Stop bashing Anthony

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

At the request of one of the other posters, I hearby pledge to not respond
to Anthony, no matter how ridiculous and inane his comments. There is a
certain pleasure in insulting him, but he is either too stupid to get it, or
just the response alone gives him the perverse attention that he desires and
lacks in his own personal life.

Ultimately he is not worth the bandwith.

Let's get on with aviation and ignore the idiot.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 10, 7:28*am, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> At the request of one of the other posters, I hearby pledge to not respond
> to Anthony, no matter how ridiculous and inane his comments.

THANK UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!

[[email protected]]

On Aug 10, 1:33*pm, " > wrote:
> On Aug 10, 7:28*am, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
>
> > At the request of one of the other posters, I hearby pledge to not respond
> > to Anthony, no matter how ridiculous and inane his comments.
>
> THANK UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!

It's likely student pilots read this forum. If Anthony suggests
something that is clearly in violation with what we know to be proper
piloting practice it should be refuted.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

I will not commit to a permanent moratorium, but have set a personal limit
of two weeks. He is like a noxious weed that is hard to eradicate, and will
never go away entirely. However, it may be worth a different tactic.

[Thomas Borchert]

Viperdoc,

several weeks ago I blocked everything from MX and Bertie. Since then,
the message count has dropped immensely, to a bare trickle. I still
don't find anything worth reading anymore. Today, I marked the fuel
thread for download because the subject sounded interesting. I was
extremely saddened to see that the same MX back and forth still goes on
exactly as it did a year ago.

These two have reached their goal: The group has been destroyed.

See you in a year or so.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[terry]

On Aug 10, 10:28*pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> At the request of one of the other posters, I hearby pledge to not respond
> to Anthony, no matter how ridiculous and inane his comments. There is a
> certain pleasure in insulting him, but he is either too stupid to get it, or
> just the response alone gives him the perverse attention that he desires and
> lacks in his own personal life.
>
> Ultimately he is not worth the bandwith.
>
> Let's get on with aviation and ignore the idiot.

I will pledge not to argue with him or provide any serious answers for
him to disagree with. However I dont see any problems with having
some fun with him, it can be entertaining, especially when he thinks
you are serious which is most of the time since humour is invariably
lost on him.
Terry
PPL Downunder

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> It's that one person who cannot resist giving him a serious answer who is
> helping him ruin the group.

Serious answers to questions "ruin the group"? Hmm.

> As the old saying goes, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions".
> Good intentions HAVE taken this group down the road to Hell.

There's a lot of bickering between little boys in this newsgroup, and most of
the arguments have absolutely nothing to do with me, and contain no posts from
me. Boys fighting in the schoolyard are a fact of life on USENET,
unfortunately.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

I agree, but even that gets old, like the time he asked about the ejection
seat on the Baron, or in general when he confuses reality with playing his
game. Yet, he doesn't realize how pathetic he actually is when viewed by
real pilots.

[[email protected]]

terry > wrote:
> On Aug 10, 10:28?pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> > At the request of one of the other posters, I hearby pledge to not respond
> > to Anthony, no matter how ridiculous and inane his comments. There is a
> > certain pleasure in insulting him, but he is either too stupid to get it, or
> > just the response alone gives him the perverse attention that he desires and
> > lacks in his own personal life.
> >
> > Ultimately he is not worth the bandwith.
> >
> > Let's get on with aviation and ignore the idiot.

> I will pledge not to argue with him or provide any serious answers for
> him to disagree with. However I dont see any problems with having
> some fun with him, it can be entertaining, especially when he thinks
> you are serious which is most of the time since humour is invariably
> lost on him.
> Terry
> PPL Downunder

As long as the "fun" isn't something a new reader and a student might
try to do thinking the post is serious.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> It's that one person who cannot resist giving him a serious answer
>> who is helping him ruin the group.
>
> Serious answers to questions "ruin the group"? Hmm.
>
>> As the old saying goes, "The road to Hell is paved with good
>> intentions". Good intentions HAVE taken this group down the road to
>> Hell.
>
> There's a lot of bickering between little boys in this newsgroup, and
> most of the arguments have absolutely nothing to do with me, and
> contain no posts from me. Boys fighting in the schoolyard are a fact
> of life on USENET, unfortunately.
>

You are an idiot.


Bertie

[ManhattanMan]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> You are an idiot.
>
>

Ya know, this is really getting to be a let down when you consistantly
continue to beat down idiots to Anthony's level.... I've know some nice
idiots, well, ok, innocent idiots, and this piece of

[ManhattanMan]

ManhattanMan wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> You are an idiot.
>>
>>
>
> Ya know, this is really getting to be a let down when you consistantly
> continue to beat down idiots to Anthony's level.... I've know some
> nice idiots, well, ok, innocent idiots, and this piece of

to be continued: :)

narcissistic, arrogant, conceited, neurotic, pious, prick sputum doesn't
come close to qualifying for idiot status...........

[ManhattanMan]

Viperdoc wrote:
> At the request of one of the other posters, I hearby pledge to not
> respond to Anthony,

totally eliminating salt from your diet would be much easier.. :)

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Giving up alcohol and sex would be easier than not bashing Anthony. In fact,
giving up breathing would be easier than stopping MX bashing. He's such an
easy target, and he doesn't get it.

I should have stopped at his hovel in Paris on Rue de General when I was
there during vacation for a heart to heart, but I was concerned that it
might be in a bad neighborhood.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 10, 6:42*pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> Giving up alcohol and sex would be easier than not bashing Anthony. In fact,
> giving up breathing would be easier than stopping MX bashing. He's such an
> easy target, and he doesn't get it.
>
> I should have stopped at his hovel in Paris on Rue de General when I was
> there during vacation for a heart to heart, but I was concerned that it
> might be in a bad neighborhood.

Would you not think if it was a tough neighborhood Anthony would be
frequently assaulted for impersonating the attitude of a Frenchman? Or
could be be actually teaching advanced arrogance?

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Would you not think if it was a tough neighborhood Anthony would be
frequently assaulted for impersonating the attitude of a Frenchman? Or
could be be actually teaching advanced arrogance?

I could easily see Anthony telling French people that they really don't
speak French very well, and that he knows more about their language and
culture than they.

[Peter Dohm]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> At the request of one of the other posters, I hearby pledge to not respond
> to Anthony, no matter how ridiculous and inane his comments. There is a
> certain pleasure in insulting him, but he is either too stupid to get it,
> or just the response alone gives him the perverse attention that he
> desires and lacks in his own personal life.
>
> Ultimately he is not worth the bandwith.
>
> Let's get on with aviation and ignore the idiot.
>
I was neve bothered by your comments, nor by Bertie's. However, if this can
convince enouth others to stop answering his questions, and/or debabint his
statements, then we will soon be rid of the troll.

[Peter Dohm]

"terry" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 10, 10:28 pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> At the request of one of the other posters, I hearby pledge to not respond
> to Anthony, no matter how ridiculous and inane his comments. There is a
> certain pleasure in insulting him, but he is either too stupid to get it,
> or
> just the response alone gives him the perverse attention that he desires
> and
> lacks in his own personal life.
>
> Ultimately he is not worth the bandwith.
>
> Let's get on with aviation and ignore the idiot.

I will pledge not to argue with him or provide any serious answers for
him to disagree with. However I dont see any problems with having
some fun with him, it can be entertaining, especially when he thinks
you are serious which is most of the time since humour is invariably
lost on him.
Terry
PPL Downunder

------------------------------

That is really a perfect description of "feeding the troll" and it would
work out much better, for all of us, if you would just ignore him.

[Buster Hymen]

"ManhattanMan" > wrote in
:

> ManhattanMan wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>>> You are an idiot.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Ya know, this is really getting to be a let down when you consistantly
>> continue to beat down idiots to Anthony's level.... I've know some
>> nice idiots, well, ok, innocent idiots, and this piece of
>
> to be continued: :)
>
> narcissistic, arrogant, conceited, neurotic, pious, prick sputum doesn't
> come close to qualifying for idiot status...........
>
>
>

You're absolutely right. Anthony would need an IQ boost of several
thousand orders of magnitude to reach the intelligence level of an idiot,
and even that might not be enough.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"ManhattanMan" > wrote in news:xYJnk.8574$i15.7118
@newsfe01.iad:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> You are an idiot.
>>
>>
>
> Ya know, this is really getting to be a let down when you consistantly
> continue to beat down idiots to Anthony's level.... I've know some nice
> idiots, well, ok, innocent idiots, and this piece of
>
>
>

Point taken.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in
:

> "Viperdoc" > wrote in message
> ...
>> At the request of one of the other posters, I hearby pledge to not
>> respond to Anthony, no matter how ridiculous and inane his comments.
>> There is a certain pleasure in insulting him, but he is either too
>> stupid to get it, or just the response alone gives him the perverse
>> attention that he desires and lacks in his own personal life.
>>
>> Ultimately he is not worth the bandwith.
>>
>> Let's get on with aviation and ignore the idiot.
>>
> I was neve bothered by your comments, nor by Bertie's. However, if
> this can convince enouth others to stop answering his questions,
> and/or debabint his statements, then we will soon be rid of the troll.
>
>
>
>

Don;'t know if anyone has noticed, bt he ignores outright flames
completely.
I avoid answering any of his **** and he never, ever replies to my posts.


Bertie

[george]

On Aug 11, 12:28 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:

> I will pledge not to argue with him or provide any serious answers for
> him to disagree with. However I dont see any problems with having
> some fun with him, it can be entertaining, especially when he thinks
> you are serious which is most of the time since humour is invariably
> lost on him.

The amounts of urine extracted from that one posters posts must be
approaching some sort of record...
:-)

[Morgans[_2_]]

"terry" > wrote

I will pledge not to argue with him or provide any serious answers for
him to disagree with. However I dont see any problems with having
some fun with him, it can be entertaining, especially when he thinks
you are serious which is most of the time since humour is invariably
lost on him.
+++++++++++++++++++++++

New post begins:

If...

You think that him going away would be a good thing, and....

If....

you think that responses of any kind are what might help to keep him here,
then...

You place your own entertainment ABOVE the good of this group if you reply
for "entertainment value."
--
Jim in NC

[terry]

On Aug 11, 7:25*am, wrote:
> terry > wrote:
> > On Aug 10, 10:28?pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> > > At the request of one of the other posters, I hearby pledge to not respond
> > > to Anthony, no matter how ridiculous and inane his comments. There is a
> > > certain pleasure in insulting him, but he is either too stupid to get it, or
> > > just the response alone gives him the perverse attention that he desires and
> > > lacks in his own personal life.
>
> > > Ultimately he is not worth the bandwith.
>
> > > Let's get on with aviation and ignore the idiot.
> > I will pledge not to argue with him or provide any serious answers for
> > him to disagree with. *However *I dont see any problems with having
> > some fun with him, it can be entertaining, especially when he thinks
> > you are serious which is most of the time since humour is invariably
> > lost on him.
> > Terry
> > PPL Downunder
>
> As long as the "fun" isn't something a new reader and a student might
> try to do thinking the post is serious.
>
I really dont believe there are student pilots out there who would do
things in an airplane based purely on what they read on a newsgroup
from people they dont know, without discussing it with an instructor,
If there are I am afraid they are likely to have a short career in
aviation regardless of anything we post.

Terry

[terry]

On Aug 11, 10:28*am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "terry" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Aug 10, 10:28 pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
>
> > At the request of one of the other posters, I hearby pledge to not respond
> > to Anthony, no matter how ridiculous and inane his comments. There is a
> > certain pleasure in insulting him, but he is either too stupid to get it,
> > or
> > just the response alone gives him the perverse attention that he desires
> > and
> > lacks in his own personal life.
>
> > Ultimately he is not worth the bandwith.
>
> > Let's get on with aviation and ignore the idiot.
>
> I will pledge not to argue with him or provide any serious answers for
> him to disagree with. *However *I dont see any problems with having
> some fun with him, it can be entertaining, especially when he thinks
> you are serious which is most of the time since humour is invariably
> lost on him.
> Terry
> PPL Downunder
>
> ------------------------------
>
> That is really a perfect description of "feeding the troll" and it would
> work out much better, for all of us, if you would just ignore him.

Well I never thought he was a troll, just one very disturbed dude.
But if it really will help to get this group back on track I will have
a go at ignoring him totally. geez it will be hard though.
Terry

[Peter Dohm]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> Don;'t know if anyone has noticed, bt he ignores outright flames
> completely.
> I avoid answering any of his **** and he never, ever replies to my posts.
>
> Bertie

Yes, I noticed and I believe that several others did as well.
He appears to live for the debate.

Peter

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in
:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Don;'t know if anyone has noticed, bt he ignores outright flames
>> completely.
>> I avoid answering any of his **** and he never, ever replies to my
>> posts.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Yes, I noticed and I believe that several others did as well.
> He appears to live for the debate.
>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/debate


Bit of a stretch to call what he does debate.

Bertie

[Rocky Stevens]

On Aug 11, 6:56 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in 8.18...
>
>
>
> > Don;'t know if anyone has noticed, bt he ignores outright flames
> > completely.

> Yes, I noticed and I believe that several others did as well. He appears to live for the debate.

Uh, ignoring flames is what most adults DO. See, Usenet was originally
created for what some of us call "discussion". Childish insults do
not qualify. Besides, what kind of response to "you are a loser,"
would meet your high intellectual standards? Should he respond with an
equally witty "you are a fjucktard"?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Rocky Stevens > wrote in
:

> On Aug 11, 6:56 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in
>> 8.18...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Don;'t know if anyone has noticed, bt he ignores outright flames
>> > completely.
>
>> Yes, I noticed and I believe that several others did as well. He
>> appears to live for the debate.
>
> Uh, ignoring flames is what most adults DO. See, Usenet was originally
> created for what some of us call "discussion". Childish insults do
> not qualify. Besides, what kind of response to "you are a loser,"
> would meet your high intellectual standards? Should he respond with an
> equally witty "you are a fjucktard"?
>

It's not about wit...


Bertie

[CovvTseTung]

In article >, Bertie the
Bunyip says...

> Rocky Stevens > wrote in
> :
>
> > On Aug 11, 6:56 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> >> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in
> >> 8.18...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Don;'t know if anyone has noticed, bt he ignores outright flames
> >> > completely.
> >
> >> Yes, I noticed and I believe that several others did as well. He
> >> appears to live for the debate.
> >
> > Uh, ignoring flames is what most adults DO. See, Usenet was originally
> > created for what some of us call "discussion". Childish insults do
> > not qualify. Besides, what kind of response to "you are a loser,"
> > would meet your high intellectual standards? Should he respond with an
> > equally witty "you are a fjucktard"?
> >
>
> It's not about wit...

Things have certainly gotten quiet around here since Maxine ran away

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[More_Flaps]

On Aug 12, 1:19*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Rocky Stevens > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Aug 11, 6:56 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> >> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in
> >> 8.18...
>
> >> > Don;'t know if anyone has noticed, bt he ignores outright flames
> >> > completely.
>
> >> Yes, I noticed and I believe that several others did as well. *He
> >> appears to live for the debate.
>
> > Uh, ignoring flames is what most adults DO. See, Usenet was originally
> > created for what some of us call "discussion". *Childish insults do
> > not qualify. *Besides, what kind of response to "you are a loser,"
> > would meet your high intellectual standards? Should he respond with an
> > equally witty "you are a fjucktard"?
>
> It's not about wit...
>

Ya gotaa use it to make this place tolerable.
Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

CovvTseTung > wrote in
:

> In article >, Bertie the
> Bunyip says...
>
>> Rocky Stevens > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > On Aug 11, 6:56 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>> >> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in
>> >> 8.18...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Don;'t know if anyone has noticed, bt he ignores outright flames
>> >> > completely.
>> >
>> >> Yes, I noticed and I believe that several others did as well. He
>> >> appears to live for the debate.
>> >
>> > Uh, ignoring flames is what most adults DO. See, Usenet was originally
>> > created for what some of us call "discussion". Childish insults do
>> > not qualify. Besides, what kind of response to "you are a loser,"
>> > would meet your high intellectual standards? Should he respond with an
>> > equally witty "you are a fjucktard"?
>> >
>>
>> It's not about wit...
>
> Things have certainly gotten quiet around here since Maxine ran away
>
Looks like he decided to retire at the top of his game.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

More_Flaps > wrote in
:

> On Aug 12, 1:19*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Rocky Stevens > wrote
>> innews:6e53858b-3924-45c8-9
> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 11, 6:56 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>> >> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in
>> >> 8.18...
>>
>> >> > Don;'t know if anyone has noticed, bt he ignores outright flames
>> >> > completely.
>>
>> >> Yes, I noticed and I believe that several others did as well. *He
>> >> appears to live for the debate.
>>
>> > Uh, ignoring flames is what most adults DO. See, Usenet was
>> > originally created for what some of us call "discussion". *Childish
>> > insults do not qualify. *Besides, what kind of response to "you are
>> > a loser," would meet your high intellectual standards? Should he
>> > respond with an equally witty "you are a fjucktard"?
>>
>> It's not about wit...
>>
>
> Ya gotaa use it to make this place tolerable.
> Cheers
>
>

Oh yeah. I just mean it's not the name of the game.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

terry > wrote:
> On Aug 11, 7:25?am, wrote:
> > terry > wrote:
> > > On Aug 10, 10:28?pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> > > > At the request of one of the other posters, I hearby pledge to not respond
> > > > to Anthony, no matter how ridiculous and inane his comments. There is a
> > > > certain pleasure in insulting him, but he is either too stupid to get it, or
> > > > just the response alone gives him the perverse attention that he desires and
> > > > lacks in his own personal life.
> >
> > > > Ultimately he is not worth the bandwith.
> >
> > > > Let's get on with aviation and ignore the idiot.
> > > I will pledge not to argue with him or provide any serious answers for
> > > him to disagree with. ?However ?I dont see any problems with having
> > > some fun with him, it can be entertaining, especially when he thinks
> > > you are serious which is most of the time since humour is invariably
> > > lost on him.
> > > Terry
> > > PPL Downunder
> >
> > As long as the "fun" isn't something a new reader and a student might
> > try to do thinking the post is serious.
> >
> I really dont believe there are student pilots out there who would do
> things in an airplane based purely on what they read on a newsgroup
> from people they dont know, without discussing it with an instructor,
> If there are I am afraid they are likely to have a short career in
> aviation regardless of anything we post.

I would agree it is probably not likely from an isolated post, but
once in a while you will find people joining in on the "fun" and
reinforcing the point.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Steve Foley]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> At the request of one of the other posters, I hearby pledge to not respond
> to Anthony, no matter how ridiculous and inane his comments. There is a
> certain pleasure in insulting him, but he is either too stupid to get it,
or
> just the response alone gives him the perverse attention that he desires
and
> lacks in his own personal life.
>
> Ultimately he is not worth the bandwith.
>
> Let's get on with aviation and ignore the idiot.
>
>

I've decided to go old-school on Anthony. My replies to him will go to the
email address that he supplies, and I will leave it up to him to consolidate
the replies and report back. That's the way Usenet was originally used, so
it's good enough for me.

The fact that he'll never read my replies certainly can't diminsh his
comprehension.

BTW, I gave up on the private nntp server. After filtering MX, Bertie,
maxwell, and the chinese spammers, and any threads they contaminate, there's
simply not any content left. I could probably store six months of the
remaining messages on my watch.

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
...
> terry > wrote:
>> On Aug 11, 7:25?am, wrote:
>> > terry > wrote:
>> > > On Aug 10, 10:28?pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
>> > > > At the request of one of the other posters, I hearby pledge to not
>> > > > respond
>> > > > to Anthony, no matter how ridiculous and inane his comments. There
>> > > > is a
>> > > > certain pleasure in insulting him, but he is either too stupid to
>> > > > get it, or
>> > > > just the response alone gives him the perverse attention that he
>> > > > desires and
>> > > > lacks in his own personal life.
>> >
>> > > > Ultimately he is not worth the bandwith.
>> >
>> > > > Let's get on with aviation and ignore the idiot.
>> > > I will pledge not to argue with him or provide any serious answers
>> > > for
>> > > him to disagree with. ?However ?I dont see any problems with having
>> > > some fun with him, it can be entertaining, especially when he thinks
>> > > you are serious which is most of the time since humour is invariably
>> > > lost on him.
>> > > Terry
>> > > PPL Downunder
>> >
>> > As long as the "fun" isn't something a new reader and a student might
>> > try to do thinking the post is serious.
>> >
>> I really dont believe there are student pilots out there who would do
>> things in an airplane based purely on what they read on a newsgroup
>> from people they dont know, without discussing it with an instructor,
>> If there are I am afraid they are likely to have a short career in
>> aviation regardless of anything we post.
>
> I would agree it is probably not likely from an isolated post, but
> once in a while you will find people joining in on the "fun" and
> reinforcing the point.
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
Nearly anyone who has ever attended school, or participated in nearly any
sport or activity, has encountered classmates and/or team members who gave
questionable advice. Occasionally, that has even extended to teachers,
professors, and coaches as well.

I really suspect that the risk from Anthony alone is small; but, I agree
that participants joining in the "fun" could greatly magnify the risk--in
addition to perpetuating the current state of dissarray which has beset this
forum.

Peter

[buttman]

On Aug 10, 1:00*pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>
> Even when nobody replies to him, his socks start appearing so he can
> begin a discussion with himself to draw others in.
>

LOL you seriously think anyone who doesn't passionately hate him the
way you do is actually him in disguise? The funniest bit is that you
don't even realize how loony you sound. But the again, are loonies
ever really aware of how loony they really are?

> If you really want him gone, DO NOT EVER PROVIDE A SERIOUS ANSWER
> DIRECTLY TO ANTHONY.
> It's that one person who cannot resist giving him a serious answer who is
> helping him ruin the group.
>
> If everyone just replied with something like Viperdoc's "Anthony isn't a pilot
> and has never flown" or Bertie's "You're an idiot", MX would go back to the
> "Breast feeding" group to share his expertise.
>

SERIOUS ANSWERS IS TEARING THIS GROUP APART. WE NEED TO START TYPING
OUT ONE LINE INSULTS THAT IS THE ONLY WAY TO SAVE THIS GROUP. you're
kinda dumb

> Keep in mind that this dip**** has no job, no friends, no money, and no life.
> He has nothing but time and can flood a group with stupidity for hours and
> hours and hours and hours and................

Actually, I think , if anyone, you're the one with no friends, no job,
and no life. You're the one who has to get all worked up over a person
you don't like posting messages to a message board. I don't see
Anthony chimping out like you do on a regular basis.

> Pilots tend to be helpful people, but Anthony is just a lowlife begger.
> Jurt treat him like the foul smelling bum who follows you down the street
> demanding spare change........Say "**** OFF!" and walk a little faster.
>
> Any response with a serious answer will keep him here until a blood clot
> finally dislodges from his ass.
>
> As the old saying goes, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions".
> Good intentions HAVE taken this group down the road to Hell.
>

You're kinda stupid, jfyi.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Aug 10, 1:00*pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>>
>> Even when nobody replies to him, his socks start appearing so he can
>> begin a discussion with himself to draw others in.
>>
>
> LOL you seriously think anyone who doesn't passionately hate him the
> way you do is actually him in disguise? The funniest bit is that you
> don't even realize how loony you sound. But the again, are loonies
> ever really aware of how loony they really are?


PKB wannabe boi.


Bertie

[tjd]

I don't know what the solution is or how much of it is the fault of
any individual(s), but it rather sad what has happened to these
newsgroups... I was never a big poster but I read them regularly for
a long time and now, I'll stop by occasionally but most every thread
seems to quickly deteriorate into the same old flamewar...

On Aug 10, 2:46*pm, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> These two have reached their goal: The group has been destroyed.

[Buster Hymen]

Rocky Stevens > wrote in
:

> On Aug 11, 6:56 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in
>> 8.18...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Don;'t know if anyone has noticed, bt he ignores outright flames
>> > completely.
>
>> Yes, I noticed and I believe that several others did as well. He
>> appears to live for the debate.
>
> Uh, ignoring flames is what most adults DO. See, Usenet was originally
> created for what some of us call "discussion". Childish insults do
> not qualify. Besides, what kind of response to "you are a loser,"
> would meet your high intellectual standards? Should he respond with an
> equally witty "you are a fjucktard"?

Did Anthony give you a good handjob for this post? Don't let him cheat
you.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

tjd wrote:
> I don't know what the solution is or how much of it is the fault of
> any individual(s), but it rather sad what has happened to these
> newsgroups... I was never a big poster but I read them regularly for
> a long time and now, I'll stop by occasionally but most every thread
> seems to quickly deteriorate into the same old flamewar...
>
> On Aug 10, 2:46 pm, Thomas Borchert >
> wrote:
>> These two have reached their goal: The group has been destroyed.

Interesting. I just stopped by myself for a few seconds of lurking. I
don't post here much any longer.
In this thread there are at present 41 posts ABOUT Mxsmanic and a
single post actually FROM Mxsmanic.
Food for thought perhaps??
:-))))


--
Dudley Henriques

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote

> Interesting. I just stopped by myself for a few seconds of lurking. I
> don't post here much any longer.
> In this thread there are at present 41 posts ABOUT Mxsmanic and a single
> post actually FROM Mxsmanic.
> Food for thought perhaps??
> :-))))
Yes, but sometimes, ya gotts to sit back and hash out how to deal with a
problem.

This is one such problem (person) that needs to be (hashed) out, and the
next problem is how to reach that goal.

It is so simple, that I am amazed that people have not: 1) realized that
there is a problem, and 2) realize that the solution is so very, very
easy.

I am surprised that this group, chucked full of pilots (generally, a group
of very intelligent people) have not dealt with the situation, long, long
ago.
--
Jim in NC

[Frank Olson]

wrote:

> I would agree it is probably not likely from an isolated post, but
> once in a while you will find people joining in on the "fun" and
> reinforcing the point.
>
>

And those would be the ones that post "crash videos" on you-tube... :-)

[F. Baum]

On Aug 11, 6:12*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> Interesting. I just stopped by myself for a few seconds of lurking. I
> don't post here much any longer.
> * In this thread there are at present 41 posts ABOUT Mxsmanic and a
> single post actually FROM Mxsmanic.
> Food for thought perhaps??
> Dudley Henriques

Chicken and egg thing mebey ?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

F. Baum wrote:
> On Aug 11, 6:12 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Interesting. I just stopped by myself for a few seconds of lurking. I
>> don't post here much any longer.
>> In this thread there are at present 41 posts ABOUT Mxsmanic and a
>> single post actually FROM Mxsmanic.
>> Food for thought perhaps??
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Chicken and egg thing mebey ?

41/1 posting ratio says it all I think :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Aug 11, 8:12 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> tjd wrote:
> > I don't know what the solution is or how much of it is the fault of
> > any individual(s), but it rather sad what has happened to these
> > newsgroups... I was never a big poster but I read them regularly for
> > a long time and now, I'll stop by occasionally but most every thread
> > seems to quickly deteriorate into the same old flamewar...
>
> > On Aug 10, 2:46 pm, Thomas Borchert >
> > wrote:
> >> These two have reached their goal: The group has been destroyed.
>
> Interesting. I just stopped by myself for a few seconds of lurking. I
> don't post here much any longer.
> In this thread there are at present 41 posts ABOUT Mxsmanic and a
> single post actually FROM Mxsmanic.
> Food for thought perhaps??
> :-))))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

I drop by only once in a while, and I've always thought that MX may be
stubborn but his adversaries bring shame to aviation.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> On Aug 11, 8:12 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> tjd wrote:
>>> I don't know what the solution is or how much of it is the fault of
>>> any individual(s), but it rather sad what has happened to these
>>> newsgroups... I was never a big poster but I read them regularly for
>>> a long time and now, I'll stop by occasionally but most every thread
>>> seems to quickly deteriorate into the same old flamewar...
>>> On Aug 10, 2:46 pm, Thomas Borchert >
>>> wrote:
>>>> These two have reached their goal: The group has been destroyed.
>> Interesting. I just stopped by myself for a few seconds of lurking. I
>> don't post here much any longer.
>> In this thread there are at present 41 posts ABOUT Mxsmanic and a
>> single post actually FROM Mxsmanic.
>> Food for thought perhaps??
>> :-))))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I drop by only once in a while, and I've always thought that MX may be
> stubborn but his adversaries bring shame to aviation.
>

It's denigrated over time to a really unfortunate situation .

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dallas]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:51:21 GMT, Steve Foley wrote:

> I could probably store six months of the
> remaining messages on my watch.

Usenet groups are like the stock market.. sometimes they take a nose dive
and stay in the gutter for a while. Sometimes your favorite players go
away and never come back.

It's been my observation that the pendulum swings back on it's own without
being forced and the missing in action are usually replaced by new players
of equal value.


--
Dallas