Congested Area?

[Dallas]

What's your opinion, is this a congested area or not?

http://tinyurl.com/3okuon

My take is that this is an "other than congested area", but a recent
article in AOPA magazine discussing an FAA ruling gives congested area a
pretty broad definition.

I've been assuming "congested area" = pretty much wall to wall development
with streets being the best option for emergency landing.

"Other that congested area" = I took to mean that there are at least
several open areas at most times that you could bring an airplane down into
without hitting any person or property.

--
Dallas

[BT]

I would suggest that between the highway and the marina is congested. Beyond
the marina I see some oil farm tanks.. beyond that.. from this perspective
it appears to be "non-congested".. but you really can't tell until you get
closer.

I could find no firm definition of congested in FAR Part 1 or AIM.
Anyone else?


BT

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
>
> What's your opinion, is this a congested area or not?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3okuon
>
> My take is that this is an "other than congested area", but a recent
> article in AOPA magazine discussing an FAA ruling gives congested area a
> pretty broad definition.
>
> I've been assuming "congested area" = pretty much wall to wall development
> with streets being the best option for emergency landing.
>
> "Other that congested area" = I took to mean that there are at least
> several open areas at most times that you could bring an airplane down
> into
> without hitting any person or property.
>
> --
> Dallas

[[email protected]]

Dallas > wrote:

> What's your opinion, is this a congested area or not?

> http://tinyurl.com/3okuon

> My take is that this is an "other than congested area", but a recent
> article in AOPA magazine discussing an FAA ruling gives congested area a
> pretty broad definition.

> I've been assuming "congested area" = pretty much wall to wall development
> with streets being the best option for emergency landing.

> "Other that congested area" = I took to mean that there are at least
> several open areas at most times that you could bring an airplane down into
> without hitting any person or property.

> --
> Dallas

For the most part I would concider it "other than congested area",
but the only opinion that counts is the person in charge of the
hearing/trial.

Personally I just love catch-all, undefined phrases in laws like
"congested area", "conduct unbecoming", and "reasonable and prudent".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mike[_22_]]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
>
> What's your opinion, is this a congested area or not?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3okuon
>
> My take is that this is an "other than congested area", but a recent
> article in AOPA magazine discussing an FAA ruling gives congested area a
> pretty broad definition.
>
> I've been assuming "congested area" = pretty much wall to wall development
> with streets being the best option for emergency landing.
>
> "Other that congested area" = I took to mean that there are at least
> several open areas at most times that you could bring an airplane down
> into
> without hitting any person or property.

I've always figured that any area marked in yellow on the sectional is going
to be considered a "congested area". That gives you some place to start,
but there's lots of places that aren't yellow which are going to be
considered a "congested area".

The FAA has consistently said the determination will be made on a
case-by-case basis.

So the way I figure it the answer to your question is the same one for
"should I go around?" If you have to ask yourself the question, the answer
is always "yes".

[romeomike]

Dallas wrote:
> What's your opinion, is this a congested area or not?
>


For me, that is a congested area. Why? Just because I have a strong
feeling that if I were to do something bad in that airspace, the FAA
would consider it so. Basically, there are a lot of people down there,
and those oil tanks would up the ante.

[BT]

that was the rule given to me when I first started flying over 30yrs ago..
but the charts do not keep up with rapid growth..
if you can't land without touching something other than earth..
it's congested.
BT

"Mike" > wrote in message
news:7oddk.720$HY.194@trnddc01...
> "Dallas" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> What's your opinion, is this a congested area or not?
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/3okuon
>>
>> My take is that this is an "other than congested area", but a recent
>> article in AOPA magazine discussing an FAA ruling gives congested area a
>> pretty broad definition.
>>
>> I've been assuming "congested area" = pretty much wall to wall
>> development
>> with streets being the best option for emergency landing.
>>
>> "Other that congested area" = I took to mean that there are at least
>> several open areas at most times that you could bring an airplane down
>> into
>> without hitting any person or property.
>
> I've always figured that any area marked in yellow on the sectional is
> going to be considered a "congested area". That gives you some place to
> start, but there's lots of places that aren't yellow which are going to be
> considered a "congested area".
>
> The FAA has consistently said the determination will be made on a
> case-by-case basis.
>
> So the way I figure it the answer to your question is the same one for
> "should I go around?" If you have to ask yourself the question, the
> answer is always "yes".

[Robert Moore]

"BT" wrote
> that was the rule given to me when I first started flying over 30yrs
> ago.. but the charts do not keep up with rapid growth..

Just to not confuse those that don't know, the yellow on the sectional
chart indicates the area that could be expected to be illuminated at
night by street lights, lights in buildings, etc. It is an aid to night
visual navigation.

Bob Moore

[rnruss52]

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 18:15:11 -0500, Dallas
> wrote:

>
>What's your opinion, is this a congested area or not?
>
>http://tinyurl.com/3okuon
>
>My take is that this is an "other than congested area", but a recent
>article in AOPA magazine discussing an FAA ruling gives congested area a
>pretty broad definition.
>
>I've been assuming "congested area" = pretty much wall to wall development
>with streets being the best option for emergency landing.
>
>"Other that congested area" = I took to mean that there are at least
>several open areas at most times that you could bring an airplane down into
>without hitting any person or property.

The FAA does not define "congested area". If the FAA wants you, any
area that you are flying over will be congested, if it advances their
cause. Didn't they define an area of ocean off of the Hawaiian shore
(not over the beach), as a congested area sometime in the past year?
RNR

[Dallas]

On 10 Jul 2008 12:09:47 GMT, Robert Moore wrote:

> Just to not confuse those that don't know, the yellow on the sectional
> chart indicates the area that could be expected to be illuminated at
> night by street lights,

Wow... I'll bet even the DPE that gave me my check ride couldn't have
answered that one.

I've heard the question asked many times, but never got an answer.

--
Dallas

[Dallas]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:57:13 -0400, rnruss52 wrote:

> Didn't they define an area of ocean off of the Hawaiian shore
> (not over the beach), as a congested area sometime in the past year?

That's the exact article I was talking about. They suspended a Gulfstream
pilot for 150 days for making low passes while filming a production.

The first 2 passes were offshore along a beach. The FAA called the beach a
congested area because they considered it an "open air assembly of
persons". - I don't have a big problem with that as there were surfers
down below when he did it.

The second pass gives me some heartburn. The pilot made a gear down, flaps
down low pass over the runway (with permission of the airport manager) and
the FAA board implicitly held that the airfield was a congested area. -

If they call an airport a congested area then my definition of a congested
area is completely invalid.

--
Dallas

[Dallas]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:50:06 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio wrote:

> Someone get your tail number?

Who said I was flying?

[shuffles his feet..]

:- )

(no)

--
Dallas

[Dallas]

On 10 Jul 2008 12:09:47 GMT, Robert Moore wrote:

> Just to not confuse those that don't know, the yellow on the sectional
> chart indicates the area that could be expected to be illuminated at
> night by street lights, lights in buildings, etc. It is an aid to night
> visual navigation.

I found a reference which doesn't state it that way. Mine you, this
reference just comes from a post in another forum, but he claims to quote
the map makers:

"The "yellow" area on the charts is supposed to correspond to developed
urbanized areas. The only significant change regarding charting in these
"yellow" areas involves the depiction of obstructions. Generally,
obstructions 201' and higher above the ground are depicted on the charts.
However in these "yellow" areas, only obstructions 300' and higher above
the ground are depicted.

Sincerely,
Rick Fecht
National Aeronautical Charting Office
Visual Chart Branch
301-713-2953 Ext-126"

Source:
http://forums.piperowner.org/read/7/21716/21731/quote=1

--
Dallas

[Mike[_22_]]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
.. .
> On 10 Jul 2008 12:09:47 GMT, Robert Moore wrote:
>
>> Just to not confuse those that don't know, the yellow on the sectional
>> chart indicates the area that could be expected to be illuminated at
>> night by street lights,
>
> Wow... I'll bet even the DPE that gave me my check ride couldn't have
> answered that one.

I'd be very surprised if he didn't. That's how you navigate visually at
night.

[Mike[_22_]]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:50:06 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>> Someone get your tail number?
>
> Who said I was flying?

You should learn the correct answers to these questions.

The correct answer is...

"I have no specific remembrance that any such alleged flight ever took
place."

Other examples are...

ATC:
"November12345, how far beneath the clouds are you?"

November12345:
"At least 500 feet."

ATC:
"November12345, what altitude are you showing?"

November12345:
"What was that altimeter setting again? (sound of engine in steep dive or
climb)"

ATC:
"November12345, I gave you a right turn, why are you turning left?"

November12345:
"We were caught in severe turbulence, we are now correcting."

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Dallas wrote:
> On 10 Jul 2008 12:09:47 GMT, Robert Moore wrote:
>
>> Just to not confuse those that don't know, the yellow on the
>> sectional chart indicates the area that could be expected to be
>> illuminated at night by street lights, lights in buildings, etc. It
>> is an aid to night visual navigation.
>
> I found a reference which doesn't state it that way. Mine you, this
> reference just comes from a post in another forum, but he claims to
> quote the map makers:
>
> "The "yellow" area on the charts is supposed to correspond to
> developed urbanized areas. The only significant change regarding
> charting in these "yellow" areas involves the depiction of
> obstructions. Generally, obstructions 201' and higher above the
> ground are depicted on the charts. However in these "yellow" areas,
> only obstructions 300' and higher above the ground are depicted.
>

Seems to me the developed urbanized areas are the areas that could be
expected to be illuminated at night by street lights, lights in buildings,
etc.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Dallas wrote:
> On 10 Jul 2008 12:09:47 GMT, Robert Moore wrote:
>
>> Just to not confuse those that don't know, the yellow on the sectional
>> chart indicates the area that could be expected to be illuminated at
>> night by street lights,
>
> Wow... I'll bet even the DPE that gave me my check ride couldn't have
> answered that one.
>
> I've heard the question asked many times, but never got an answer.
>

Really? That was taught to me the first time a sectional was displayed
in ground school. (1979)

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Dallas wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:57:13 -0400, rnruss52 wrote:
>
>> Didn't they define an area of ocean off of the Hawaiian shore
>> (not over the beach), as a congested area sometime in the past year?
>
> That's the exact article I was talking about. They suspended a Gulfstream
> pilot for 150 days for making low passes while filming a production.
>
> The first 2 passes were offshore along a beach. The FAA called the beach a
> congested area because they considered it an "open air assembly of
> persons". - I don't have a big problem with that as there were surfers
> down below when he did it.
>
> The second pass gives me some heartburn. The pilot made a gear down, flaps
> down low pass over the runway (with permission of the airport manager) and
> the FAA board implicitly held that the airfield was a congested area. -
>
> If they call an airport a congested area then my definition of a congested
> area is completely invalid.
>

And so is everyone else's. It just shows that the FAA will use this
particular reg as a gotcha. The plus side to this is that sooner or
later they might get a administrative judge that thinks them doing so is
the complete bull$h!t that it is an rule against them.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in news:cZ6dnfAM49GRw-
:

> Dallas wrote:
>> On 10 Jul 2008 12:09:47 GMT, Robert Moore wrote:
>>
>>> Just to not confuse those that don't know, the yellow on the sectional
>>> chart indicates the area that could be expected to be illuminated at
>>> night by street lights,
>>
>> Wow... I'll bet even the DPE that gave me my check ride couldn't have
>> answered that one.
>>
>> I've heard the question asked many times, but never got an answer.
>>
>
> Really? That was taught to me the first time a sectional was displayed
> in ground school. (1979)
>

Historic though that may have been,I'm relatively certain that sectionals
were taught in groundschools before that!

Bertie

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in news:cZ6dnfAM49GRw-
> :
>
>> Dallas wrote:
>>> On 10 Jul 2008 12:09:47 GMT, Robert Moore wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just to not confuse those that don't know, the yellow on the sectional
>>>> chart indicates the area that could be expected to be illuminated at
>>>> night by street lights,
>>> Wow... I'll bet even the DPE that gave me my check ride couldn't have
>>> answered that one.
>>>
>>> I've heard the question asked many times, but never got an answer.
>>>
>> Really? That was taught to me the first time a sectional was displayed
>> in ground school. (1979)
>>
>
> Historic though that may have been,I'm relatively certain that sectionals
> were taught in groundschools before that!
>
> Bertie

Don't be a dick Bertie. You and everyone that can read knew what I meant.

[Benjamin Dover]

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
:

> Dallas wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:57:13 -0400, rnruss52 wrote:
>>
>>> Didn't they define an area of ocean off of the Hawaiian shore
>>> (not over the beach), as a congested area sometime in the past year?
>>
>> That's the exact article I was talking about. They suspended a
>> Gulfstream pilot for 150 days for making low passes while filming a
>> production.
>>
>> The first 2 passes were offshore along a beach. The FAA called the
>> beach a congested area because they considered it an "open air
>> assembly of persons". - I don't have a big problem with that as
>> there were surfers down below when he did it.
>>
>> The second pass gives me some heartburn. The pilot made a gear down,
>> flaps down low pass over the runway (with permission of the airport
>> manager) and the FAA board implicitly held that the airfield was a
>> congested area. -
>>
>> If they call an airport a congested area then my definition of a
>> congested area is completely invalid.
>>
>
> And so is everyone else's. It just shows that the FAA will use this
> particular reg as a gotcha. The plus side to this is that sooner or
> later they might get a administrative judge that thinks them doing so
> is the complete bull$h!t that it is an rule against them.
>

And until then, the pilot who the FAA victimizes with this bull$h!t gets to
spends many, many thousands of dollars in legal fees and expenses to fight
it.

[Dallas]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:19:30 GMT, Mike wrote:

> ATC:
> "November12345, what altitude are you showing?"

:- )


--
Dallas

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
>> news:cZ6dnfAM49GRw- :
>>
>>> Dallas wrote:
>>>> On 10 Jul 2008 12:09:47 GMT, Robert Moore wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just to not confuse those that don't know, the yellow on the
>>>>> sectional chart indicates the area that could be expected to be
>>>>> illuminated at night by street lights,
>>>> Wow... I'll bet even the DPE that gave me my check ride couldn't
>>>> have answered that one.
>>>>
>>>> I've heard the question asked many times, but never got an answer.
>>>>
>>> Really? That was taught to me the first time a sectional was
>>> displayed in ground school. (1979)
>>>
>>
>> Historic though that may have been,I'm relatively certain that
>> sectionals were taught in groundschools before that!
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Don't be a dick Bertie. You and everyone that can read knew what I
> meant.
>

Hey, if I dodn't have a go at you over it, who would?

Didn't know you were German.


BTW, you're not supposed to be talking to me. Maxie will get annoyed and
put you on a lits.






Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hey, if I dodn't have a go at you over it, who would?
>
> Didn't know you were German.
>
>
> BTW, you're not supposed to be talking to me. Maxie will get annoyed and
> put you on a lits.
>
>

Just your usual bull****.

Kind of like when you were a kid, and your mom tied a pork chop around your
neck so the dog would play with you.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

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

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Hey, if I dodn't have a go at you over it, who would?
>>
>> Didn't know you were German.
>>
>>
>> BTW, you're not supposed to be talking to me. Maxie will get annoyed
>> and put you on a lits.
>>
>>
>
> Just your usual bull****.
>
> Kind of like when you were a kid, and your mom tied a pork chop around
> your neck so the dog would play with you.
>


So, you're the pork chp or the dog?

Walk me through this.


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Hey, if I dodn't have a go at you over it, who would?
>>>
>>> Didn't know you were German.
>>>
>>>
>>> BTW, you're not supposed to be talking to me. Maxie will get annoyed
>>> and put you on a lits.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Just your usual bull****.
>>
>> Kind of like when you were a kid, and your mom tied a pork chop around
>> your neck so the dog would play with you.
>>
>
>
> So, you're the pork chp or the dog?
>
> Walk me through this.
>
>
> Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:fF6ek.20340$%q.10610
@newsfe24.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Hey, if I dodn't have a go at you over it, who would?
>>>>
>>>> Didn't know you were German.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BTW, you're not supposed to be talking to me. Maxie will get
annoyed
>>>> and put you on a lits.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just your usual bull****.
>>>
>>> Kind of like when you were a kid, and your mom tied a pork chop
around
>>> your neck so the dog would play with you.
>>>
>>
>>
>> So, you're the pork chp or the dog?
>>
>> Walk me through this.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
>

Awww, pork chp got your tongue, fjukkwit?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

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

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just your usual bull****.
>>>
>>> Kind of like when you were a kid, and your mom tied a pork chop
>>> around your neck so the dog would play with you.
>>>
>>
>>
>> So, you're the pork chp or the dog?
>>
>> Walk me through this.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Gee, I wonder? You really are dense today. They must have really upped
> the meds last night.
>


Nope,. but I note your lack of reply and interpret (and quite correctly, I
should add) it as a complete inability to form any sort of argument
whatsoever.


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
>>
>>
>> Just your usual bull****.
>>
>> Kind of like when you were a kid, and your mom tied a pork chop around
>> your neck so the dog would play with you.
>>
>
>
> So, you're the pork chp or the dog?
>
> Walk me through this.
>
>
> Bertie

Gee, I wonder? You really are dense today. They must have really upped the
meds last night.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

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

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>>
>> Nope,. but I note your lack of reply and interpret (and quite
>> correctly, I should add) it as a complete inability to form any sort
>> of argument whatsoever.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Well you're certainly the expert on that tactic.


Nope. I can argue if I choose to.
>
> But still just a liar, cuz that's clearly not what happened here.


Really? What lie?


you have yet to demonstrate a single lie told by myself.


Not that i give a ****, but it is an interesting exercise..



Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>
>
> Nope,. but I note your lack of reply and interpret (and quite correctly, I
> should add) it as a complete inability to form any sort of argument
> whatsoever.
>
>
> Bertie

Well you're certainly the expert on that tactic.

But still just a liar, cuz that's clearly not what happened here.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>
>
> Really? What lie?
>
>
> you have yet to demonstrate a single lie told by myself.
>
>
> Not that i give a ****, but it is an interesting exercise..
>
>
>
> Bertie

Another lie.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:A27ek.20353$%q.13407
@newsfe24.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>>
>> Really? What lie?
>>
>>
>> you have yet to demonstrate a single lie told by myself.
>>
>>
>> Not that i give a ****, but it is an interesting exercise..
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Another lie.
>

Really?

Do tell, fjukktard.



Bertie

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
>>> news:cZ6dnfAM49GRw- :
>>>
>>>> Dallas wrote:
>>>>> On 10 Jul 2008 12:09:47 GMT, Robert Moore wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just to not confuse those that don't know, the yellow on the
>>>>>> sectional chart indicates the area that could be expected to be
>>>>>> illuminated at night by street lights,
>>>>> Wow... I'll bet even the DPE that gave me my check ride couldn't
>>>>> have answered that one.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've heard the question asked many times, but never got an answer.
>>>>>
>>>> Really? That was taught to me the first time a sectional was
>>>> displayed in ground school. (1979)
>>>>
>>> Historic though that may have been,I'm relatively certain that
>>> sectionals were taught in groundschools before that!
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Don't be a dick Bertie. You and everyone that can read knew what I
>> meant.
>>
>
> Hey, if I dodn't have a go at you over it, who would?
>
> Didn't know you were German.
>
>
> BTW, you're not supposed to be talking to me. Maxie will get annoyed and
> put you on a lits.
>

And you start another back and forth with Maxwell. Damn it Bertie, you
really are along with Maxwell destroying this group.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
...
>>
>
> And you start another back and forth with Maxwell. Damn it Bertie, you
> really are along with Maxwell destroying this group.\

If Burtie is not allow to moderate/control the group, he will do his best to
destroy it.

It has nothing to do with Maxwell, or at least not the real one.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

In article >, Maxwell says...

>
> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >
> > And you start another back and forth with Maxwell. Damn it Bertie, you
> > really are along with Maxwell destroying this group.\
>
> If Burtie is not allow to moderate/control the group, he will do his best to
> destroy it.

And exactly how does one 'destroy' a froup, k00kboi?

Do you even really know what a froup *is*?

> It has nothing to do with Maxwell, or at least not the real one.

You are not real. You are just electrons on a screen.

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

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

>
> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>
>> And you start another back and forth with Maxwell. Damn it Bertie,
>> you really are along with Maxwell destroying this group.\
>
> If Burtie is not allow to moderate/control the group, he will do his
> best to destroy it.

I'm not doing anythign but posting, fjuktardd

>
> It has nothing to do with Maxwell, or at least not the real one.

Bwawhahwahwhhahwha!


Bertie

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
>> And you start another back and forth with Maxwell. Damn it Bertie, you
>> really are along with Maxwell destroying this group.\
>
> If Burtie is not allow to moderate/control the group, he will do his best to
> destroy it.
>
> It has nothing to do with Maxwell, or at least not the real one.
>
>
>

It has JUST as much do do with you as with him. So just stop.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Maxwell wrote:
> In article >, Maxwell says...
>
>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> And you start another back and forth with Maxwell. Damn it Bertie, you
>>> really are along with Maxwell destroying this group.\
>> If Burtie is not allow to moderate/control the group, he will do his best to
>> destroy it.
>
> And exactly how does one 'destroy' a froup, k00kboi?
>
> Do you even really know what a froup *is*?
>
>> It has nothing to do with Maxwell, or at least not the real one.
>
> You are not real. You are just electrons on a screen.
>

You stop too.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell wrote:
>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> And you start another back and forth with Maxwell. Damn it Bertie, you
>>> really are along with Maxwell destroying this group.\
>>
>> If Burtie is not allow to moderate/control the group, he will do his best
>> to destroy it.
>>
>> It has nothing to do with Maxwell, or at least not the real one.
>>
>>
>>
>
> It has JUST as much do do with you as with him. So just stop.

You disappoint me Gig, I really though you were more observant.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Maxwell wrote:
>>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> And you start another back and forth with Maxwell. Damn it Bertie, you
>>>> really are along with Maxwell destroying this group.\
>>> If Burtie is not allow to moderate/control the group, he will do his best
>>> to destroy it.
>>>
>>> It has nothing to do with Maxwell, or at least not the real one.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> It has JUST as much do do with you as with him. So just stop.
>
> You disappoint me Gig, I really though you were more observant.
>
>
>

I'm quite aware that there are multiple people using the Maxwell name.
But the fact that you jumped into this proves you are just as much to blame.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
m...
> Maxwell wrote:
>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Maxwell wrote:
>>>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> And you start another back and forth with Maxwell. Damn it Bertie, you
>>>>> really are along with Maxwell destroying this group.\
>>>> If Burtie is not allow to moderate/control the group, he will do his
>>>> best to destroy it.
>>>>
>>>> It has nothing to do with Maxwell, or at least not the real one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It has JUST as much do do with you as with him. So just stop.
>>
>> You disappoint me Gig, I really though you were more observant.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I'm quite aware that there are multiple people using the Maxwell name. But
> the fact that you jumped into this proves you are just as much to blame.

Sorry dude, but you're still not gellin'.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

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

>
> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Maxwell wrote:
>>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> And you start another back and forth with Maxwell. Damn it Bertie,
>>>> you really are along with Maxwell destroying this group.\
>>>
>>> If Burtie is not allow to moderate/control the group, he will do his
>>> best to destroy it.
>>>
>>> It has nothing to do with Maxwell, or at least not the real one.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It has JUST as much do do with you as with him. So just stop.
>
> You disappoint me Gig, I really though you were more observant.



Snort!


God you're good!


I haven't had a pet of this quality in ages!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

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

>
> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
> m...
>> Maxwell wrote:
>>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Maxwell wrote:
>>>>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> And you start another back and forth with Maxwell. Damn it
>>>>>> Bertie, you really are along with Maxwell destroying this group.\
>>>>> If Burtie is not allow to moderate/control the group, he will do
>>>>> his best to destroy it.
>>>>>
>>>>> It has nothing to do with Maxwell, or at least not the real one.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It has JUST as much do do with you as with him. So just stop.
>>>
>>> You disappoint me Gig, I really though you were more observant.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm quite aware that there are multiple people using the Maxwell
>> name. But the fact that you jumped into this proves you are just as
>> much to blame.
>
> Sorry dude, but you're still not gellin'.
>


You eat gel?

hmmm..

Bertie
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
:

> Maxwell wrote:
>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> And you start another back and forth with Maxwell. Damn it Bertie,
>>> you really are along with Maxwell destroying this group.\
>>
>> If Burtie is not allow to moderate/control the group, he will do his
>> best to destroy it.
>>
>> It has nothing to do with Maxwell, or at least not the real one.
>>
>>
>>
>
> It has JUST as much do do with you as with him. So just stop.
>

It actually has nothing to do with me.

I just post...

A group can only survive itself if the posters who frequent it can survive
the tides of fate....


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Maxwell wrote:
>>>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> And you start another back and forth with Maxwell. Damn it Bertie,
>>>>> you really are along with Maxwell destroying this group.\
>>>>
>>>> If Burtie is not allow to moderate/control the group, he will do his
>>>> best to destroy it.
>>>>
>>>> It has nothing to do with Maxwell, or at least not the real one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It has JUST as much do do with you as with him. So just stop.
>>
>> You disappoint me Gig, I really though you were more observant.
>
>
>
> Snort!
>
>
> God you're good!
>
>
> I haven't had a pet of this quality in ages!
>
>
> Bertie

Spoken like the total gomer you really are.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> You eat gel?
>
> hmmm..
>
> Bertie
>>
>>

When you are too clueless to offer a relivent reply...........

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:DG6fk.13996$Fj5.6604
@newsfe23.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> You eat gel?
>>
>> hmmm..
>>
>> Bertie
>>>
>>>
>
> When you are too clueless to offer a relivent reply...........
>


Oh boy!
Thanks for the heads off



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:EF6fk.13995$Fj5.2555
@newsfe23.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Maxwell wrote:
>>>>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> And you start another back and forth with Maxwell. Damn it
Bertie,
>>>>>> you really are along with Maxwell destroying this group.\
>>>>>
>>>>> If Burtie is not allow to moderate/control the group, he will do
his
>>>>> best to destroy it.
>>>>>
>>>>> It has nothing to do with Maxwell, or at least not the real one.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It has JUST as much do do with you as with him. So just stop.
>>>
>>> You disappoint me Gig, I really though you were more observant.
>>
>>
>>
>> Snort!
>>
>>
>> God you're good!
>>
>>
>> I haven't had a pet of this quality in ages!
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Spoken like the total gomer you really are.
>
>
>

Sit boi , sit.



Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sit boi , sit.
>
>
>
> Bertie


What a dumb ass. If you can't do any better than this, you'll just have to
play with yourself.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

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

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Sit boi , sit.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> What a dumb ass. If you can't do any better than this, you'll just
> have to play with yourself.
>

If it keeps you k00king out, sure..

Kneel boi, kneel.


Bertie