.
> alt.fan.beavis-and-basshole
>
>
> Bertie

Glad you could stop by Bertie, and firm up the working relationship between
you and Dudley for all to see. Now is a good time to advertise that you BOTH
like to make sport of deliberately pushing someone's buttons.

Cool! But then all the smart ones already knew it. Nice reminder, very
timely.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...

> I'm really at a total loss as to how to answer this question from you. If
> I thought you actually cared about our loss and wanted to know I would
> gladly discuss my son with you. I'm sorry but the trust just isn't there
> between us for me to take the chance.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

How old was he Dudley, and when did he pass? Hardly a discussion.

I wonder why you wouldn't want anyone to know?

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Michael" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 9, 3:11 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Yes, by all means let's take a look at some of the advantages of an
> unmoderated Usenet forum..........like this gem for example, posted
> yesterday by some idiot posting here on this Usenet forum using a false
> name.

There are no unalloyed benefits. Everything has a downside.

I'm going to take off on a tangent. There was a very good movie made
years ago - it was called Gideon's Trumpet. It was about the landmark
case, Gideon v. Wainwright, that established the precedent that the
accused was entitled to a lawyer, whether he could afford one or not.

It was made into a movie because it made a good morality story.
Gideon was innocent, but was wrongly convicted because he had no legal
counsel.

No movie will ever be made about Miranda v. Arizona, even though the
miranda rights against self-incrimination are perhaps more
fundamental. You see, Miranda was guilty as sin (and admitted it
later). He brutalized a little girl. And he went free.

I'm glad that the justices of the supreme court made the decision they
did - to limit the power and authority of the police to extract
confessions - even if that meant that in this one case, justice was
not done and a guilty man went free. Often it doesn't go that way.
The long term benefit of a freer society with more limited police
power is often hard to see in the short term - when an innocent person
is brutalized, and the offender remains unpunished. Hard cases make
bad law. But this time that didn't happen.

Of course my tangent was only marginally relevant. One can't really
compare the right not to incriminate oneself to the privilege of
speakig anonymously - and yet there is value to the analogy. In each
case we make a tradeoff between a more orderly community and a freer
one.

Whenever there is a freedom - any freedom, including the freedom to
post anonymously - it is a certainty that someone will abuse it.
There are those who believe that the solution is to create authority,
to create rules, to limit the freedom (in this case moderation) - and
thus limit the abuse. And then there are those who believe that rules
in general are a bad thing, and authority is not to be trusted. And
never the twain shall meet.

Those are the extremes, and as always there is a continuum between the
extremes. There is also a continuum of options online. There is a
level of authority - or anarchy - to suit any taste. Just don't
pretend that by increasing authority, you lose nothing. If you
consider the tradeoff acceptable - well, that's your choice.

Michael

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Michael" > wrote in message
news:6f90c4e7-f3ed-45f7-b815-

Nice post Mike. Seems like some reasonable observations.

But don't count out those that simply come here to teach and preach strictly
for the sake of their ego. Perhaps they have always dreamed of writing and
answer column, and the Usenet seems to be just the place.

I think this groups suffers more than most, because pilots are more apt to
take themselves too seriously. Certainly not to say they all do, but we seem
to have far too many in our ranks.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...

Sounds just like you and Bertie, self appointed moderators.

Sorry, but some of us disagree.

[Jim Logajan]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I'm really at a total loss as to how to answer this question from
>> you. If I thought you actually cared about our loss and wanted to
>> know I would gladly discuss my son with you. I'm sorry but the trust
>> just isn't there between us for me to take the chance.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> How old was he Dudley, and when did he pass? Hardly a discussion.
>
> I wonder why you wouldn't want anyone to know?

Um, why is this irrelevant bit of information so important to you?

How many days and weeks can you possibly remain angry with someone who is
trying to be civil?

Please help me to understand what loss have you suffered that requires this
sort of constant and incredibly insensitive attack?

Just to be clear - while I think the person who posts as "Bertie" too often
acts in a juvenile manner and is either amoral or disengenuous (_at best_)
when it comes to posting to Usenet, I know that since he has been doing
that sort of thing for years, there is no way anything anyone could write
that would change his behavior, so I haven't even tried. I think lots of
people have come to the same conclusion. I would humbly suggest you not
continue replicating the same mistake "Bertie" does by posting followups to
every single post of Mxsmanic.

But I don't know your history, so I assume you are a reasonable person. I
do recall you did thank me when I tried providing help on who to contact
about alleged forged posts (not that it helped, alas), so I suspect that
you are simply frustrated but otherwise inherently decent. So what would
satisfy you in order for you to "back off" attacking people who have not
initiated attacks on you?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

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

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>> He's still around, BTW. if you feel the need to push his buttons. He
>> was even more entertaining than Maxie!
>>
>> Even got his own honorary group.
>> alt.fan.beavis-and-basshole
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Glad you could stop by Bertie, and firm up the working relationship
> between you and Dudley for all to see. Now is a good time to advertise
> that you BOTH like to make sport of deliberately pushing someone's
> buttons.

Well, I do, Dudley can speak for himself.
>
> Cool! But then all the smart ones already knew it. Nice reminder, very
> timely.


Yes. BTW, you got more buttons than an old adding machine.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

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

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I'm really at a total loss as to how to answer this question from
>> you. If I thought you actually cared about our loss and wanted to
>> know I would gladly discuss my son with you. I'm sorry but the trust
>> just isn't there between us for me to take the chance.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> How old was he Dudley, and when did he pass? Hardly a discussion.
>
> I wonder why you wouldn't want anyone to know?
>
>
>

Wow, you've added a whole new dimension to your creepiness.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> I'm really at a total loss as to how to answer this question from
>>> you. If I thought you actually cared about our loss and wanted to
>>> know I would gladly discuss my son with you. I'm sorry but the trust
>>> just isn't there between us for me to take the chance.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> How old was he Dudley, and when did he pass? Hardly a discussion.
>>
>> I wonder why you wouldn't want anyone to know?
>
> Um, why is this irrelevant bit of information so important to you?
>
> How many days and weeks can you possibly remain angry with someone who
> is trying to be civil?
>
> Please help me to understand what loss have you suffered that requires
> this sort of constant and incredibly insensitive attack?
>
> Just to be clear - while I think the person who posts as "Bertie" too
> often acts in a juvenile manner and is either amoral or disengenuous
> (_at best_) when it comes to posting to Usenet,


Oh, amoral. I'm completely genuine.


>I know that since he
> has been doing that sort of thing for years, there is no way anything
> anyone could write that would change his behavior, so I haven't even
> tried. I think lots of people have come to the same conclusion. I
> would humbly suggest you not continue replicating the same mistake
> "Bertie" does by posting followups to every single post of Mxsmanic.


Mistake?

>
> But I don't know your history, so I assume you are a reasonable
> person. I do recall you did thank me when I tried providing help on
> who to contact about alleged forged posts (not that it helped, alas),
> so I suspect that you are simply frustrated but otherwise inherently
> decent. So what would satisfy you in order for you to "back off"
> attacking people who have not initiated attacks on you?


I think maybe a couple of hundred lithium tablets might slow him down a
bit

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

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

>
> "Michael" > wrote in message
> news:6f90c4e7-f3ed-45f7-b815-
>
> Nice post Mike. Seems like some reasonable observations.
>
> But don't count out those that simply come here to teach and preach
> strictly for the sake of their ego. Perhaps they have always dreamed
> of writing and answer column, and the Usenet seems to be just the
> place.
>
> I think this groups suffers more than most, because pilots are more
> apt to take themselves too seriously. Certainly not to say they all
> do, but we seem to have far too many in our ranks.


You are a k00k....

Bertie

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-06-10, Michael > wrote:
> garden variety inflammatory, I also recall Craig Wall and Juan Jimenez

Craig Wall did at least make up - in person. After all the flame wars,
he actually did show up at Pinckneyville, and the flames and
misunderstanding went away. (Well, aside from the flames coming out of
the back of the pulse jet he brought along).

It's amazing how meeting in 'meat-space' will change things.

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

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-06-10, Martin Hotze > wrote:
>> clueless ones who would email me there. Thus I decided that if
>> someone wanted to get hold of me, well, it was certainly easy enough
>> without maintaining that address. Works fine.
>
> on your end, maybe. but this is not good 'netcitizenship'.

On a point of pedantry...

Actually, the domain does exist, it just doesn't have an MX record. So
no, it won't get any cybersquatters in it any time soon.

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

[[email protected]]

On Jun 10, 5:38 pm, HARRY POTTER > wrote:
> wrote:
> > So pathetic as to make excuses for the behaviour of an ass?
>
> > Do you blame rape victims for the crime too? How about leaving your
> > car parked outside overnight? Is that 'asking' some lowlife dirtball
> > to come along and vandalize it? Where does personal accountability
> > fit into your world view?
>
> Since when is saying mean things on the internet a crime equal to rape?
>
>
>
> > It's folks with your mindset that create a society of immediate
> > gratification at the cost of long term good, i.e., if I want it then I
> > should have it...if I want to slam someone in a cowardly fashion, I
> > should do that too.
>
> uh wut
>
>
>
> > And he never said he couldn't take it.
>
> Then why did he feel the need to bring up, knowing it would derail the
> thread into a pity party for him.

So now you claim to know what he was thinking when he posted?

Whatever man. From my seat he was making an observation about
'grownup' behaviour hiding behind anonymity. So who's correct? From
Dudley's posting history I'm inclined to say I am, but you can read
anything you like into his post to serve your own purpose- and if that
is to slam him then that's your business, but it seems a waste of your
time to do so to someone already suffering a loss. Why stoop so low?

[Maxwell Isn't Smart]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:55:56 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip droned:
> "Maxwell" wrote:
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote...
>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>
>>> He's still around, BTW. if you feel the need to push his buttons. He
>>> was even more entertaining than Maxie!
>>>
>>> Even got his own honorary group.
>>> alt.fan.beavis-and-basshole
>>
>> Glad you could stop by Bertie, and firm up the working relationship
>> between you and Dudley for all to see. Now is a good time to advertise
>> that you BOTH like to make sport of deliberately pushing someone's
>> buttons.
>
> Well, I do, Dudley can speak for himself.
>
>> Cool! But then all the smart ones already knew it. Nice reminder, very
>> timely.
>
> Yes. BTW, you got more buttons than an old adding machine.

He's got more buttons than a freakin' magpie!...

[Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries]

Maxwell Isn't Smart wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:55:56 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip droned:
>> "Maxwell" wrote:
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote...
>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>
>>>> He's still around, BTW. if you feel the need to push his buttons.
>>>> He was even more entertaining than Maxie!
>>>>
>>>> Even got his own honorary group.
>>>> alt.fan.beavis-and-basshole
>>>
>>> Glad you could stop by Bertie, and firm up the working relationship
>>> between you and Dudley for all to see. Now is a good time to
>>> advertise that you BOTH like to make sport of deliberately pushing
>>> someone's buttons.
>>
>> Well, I do, Dudley can speak for himself.
>>
>>> Cool! But then all the smart ones already knew it. Nice reminder,
>>> very timely.
>>
>> Yes. BTW, you got more buttons than an old adding machine.
>
> He's got more buttons than a freakin' magpie!...

Based on one of his earlier posts to Dudley, I'd say he's less innocuous
than you make him out to be.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will
scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will
refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something
which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he
will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is
explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" > wrote in news:6ba9gfF39q9juU1
@mid.individual.net:

> Maxwell Isn't Smart wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:55:56 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip droned:
>>> "Maxwell" wrote:
>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote...
>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> He's still around, BTW. if you feel the need to push his buttons.
>>>>> He was even more entertaining than Maxie!
>>>>>
>>>>> Even got his own honorary group.
>>>>> alt.fan.beavis-and-basshole
>>>>
>>>> Glad you could stop by Bertie, and firm up the working relationship
>>>> between you and Dudley for all to see. Now is a good time to
>>>> advertise that you BOTH like to make sport of deliberately pushing
>>>> someone's buttons.
>>>
>>> Well, I do, Dudley can speak for himself.
>>>
>>>> Cool! But then all the smart ones already knew it. Nice reminder,
>>>> very timely.
>>>
>>> Yes. BTW, you got more buttons than an old adding machine.
>>
>> He's got more buttons than a freakin' magpie!...
>
> Based on one of his earlier posts to Dudley, I'd say he's less innocuous
> than you make him out to be.
>

Indeed, he flushed the last dingleberry of his cred down the toilet there.


Bertie

[Maxwell Isn't Smart]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:00:26 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip droned:
> "Maxwell" wrote:
>> "Michael" wrote
>>
>> Nice post Mike. Seems like some reasonable observations.
>>
>> But don't count out those that simply come here to teach and preach
>> strictly for the sake of their ego. Perhaps they have always dreamed of
>> writing and answer column, and the Usenet seems to be just the place.
>>
>> I think this groups suffers more than most, because pilots are more apt
>> to take themselves too seriously. Certainly not to say they all do, but
>> we seem to have far too many in our ranks.
>
> You are a k00k....

IAWTP.

[romeomike]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>>
>
> Wow, you've added a whole new dimension to your creepiness.
>
>
> Bertie

Unfortunately, killfiling Maxwell hasn't totally wiped him from my view,
though it sure has cleaned up my downloaded posts :-)
Bertie, why spar with someone who obviously has "issues"? He's not just
in it for the sport. The nature of his comments suggests some sort of
pathology involved. It makes it almost sad to respond to his posts. It's
like taunting a staggering drunk. Please give it up. You don't need the
last word on this one.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

romeomike > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> Wow, you've added a whole new dimension to your creepiness.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Unfortunately, killfiling Maxwell hasn't totally wiped him from my view,
> though it sure has cleaned up my downloaded posts :-)
> Bertie, why spar with someone who obviously has "issues"? He's not just
> in it for the sport. The nature of his comments suggests some sort of
> pathology involved. It makes it almost sad to respond to his posts. It's
> like taunting a staggering drunk. Please give it up. You don't need the
> last word on this one.
>

Sparring? You're kidding, right? Some people play solitaire while they're
idling away on th enet, I whack k00ks! One of the flonkers is frogging
maxie so that may be why you're seeing some maxwell posts still. They're
easy to tell apart, the flonker's posts are coherent and mostly polite. .



Bertie

[Jim Logajan]

Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2008-06-10, Martin Hotze > wrote:
>>> clueless ones who would email me there. Thus I decided that if
>>> someone wanted to get hold of me, well, it was certainly easy enough
>>> without maintaining that address. Works fine.
>>
>> on your end, maybe. but this is not good 'netcitizenship'.
>
> On a point of pedantry...
>
> Actually, the domain does exist, it just doesn't have an MX record. So
> no, it won't get any cybersquatters in it any time soon.

Non-aviation technical point: it's been a few years since I've had to deal
with e-mail DNS issues so my recollection may be off, but I believe that if
no MX record is found, then the A record should be attempted. Whether
anything is listening on port 25 is another story.

[Jim Logajan]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Sparring? You're kidding, right? Some people play solitaire while
> they're idling away on th enet, I whack k00ks!

Kind of like hunting rocks in a forest using repeated use of herbicides.
Kills the forest but the rocks are never eradicated.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> I'm really at a total loss as to how to answer this question from
>>> you. If I thought you actually cared about our loss and wanted to
>>> know I would gladly discuss my son with you. I'm sorry but the trust
>>> just isn't there between us for me to take the chance.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> How old was he Dudley, and when did he pass? Hardly a discussion.
>>
>> I wonder why you wouldn't want anyone to know?
>
> Um, why is this irrelevant bit of information so important to you?
>
>
> Please help me to understand what loss have you suffered that requires
> this
> sort of constant and incredibly insensitive attack?
>

What is irrelevant and insensitive about asking his age, and how long since
he had passed?

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"romeomike" > wrote in message
...
>
> Unfortunately, killfiling Maxwell hasn't totally wiped him from my view,
> though it sure has cleaned up my downloaded posts :-)
> Bertie, why spar with someone who obviously has "issues"? He's not just in
> it for the sport. The nature of his comments suggests some sort of
> pathology involved. It makes it almost sad to respond to his posts. It's
> like taunting a staggering drunk. Please give it up. You don't need the
> last word on this one.

What kind of issues Mike, and why did you cross post your reply?

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"HARRY POTTER" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> So pathetic as to make excuses for the behaviour of an ass?
>>
>> Do you blame rape victims for the crime too? How about leaving your
>> car parked outside overnight? Is that 'asking' some lowlife dirtball
>> to come along and vandalize it? Where does personal accountability
>> fit into your world view?
>
> Since when is saying mean things on the internet a crime equal to rape?
>
>>
>> It's folks with your mindset that create a society of immediate
>> gratification at the cost of long term good, i.e., if I want it then I
>> should have it...if I want to slam someone in a cowardly fashion, I
>> should do that too.
>
> uh wut
>
>>
>> And he never said he couldn't take it.
>
> Then why did he feel the need to bring up, knowing it would derail the
> thread into a pity party for him.

Good luck Harry, but you are arguing with one of Bertie's sock puppets.

[Maxwell Isn't Smart]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:11:39 -0400, Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries droned:
> Maxwell Isn't Smart wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:55:56 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip droned:
>>> "Maxwell" wrote:
>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote...
>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> He's still around, BTW. if you feel the need to push his buttons. He
>>>>> was even more entertaining than Maxie!
>>>>>
>>>>> Even got his own honorary group.
>>>>> alt.fan.beavis-and-basshole
>>>>
>>>> Glad you could stop by Bertie, and firm up the working relationship
>>>> between you and Dudley for all to see. Now is a good time to advertise
>>>> that you BOTH like to make sport of deliberately pushing someone's
>>>> buttons.
>>>
>>> Well, I do, Dudley can speak for himself.
>>>
>>>> Cool! But then all the smart ones already knew it. Nice reminder, very
>>>> timely.
>>>
>>> Yes. BTW, you got more buttons than an old adding machine.
>>
>> He's got more buttons than a freakin' magpie!...
>
> Based on one of his earlier posts to Dudley, I'd say he's less innocuous
> than you make him out to be.

I must be slipping.

[Gezellig[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques was thinking very hard :

> The truth is that BOTH Usenet and moderated forums can be useful...

EOT

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Sparring? You're kidding, right? Some people play solitaire while
>> they're idling away on th enet, I whack k00ks!
>
> Kind of like hunting rocks in a forest using repeated use of herbicides.
> Kills the forest but the rocks are never eradicated.
>

You're obviously unfamiliar with my loon mallet.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

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

>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> I'm really at a total loss as to how to answer this question from
>>>> you. If I thought you actually cared about our loss and wanted to
>>>> know I would gladly discuss my son with you. I'm sorry but the
>>>> trust just isn't there between us for me to take the chance.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>
>>> How old was he Dudley, and when did he pass? Hardly a discussion.
>>>
>>> I wonder why you wouldn't want anyone to know?
>>
>> Um, why is this irrelevant bit of information so important to you?
>>
>>
>> Please help me to understand what loss have you suffered that
>> requires this
>> sort of constant and incredibly insensitive attack?
>>
>
> What is irrelevant and insensitive about asking his age, and how long
> since he had passed?


Fjukkktard.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

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

> "romeomike" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Unfortunately, killfiling Maxwell hasn't totally wiped him from my
>> view, though it sure has cleaned up my downloaded posts :-)
>> Bertie, why spar with someone who obviously has "issues"? He's not
>> just in it for the sport. The nature of his comments suggests some
>> sort of pathology involved. It makes it almost sad to respond to his
>> posts. It's like taunting a staggering drunk. Please give it up. You
>> don't need the last word on this one.
>
> What kind of issues Mike, and why did you cross post your reply?
>


He menas he thinks you're an idiot.


Alles klar?


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

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

>
> "HARRY POTTER" > wrote in message
> ...
>> wrote:
>>> So pathetic as to make excuses for the behaviour of an ass?
>>>
>>> Do you blame rape victims for the crime too? How about leaving your
>>> car parked outside overnight? Is that 'asking' some lowlife dirtball
>>> to come along and vandalize it? Where does personal accountability
>>> fit into your world view?
>>
>> Since when is saying mean things on the internet a crime equal to rape?
>>
>>>
>>> It's folks with your mindset that create a society of immediate
>>> gratification at the cost of long term good, i.e., if I want it then I
>>> should have it...if I want to slam someone in a cowardly fashion, I
>>> should do that too.
>>
>> uh wut
>>
>>>
>>> And he never said he couldn't take it.
>>
>> Then why did he feel the need to bring up, knowing it would derail the
>> thread into a pity party for him.
>
> Good luck Harry, but you are arguing with one of Bertie's sock puppets.
>
>
>
>

Wow! How did I not know that?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

HARRY POTTER > wrote in
:

> Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>> That's sort of fine - but you make a mistake in presuming everyone
>> must have the same motivations. Or that only your motivations are
>> valid. There is also a certain unfortunate, if not absurdist, aspect
>> in watching asocial and antisocial people make posts to Usenet -
>> which is an inherently _socializing_ mechanism.
>>
>
> It has to be one or the other, because it can't be both. This group
> can either be a place where people put aside their personal social
> ambitions and just discuss aviation, or a pilot chit-chat club where
> everyone just pats each other on the back. Personally, if I wanted the
> latter, I'd persue it in a non-internet setting.
>
> This place has kind of settled on a half-way point. If MX were to make
> a post saying the sky is blue, he'd get 100 responses saying he's an
> idiot. If someone like Bob Hoover made a post saying the sky is pink
> and green polka dotted (not that he'd ever do that necessarily), he
> may get one or two responses politely suggesting the premise of his
> post may very well be possibly incorrect, if any.
>
> People's social ambitions cause them to want to be "e-friends" with
> the "big hitters" of this group, so they get a pass when they post
> dumb ****. No one particularity needs the friendship of an unpopular
> posters like MX (or even myself), so those posters get the the
> ridicule they deserve and then some.
>
> Theres this one internet forum I go to where everyone posts with a
> pseudoname. The membership is in the 100,000's of thousands of
> members. Because of this, no one ever tried to rise above to become an
> "internet superstar", so discussions are very rarely self-serving. You
> don't see people "bullying" weakly accepted posters for acceptance,
> because it's a pipe dream to think you could achieve such a thing.
>
> When I first started reading usenet, the first thing I noticed was how
> people seemed to jump into discussions with self-serving reasons,
> rather than discussion-serving reasons I'm used to seeing on internet
> forums. I couldn't quite put my finger on it, but it seemed like I saw
> a lot of people jumping into a discussion to post their opinion when
> it didn't really seem to fit into the discussion very well. A usenet
> thread read like a collection of individual personal opinion
> broadcasts that didn't really go anywhere as a whole. It was very
> common to see 20 replies where the same thing was being said, the only
> difference being the poster's real name in the header, and that
> poster's "cred" material in the signature. Whereas on internet forums,
> I was used to seeing a particular point being made once, with
> subsequent posters building upon that point.
>
>>> Also, since
>>> aviation is so small, its a lot more easy to get yourself noticed,
>>> which I'm guessing is the reason many here post with their real
>>> name. They hope some reputation they earn here will carry over to
>>> real life. Either that, of they hope that their real life reputation
>>> will carry over online. Either way, to me it's just sad and
>>> pathetic.
>>
>> It appears that in your last paragraph you crossed the line from not
>> being here to making friends to using your anonymity to make a
>> sweeping generalization against every person who ever used their real
>> names. A classic flame or troll. The irony is that you claim in the
>> same post how you don't see anonymous posters as agents of chaos.
>
> Just because I'm saying something you don't agree with doesn't mean
> I'm "trolling".
>


TROLL!


Bertie
>
>

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in message
...
>
>>
>
> What is irrelevant and insensitive about asking his age, and how long
> since he had passed?
>
>
>

Not to mention his refusal to answer it.

[romeomike]

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

>> What kind of issues Mike, and why did you cross post your reply?

I DO apologize for the cross post. I will in the future try to remember
to see where my posts are going when I hit "reply."

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:jz14k.281$F97.75
@newsfe18.lga:

>
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>>
>>
>> What is irrelevant and insensitive about asking his age, and how long
>> since he had passed?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Not to mention his refusal to answer it.



The nerve.


Bertie

[Teh Secretary to Teh Imperial Court of MEOW]

All Hail Fluffy! On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 04:10:27 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip whined:
> "Maxwell" wrote:
>> "Jim Logajan" wrote...
>>> "Maxwell" wrote:
>>>> "Dudley Henriques" wrote...
>>>>
>>>>> I'm really at a total loss as to how to answer this question from
>>>>> you. If I thought you actually cared about our loss and wanted to
>>>>> know I would gladly discuss my son with you. I'm sorry but the trust
>>>>> just isn't there between us for me to take the chance.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>
>>>> How old was he Dudley, and when did he pass? Hardly a discussion.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder why you wouldn't want anyone to know?
>>>
>>> Um, why is this irrelevant bit of information so important to you?
>>>
>>> Please help me to understand what loss have you suffered that requires
>>> this
>>> sort of constant and incredibly insensitive attack?
>>
>> What is irrelevant and insensitive about asking his age, and how long
>> since he had passed?
>
> Fjukkktard.

A clod, too. Dudley, I'd like to apologise for the k00k Maxwell getting
so out of hand. If it was possible, I'd turn him into one of AUK's
resident kooks, but never mind. Try to see him as something you can treat
as viciously or as callously as you please, if that helps. Otherwise, I
suggest killfiling him, if you use a newsreader. He's a human stain, one
you don't need -- his sole justification for existence would appear to be
entertainment for Fluffy -- All Hail Fluffy, for he hace much grateness!
-- one of the two Emperors of MEOW, and I don't see him (Max) as being
likely to entertain you much.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 11, 4:35 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> "HARRY POTTER" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >> So pathetic as to make excuses for the behaviour of an ass?
>
> >> Do you blame rape victims for the crime too? How about leaving your
> >> car parked outside overnight? Is that 'asking' some lowlife dirtball
> >> to come along and vandalize it? Where does personal accountability
> >> fit into your world view?
>
> > Since when is saying mean things on the internet a crime equal to rape?
>
> >> It's folks with your mindset that create a society of immediate
> >> gratification at the cost of long term good, i.e., if I want it then I
> >> should have it...if I want to slam someone in a cowardly fashion, I
> >> should do that too.
>
> > uh wut
>
> >> And he never said he couldn't take it.
>
> > Then why did he feel the need to bring up, knowing it would derail the
> > thread into a pity party for him.
>
> Good luck Harry, but you are arguing with one of Bertie's sock puppets.

Whatever, Romper Room man-child.

It's just as likely that HARRY POTTER is one of the voices in your
head; you both seem rather similar in style (juvenile) and tone
(angry) (and Bertie obsessed). Perhaps if you took your meds, quit
the booze and went to the gym (and worked out) you'd feel less
stressed and would be happier.

Hey! It could happen!

[[email protected]]

On Jun 10, 3:38 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> Sounds just like you and Bertie, self appointed moderators.
>
> Sorry, but some of us disagree.

Who's this 'us' Skippy, and when was the vote taken?

The only thing they moderate is themselves, unlike you who seem to
want them to do something different.

Here's a freebie- try holding your breath until they change. Go
ahead, I double-dog dare yuh, punk! ;-)

[[email protected]]

On Jun 11, 11:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> HARRY POTTER > wrote :
>>well written points snipped to make a bad one<<

> > Just because I'm saying something you don't agree with doesn't mean
> > I'm "trolling".
>
> TROLL!
>
> Bertie
>
>

Well, you are the xpert on matters of troll.

[Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>>
>>
>> What is irrelevant and insensitive about asking his age, and how long
>> since he had passed?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Not to mention his refusal to answer it.

<utter disbelief> You think that just because you asked a question
that's absolutely none of your business, you have the right to an
answer?

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries

....and don't keep saying sorry. It's the most infuriating word in the
English language. Just a cheap way to behave badly, then shelve
responsibility by putting the onus on the other person to be forgiving.
Dr. Jackson

(from *The Chameleon's Shadow*, Minette Walters, 2008)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in
:

> On Jun 11, 11:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> HARRY POTTER > wrote
>> :
>>>well written points snipped to make a bad one<<
>
>> > Just because I'm saying something you don't agree with doesn't mean
>> > I'm "trolling".
>>
>> TROLL!
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>
> Well, you are the xpert on matters of troll.
>

TROLL!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Teh Secretary to Teh Imperial Court of MEOW >
wrote in news:pan.2008.06.12.11.04.24.974632@meow.****head:

> All Hail Fluffy! On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 04:10:27 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip
> whined:
>> "Maxwell" wrote:
>>> "Jim Logajan" wrote...
>>>> "Maxwell" wrote:
>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" wrote...
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm really at a total loss as to how to answer this question from
>>>>>> you. If I thought you actually cared about our loss and wanted to
>>>>>> know I would gladly discuss my son with you. I'm sorry but the
>>>>>> trust just isn't there between us for me to take the chance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>
>>>>> How old was he Dudley, and when did he pass? Hardly a discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder why you wouldn't want anyone to know?
>>>>
>>>> Um, why is this irrelevant bit of information so important to you?
>>>>
>>>> Please help me to understand what loss have you suffered that
>>>> requires this
>>>> sort of constant and incredibly insensitive attack?
>>>
>>> What is irrelevant and insensitive about asking his age, and how
>>> long since he had passed?
>>
>> Fjukkktard.
>
> A clod, too. Dudley, I'd like to apologise for the k00k Maxwell
> getting so out of hand. If it was possible, I'd turn him into one of
> AUK's resident kooks, but never mind. Try to see him as something you
> can treat as viciously or as callously as you please, if that helps.
> Otherwise, I suggest killfiling him, if you use a newsreader. He's a
> human stain, one you don't need -- his sole justification for
> existence would appear to be entertainment for Fluffy -- All Hail
> Fluffy, for he hace much grateness! -- one of the two Emperors of
> MEOW, and I don't see him (Max) as being likely to entertain you much.
>

I, OTOH, think he;'s a hoot and a half. That's three hoots for tow
dollars, or fove for three.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

gregvk > wrote in news:Xns9ABB89952DECA01773E1E7C2A948@
127.0.0.1:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g2rstc$acb$1
> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>
>> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Jun 11, 11:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> HARRY POTTER > wrote
>>>> :
>>>>>well written points snipped to make a bad one<<
>>>
>>>> > Just because I'm saying something you don't agree with doesn't mean
>>>> > I'm "trolling".
>>>>
>>>> TROLL!
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, you are the xpert on matters of troll.
>>>
>>
>> TROLL!
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Is The.Hardon trolling again?
>

No, he's busy making antohte lits I think .


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Onideus Mad Hatter > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:09:31 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>gregvk > wrote in
>>news:Xns9ABB89952DECA01773E1E7C2A948@ 127.0.0.1:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g2rstc$acb$1
>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>
>>>> wrote in
>>>> news:1023d3af-2c7a-430c-9b6f-86c450e022e5
@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.co
>>>> m:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 11, 11:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>> HARRY POTTER > wrote
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>well written points snipped to make a bad one<<
>>>>>
>>>>>> > Just because I'm saying something you don't agree with doesn't
>>>>>> > mean I'm "trolling".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TROLL!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, you are the xpert on matters of troll.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TROLL!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Is The.Hardon trolling again?
>>>
>>
>>No, he's busy making antohte lits I think .
>>
>>
>>Bertie
>
> Greg's a n00b, he doesn't know what a lits is...hell he doesn't even
> know what x-no-archive is. Just mention how I'm haxoring into Google
> and deleting out all his poasts and he'll spew off into a frothing
> rampage about how he's going to sue the Internets for it. It's pretty
> damn funny.
>

All part of usenet's rich tapestry.



Bertie
> --
>
> Onideus Mad Hatter
> mhm ¹ x ¹
> http://www.backwater-productions.net
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog
>
>
> Hatter Quotes
> -------------
> "Don't ever **** with someone who has more creativity than you do."
>
> "You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the
> best."
>
> "I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you
> with it."
>
> "I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."
>
> "Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."
>
> "Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the **** up!"
>
> "Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
> bad."
>
> "There are clingy things in the grass...burrs 'n such...mmmm..."
>
> "The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."
>
> "Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
> of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"
>
> "Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
> that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
> of its relevancy."
>
> "Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
> creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."
>
> "Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."
>
> "People are pretty ****ing high on themselves if they think that
> they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
> givin em out for free."
>
> "Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
> So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
> to their merry little mess."
>
> "There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
> horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
> their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
> sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
> images burned into their tiny little minds'."
>
> "How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
> properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."
>
> "Those who record history are those who control history."
>
> "I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
> endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you
> don't get sent to me...I come for you."
>
> "Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton
> tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."
>
> "Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a
> function?"
>
> "Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid.
> Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast
> indicates an increase in Webtv users."
>
> "Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
> gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )
>

[Onideus Mad Hatter]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:09:31 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>gregvk > wrote in news:Xns9ABB89952DECA01773E1E7C2A948@
>127.0.0.1:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g2rstc$acb$1
>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>
>>> wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> On Jun 11, 11:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>> HARRY POTTER > wrote
>>>>> :
>>>>>>well written points snipped to make a bad one<<
>>>>
>>>>> > Just because I'm saying something you don't agree with doesn't mean
>>>>> > I'm "trolling".
>>>>>
>>>>> TROLL!
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, you are the xpert on matters of troll.
>>>>
>>>
>>> TROLL!
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Is The.Hardon trolling again?
>>
>
>No, he's busy making antohte lits I think .
>
>
>Bertie

Greg's a n00b, he doesn't know what a lits is...hell he doesn't even
know what x-no-archive is. Just mention how I'm haxoring into Google
and deleting out all his poasts and he'll spew off into a frothing
rampage about how he's going to sue the Internets for it. It's pretty
damn funny.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog


Hatter Quotes
-------------
"Don't ever **** with someone who has more creativity than you do."

"You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the
best."

"I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you
with it."

"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."

"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."

"Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the **** up!"

"Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
bad."

"There are clingy things in the grass...burrs 'n such...mmmm..."

"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty ****ing high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."

"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."

"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you
don't get sent to me...I come for you."

"Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton
tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."

"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a
function?"

"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid.
Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast
indicates an increase in Webtv users."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )

[JanBen Hëlmüt]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:32:07 +0200, gregvk wrote
(in article >):

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g2rstc$acb$1
> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>
>> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Jun 11, 11:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> HARRY POTTER > wrote
>>>> :
>>>>> well written points snipped to make a bad one<<
>>>
>>>>> Just because I'm saying something you don't agree with doesn't mean
>>>>> I'm "trolling".
>>>>
>>>> TROLL!
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, you are the xpert on matters of troll.
>>>
>>
>> TROLL!
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Is The.Hardon trolling again?

Wahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa !!! Thanks for this entertainment, let's go on.

--
I feel it flowing through my veins, a poison fighting to gain possession of
my body ... I feel numb, my mind is fuzzy and my vision blurred ... I hate
what is happening but I cannot help but be excited at the thought of this
transformation ... The Troll of depravity is coming out "help me"

http://brawl-hall.com/forums/