A Google Groups alternative to rec.aviation.piloting?

[Jim Logajan]

I note that some people who wish to migrate to a more controlled aviation
forum have a couple issues with the alternatives such as AOPA and POA. The
first being that they appear U.S. centric. The second that the layout is
actually a backward step in user friendliness.

While it isn't as good as some of the classic threaded newsreaders, it
occurs to me that creating a "Google Groups only" (non-Usenet) forum might
help a little toward addressing the two main issues (that I'm aware of,
anyway.) This is Google's info on creating a group on their systems:

http://groups.google.com/intl/en/googlegroups/overview.html

The third issue is who would most people feel comfortable with as the PIC
of such a group?

[Vaughn Simon]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> The third issue is who would most people feel comfortable with as the PIC
> of such a group?

Only God, but I hear that she has been too busy lately to take on the job.
Until then, you will find me right here on rap.


--
Vaughn

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nothing personal, but if you are posting through Google Groups I may not receive
your message. Google refuses to control the flood of spam messages originating
in their system, so on any given day I may or may not have Google blocked. Try
a real NNTP server & news reader program and you will never go back. All you
need is access to an NNTP server (AKA "news server") and a news reader program.
You probably already have a news reader program in your computer (Hint: Outlook
Express). Assuming that your Usenet needs are modest, use
http://news.aioe.org/ for free and/or http://www.teranews.com/ for a one-time
$3.95 setup fee.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Will poofread for food.

[buttman]

On Aug 14, 6:53*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> I note that some people who wish to migrate to a more controlled aviation
> forum have a couple issues with the alternatives such as AOPA and POA. The
> first being that they appear U.S. centric. The second that the layout is
> actually a backward step in user friendliness.
>
> While it isn't as good as some of the classic threaded newsreaders, it
> occurs to me that creating a "Google Groups only" (non-Usenet) forum might
> help a little toward addressing the two main issues (that I'm aware of,
> anyway.) This is Google's info on creating a group on their systems:
>
> http://groups.google.com/intl/en/googlegroups/overview.html
>
> The third issue is who would most people feel comfortable with as the PIC
> of such a group?

That would be worse. The reason this group has degraded is because of
ad-hominem arguments. Notice I didn't say ad-hominem attacks. In my
opinion more damage has been done to this group by allowing
"annointed" people free rides and giving "non-anointed" people attacks
regardless of what they say. The way it should be is that if someone
like Dudley says something stupid, he should get called out on it. If
MX says something, he should get called out on it. If Dudley says
something great he should be praised for it. If MX says something
good, he should get praised for it. But thats not how its done here.
No matter what MX says, he'll get ribbed. No matter what Dudley says,
he'll get praised. If you have a group of people officially annointed
as group moderators, this effect will only be magnified and the
discussion will be even less useless.

I see this sort of thing happen with moderated groups all the time.
You have 4 or 5 people anointed as the "chosen ones", who then strut
around the group with their chests puffed out. They no longer put any
effort into their postings because why bother when you are already
automatically revered by the whole group? If, for some reason you
aren't revered by a member, you can just delete their messages or ban
them from the group.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

buttman wrote:
> On Aug 14, 6:53 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> I note that some people who wish to migrate to a more controlled aviation
>> forum have a couple issues with the alternatives such as AOPA and POA. The
>> first being that they appear U.S. centric. The second that the layout is
>> actually a backward step in user friendliness.
>>
>> While it isn't as good as some of the classic threaded newsreaders, it
>> occurs to me that creating a "Google Groups only" (non-Usenet) forum might
>> help a little toward addressing the two main issues (that I'm aware of,
>> anyway.) This is Google's info on creating a group on their systems:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/intl/en/googlegroups/overview.html
>>
>> The third issue is who would most people feel comfortable with as the PIC
>> of such a group?
>
> That would be worse. The reason this group has degraded is because of
> ad-hominem arguments. Notice I didn't say ad-hominem attacks. In my
> opinion more damage has been done to this group by allowing
> "annointed" people free rides and giving "non-anointed" people attacks
> regardless of what they say. The way it should be is that if someone
> like Dudley says something stupid, he should get called out on it. If
> MX says something, he should get called out on it. If Dudley says
> something great he should be praised for it. If MX says something
> good, he should get praised for it. But thats not how its done here.
> No matter what MX says, he'll get ribbed. No matter what Dudley says,
> he'll get praised. If you have a group of people officially annointed
> as group moderators, this effect will only be magnified and the
> discussion will be even less useless.
>
> I see this sort of thing happen with moderated groups all the time.
> You have 4 or 5 people anointed as the "chosen ones", who then strut
> around the group with their chests puffed out. They no longer put any
> effort into their postings because why bother when you are already
> automatically revered by the whole group? If, for some reason you
> aren't revered by a member, you can just delete their messages or ban
> them from the group.

You're so full of crap it's amazing. Your problem with me started the
day we got into a discussion on you pulling mixture on a student and
you've been a royal PIA ever since.
Not that I mind, but take this post for example. You state something
that is totally false as though it's accepted fact and think it will
stand It won't!
First of all, I am not now, nor have I ever been anything "special" on
this forum, either in my own opinion or in that of others. You simply
pull this crap out of your ass and post it I guess for your own
amusement or for whatever damage you envision it doing.
No big deal. Post away. I think most of the people who frequent this
forum, or at least the ones who would matter anyway, know you have an
agenda here.
Now on to something else you said that reeks of false premise. I've been
posting on these forums for over ten years. Go Google me and come up
with something "stupid" I've posted on these groups and present it here
for everyone to see will you please. I'd be very interested to read what
that happened to be.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Tony]

On Aug 15, 2:40 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> buttman wrote:
> > On Aug 14, 6:53 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> >> I note that some people who wish to migrate to a more controlled aviation
> >> forum have a couple issues with the alternatives such as AOPA and POA. The
> >> first being that they appear U.S. centric. The second that the layout is
> >> actually a backward step in user friendliness.
>
> >> While it isn't as good as some of the classic threaded newsreaders, it
> >> occurs to me that creating a "Google Groups only" (non-Usenet) forum might
> >> help a little toward addressing the two main issues (that I'm aware of,
> >> anyway.) This is Google's info on creating a group on their systems:
>
> >>http://groups.google.com/intl/en/googlegroups/overview.html
>
> >> The third issue is who would most people feel comfortable with as the PIC
> >> of such a group?
>
> > That would be worse. The reason this group has degraded is because of
> > ad-hominem arguments. Notice I didn't say ad-hominem attacks. In my
> > opinion more damage has been done to this group by allowing
> > "annointed" people free rides and giving "non-anointed" people attacks
> > regardless of what they say. The way it should be is that if someone
> > like Dudley says something stupid, he should get called out on it. If
> > MX says something, he should get called out on it. If Dudley says
> > something great he should be praised for it. If MX says something
> > good, he should get praised for it. But thats not how its done here.
> > No matter what MX says, he'll get ribbed. No matter what Dudley says,
> > he'll get praised. If you have a group of people officially annointed
> > as group moderators, this effect will only be magnified and the
> > discussion will be even less useless.
>
> > I see this sort of thing happen with moderated groups all the time.
> > You have 4 or 5 people anointed as the "chosen ones", who then strut
> > around the group with their chests puffed out. They no longer put any
> > effort into their postings because why bother when you are already
> > automatically revered by the whole group? If, for some reason you
> > aren't revered by a member, you can just delete their messages or ban
> > them from the group.
>
> You're so full of crap it's amazing. Your problem with me started the
> day we got into a discussion on you pulling mixture on a student and
> you've been a royal PIA ever since.
> Not that I mind, but take this post for example. You state something
> that is totally false as though it's accepted fact and think it will
> stand It won't!
> First of all, I am not now, nor have I ever been anything "special" on
> this forum, either in my own opinion or in that of others. You simply
> pull this crap out of your ass and post it I guess for your own
> amusement or for whatever damage you envision it doing.
> No big deal. Post away. I think most of the people who frequent this
> forum, or at least the ones who would matter anyway, know you have an
> agenda here.
> Now on to something else you said that reeks of false premise. I've been
> posting on these forums for over ten years. Go Google me and come up
> with something "stupid" I've posted on these groups and present it here
> for everyone to see will you please. I'd be very interested to read what
> that happened to be.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Dud, the most stupid thing you might have done is to engage buttman in
a dialog. Think of his posts as a gambit: it's sometimes best to
decline them. One of the more popular chess openings in the Queen's
Gambit, and in most circles the opening continues with Queen's Gambit
Declined. I've resolved to treat Mx's posts as gambits and my
preferred play for a while is going to be Mx gambit declined.

BTW, I did find the NTSB report on John Jr available on line. I think
your questions about instructor advice is well addressed there. He had
310 hours TT, of which about 75 were without a CFI or CFII aboard.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Tony wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2:40 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> buttman wrote:
>>> On Aug 14, 6:53 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>>> I note that some people who wish to migrate to a more controlled aviation
>>>> forum have a couple issues with the alternatives such as AOPA and POA. The
>>>> first being that they appear U.S. centric. The second that the layout is
>>>> actually a backward step in user friendliness.
>>>> While it isn't as good as some of the classic threaded newsreaders, it
>>>> occurs to me that creating a "Google Groups only" (non-Usenet) forum might
>>>> help a little toward addressing the two main issues (that I'm aware of,
>>>> anyway.) This is Google's info on creating a group on their systems:
>>>> http://groups.google.com/intl/en/googlegroups/overview.html
>>>> The third issue is who would most people feel comfortable with as the PIC
>>>> of such a group?
>>> That would be worse. The reason this group has degraded is because of
>>> ad-hominem arguments. Notice I didn't say ad-hominem attacks. In my
>>> opinion more damage has been done to this group by allowing
>>> "annointed" people free rides and giving "non-anointed" people attacks
>>> regardless of what they say. The way it should be is that if someone
>>> like Dudley says something stupid, he should get called out on it. If
>>> MX says something, he should get called out on it. If Dudley says
>>> something great he should be praised for it. If MX says something
>>> good, he should get praised for it. But thats not how its done here.
>>> No matter what MX says, he'll get ribbed. No matter what Dudley says,
>>> he'll get praised. If you have a group of people officially annointed
>>> as group moderators, this effect will only be magnified and the
>>> discussion will be even less useless.
>>> I see this sort of thing happen with moderated groups all the time.
>>> You have 4 or 5 people anointed as the "chosen ones", who then strut
>>> around the group with their chests puffed out. They no longer put any
>>> effort into their postings because why bother when you are already
>>> automatically revered by the whole group? If, for some reason you
>>> aren't revered by a member, you can just delete their messages or ban
>>> them from the group.
>> You're so full of crap it's amazing. Your problem with me started the
>> day we got into a discussion on you pulling mixture on a student and
>> you've been a royal PIA ever since.
>> Not that I mind, but take this post for example. You state something
>> that is totally false as though it's accepted fact and think it will
>> stand It won't!
>> First of all, I am not now, nor have I ever been anything "special" on
>> this forum, either in my own opinion or in that of others. You simply
>> pull this crap out of your ass and post it I guess for your own
>> amusement or for whatever damage you envision it doing.
>> No big deal. Post away. I think most of the people who frequent this
>> forum, or at least the ones who would matter anyway, know you have an
>> agenda here.
>> Now on to something else you said that reeks of false premise. I've been
>> posting on these forums for over ten years. Go Google me and come up
>> with something "stupid" I've posted on these groups and present it here
>> for everyone to see will you please. I'd be very interested to read what
>> that happened to be.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Dud, the most stupid thing you might have done is to engage buttman in
> a dialog. Think of his posts as a gambit: it's sometimes best to
> decline them. One of the more popular chess openings in the Queen's
> Gambit, and in most circles the opening continues with Queen's Gambit
> Declined. I've resolved to treat Mx's posts as gambits and my
> preferred play for a while is going to be Mx gambit declined.


I fear your positive post will be taken as an En Passant by our pal
Buttman :-))
You are right of course and I'll usually let it pass for the exact
reasons you gave. I just don't feel like taking it today. Bad day. The
cat's misbehaving!! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Jim Logajan]

Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> First of all, I am not now, nor have I ever been anything "special" on
> this forum, either in my own opinion or in that of others.

Well ... you appear to have the same hairline I do, so on that aspect I
feel at least a certain affinity. ;-)

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> You're so full of crap it's amazing. Your problem with me started the
> day we got into a discussion on you pulling mixture on a student and
> you've been a royal PIA ever since.

Nothing in his post indicated to me that he had any problem with you.

Retaliating against a personal attack makes a poor impression. Retaliating
when there was no attack in the first place makes an even worse impression.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> You're so full of crap it's amazing. Your problem with me started the
>> day we got into a discussion on you pulling mixture on a student and
>> you've been a royal PIA ever since.
>
> Nothing in his post indicated to me that he had any problem with you.
>
> Retaliating against a personal attack makes a poor impression. Retaliating
> when there was no attack in the first place makes an even worse impression.

Go **** yourself!

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> First of all, I am not now, nor have I ever been anything "special" on
>> this forum, either in my own opinion or in that of others.
>
> Well ... you appear to have the same hairline I do, so on that aspect I
> feel at least a certain affinity. ;-)

When I tell my wife I'm going to get a haircut she says, "Why don't you
get them both cut?"

--
Dudley Henriques

[buttman]

On Aug 15, 2:43*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Dudley Henriques writes:
>
> >> You're so full of crap it's amazing. Your problem with me started the
> >> day we got into a discussion on you pulling mixture on a student and
> >> you've been a royal PIA ever since.
>
> > Nothing in his post indicated to me that he had any problem with you.
>
> > Retaliating against a personal attack makes a poor impression. *Retaliating
> > when there was no attack in the first place makes an even worse impression.
>
> Go **** yourself!
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Thank you for proving my point.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

buttman wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2:43 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>> You're so full of crap it's amazing. Your problem with me started the
>>>> day we got into a discussion on you pulling mixture on a student and
>>>> you've been a royal PIA ever since.
>>> Nothing in his post indicated to me that he had any problem with you.
>>> Retaliating against a personal attack makes a poor impression. Retaliating
>>> when there was no attack in the first place makes an even worse impression.
>> Go **** yourself!
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Thank you for proving my point.

Quite to the contrary, you have proved MY point. You will notice that
the posts reacting to my answer to you are mixed, therefore your premise
that I was being treated "specially" on this forum is as incorrect as my
opinion that you are probably the worst instructor I've ever seen
posting on these forums IS correct.

--
Dudley Henriques

[buttman]

On Aug 15, 12:40*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> buttman wrote:
> > On Aug 14, 6:53 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> >> I note that some people who wish to migrate to a more controlled aviation
> >> forum have a couple issues with the alternatives such as AOPA and POA. The
> >> first being that they appear U.S. centric. The second that the layout is
> >> actually a backward step in user friendliness.
>
> >> While it isn't as good as some of the classic threaded newsreaders, it
> >> occurs to me that creating a "Google Groups only" (non-Usenet) forum might
> >> help a little toward addressing the two main issues (that I'm aware of,
> >> anyway.) This is Google's info on creating a group on their systems:
>
> >>http://groups.google.com/intl/en/googlegroups/overview.html
>
> >> The third issue is who would most people feel comfortable with as the PIC
> >> of such a group?
>
> > That would be worse. The reason this group has degraded is because of
> > ad-hominem arguments. Notice I didn't say ad-hominem attacks. In my
> > opinion more damage has been done to this group by allowing
> > "annointed" people free rides and giving "non-anointed" people attacks
> > regardless of what they say. The way it should be is that if someone
> > like Dudley says something stupid, he should get called out on it. If
> > MX says something, he should get called out on it. If Dudley says
> > something great he should be praised for it. If MX says something
> > good, he should get praised for it. But thats not how its done here.
> > No matter what MX says, he'll get ribbed. No matter what Dudley says,
> > he'll get praised. If you have a group of people officially annointed
> > as group moderators, this effect will only be magnified and the
> > discussion will be even less useless.
>
> > I see this sort of thing happen with moderated groups all the time.
> > You have 4 or 5 people anointed as the "chosen ones", who then strut
> > around the group with their chests puffed out. They no longer put any
> > effort into their postings because why bother when you are already
> > automatically revered by the whole group? If, for some reason you
> > aren't revered by a member, you can just delete their messages or ban
> > them from the group.
>
> You're so full of crap it's amazing. Your problem with me started the
> day we got into a discussion on you pulling mixture on a student and
> you've been a royal PIA ever since.
> Not that I mind, but take this post for example. You state something
> that is totally false as though it's accepted fact and think it will
> stand It won't!
> First of all, I am not now, nor have I ever been anything "special" on
> this forum, either in my own opinion or in that of others. You simply
> pull this crap out of your ass and post it I guess for your own
> amusement or for whatever damage you envision it doing.
> No big deal. Post away. I think most of the people who frequent this
> forum, or at least the ones who would matter anyway, know you have an
> agenda here.
> Now on to something else you said that reeks of false premise. I've been
> posting on these forums for over ten years. Go Google me and come up
> with something "stupid" I've posted on these groups and present it here
> for everyone to see will you please. I'd be very interested to read what
> that happened to be.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Jeez, calm down. I was just using you as an example. I said " if
someone like Dudley says something stupid", not "Dudley always says
something stupid". And to be quite honest, 90% of you posts are
neither great nor crappy. Usually you just end up either stating the
obvious or posting something completely banal. The problem is with
sycophants replying to your less than great posts with "OH WOW ANOTHER
GREAT GREAT DUDLEY POST THANK YOU DUDLEY YOU ARE SO AWESOME" which
gives you that sense of importance you have.

But anyways, to illustrate the point I'm trying to make a little
further, consider for a minute what would happen if I were to go back
to 2002, find a well received Dudley post, and post it here right now
under my name. Will it get the exact same response as it did under
Dudley's name? *Should* that post get the same response? If it doesn't
get the same warm response, why not? What if MX reposted it instead of
me?

That is what is wrong with this group right now. No one judges what
your post contains, they only judge who you are, or worse, who they
think you are.

What I'm trying to say here is if this place truly needs *less of* is
creating more celebrity-type personalities to further underminethe
creation of true down-to-business aviation discussion.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

buttman wrote:
> On Aug 15, 12:40 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> buttman wrote:
>>> On Aug 14, 6:53 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>>> I note that some people who wish to migrate to a more controlled aviation
>>>> forum have a couple issues with the alternatives such as AOPA and POA. The
>>>> first being that they appear U.S. centric. The second that the layout is
>>>> actually a backward step in user friendliness.
>>>> While it isn't as good as some of the classic threaded newsreaders, it
>>>> occurs to me that creating a "Google Groups only" (non-Usenet) forum might
>>>> help a little toward addressing the two main issues (that I'm aware of,
>>>> anyway.) This is Google's info on creating a group on their systems:
>>>> http://groups.google.com/intl/en/googlegroups/overview.html
>>>> The third issue is who would most people feel comfortable with as the PIC
>>>> of such a group?
>>> That would be worse. The reason this group has degraded is because of
>>> ad-hominem arguments. Notice I didn't say ad-hominem attacks. In my
>>> opinion more damage has been done to this group by allowing
>>> "annointed" people free rides and giving "non-anointed" people attacks
>>> regardless of what they say. The way it should be is that if someone
>>> like Dudley says something stupid, he should get called out on it. If
>>> MX says something, he should get called out on it. If Dudley says
>>> something great he should be praised for it. If MX says something
>>> good, he should get praised for it. But thats not how its done here.
>>> No matter what MX says, he'll get ribbed. No matter what Dudley says,
>>> he'll get praised. If you have a group of people officially annointed
>>> as group moderators, this effect will only be magnified and the
>>> discussion will be even less useless.
>>> I see this sort of thing happen with moderated groups all the time.
>>> You have 4 or 5 people anointed as the "chosen ones", who then strut
>>> around the group with their chests puffed out. They no longer put any
>>> effort into their postings because why bother when you are already
>>> automatically revered by the whole group? If, for some reason you
>>> aren't revered by a member, you can just delete their messages or ban
>>> them from the group.
>> You're so full of crap it's amazing. Your problem with me started the
>> day we got into a discussion on you pulling mixture on a student and
>> you've been a royal PIA ever since.
>> Not that I mind, but take this post for example. You state something
>> that is totally false as though it's accepted fact and think it will
>> stand It won't!
>> First of all, I am not now, nor have I ever been anything "special" on
>> this forum, either in my own opinion or in that of others. You simply
>> pull this crap out of your ass and post it I guess for your own
>> amusement or for whatever damage you envision it doing.
>> No big deal. Post away. I think most of the people who frequent this
>> forum, or at least the ones who would matter anyway, know you have an
>> agenda here.
>> Now on to something else you said that reeks of false premise. I've been
>> posting on these forums for over ten years. Go Google me and come up
>> with something "stupid" I've posted on these groups and present it here
>> for everyone to see will you please. I'd be very interested to read what
>> that happened to be.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Jeez, calm down. I was just using you as an example. I said " if
> someone like Dudley says something stupid", not "Dudley always says
> something stupid". And to be quite honest, 90% of you posts are
> neither great nor crappy. Usually you just end up either stating the
> obvious or posting something completely banal. The problem is with
> sycophants replying to your less than great posts with "OH WOW ANOTHER
> GREAT GREAT DUDLEY POST THANK YOU DUDLEY YOU ARE SO AWESOME" which
> gives you that sense of importance you have.
>
> But anyways, to illustrate the point I'm trying to make a little
> further, consider for a minute what would happen if I were to go back
> to 2002, find a well received Dudley post, and post it here right now
> under my name. Will it get the exact same response as it did under
> Dudley's name? *Should* that post get the same response? If it doesn't
> get the same warm response, why not? What if MX reposted it instead of
> me?
>
> That is what is wrong with this group right now. No one judges what
> your post contains, they only judge who you are, or worse, who they
> think you are.
>
> What I'm trying to say here is if this place truly needs *less of* is
> creating more celebrity-type personalities to further underminethe
> creation of true down-to-business aviation discussion.

With me you have no point. You are possibly the worst CFI I have ever
seen posting on these groups and I've said that on more than one
occasion and will continue to use any credibility I own to advise
students NOT to fly with you.

I'll be glad to use every opportunity you give me by insisting to use my
name in these ridiculous posts of yours to point students to the
following thread started by you on the student group some time ago.
Students reading this thread will note that the procedure you are asking
about as being a good idea you had already done with a student before
asking. They will as well note that several other CFI's besides myself
engaged you on the issue.
Your "mentioning" and "using" of my name in many posts you make has been
based on my absolute and total lack of respect for you as a CFI. I
accept that, and in fact would expect that from someone I have said
public ally I would not fly with, nor recommend anyone else fly with.

So for those who might need a "refresher" on exactly wht I'm talking
about concerning you, I suggest reading the following thread;


> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.student/browse_thread/thread/bb7456ddb7679b82/fdd5ed01c0a5aac0?hl=en&lnk=st&q=BUTTMAN+MIXTURE#fdd5ed01c0a5aac0


Thank you for the opportunity to present this again. I will continue
doing this every time you post mentioning my name.
Thank you

--
Dudley Henriques

[buttman]

On Aug 15, 4:53*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> Thank you for the opportunity to present this again. I will continue
> doing this every time you post mentioning my name.
> Thank you
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

You're doing it again! You're just illustrating my point for me.

This thread is not about me, its not about you, its not about pulling
the fuel valve on takeoff. Its about how certain people's egos degrade
discussion on this forum by bringing personalities into the picture.
Your sole argument here is "this guy made a lot of dumb posts in the
past, don't listen to anything he says, because by definition he is
wrong" by bringing up completely unrelated posts I made a year ago.

Instead of arguing against the argument, you rather argue against the
person. And it's not just you, many others are guilty too.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Aug 14, 6:53*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> I note that some people who wish to migrate to a more controlled
>> aviation forum have a couple issues with the alternatives such as
>> AOPA and POA. Th
> e
>> first being that they appear U.S. centric. The second that the layout
>> is actually a backward step in user friendliness.
>>
>> While it isn't as good as some of the classic threaded newsreaders,
>> it occurs to me that creating a "Google Groups only" (non-Usenet)
>> forum migh
> t
>> help a little toward addressing the two main issues (that I'm aware
>> of, anyway.) This is Google's info on creating a group on their
>> systems:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/intl/en/googlegroups/overview.html
>>
>> The third issue is who would most people feel comfortable with as the
>> PIC of such a group?
>
> That would be worse. The reason this group has degraded is because of
> ad-hominem arguments. Notice I didn't say ad-hominem attacks. In my
> opinion more damage has been done to this group by allowing
> "annointed" people free rides and giving "non-anointed" people attacks
> regardless of what they say. The way it should be is that if someone
> like Dudley says something stupid, he should get called out on it. If
> MX says something, he should get called out on it. If Dudley says
> something great he should be praised for it. If MX says something
> good, he should get praised for it. But thats not how its done here.
> No matter what MX says, he'll get ribbed. No matter what Dudley says,
> he'll get praised. If you have a group of people officially annointed
> as group moderators, this effect will only be magnified and the
> discussion will be even less useless.
>

Awww, Maxie... You feeling left out because you're an idiot?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Tony > wrote in
:

> On Aug 15, 2:40 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> buttman wrote:
>> > On Aug 14, 6:53 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> >> I note that some people who wish to migrate to a more controlled
>> >> aviation forum have a couple issues with the alternatives such as
>> >> AOPA and POA. The first being that they appear U.S. centric. The
>> >> second that the layout is actually a backward step in user
>> >> friendliness.
>>
>> >> While it isn't as good as some of the classic threaded
>> >> newsreaders, it occurs to me that creating a "Google Groups only"
>> >> (non-Usenet) forum might help a little toward addressing the two
>> >> main issues (that I'm aware of, anyway.) This is Google's info on
>> >> creating a group on their systems:
>>
>> >>http://groups.google.com/intl/en/googlegroups/overview.html
>>
>> >> The third issue is who would most people feel comfortable with as
>> >> the PIC of such a group?
>>
>> > That would be worse. The reason this group has degraded is because
>> > of ad-hominem arguments. Notice I didn't say ad-hominem attacks. In
>> > my opinion more damage has been done to this group by allowing
>> > "annointed" people free rides and giving "non-anointed" people
>> > attacks regardless of what they say. The way it should be is that
>> > if someone like Dudley says something stupid, he should get called
>> > out on it. If MX says something, he should get called out on it. If
>> > Dudley says something great he should be praised for it. If MX says
>> > something good, he should get praised for it. But thats not how its
>> > done here. No matter what MX says, he'll get ribbed. No matter what
>> > Dudley says, he'll get praised. If you have a group of people
>> > officially annointed as group moderators, this effect will only be
>> > magnified and the discussion will be even less useless.
>>
>> > I see this sort of thing happen with moderated groups all the time.
>> > You have 4 or 5 people anointed as the "chosen ones", who then
>> > strut around the group with their chests puffed out. They no longer
>> > put any effort into their postings because why bother when you are
>> > already automatically revered by the whole group? If, for some
>> > reason you aren't revered by a member, you can just delete their
>> > messages or ban them from the group.
>>
>> You're so full of crap it's amazing. Your problem with me started the
>> day we got into a discussion on you pulling mixture on a student and
>> you've been a royal PIA ever since.
>> Not that I mind, but take this post for example. You state something
>> that is totally false as though it's accepted fact and think it will
>> stand It won't!
>> First of all, I am not now, nor have I ever been anything "special"
>> on this forum, either in my own opinion or in that of others. You
>> simply pull this crap out of your ass and post it I guess for your
>> own amusement or for whatever damage you envision it doing.
>> No big deal. Post away. I think most of the people who frequent this
>> forum, or at least the ones who would matter anyway, know you have an
>> agenda here.
>> Now on to something else you said that reeks of false premise. I've
>> been posting on these forums for over ten years. Go Google me and
>> come up with something "stupid" I've posted on these groups and
>> present it here for everyone to see will you please. I'd be very
>> interested to read what that happened to be.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Dud, the most stupid thing you might have done is to engage buttman in
> a dialog. Think of his posts as a gambit: it's sometimes best to
> decline them. One of the more popular chess openings in the Queen's
> Gambit, and in most circles the opening continues with Queen's Gambit
> Declined. I've resolved to treat Mx's posts as gambits and my
> preferred play for a while is going to be Mx gambit declined.
>

He doesn't do Gambits. He just flails around like a goldfish on the
floor.

Pretty much just like he flies.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> You're so full of crap it's amazing. Your problem with me started the
>> day we got into a discussion on you pulling mixture on a student and
>> you've been a royal PIA ever since.
>
> Nothing in his post indicated to me that he had any problem with you.

you're an idiot.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Aug 15, 2:43*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> > Dudley Henriques writes:
>>
>> >> You're so full of crap it's amazing. Your problem with me started
>> >> the day we got into a discussion on you pulling mixture on a
>> >> student and you've been a royal PIA ever since.
>>
>> > Nothing in his post indicated to me that he had any problem with
>> > you.
>>
>> > Retaliating against a personal attack makes a poor impression.
>> > *Retal
> iating
>> > when there was no attack in the first place makes an even worse
>> > impress
> ion.
>>
>> Go **** yourself!
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Thank you for proving my point.
>

And how did he do that fjukktard?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Aug 15, 12:40*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> buttman wrote:
>> > On Aug 14, 6:53 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> >> I note that some people who wish to migrate to a more controlled
>> >> aviat
> ion
>> >> forum have a couple issues with the alternatives such as AOPA and
>> >> POA.
> The
>> >> first being that they appear U.S. centric. The second that the
>> >> layout
> is
>> >> actually a backward step in user friendliness.
>>
>> >> While it isn't as good as some of the classic threaded
>> >> newsreaders, it occurs to me that creating a "Google Groups only"
>> >> (non-Usenet) forum m
> ight
>> >> help a little toward addressing the two main issues (that I'm
>> >> aware of
> ,
>> >> anyway.) This is Google's info on creating a group on their
>> >> systems:
>>
>> >>http://groups.google.com/intl/en/googlegroups/overview.html
>>
>> >> The third issue is who would most people feel comfortable with as
>> >> the
> PIC
>> >> of such a group?
>>
>> > That would be worse. The reason this group has degraded is because
>> > of ad-hominem arguments. Notice I didn't say ad-hominem attacks. In
>> > my opinion more damage has been done to this group by allowing
>> > "annointed" people free rides and giving "non-anointed" people
>> > attacks regardless of what they say. The way it should be is that
>> > if someone like Dudley says something stupid, he should get called
>> > out on it. If MX says something, he should get called out on it. If
>> > Dudley says something great he should be praised for it. If MX says
>> > something good, he should get praised for it. But thats not how its
>> > done here. No matter what MX says, he'll get ribbed. No matter what
>> > Dudley says, he'll get praised. If you have a group of people
>> > officially annointed as group moderators, this effect will only be
>> > magnified and the discussion will be even less useless.
>>
>> > I see this sort of thing happen with moderated groups all the time.
>> > You have 4 or 5 people anointed as the "chosen ones", who then
>> > strut around the group with their chests puffed out. They no longer
>> > put any effort into their postings because why bother when you are
>> > already automatically revered by the whole group? If, for some
>> > reason you aren't revered by a member, you can just delete their
>> > messages or ban them from the group.
>>
>> You're so full of crap it's amazing. Your problem with me started the
>> day we got into a discussion on you pulling mixture on a student and
>> you've been a royal PIA ever since.
>> Not that I mind, but take this post for example. You state something
>> that is totally false as though it's accepted fact and think it will
>> stand It won't!
>> First of all, I am not now, nor have I ever been anything "special"
>> on this forum, either in my own opinion or in that of others. You
>> simply pull this crap out of your ass and post it I guess for your
>> own amusement or for whatever damage you envision it doing.
>> No big deal. Post away. I think most of the people who frequent this
>> forum, or at least the ones who would matter anyway, know you have an
>> agenda here.
>> Now on to something else you said that reeks of false premise. I've
>> been posting on these forums for over ten years. Go Google me and
>> come up with something "stupid" I've posted on these groups and
>> present it here for everyone to see will you please. I'd be very
>> interested to read what that happened to be.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Jeez, calm down. I was just using you as an example. I said " if
> someone like Dudley says something stupid", not "Dudley always says
> something stupid". And to be quite honest, 90% of you posts are
> neither great nor crappy. Usually you just end up either stating the
> obvious or posting something completely banal. The problem is with
> sycophants replying to your less than great posts with "OH WOW ANOTHER
> GREAT GREAT DUDLEY POST THANK YOU DUDLEY YOU ARE SO AWESOME" which
> gives you that sense of importance you have.
>
> But anyways, to illustrate the point I'm trying to make a little
> further, consider for a minute what would happen if I were to go back
> to 2002, find a well received Dudley post, and post it here right now
> under my name. Will it get the exact same response as it did under
> Dudley's name?


Nope, because it would be patently obvious that you stole it since
you're a fjukkkktard.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

buttman > wrote in news:ba683e60-73d5-45c4-b617-
:

> On Aug 15, 4:53*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>> Thank you for the opportunity to present this again. I will continue
>> doing this every time you post mentioning my name.
>> Thank you
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> You're doing it again! You're just illustrating my point for me.

And yet nobody is listening to you.


go figger.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

buttman wrote:
> On Aug 15, 4:53 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Thank you for the opportunity to present this again. I will continue
>> doing this every time you post mentioning my name.
>> Thank you
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> You're doing it again! You're just illustrating my point for me.
>
> This thread is not about me, its not about you, its not about pulling
> the fuel valve on takeoff. Its about how certain people's egos degrade
> discussion on this forum by bringing personalities into the picture.
> Your sole argument here is "this guy made a lot of dumb posts in the
> past, don't listen to anything he says, because by definition he is
> wrong" by bringing up completely unrelated posts I made a year ago.
>
> Instead of arguing against the argument, you rather argue against the
> person. And it's not just you, many others are guilty too.

Yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm doing. In your case, it IS the person, NOT
the present subject.
You have used my name once more in a post in this thread to "make" your
"point". THAT is personal. I have responded to you making it perfectly
clear to anyone (who for whatever reason evades me) might be even
remotely interested in WHY you insist on using my name in this manner.
I say again and will continue to say that you represent everything I
have spent a lifetime in aviation attempting to correct.
Referencing that and nothing else, I again suggest that potential
students read the following thread that you began posted as a CFI and
make up their own minds about the why's of this discussion we're having.

> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.student/browse_thread/thread/bb7456ddb7679b82/fdd5ed01c0a5aac0?hl=en&lnk=st&q=BUTTMAN+MIXTURE#fdd5ed01c0a5aac0


--
Dudley Henriques

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:
>
> I note that some people who wish to migrate to a more controlled
> aviation forum have a couple issues with the alternatives such as
> AOPA and POA. The first being that they appear U.S. centric.
>

Gee, Pilots of America and AOPA, an American pilots' group, are US centric.
Who'da thunk it?

[buttman]

On Aug 15, 5:24*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> buttman wrote:
> > On Aug 15, 4:53 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Thank you for the opportunity to present this again. I will continue
> >> doing this every time you post mentioning my name.
> >> Thank you
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > You're doing it again! You're just illustrating my point for me.
>
> > This thread is not about me, its not about you, its not about pulling
> > the fuel valve on takeoff. Its about how certain people's egos degrade
> > discussion on this forum by bringing personalities into the picture.
> > Your sole argument here is "this guy made a lot of dumb posts in the
> > past, don't listen to anything he says, because by definition he is
> > wrong" by bringing up completely unrelated posts I made a year ago.
>
> > Instead of arguing against the argument, you rather argue against the
> > person. And it's not just you, many others are guilty too.
>
> Yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm doing. In your case, it IS the person, NOT
> the present subject.
> You have used my name once more in a post in this thread to "make" your
> "point". THAT is personal. I have responded to you making it perfectly
> clear to anyone (who for whatever reason evades me) might be even
> remotely interested in WHY you insist on using my name in this manner.
> I say again and will continue to say that you represent everything I
> have spent a lifetime in aviation attempting to correct.
> Referencing that and nothing else, I again suggest that potential
> students read the following thread that you began posted as a CFI and
> make up their own minds about the why's of this discussion we're having.


Well if you were deeply offended by me using your name in my post,
then I am truly sorry. I didn't do it to insult you. I thought I made
it clear what the point I was trying to make was. If I could edit
usenet posts, I'd go back and change it to someone else's name.

>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.student/browse_thread/thr...
>
> --
> Dudey Henriques

Also, just to put this out there, Dudley has, for months claimed me to
be "the worst CFI I've ever seen", "the type of person I've spent a
lifetime to try to correct", etc. But he has never elaborated on this,
ever. He just repeats these weasel phrases over and over again. If he
claims to be such an expert on CFI attitudes and aviation safety, then
why doesn't he make the case without resorting to smokescreen tactics
and weasel words? This is another example of people using their
sigfiles and reputation to do the arguing for them, which is exactly
what this group needs less of.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Aug 15, 5:24*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> buttman wrote:
>> > On Aug 15, 4:53 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> >> Thank you for the opportunity to present this again. I will
>> >> continue doing this every time you post mentioning my name.
>> >> Thank you
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> > You're doing it again! You're just illustrating my point for me.
>>
>> > This thread is not about me, its not about you, its not about
>> > pulling the fuel valve on takeoff. Its about how certain people's
>> > egos degrade discussion on this forum by bringing personalities
>> > into the picture. Your sole argument here is "this guy made a lot
>> > of dumb posts in the past, don't listen to anything he says,
>> > because by definition he is wrong" by bringing up completely
>> > unrelated posts I made a year ago.
>>
>> > Instead of arguing against the argument, you rather argue against
>> > the person. And it's not just you, many others are guilty too.
>>
>> Yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm doing. In your case, it IS the person,
>> NOT the present subject.
>> You have used my name once more in a post in this thread to "make"
>> your "point". THAT is personal. I have responded to you making it
>> perfectly clear to anyone (who for whatever reason evades me) might
>> be even remotely interested in WHY you insist on using my name in
>> this manner. I say again and will continue to say that you represent
>> everything I have spent a lifetime in aviation attempting to correct.
>> Referencing that and nothing else, I again suggest that potential
>> students read the following thread that you began posted as a CFI and
>> make up their own minds about the why's of this discussion we're
>> having.
>
>
> Well if you were deeply offended by me using your name in my post,
> then I am truly sorry. I didn't do it to insult you. I thought I made
> it clear what the point I was trying to make was. If I could edit
> usenet posts, I'd go back and change it to someone else's name.
>
>>
>> >
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.student/browse_thread/thr
>> >...
>>
>> --
>> Dudey Henriques
>
> Also, just to put this out there, Dudley has, for months claimed me to
> be "the worst CFI I've ever seen", "the type of person I've spent a
> lifetime to try to correct", etc. But he has never elaborated on this,
> ever.

Yes, he has.

that makes you a liar!

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

buttman wrote:
> On Aug 15, 5:24 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> buttman wrote:
>>> On Aug 15, 4:53 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Thank you for the opportunity to present this again. I will continue
>>>> doing this every time you post mentioning my name.
>>>> Thank you
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> You're doing it again! You're just illustrating my point for me.
>>> This thread is not about me, its not about you, its not about pulling
>>> the fuel valve on takeoff. Its about how certain people's egos degrade
>>> discussion on this forum by bringing personalities into the picture.
>>> Your sole argument here is "this guy made a lot of dumb posts in the
>>> past, don't listen to anything he says, because by definition he is
>>> wrong" by bringing up completely unrelated posts I made a year ago.
>>> Instead of arguing against the argument, you rather argue against the
>>> person. And it's not just you, many others are guilty too.
>> Yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm doing. In your case, it IS the person, NOT
>> the present subject.
>> You have used my name once more in a post in this thread to "make" your
>> "point". THAT is personal. I have responded to you making it perfectly
>> clear to anyone (who for whatever reason evades me) might be even
>> remotely interested in WHY you insist on using my name in this manner.
>> I say again and will continue to say that you represent everything I
>> have spent a lifetime in aviation attempting to correct.
>> Referencing that and nothing else, I again suggest that potential
>> students read the following thread that you began posted as a CFI and
>> make up their own minds about the why's of this discussion we're having.
>
>
> Well if you were deeply offended by me using your name in my post,
> then I am truly sorry. I didn't do it to insult you. I thought I made
> it clear what the point I was trying to make was. If I could edit
> usenet posts, I'd go back and change it to someone else's name.
>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.student/browse_thread/thr...
>> --
>> Dudey Henriques
>
> Also, just to put this out there, Dudley has, for months claimed me to
> be "the worst CFI I've ever seen", "the type of person I've spent a
> lifetime to try to correct", etc. But he has never elaborated on this,
> ever. He just repeats these weasel phrases over and over again. If he
> claims to be such an expert on CFI attitudes and aviation safety, then
> why doesn't he make the case without resorting to smokescreen tactics
> and weasel words? This is another example of people using their
> sigfiles and reputation to do the arguing for them, which is exactly
> what this group needs less of.

Full of crap as usual I see.

Although I have elaborated on this several times before on these forums,
I'll be more than happy to do it again here and now so that there can be
absolutely no misunderstanding as to why I view you as incompetent as a CFI.

You posted AS a CFI on these forums asking if shutting down the fuel on
takeoff with a student was a "good idea". You did this by your own word
in your initial post on the issue AFTER you had already done it with at
least one student. So right off the bat, you, posting as a CFI, were
asking a forum of pilots whether or not something you had already done
with a student was a good idea. This in itself constitutes extremely
poor PIC/CFI judgment as it establishes that you performed a specific
procedure with a student in the aircraft that at the moment you
performed that procedure you were not sure was safe and correct to perform.
This alone would disqualify you with me as a potential CFI hire.

Now, on to the rest of it.

When the fallacy of what you did was pointed out to you not only by
myself, but several other CFI's, instead of accepting the fact that what
you did might have been unsafe, you instead have consistently and ever
since not only attempted to defend the procedure with statements about
the length of the runway etc, but have actively engaged in an open
attempt to portray me as a know it all with some kind of a superiority
complex.

In summation, what you did by shutting down the fuel on take off with a
student was bad enough, as it's not necessary to do this to stress a
point and/or demonstrate an engine failure on takeoff. The reason for
this is quite simple. NO good instructor EVER deliberately puts a
student in a situation that purposely reduces or alters the existing
flight safety options. By selecting the fuel selector valve to OFF on
the takeoff roll, you deliberately put the student in unnecessary danger
by altering the escape option if power was needed to extricate the
aircraft from any unsafe condition that might arise on that takeoff.

What you did was not only unnecessary, it was unsafe!

The fact that you have chosen to challenge rather than simply thank the
instructors who have attempted to set you straight is an indication of a
personality trait I find freightening in a CFI.

I hope this post has answered any questions both you and others might
have had concerning this issue.
As you can see, I have addressed it quite clearly.



--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Go **** yourself!

I hope you keep a cooler head in the air.

[Mxsmanic]

buttman writes:

> But anyways, to illustrate the point I'm trying to make a little
> further, consider for a minute what would happen if I were to go back
> to 2002, find a well received Dudley post, and post it here right now
> under my name. Will it get the exact same response as it did under
> Dudley's name? *Should* that post get the same response? If it doesn't
> get the same warm response, why not? What if MX reposted it instead of
> me?

I've already tried a similar experiment, copying and pasting statements from
very reliable sources about aviation here in this group, and watching the
reaction. Invariably, those statements are rejected when they are posted
under my name, proof that the principle you describe is at least partially at
work. I'm sure that if someone in the treehouse club had posted the same
thing, it would be gospel.

This is pretty typical of most public discussion venues, especially those
dominated by men. I've seen considerably worse than this newsgroup, but I've
also seen better.

> That is what is wrong with this group right now. No one judges what
> your post contains, they only judge who you are, or worse, who they
> think you are.

It's human nature, especially among people who don't know what they are
talking about, or are insecure about their knowledge. They don't understand
the concepts and/or cannot discuss them objectively, so they resort to a
discussion of personalities. They cannot validate statements on their own, so
they depend upon their subjective opinion of the person making the statement
for their evaluation (and are often hopelessly incorrect in consequence).

> What I'm trying to say here is if this place truly needs *less of* is
> creating more celebrity-type personalities to further underminethe
> creation of true down-to-business aviation discussion.

Like all venues afflicted in this way, it needs to stop discussing people and
start discussion the nominal topic of the group (aviation).

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Go **** yourself!
>
> I hope you keep a cooler head in the air.

I seriously doubt that you ****ing yourself and my performance in the
air could even be remotely related.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Thank you for the opportunity to present this again. I will continue
> doing this every time you post mentioning my name.

In between your tantrums, an objective discussion of aviation would be most
welcome. I'm sure you're capable of it, but you must have the will to do it.

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Referencing that and nothing else, I again suggest that potential
> students read the following thread that you began posted as a CFI and
> make up their own minds about the why's of this discussion we're having.

I suggest that potential students here discuss aviation.

[Mxsmanic]

buttman writes:

> Also, just to put this out there, Dudley has, for months claimed me to
> be "the worst CFI I've ever seen", "the type of person I've spent a
> lifetime to try to correct", etc. But he has never elaborated on this,
> ever. He just repeats these weasel phrases over and over again. If he
> claims to be such an expert on CFI attitudes and aviation safety, then
> why doesn't he make the case without resorting to smokescreen tactics
> and weasel words?

Now you're engaging in the very behavior you just criticized. Care to discuss
aviation?

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> I seriously doubt that you ****ing yourself and my performance in the
> air could even be remotely related.

My point is that if you are as dominated by emotion when flying as you are
right now in this thread, you could be putting yourself (and passengers) in
danger.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Thank you for the opportunity to present this again. I will continue
>> doing this every time you post mentioning my name.
>
> In between your tantrums, an objective discussion of aviation would be most
> welcome. I'm sure you're capable of it, but you must have the will to do it.

Sorry Anthony, not with you or your buddy here. Perhaps you might find
something useful in the 67,800 posts showing for me in Google Aviation
groups :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> I seriously doubt that you ****ing yourself and my performance in the
>> air could even be remotely related.
>
> My point is that if you are as dominated by emotion when flying as you are
> right now in this thread, you could be putting yourself (and passengers) in
> danger.

Don't think so Anthony, at least no one over the past 50 odd years has
been lost anyway. :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Don't think so Anthony, at least no one over the past 50 odd years has
> been lost anyway.

So what prevents you from remaining calm on a simple USENET newsgroup?

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Sorry Anthony, not with you or your buddy here.

So you decide to discuss or not to discuss based on personalities, rather than
content?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Sorry Anthony, not with you or your buddy here.
>
> So you decide to discuss or not to discuss based on personalities, rather than
> content?

On occasion that is correct. There are very few people on these forums
that I dislike to this level, but yes, there are indeed a few I dislike
to the point where their personalities don't warrant the time it would
take to deal with their content.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Don't think so Anthony, at least no one over the past 50 odd years has
>> been lost anyway.
>
> So what prevents you from remaining calm on a simple USENET newsgroup?

Trust me Anthony, telling people like you to go **** yourself is
something I can do while in a state of complete calm :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Trust me Anthony, telling people like you to go **** yourself is
> something I can do while in a state of complete calm :-)

If it is not cathartic for you, what purpose does it serve?

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> On occasion that is correct. There are very few people on these forums
> that I dislike to this level, but yes, there are indeed a few I dislike
> to the point where their personalities don't warrant the time it would
> take to deal with their content.

So if someone you dislike intensely offered to give you, say, a cure for
cancer, you'd reject it?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> I seriously doubt that you ****ing yourself and my performance in the
>> air could even be remotely related.
>
> My point is that if you are as dominated by emotion when flying as you are
> right now in this thread, you could be putting yourself (and passengers) in
> danger.

Danger, Will Robinson!


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Trust me Anthony, telling people like you to go **** yourself is
>> something I can do while in a state of complete calm :-)
>
> If it is not cathartic for you, what purpose does it serve?

Since any dialog with you or people like you seems to serve no useful or
constructive purpose, it's simply an expression that emphasizes the fact.
--
Dudley Henriques

[buttman]

On Aug 15, 6:51*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> Full of crap as usual I see.
>
> Although I have elaborated on this several times before on these forums,
> I'll be more than happy to do it again here and now so that there can be
> absolutely no misunderstanding as to why I view you as incompetent as a CFI.
>
> You posted AS a CFI on these forums asking if shutting down the fuel on
> takeoff with a student was a "good idea". You did this by your own word
> in your initial post on the issue AFTER you had already done it with at
> least one student. So right off the bat, you, posting as a CFI, were
> asking a forum of pilots whether or not something you had already done
> with a student was a good idea. This in itself constitutes extremely
> poor PIC/CFI judgment as it establishes that you performed a specific
> procedure with a student in the aircraft that at the moment you
> performed that procedure you were not sure was safe and correct to perform.
> This alone would disqualify you with me as a potential CFI hire.

Not quite. What I had already done was not the same thing that I was
asking about.

The day before I made that post, I realized that reaching over towards
the throttle and pulling it back is completely different from the
engine suddenly stopping. I felt that the next step was to try it out
with some students where that particular part of the equation removed.
Instead of reaching over, I will kill the engine by pulling the fuel
valve, since that way it's more realistic to an actual engine failure.
On the takeoff roll, on a 10,000+ ft runway, I pulled the fuel valve,
assuming it would die within a second or two. After 2 or 3 seconds, it
didn't doe, so I pulled the throttle back and aborted the takeoff.
What I did I can't believe is any more unsafe that hundreds of things
CFI's do on a regular basis. I can't accept someone telling me what I
did was attempted murder or whatever people were saying that day.
MEI's pull mixtures and fuel valves all the time in the takeoff roll
in multi-engine airplanes, which in my opinion is way more dangerous
than what I did. But do you see anyone persecuting MEI's who practice
that maneuver?

Later that day I made the thread asking about how long it would take
for the engine to die, and any other ideas about what to expect doing
this maneuver. The response was not what I expected. People were going
berserk, lead by none other than you. If I remember correctly, the
first few responses were pretty mild and well-reasoned, until a few
people such as yourself felt the need to jump in and hulk out. From
that point on, it was you and your sycophants having fun flinging crap
back and forth.

At the time, you and your retard buddies saying I was the world worst
instructor really got to me. I was fairly new to instructing and
didn't have a lot of confidence. I may have had a hard time explaining
myself and it got a little out of hand. But now that I've been at it
for a while, I see it this way: I have never had a complaint from a
student, an examiner, a fellow instructor, etc. etc. The only people
who have any qualms with me are people from Usenet. And it's not like
I'm any different online as I am when talking to people in real life.
After all the dust from that thread settled, I brought the issue up
with my boss, and we had a long discussion about it. No one lost their
temper, and no one accused of being the worlds worst instructor. I
explained to him as best as I could the precautions I made before
doing the actual maneuver (which I may not have made enough effort to
explain to the group when I made the thread). He understood that I
made an honest effort to assure safety and he even understood where I
was coming from when it came to the differences between a student
reacting to the instructor pulling the fuel valve which is hidden
under the seat, as opposed to reaching over and grabbing the throttle.
It was an enlightening and educational experience. We basically came
to the conclusion that it does have some instructing benefits (he said
his instructor back in the 70's used to pull the fuel valve all the
time on him in the C150), but you must be really really careful
because a lot of stuff could go wrong. The main thing I remember from
that conversation was he most definitely *did not* tell me it was
attempted murder or even something he wouldn't do if the conditions
were right (including a long runway, a proficient student, an empty
traffic pattern, among a few others) Too bad the same constructive
conversation couldn't have happened here...

>
> Now, on to the rest of it.
>
> When the fallacy of what you did was pointed out to you not only by
> myself, but several other CFI's, instead of accepting the fact that what
> you did might have been unsafe, you instead have consistently and ever
> since not only attempted to defend the procedure with statements about
> the length of the runway etc, but have actively engaged in an open
> attempt to portray me as a know it all with some kind of a superiority
> complex.

The reason I didn't accept your "criticism" (I say "criticism" because
it was more like "flaming"), was because you were either choosing to
ignore what I had done to ensure safety, or I hadn't explained myself
clear enough and instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt, you
decided to breakdown any chance of meaningful discussion by assume the
worse.

>
> In summation, what you did by shutting down the fuel on take off with a
> student was bad enough, as it's not necessary to do this to stress a
> point and/or demonstrate an engine failure on takeoff. The reason for
> this is quite simple. NO good instructor EVER deliberately puts a
> student in a situation that purposely reduces or alters the existing
> flight safety options. By selecting the fuel selector valve to OFF on
> the takeoff roll, you deliberately put the student in unnecessary danger
> by altering the escape option if power was needed to extricate the
> aircraft from any unsafe condition that might arise on that takeoff.

And how exactly is this outlandishly more unsafe that pulling the
mixture on takeoff in a multi-engine airplane? Or any other teaching
technique that pushes safety margins?

> What you did was not only unnecessary, it was unsafe!
>
> The fact that you have chosen to challenge rather than simply thank the
> instructors who have attempted to set you straight is an indication of a
> personality trait I find freightening in a CFI.

I am not going to thanks people who do nothing but flame me. I thanked
the people who added to the thread, and I thanked the head CFI at the
flight school where I worked at the time. But I'm sure as hell not
going to thank you or anyone else there for replying to me the way you
did. I don't praise deconstructive *anything*.

Safety is not a "yes" or "no" question. There are factors that make
something safe, and factors that make it unsafe. One would think a
person who claims to be a safety expert like you would know this.
Anyone who treats it as such, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to accept
them as a source of accurate, useful advice. I don't care how many
decades you've been investigating plane crashes, or how many students
you've soloed.

>
> I hope this post has answered any questions both you and others might
> have had concerning this issue.
> As you can see, I have addressed it quite clearly.

And I have addressed myself quite clearly, I feel. But will you ever
let up? Will you ever accept that I have done even one thing right?
Will you ever maybe consider that you may have been wrong about me? No
you never will. Or at least you never have. At least the other
instructors who replied have moved on. You the only one left on this
"crusade" to spread the word to everybody you see about my
"incompetence". Thats why I feel you are nothing but a blow hard. You
are not interested in Aviation Safety, you are not interested in
Flight Instruction.

You've been playing the "worlds worst instructor" card since my like
20th Usenet post. I remember having like not much more than 20 posts
under the Buttman name. Do you really think it's professional to be
using names like that based on 10 post someone has made on the
internet? You've never met me, you've never flown with me, you've
never even met a single person who does know me. Yet you still insist
I am the worst "you've ever seen". Do you not think that maybe there
is more to me that you may be missing? All I know i that I would
never, ever call someone else "the worlds worst instructor" or
anything else as hyperbolic unless I was 100% certain that I knew the
whole picture, and that I had mounds of evidence to back that claim
up. Not just a few Usenet posts.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>
>>> I seriously doubt that you ****ing yourself and my performance in the
>>> air could even be remotely related.
>> My point is that if you are as dominated by emotion when flying as you are
>> right now in this thread, you could be putting yourself (and passengers) in
>> danger.
>
> Danger, Will Robinson!
>
>

If I become too dangerous, R2D2 will get us home for sure :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> On occasion that is correct. There are very few people on these forums
>> that I dislike to this level, but yes, there are indeed a few I dislike
>> to the point where their personalities don't warrant the time it would
>> take to deal with their content.
>
> So if someone you dislike intensely offered to give you, say, a cure for
> cancer, you'd reject it?

When you come up with a cure for Cancer, let me know and I'll
re-evaluate the situation.

--
Dudley Henriques

[buttman]

On Aug 15, 8:41*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> buttman writes:
> > Also, just to put this out there, Dudley has, for months claimed me to
> > be "the worst CFI I've ever seen", "the type of person I've spent a
> > lifetime to try to correct", etc. But he has never elaborated on this,
> > ever. He just repeats these weasel phrases over and over again. If he
> > claims to be such an expert on CFI attitudes and aviation safety, then
> > why doesn't he make the case without resorting to smokescreen tactics
> > and weasel words?
>
> Now you're engaging in the very behavior you just criticized. *Care to discuss
> aviation?

I'm criticizing people not backing up their claims with fact. In that
post I'm challenging him to back up his claims with fact. And his
reasons for me being the worlds worst instructor I think is very
aviation related.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

buttman wrote:
> On Aug 15, 6:51 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Full of crap as usual I see.
>>
>> Although I have elaborated on this several times before on these forums,
>> I'll be more than happy to do it again here and now so that there can be
>> absolutely no misunderstanding as to why I view you as incompetent as a CFI.
>>
>> You posted AS a CFI on these forums asking if shutting down the fuel on
>> takeoff with a student was a "good idea". You did this by your own word
>> in your initial post on the issue AFTER you had already done it with at
>> least one student. So right off the bat, you, posting as a CFI, were
>> asking a forum of pilots whether or not something you had already done
>> with a student was a good idea. This in itself constitutes extremely
>> poor PIC/CFI judgment as it establishes that you performed a specific
>> procedure with a student in the aircraft that at the moment you
>> performed that procedure you were not sure was safe and correct to perform.
>> This alone would disqualify you with me as a potential CFI hire.
>
> Not quite. What I had already done was not the same thing that I was
> asking about.
>
> The day before I made that post, I realized that reaching over towards
> the throttle and pulling it back is completely different from the
> engine suddenly stopping. I felt that the next step was to try it out
> with some students where that particular part of the equation removed.
> Instead of reaching over, I will kill the engine by pulling the fuel
> valve, since that way it's more realistic to an actual engine failure.
> On the takeoff roll, on a 10,000+ ft runway, I pulled the fuel valve,
> assuming it would die within a second or two. After 2 or 3 seconds, it
> didn't doe, so I pulled the throttle back and aborted the takeoff.
> What I did I can't believe is any more unsafe that hundreds of things
> CFI's do on a regular basis. I can't accept someone telling me what I
> did was attempted murder or whatever people were saying that day.
> MEI's pull mixtures and fuel valves all the time in the takeoff roll
> in multi-engine airplanes, which in my opinion is way more dangerous
> than what I did. But do you see anyone persecuting MEI's who practice
> that maneuver?
>
> Later that day I made the thread asking about how long it would take
> for the engine to die, and any other ideas about what to expect doing
> this maneuver. The response was not what I expected. People were going
> berserk, lead by none other than you. If I remember correctly, the
> first few responses were pretty mild and well-reasoned, until a few
> people such as yourself felt the need to jump in and hulk out. From
> that point on, it was you and your sycophants having fun flinging crap
> back and forth.
>
> At the time, you and your retard buddies saying I was the world worst
> instructor really got to me. I was fairly new to instructing and
> didn't have a lot of confidence. I may have had a hard time explaining
> myself and it got a little out of hand. But now that I've been at it
> for a while, I see it this way: I have never had a complaint from a
> student, an examiner, a fellow instructor, etc. etc. The only people
> who have any qualms with me are people from Usenet. And it's not like
> I'm any different online as I am when talking to people in real life.
> After all the dust from that thread settled, I brought the issue up
> with my boss, and we had a long discussion about it. No one lost their
> temper, and no one accused of being the worlds worst instructor. I
> explained to him as best as I could the precautions I made before
> doing the actual maneuver (which I may not have made enough effort to
> explain to the group when I made the thread). He understood that I
> made an honest effort to assure safety and he even understood where I
> was coming from when it came to the differences between a student
> reacting to the instructor pulling the fuel valve which is hidden
> under the seat, as opposed to reaching over and grabbing the throttle.
> It was an enlightening and educational experience. We basically came
> to the conclusion that it does have some instructing benefits (he said
> his instructor back in the 70's used to pull the fuel valve all the
> time on him in the C150), but you must be really really careful
> because a lot of stuff could go wrong. The main thing I remember from
> that conversation was he most definitely *did not* tell me it was
> attempted murder or even something he wouldn't do if the conditions
> were right (including a long runway, a proficient student, an empty
> traffic pattern, among a few others) Too bad the same constructive
> conversation couldn't have happened here...
>
>> Now, on to the rest of it.
>>
>> When the fallacy of what you did was pointed out to you not only by
>> myself, but several other CFI's, instead of accepting the fact that what
>> you did might have been unsafe, you instead have consistently and ever
>> since not only attempted to defend the procedure with statements about
>> the length of the runway etc, but have actively engaged in an open
>> attempt to portray me as a know it all with some kind of a superiority
>> complex.
>
> The reason I didn't accept your "criticism" (I say "criticism" because
> it was more like "flaming"), was because you were either choosing to
> ignore what I had done to ensure safety, or I hadn't explained myself
> clear enough and instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt, you
> decided to breakdown any chance of meaningful discussion by assume the
> worse.
>
>> In summation, what you did by shutting down the fuel on take off with a
>> student was bad enough, as it's not necessary to do this to stress a
>> point and/or demonstrate an engine failure on takeoff. The reason for
>> this is quite simple. NO good instructor EVER deliberately puts a
>> student in a situation that purposely reduces or alters the existing
>> flight safety options. By selecting the fuel selector valve to OFF on
>> the takeoff roll, you deliberately put the student in unnecessary danger
>> by altering the escape option if power was needed to extricate the
>> aircraft from any unsafe condition that might arise on that takeoff.
>
> And how exactly is this outlandishly more unsafe that pulling the
> mixture on takeoff in a multi-engine airplane? Or any other teaching
> technique that pushes safety margins?
>
>> What you did was not only unnecessary, it was unsafe!
>>
>> The fact that you have chosen to challenge rather than simply thank the
>> instructors who have attempted to set you straight is an indication of a
>> personality trait I find freightening in a CFI.
>
> I am not going to thanks people who do nothing but flame me. I thanked
> the people who added to the thread, and I thanked the head CFI at the
> flight school where I worked at the time. But I'm sure as hell not
> going to thank you or anyone else there for replying to me the way you
> did. I don't praise deconstructive *anything*.
>
> Safety is not a "yes" or "no" question. There are factors that make
> something safe, and factors that make it unsafe. One would think a
> person who claims to be a safety expert like you would know this.
> Anyone who treats it as such, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to accept
> them as a source of accurate, useful advice. I don't care how many
> decades you've been investigating plane crashes, or how many students
> you've soloed.
>
>> I hope this post has answered any questions both you and others might
>> have had concerning this issue.
>> As you can see, I have addressed it quite clearly.
>
> And I have addressed myself quite clearly, I feel. But will you ever
> let up? Will you ever accept that I have done even one thing right?
> Will you ever maybe consider that you may have been wrong about me? No
> you never will. Or at least you never have. At least the other
> instructors who replied have moved on. You the only one left on this
> "crusade" to spread the word to everybody you see about my
> "incompetence". Thats why I feel you are nothing but a blow hard. You
> are not interested in Aviation Safety, you are not interested in
> Flight Instruction.
>
> You've been playing the "worlds worst instructor" card since my like
> 20th Usenet post. I remember having like not much more than 20 posts
> under the Buttman name. Do you really think it's professional to be
> using names like that based on 10 post someone has made on the
> internet? You've never met me, you've never flown with me, you've
> never even met a single person who does know me. Yet you still insist
> I am the worst "you've ever seen". Do you not think that maybe there
> is more to me that you may be missing? All I know i that I would
> never, ever call someone else "the worlds worst instructor" or
> anything else as hyperbolic unless I was 100% certain that I knew the
> whole picture, and that I had mounds of evidence to back that claim
> up. Not just a few Usenet posts.

I fully understand that you feel you have a case with this issue, and as
well that you feel there are CFI's on these forums who are being unfair
with you, myself in particular. You and I could argue the pros and cons
of what you did till dooms day and I'm sure neither of us will alter our
respective opinions.
I have no wish to hound you with rehashing this, and indeed have been
content to leave you completely alone. I have not posted to you or
posted about you unless I have seen my name used by you in one of your
posts here on these forums.
It is no secret I have no use for you as a CFI and I seriously doubt
from your attitude that I ever will. I have made my feelings known
clearly so you can not say I have refused to do this.
My desire at this point is that you and I go our separate ways on these
forums and have no further contact. This means I will neither post to
you or about you unless I see you have initiated my name in discussion.
Whether or not you discuss me is of course your choice. I don't respect
you or your judgment and I take it you have no use for mine.
If you use my name again on these forums, I will engage you instantly
with whatever response I deem necessary. If you refrain from doing that,
trust me, I have no further desire to have any contact with you.
I hope I've made myself clear. It's your call.
I suggest we both simply accept the situation and move on to other things.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Since any dialog with you or people like you seems to serve no useful or
> constructive purpose, it's simply an expression that emphasizes the fact.

No, it's invective, and has no implicit meaning comparable to what you
describe. If you wish to emphasize something, why not state it simply?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Since any dialog with you or people like you seems to serve no useful or
>> constructive purpose, it's simply an expression that emphasizes the fact.
>
> No, it's invective, and has no implicit meaning comparable to what you
> describe. If you wish to emphasize something, why not state it simply?

Doesn't really get any simpler than "Go **** yourself" now does it? :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

buttman writes:

> I'm criticizing people not backing up their claims with fact.

Yes, you're criticizing people. That's not a discussion of aviation.

Statements made by anyone can be evaluated on their own merits, without any
reference to personalities or the people making the statements. Facts are
facts; falsehoods are falsehoods. It doesn't matter where they come from.
Statements can be verified by comparison with other sources of known accuracy.
There is never any need to worry about who made the statements.

> In that post I'm challenging him to back up his claims with fact.

Either he is right, or he is wrong. The old saw about backing claims up with
facts is just a diversion tactic, and a poor one at that. If he is wrong,
correct him. If he is right, let it stand.

> And his reasons for me being the worlds worst instructor I think is very
> aviation related.

No, they are personality related. Exactly the type of thing that you were
criticizing just a few posts ago.

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> When you come up with a cure for Cancer, let me know and I'll
> re-evaluate the situation.

Why not just admit that your rule is not as absolute as you made it sound?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> When you come up with a cure for Cancer, let me know and I'll
>> re-evaluate the situation.
>
> Why not just admit that your rule is not as absolute as you made it sound?

I have no "rule" to admit to Anthony. I have experience, but no "rule".

--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Doesn't really get any simpler than "Go **** yourself" now does it?

True, but it doesn't really have any meaning, either. Since it communicates
nothing, there must be some other reason why you say it. You cannot be saying
it because of any effect on me, because it has no effect on me. Therefore it
must have some sort of effect on you, or on some third party.

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> I have no "rule" to admit to Anthony. I have experience, but no "rule".

You indicated that if you strongly dislike someone, you'll disregard what he
says. That sounds like a rule to me. I pointed out an exception.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Doesn't really get any simpler than "Go **** yourself" now does it?
>
> True, but it doesn't really have any meaning, either. Since it communicates
> nothing, there must be some other reason why you say it. You cannot be saying
> it because of any effect on me, because it has no effect on me. Therefore it
> must have some sort of effect on you, or on some third party.

Some things you do in life for the simple pleasure derived from the act
of doing them Anthony.
Tell you what there ole buddy. I've had enough fun for one night. Let's
save this for another day shall we? I have to do yard work in the
morning :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> I have no "rule" to admit to Anthony. I have experience, but no "rule".
>
> You indicated that if you strongly dislike someone, you'll disregard what he
> says. That sounds like a rule to me. I pointed out an exception.

I'm sure it sounds like a rule to you Anthony, but it isn't a rule for
me unless I've made it so and since I haven't done that, no rule :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[skym]

This whole topic discussion is why I and many others have pretty much
quit reading it, and left this group, except for the occasional check
back. I think the OP had a sincere suggestion, but the response
quickly deteriorated. DH used to have good advice on flying but,
unfortunately, his rants in this thread demonstrate his recent descent
into the gutter with the likes of BtB and his ilk. Too bad. It was
good while it lasted. MX is a charactor, but not remotely as
offensive as the bitter crowd who have taken over this group.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Aug 15, 10:32 pm, skym > wrote:
> This whole topic discussion is why I and many others have pretty much
> quit reading it, and left this group, except for the occasional check
> back. I think the OP had a sincere suggestion, but the response
> quickly deteriorated. DH used to have good advice on flying but,
> unfortunately, his rants in this thread demonstrate his recent descent
> into the gutter with the likes of BtB and his ilk. Too bad. It was
> good while it lasted. MX is a charactor, but not remotely as
> offensive as the bitter crowd who have taken over this group.

Well I think a fella using a handle like "Buttman",
which advertises his homosexuality is hardly
someone I'd wanna be in cockpit with. I'm ok
with the homo's but do they need to advertise in
a piloting group. Not everyone is as open minded
as I am.
Ken

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> buttman writes:
>
>> Also, just to put this out there, Dudley has, for months claimed me
>> to be "the worst CFI I've ever seen", "the type of person I've spent
>> a lifetime to try to correct", etc. But he has never elaborated on
>> this, ever. He just repeats these weasel phrases over and over again.
>> If he claims to be such an expert on CFI attitudes and aviation
>> safety, then why doesn't he make the case without resorting to
>> smokescreen tactics and weasel words?
>
> Now you're engaging in the very behavior you just criticized. Care to
> discuss aviation?

Anthony, do you butt **** buttman or does buttman butt **** you? Or do you
take turns butt ****ing each other?

[buttman]

On Aug 15, 10:37*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> buttman writes:
> > I'm criticizing people not backing up their claims with fact.
>
> Yes, you're criticizing people. *That's not a discussion of aviation.

Well this thread really isn't about aviation. This is one of those
meta-threads that pop every once in a while. It is about the group and
the people who are ruining it.

Think of this thread as a sort of "appeals court" for the discussions
that go one here. A place to criticize and analyze the things that go
on behind the discussions.

>
> Statements made by anyone can be evaluated on their own merits, without any
> reference to personalities or the people making the statements. *Facts are
> facts; falsehoods are falsehoods. *It doesn't matter where they come from.
> Statements can be verified by comparison with other sources of known accuracy.
> There is never any need to worry about who made the statements.

No disagreement here.

> > In that post I'm challenging him to back up his claims with fact.
>
> Either he is right, or he is wrong. *The old saw about backing claims up with
> facts is just a diversion tactic, and a poor one at that. *If he is wrong,
> correct him. *If he is right, let it stand.

Huh? Claims never need to be backed up? Backing up your claims is
analogous to showing your work on a math problem. It shows the
processes you used to come to your conclusion. Dudley made a claim
that I whole heartedly disagree with, so I asked him to "show his
work" to get a better understanding of why he feels that way.

>
> > And his reasons for me being the worlds worst instructor I think is very
> > aviation related.
>
> No, they are personality related. *Exactly the type of thing that you were
> criticizing just a few posts ago.

What I was criticizing "a few posts ago", was arguments hinged solely
on character. This tangent that has popped up may be related to
people's character, but you sure won't find me hinging any arguments
solely on someone's character, if thats what you're implying.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Aug 15, 6:51*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>> Full of crap as usual I see.
>>
>> Although I have elaborated on this several times before on these
>> forums, I'll be more than happy to do it again here and now so that
>> there can be absolutely no misunderstanding as to why I view you as
>> incompetent as a C
> FI.
>>
>> You posted AS a CFI on these forums asking if shutting down the fuel
>> on takeoff with a student was a "good idea". You did this by your own
>> word in your initial post on the issue AFTER you had already done it
>> with at least one student. So right off the bat, you, posting as a
>> CFI, were asking a forum of pilots whether or not something you had
>> already done with a student was a good idea. This in itself
>> constitutes extremely poor PIC/CFI judgment as it establishes that
>> you performed a specific procedure with a student in the aircraft
>> that at the moment you performed that procedure you were not sure was
>> safe and correct to perfor
> m.
>> This alone would disqualify you with me as a potential CFI hire.
>
> Not quite. What I had already done was not the same thing that I was
> asking about.
>
> The day before I made that post, I realized that reaching over towards
> the throttle and pulling it back is completely different from the
> engine suddenly stopping. I felt that the next step was to try it out
> with some students where that particular part of the equation removed.
> Instead of reaching over, I will kill the engine by pulling the fuel
> valve, since that way it's more realistic to an actual engine failure.
> On the takeoff roll, on a 10,000+ ft runway, I pulled the fuel valve,
> assuming it would die within a second or two. After 2 or 3 seconds, it
> didn't doe, so I pulled the throttle back and aborted the takeoff.
> What I did I can't believe is any more unsafe that hundreds of things
> CFI's do on a regular basis. I can't accept someone telling me what I
> did was attempted murder or whatever people were saying that day.
> MEI's pull mixtures and fuel valves all the time in the takeoff roll
> in multi-engine airplanes, which in my opinion is way more dangerous
> than what I did. But do you see anyone persecuting MEI's who practice
> that maneuver?
>
> Later that day I made the thread asking about how long it would take
> for the engine to die, and any other ideas about what to expect doing
> this maneuver. The response was not what I expected. People were going
> berserk, lead by none other than you. If I remember correctly, the
> first few responses were pretty mild and well-reasoned, until a few
> people such as yourself felt the need to jump in and hulk out. From
> that point on, it was you and your sycophants having fun flinging crap
> back and forth.
>
> At the time, you and your retard buddies saying I was the world worst
> instructor really got to me. I was fairly new to instructing and
> didn't have a lot of confidence. I may have had a hard time explaining
> myself and it got a little out of hand. But now that I've been at it
> for a while, I see it this way: I have never had a complaint from a
> student, an examiner, a fellow instructor, etc. etc. The only people
> who have any qualms with me are people from Usenet. And it's not like
> I'm any different online as I am when talking to people in real life.
> After all the dust from that thread settled, I brought the issue up
> with my boss, and we had a long discussion about it. No one lost their
> temper, and no one accused of being the worlds worst instructor. I
> explained to him as best as I could the precautions I made before
> doing the actual maneuver (which I may not have made enough effort to
> explain to the group when I made the thread). He understood that I
> made an honest effort to assure safety and he even understood where I
> was coming from when it came to the differences between a student
> reacting to the instructor pulling the fuel valve which is hidden
> under the seat, as opposed to reaching over and grabbing the throttle.
> It was an enlightening and educational experience. We basically came
> to the conclusion that it does have some instructing benefits (he said
> his instructor back in the 70's used to pull the fuel valve all the
> time on him in the C150), but you must be really really careful
> because a lot of stuff could go wrong. The main thing I remember from
> that conversation was he most definitely *did not* tell me it was
> attempted murder or even something he wouldn't do if the conditions
> were right (including a long runway, a proficient student, an empty
> traffic pattern, among a few others) Too bad the same constructive
> conversation couldn't have happened here...
>
>>
>> Now, on to the rest of it.
>>
>> When the fallacy of what you did was pointed out to you not only by
>> myself, but several other CFI's, instead of accepting the fact that
>> what you did might have been unsafe, you instead have consistently
>> and ever since not only attempted to defend the procedure with
>> statements about the length of the runway etc, but have actively
>> engaged in an open attempt to portray me as a know it all with some
>> kind of a superiority complex.
>
> The reason I didn't accept your "criticism" (I say "criticism" because
> it was more like "flaming"), was because you were either choosing to
> ignore what I had done to ensure safety, or I hadn't explained myself
> clear enough and instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt, you
> decided to breakdown any chance of meaningful discussion by assume the
> worse.
>
>>
>> In summation, what you did by shutting down the fuel on take off with
>> a student was bad enough, as it's not necessary to do this to stress
>> a point and/or demonstrate an engine failure on takeoff. The reason
>> for this is quite simple. NO good instructor EVER deliberately puts a
>> student in a situation that purposely reduces or alters the existing
>> flight safety options. By selecting the fuel selector valve to OFF on
>> the takeoff roll, you deliberately put the student in unnecessary
>> danger by altering the escape option if power was needed to extricate
>> the aircraft from any unsafe condition that might arise on that
>> takeoff.
>
> And how exactly is this outlandishly more unsafe that pulling the
> mixture on takeoff in a multi-engine airplane? Or any other teaching
> technique that pushes safety margins?
>
>> What you did was not only unnecessary, it was unsafe!
>>
>> The fact that you have chosen to challenge rather than simply thank
>> the instructors who have attempted to set you straight is an
>> indication of a personality trait I find freightening in a CFI.
>
> I am not going to thanks people who do nothing but flame me. I thanked
> the people who added to the thread, and I thanked the head CFI at the
> flight school where I worked at the time. But I'm sure as hell not
> going to thank you or anyone else there for replying to me the way you
> did. I don't praise deconstructive *anything*.
>
> Safety is not a "yes" or "no" question. There are factors that make
> something safe, and factors that make it unsafe. One would think a
> person who claims to be a safety expert like you would know this.
> Anyone who treats it as such, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to accept
> them as a source of accurate, useful advice. I don't care how many
> decades you've been investigating plane crashes, or how many students
> you've soloed.
>
>>
>> I hope this post has answered any questions both you and others might
>> have had concerning this issue.
>> As you can see, I have addressed it quite clearly.
>
> And I have addressed myself quite clearly, I feel. But will you ever
> let up? Will you ever accept that I have done even one thing right?
> Will you ever maybe consider that you may have been wrong about me?


I consider it all the time, but you continue to post idiocy in a never
ending stream that pretty much closes off the door to the possibility
that you may actually have any sense whatsoever.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

buttman > wrote in news:1c4ae31e-cc53-474d-8af3-
:

> On Aug 15, 8:41*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> buttman writes:
>> > Also, just to put this out there, Dudley has, for months claimed me to
>> > be "the worst CFI I've ever seen", "the type of person I've spent a
>> > lifetime to try to correct", etc. But he has never elaborated on this,
>> > ever. He just repeats these weasel phrases over and over again. If he
>> > claims to be such an expert on CFI attitudes and aviation safety, then
>> > why doesn't he make the case without resorting to smokescreen tactics
>> > and weasel words?
>>
>> Now you're engaging in the very behavior you just criticized. *Care to
> discuss
>> aviation?
>
> I'm criticizing people not backing up their claims with fact.

Your repeated idiocy is all the fact required.....

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Aug 15, 10:37*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> buttman writes:
>> > I'm criticizing people not backing up their claims with fact.
>>
>> Yes, you're criticizing people. *That's not a discussion of aviation.
>
> Well this thread really isn't about aviation.

In your case, that's a public service.


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:a9221727-dff4-4309-
:

> On Aug 15, 10:32 pm, skym > wrote:
>> This whole topic discussion is why I and many others have pretty much
>> quit reading it, and left this group, except for the occasional check
>> back. I think the OP had a sincere suggestion, but the response
>> quickly deteriorated. DH used to have good advice on flying but,
>> unfortunately, his rants in this thread demonstrate his recent descent
>> into the gutter with the likes of BtB and his ilk. Too bad. It was
>> good while it lasted. MX is a charactor, but not remotely as
>> offensive as the bitter crowd who have taken over this group.
>
> Well I think a fella using a handle like "Buttman",
> which advertises his homosexuality is hardly
> someone I'd wanna be in cockpit with. I'm ok
> with the homo's but do they need to advertise in
> a piloting group. Not everyone is as open minded
> as I am.


"Open minded" is not a mainstream expression for having a hole in your
head, Kenny.



Bertie

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques schrieb:
> Doesn't really get any simpler than "Go **** yourself" now does it? :-))

first you argument the group has gone south because of people like
mxmaniac, then you propagate a web forum, then you come here and "argue"
with one of the posters you see as a reason of the noise ration in this
group.

STOP ANSWERING HIM!!!!!!
You jus put yourself to the same low level by answering him.

#m

[[email protected]]

On Aug 16, 5:28*am, Martin Hotze > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques schrieb:
>
> > Doesn't really get any simpler than "Go **** yourself" now does it? :-))
>
> first you argument the group has gone south because of people like
> mxmaniac, then you propagate a web forum, then you come here and "argue"
> with one of the posters you see as a reason of the noise ration in this
> group.
>
> STOP ANSWERING HIM!!!!!!
> You jus put yourself to the same low level by answering him.
>
> #m

There are times when Mx was amusing, but I agree it's past time trying
to engage him in meaningful discussions. He is clearly clueless
regarding the realities of general aviation: if he assumed his correct
role as a mostly ignorant student there might be some benefit to his
presence.

The good news is this is not a professional environment where there
is a requirement to interact with people we don't like or more
importantly don't respect. I've joined with the few who have decided
he's best ignored.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> Dudley Henriques schrieb:
>> Doesn't really get any simpler than "Go **** yourself" now does it? :-))
>
> first you argument the group has gone south because of people like
> mxmaniac, then you propagate a web forum, then you come here and "argue"
> with one of the posters you see as a reason of the noise ration in this
> group.
>
> STOP ANSWERING HIM!!!!!!
> You jus put yourself to the same low level by answering him.
>
> #m

I'm no longer interested in maintaining any so called "level" on this
forum. If and when I drop in here which won't be often, I'll post as I
see fit. You are free to filter me and indeed I encourage you to do just
that, or do you wish to continue this idiotic dialog with me that you
just created?
Let's see if you can resist the temptation.
--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

skym wrote:
> DH used to have good advice on flying but,
> unfortunately, his rants in this thread demonstrate his recent descent
> into the gutter with the likes of BtB and his ilk. Too bad. It was
> good while it lasted.

It still exists, on ANY other forum but this one.

You can register on POA, The Purple Forum, or any other moderated web
forum you choose and you will find me as well as other pilots there
dealing with aviation issues in a professional and friendly atmosphere
that no longer exists here.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

skym wrote:
> This whole topic discussion is why I and many others have pretty much
> quit reading it, and left this group, except for the occasional check
> back. I think the OP had a sincere suggestion, but the response
> quickly deteriorated. DH used to have good advice on flying but,
> unfortunately, his rants in this thread demonstrate his recent descent
> into the gutter with the likes of BtB and his ilk. Too bad. It was
> good while it lasted. MX is a charactor, but not remotely as
> offensive as the bitter crowd who have taken over this group.

You know, idiots like you really kill me :-)) You'll read and use all
the unpaid for information and expertise that a lifetime in aviation by
someome else can give you, then sneak in behind the person's back who's
supplying you that information and expertise and take a cheap shot at
them, telling them how YOU think they should be giving you all that free
information.
God I just LOVE Usenet!!!
Get a life!!!
--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

buttman writes:

> Huh? Claims never need to be backed up? Backing up your claims is
> analogous to showing your work on a math problem.

Showing your work is not the same as pointing to a book.

Most people in these situations want the person with whom they disagree to
point to a book or other outside reference. They fully do not expect to get
the reference, which allows them to to claim that the opinion with which they
disagree is baseless. If they get a reference, they claim that the reference
doesn't meet some arbitrary standard of reliability. Overall, it's just a
diversion.

It's also possible to support an argument by simply exposing the reasoning
behind it, proceeding forward from universally accepted premises ("showing
your work"), but in these situations people will not accept this, because they
know that it is hard to refute. They want an outside reference that they hope
they won't get, and they plan to reject the reference if by some chance they
do actually get it. It's much harder to argue with logic, so that is rejected
from the beginning.

> It shows the processes you used to come to your conclusion.

Rest assured, most people will not accept the processes, as they don't want to
have their opinion challenged at all. They are not giving you an opportunity
to persuade them, they are simply rejecting summarily and feigning a desire to
let you persuade them. The request for a reference is classic for this
purpose because it's always possible to reject a reference for one reason or
another. That isn't possible if you start with accepted axioms and reason
forward from them.

> What I was criticizing "a few posts ago", was arguments hinged solely
> on character. This tangent that has popped up may be related to
> people's character, but you sure won't find me hinging any arguments
> solely on someone's character, if thats what you're implying.

A reqeust for references is also based on character, except it shifts the
target from the person making a particular assertion to the person who was the
source of the reference. Since it is still subjective, it can still be
rejected, which is why so many people use this as a diversion.

[Mxsmanic]

Ken S. Tucker writes:

> Well I think a fella using a handle like "Buttman",
> which advertises his homosexuality is hardly
> someone I'd wanna be in cockpit with.

Here again, you're making an ad hominem argument. You're talking about the
person, not the topic at hand.

Additionally, "Buttman" could mean all sorts of things, and isn't necessarily
an indication of homosexuality.

And furthermore, not everyone considers adumbration of homosexuality
pejorative, so your thinly veiled insult might well be without effect.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Aug 16, 9:07 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker writes:
> > Well I think a fella using a handle like "Buttman",
> > which advertises his homosexuality is hardly
> > someone I'd wanna be in cockpit with.
>
> Here again, you're making an ad hominem argument.

I ain't adding homo's to anything, "buttman"
already did that!!!.

>You're talking about the person, not the topic at hand.

Wish you wouldn't have used the phrase "topic at hand",
it's your gooey keyboard.

> Additionally, "Buttman" could mean all sorts of things, and isn't necessarily
> an indication of homosexuality.

Care to elaborate?

> And furthermore, not everyone considers adumbration of homosexuality
> pejorative, so your thinly veiled insult might well be without effect.

Well you're the one calling homo's dumb.

Seriously now: Recently we've been writing software
for a lunar mission, and after doing a lunar parking
orbit I/we had problems doing a manual softlanding
within fuel specs, so I installed an algorthm that
AutoLands using about 2 lines of code. There's a
thrill in landing but even more of a thrill seeing the
commands automatically executed, that I designed,
especially since it was so dang simple.
I could explain it if any of you guys want.

Were super excited about Project Constellation so
we're boneing up on details.
Regards
Ken

[Jim Logajan]

Thanks for the responses everyone. Every post was informative - believe it
or not! I may actually try creating a Google Groups piloting group as a
final experiment.

[Helen Waite]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Ken S. Tucker writes:
>
>> Well I think a fella using a handle like "Buttman",
>> which advertises his homosexuality is hardly
>> someone I'd wanna be in cockpit with.
>
> Here again, you're making an ad hominem argument. You're talking
> about the person, not the topic at hand.
>
> Additionally, "Buttman" could mean all sorts of things, and isn't
> necessarily an indication of homosexuality.
>
> And furthermore, not everyone considers adumbration of homosexuality
> pejorative, so your thinly veiled insult might well be without effect.

Are you still playing with little boys Anthony?

[Mxsmanic]

Ken S. Tucker writes:

> Care to elaborate?

Buttman could refer to someone who enjoys looking at women's buttocks, which
is a highly heterosexual behavior for a man.

> Well you're the one calling homo's dumb.

I haven't called homosexuals anything.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Aug 16, 12:42 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker writes:
> > Care to elaborate?
>
> Buttman could refer to someone who enjoys looking at women's buttocks, which
> is a highly heterosexual behavior for a man.

Are you speakin' from experience or is that statement
a result of a sim?

> > Well you're the one calling homo's dumb.
>
> I haven't called homosexuals anything.

So you call them nothing.

Compared to playing golf, or owning a 1/2 assed boat,
flying is still a cheap hobby. What a $100/hr gets you
a rental with a CFI, of course if you "Mx" is an invalid,
then that's different...are you?
Ken

[Mxsmanic]

Ken S. Tucker writes:

> Are you speakin' from experience or is that statement
> a result of a sim?

Neither, it's simply logic.

> So you call them nothing.

Right.

> Compared to playing golf, or owning a 1/2 assed boat,
> flying is still a cheap hobby. What a $100/hr gets you
> a rental with a CFI, of course if you "Mx" is an invalid,
> then that's different...are you?

I don't understand the question.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Aug 16, 12:42 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker writes:
>> > Care to elaborate?
>>
>> Buttman could refer to someone who enjoys looking at women's
>> buttocks, which is a highly heterosexual behavior for a man.
>
> Are you speakin' from experience or is that statement
> a result of a sim?
>
>> > Well you're the one calling homo's dumb.
>>
>> I haven't called homosexuals anything.
>
> So you call them nothing.
>
> Compared to playing golf, or owning a 1/2 assed boat,
> flying is still a cheap hobby. What a $100/hr gets you
> a rental with a CFI, of course if you "Mx" is an invalid,
> then that's different...are you?
> Ken
>

Where does one start?

Bertie

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Aug 16, 1:58 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker writes:
> > Are you speakin' from experience or is that statement
> > a result of a sim?
>
> Neither, it's simply logic.
>
> > So you call them nothing.
>
> Right.
>
> > Compared to playing golf, or owning a 1/2 assed boat,
> > flying is still a cheap hobby. What a $100/hr gets you
> > a rental with a CFI, of course if you "Mx" is an invalid,
> > then that's different...are you?
>
> I don't understand the question.

Ok, have you ever been in a sail boat?
Ken

[Mxsmanic]

Ken S. Tucker writes:

> Ok, have you ever been in a sail boat?

No.

[Buster Hymen]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:194c7bfd-c7ad-4fc7-
:

> On Aug 16, 1:58 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker writes:
>> > Are you speakin' from experience or is that statement
>> > a result of a sim?
>>
>> Neither, it's simply logic.
>>
>> > So you call them nothing.
>>
>> Right.
>>
>> > Compared to playing golf, or owning a 1/2 assed boat,
>> > flying is still a cheap hobby. What a $100/hr gets you
>> > a rental with a CFI, of course if you "Mx" is an invalid,
>> > then that's different...are you?
>>
>> I don't understand the question.
>
> Ok, have you ever been in a sail boat?
> Ken

Anthony is to chicken **** to go in a sail boat!

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Aug 16, 2:27 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker writes:
> > Ok, have you ever been in a sail boat?
>
> No.

Well you must try it.
Your doing a tack with the sail fully stable suckin'
energy from the wind, cuttin' water and bouncin'
waves off the starboards, that's the sound you hear.

Next, you reverse tact and the sail flutters (stalls)
until re-acquistion of stability going in nearly the
opposite direction and you're still heading into the
wind, so the net motion is into the wind. Every pilot
should do that. I was on trapeze, with a good fat old
captain on the til, and me being a skinny lively bitch
loved jumped to either side of the boat, pulling the
sail to max the energy out of the wind.
Regards
Ken
PS: Read about it.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote

> I'm no longer interested in maintaining any so called "level" on this
> forum. If and when I drop in here which won't be often, I'll post as I see
> fit.

Dudley, I would respectfully request that if you feel that going down to
some's level is what you _must_ do, that it would be appreciated that you
just hang up on stopping by, at all.

The _only_ chance of getting this group back to having any positive value,
is if we can convince enough people to not take the trolls and idiot's bait,
and make it so boringly nice, that they go away.

Yes, I know it is a long shot, but we need to win over people, one at a
time.

I hope that we can count on you to not respond to the trolls and idiots. I
know it is hard, but you have done many hard things before, I'm sure.

Thanks,
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

On Aug 16, 6:33*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
> > I'm no longer interested in maintaining any so called "level" on this
> > forum. If and when I drop in here which won't be often, I'll post as I see
> > fit.
>
> Dudley, I would respectfully request that if you feel that going down to
> some's level is what you _must_ do, that it would be appreciated that you
> just hang up on stopping by, at all.
>
> The _only_ chance of getting this group back to having any positive value,
> is if we can convince enough people to not take the trolls and idiot's bait,
> and make it so boringly nice, that they go away.
>
> Yes, I know it is a long shot, but we need to win over people, one at a
> time.
>
> I hope that we can count on you to not respond to the trolls and idiots. *I
> know it is hard, but you have done many hard things before, I'm sure.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Jim in NC

You've my support re cleaning this group.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
>> I'm no longer interested in maintaining any so called "level" on this
>> forum. If and when I drop in here which won't be often, I'll post as I see
>> fit.
>
> Dudley, I would respectfully request that if you feel that going down to
> some's level is what you _must_ do, that it would be appreciated that you
> just hang up on stopping by, at all.
>
> The _only_ chance of getting this group back to having any positive value,
> is if we can convince enough people to not take the trolls and idiot's bait,
> and make it so boringly nice, that they go away.
>
> Yes, I know it is a long shot, but we need to win over people, one at a
> time.
>
> I hope that we can count on you to not respond to the trolls and idiots. I
> know it is hard, but you have done many hard things before, I'm sure.
>
> Thanks,

I've been a long time getting around to this, but go **** yourself you
****ing moron. It's YOU and your ilk that have ruined this group, and no
one else. Take a look at the latest thread coming down, "RAP is NOT
Dead". You ****ing idiots have another one going now. First someone
posts about the issue, then YOU chime in with your idiotic 2cents worth
and the thread is off and running.
I've been watching you in particular doing this for months. You post,
and post, and post, with your moronic lecturing on what everyone should
do and not do.
To be quite frank, you make me sick. You're the worst one in the whole
bunch of idiots who keep this thing alive.
The answer is just DON'T START these idiotic threads about the people
you don't like on this forum. Just shut the **** up and it will solve
itself.
I'm sick and tired of passing on you people. It's YOU ****ups who keep
all this going. If you don't like Anthony, or if you don't like ME, just
either kill file us or pass.
God, people like you burn my ****ing ass.
Go get ****ed you idiot!

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

On Aug 16, 5:33*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:

> Dudley, I would respectfully request that if you feel that going down to
> some's level is what you _must_ do, that it would be appreciated that you
> just hang up on stopping by, at all.
>
> The _only_ chance of getting this group back to having any positive value,
> is if we can convince enough people to not take the trolls and idiot's bait,
> and make it so boringly nice, that they go away.

Very well stated Jim.....

I am very disappointed that Dudley would even think about lowering his
standards..... Oh well, who am I to say since I am just a measily RAP
and RAS person since 2000....

To stay in the theme of the group, my plane coming out of the avionics
shop I hope Monday so I can resume my videoing on my You Tube channel.
Settled for videoing the weather since it wasn't flying weather
anyway.

New Garmin SL30 being installed, getting my Garmin 250XL
reinstalled.

For new folks passing through and don't know me....

http://www.youtube.com/user/BeechSundowner

is my Youtube channel that includes all phases of flight from
preflight, to night landings to shutdown procedures as well as ILS's,
VFR takeoffs and landings, ATC comms extracted from ATC.net website
and enroute shots from my various XC's. Also even have a "logbook in
review" that relives my milestones from first flight to closure of
logbook #1. Some to music, some not

Allen

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Aug 16, 5:33 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>
>> Dudley, I would respectfully request that if you feel that going down to
>> some's level is what you _must_ do, that it would be appreciated that you
>> just hang up on stopping by, at all.
>>
>> The _only_ chance of getting this group back to having any positive value,
>> is if we can convince enough people to not take the trolls and idiot's bait,
>> and make it so boringly nice, that they go away.
>
> Very well stated Jim.....
>
> I am very disappointed that Dudley would even think about lowering his
> standards..... Oh well, who am I to say since I am just a measily RAP
> and RAS person since 2000....
>
> To stay in the theme of the group, my plane coming out of the avionics
> shop I hope Monday so I can resume my videoing on my You Tube channel.
> Settled for videoing the weather since it wasn't flying weather
> anyway.
>
> New Garmin SL30 being installed, getting my Garmin 250XL
> reinstalled.
>
> For new folks passing through and don't know me....
>
> http://www.youtube.com/user/BeechSundowner
>
> is my Youtube channel that includes all phases of flight from
> preflight, to night landings to shutdown procedures as well as ILS's,
> VFR takeoffs and landings, ATC comms extracted from ATC.net website
> and enroute shots from my various XC's. Also even have a "logbook in
> review" that relives my milestones from first flight to closure of
> logbook #1. Some to music, some not
>
> Allen

I haven't lowered my standards one iota. I just save them for forums
where I don't have to deal with idiots.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Ken S. Tucker writes:

> Well you must try it.

I can't swim, which is bad if you intend to go out on the ocean in a tiny
boat.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker writes:
>
>> Well you must try it.
>
> I can't swim, which is bad if you intend to go out on the ocean in a tiny
> boat.

Could be bad even if you go in a BIG boat.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Helen Waite]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Ken S. Tucker writes:
>
>> Well you must try it.
>
> I can't swim, which is bad if you intend to go out on the ocean in a tiny
> boat.

You can't do anything. You are just a life failure who plays with little
boys.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 16, 6:26*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> I haven't lowered my standards one iota. I just save them for forums
> where I don't have to deal with idiots.

Sorry Dudley. You do lower your standards of your replies when you
say you come down to the trolls level. Not only that, the above
statement is very condescending to those that do participate in the
USENET since apparently there are no idiots at POA or AOPA forums????

Replies like you said in this very thread such as

>>God, people like you burn my ****ing ass.
>>Go get ****ed you idiot!

surely don't bode well for new people coming through and seeing what
standards you have or your replies are like. I personally think you
are above that, but then again, who am I to say, since I am just a
background observer.

The above is not like you in all my time here or RAP or RAS. I had to
compare past headers to present to see that you weren't being spoofed
or whateva....

Like Jim said, if you really don't have anything good to say, don't
post. You really don't have to deal with idiots, UNLESS YOU choose to.

Allen

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker writes:
>
>> Well you must try it.
>
> I can't swim, which is bad if you intend to go out on the ocean in a tiny
> boat.

The size of the boat doesn't matter much and that's why life jackets
were invented and are mandated to be worn on most pleasure boats in
most areas.

It is not terribly surprising you are also afraid of boats.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Aug 16, 6:26 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> I haven't lowered my standards one iota. I just save them for forums
>> where I don't have to deal with idiots.
>
> Sorry Dudley. You do lower your standards of your replies when you
> say you come down to the trolls level. Not only that, the above
> statement is very condescending to those that do participate in the
> USENET since apparently there are no idiots at POA or AOPA forums????
>
> Replies like you said in this very thread such as
>
>>> God, people like you burn my ****ing ass.
>>> Go get ****ed you idiot!
>
> surely don't bode well for new people coming through and seeing what
> standards you have or your replies are like. I personally think you
> are above that, but then again, who am I to say, since I am just a
> background observer.
>
> The above is not like you in all my time here or RAP or RAS. I had to
> compare past headers to present to see that you weren't being spoofed
> or whateva....
>
> Like Jim said, if you really don't have anything good to say, don't
> post. You really don't have to deal with idiots, UNLESS YOU choose to.
>
> Allen

Try posting an aviation related comment to me if you want mature and
reasonable exchange. Other than that, and in answer to this kind of
post, expect my usual "go **** yourself!"
You will notice that every post where I use this term is in ANSWER to a
post to me or about me by someone posting a non aviation related
comment .
Just sick of dealing with it and won't any more.

If, on the other hand you wish to deal with me on an aviation basis,
please feel free to contact me on any other forum but this one. You will
be surprised at the change in my persona.
Thank you

--
Dudley Henriques

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Aug 16, 6:52 pm, Dallas > wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 15:08:35 -0700 (PDT), Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > and me being a skinny lively bitch
>
> First you say you wouldn't want to be in the cockpit with a homosexual,
> then you refer to yourself as a "bitch".
> Very strange.

Not really, I *was* 36-26-40, didn't know that until
some fella asked me to be his best man and the
fitters couldn't believe how skinny my waist was,
doing the tux thing, man I was centered out!
My friends started calling me Katy (KT) and makin'
fun of me, but it was all in good humor.
Ken

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote

> God, people like you burn my ****ing ass.
> Go get ****ed you idiot!

Sorry you feel that way.

I won't bother you any further.
--
Jim in NC

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
>> God, people like you burn my ****ing ass.
>> Go get ****ed you idiot!
>
> Sorry you feel that way.
>
> I won't bother you any further.

THANK ****ING GOD!!!

--
Dudley Henriques

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

To stay in the theme of the group, my plane coming out of the avionics
shop I hope Monday so I can resume my videoing on my You Tube channel.
Settled for videoing the weather since it wasn't flying weather
anyway.

New Garmin SL30 being installed, getting my Garmin 250XL
reinstalled.
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
New post starts here: Why does it do that sometimes, anyway?

Why do you say reinstall, what happened that got it "uninstalled?"

Keep up the videos. I enjoy them.

My _only_ request.

When you say takeoff from POD, and landing at NOW, would you consider add
the city name, like takeoff from Podunk POD and landing at Nowhere NOW?

I am not from your neck of the woods, so it would save us viewers from
pulling out the reference book or online lookup to see where the
abbreviations really are.

Thanks. Think about it anyway. I do enjoy seeing your videos, especially
the ones playing with the clouds. A lot of us don't get to do that! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Try posting an aviation related comment to me if you want mature and
> reasonable exchange.

I don't think you ever addressed the question I had about nose-up pitch in
Cessnas on rotation.

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Could be bad even if you go in a BIG boat.

That has occurred to me, which is probably why I'm unlikely to go on a cruise
(even though I've been told that the best cruises are quite nice).

"She can stay afloat with the first four compartments flooded, but not
five--not five."

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:

On second thought, don't bother with me on other forums. Wouldn't work
well at all.
Thank you


--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The size of the boat doesn't matter much and that's why life jackets
> were invented and are mandated to be worn on most pleasure boats in
> most areas.

Cruise ships sink less often than small boats.

> It is not terribly surprising you are also afraid of boats.

Also?

[[email protected]]

On Aug 16, 9:35*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> On second thought, don't bother with me on other forums. Wouldn't work
> well at all.
> Thank you
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

I think Mx may have a sense of the tide turning.

[Dallas]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 15:08:35 -0700 (PDT), Ken S. Tucker wrote:

> and me being a skinny lively bitch

First you say you wouldn't want to be in the cockpit with a homosexual,
then you refer to yourself as a "bitch".

Very strange.

(This is why I like unmoderated groups.)


--
Dallas

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> It is not terribly surprising you are also afraid of boats.
>
> Also?

Yeah, also, like airplanes, motorcycles, social contact, finding a
real job, relationships...


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Aug 16, 9:35 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>> On second thought, don't bother with me on other forums. Wouldn't work
>> well at all.
>> Thank you
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I think Mx may have a sense of the tide turning.

If you mean against me you might be right. I don't give much hope at all
for the regulars who insist on starting threads about Mx to stop doing
that. They'll concentrate on me for a while which is fine. I have a
thick skin and my aviation interests are no longer involved here but are
concentrated on other forums where I don't have to tell people off.

If nothing else I've shown them in plain English how what they are doing
has denigrated their forum. I'm just one individual, and I'm sick of it.
It's gotten to the point where I've lost any serious interest I had in
contributing to this group. Every time I come here it takes about 3
seconds to see that there's an overwhelming amount of activity centered
on and around several people not wanted here. For every aviation post
there are many more started by some moron who just can't surpress the
desire to lecture everybody else on how NOT to respond to Mx. It's
laughable. These people have become their own problem while Mx and co
sit back and laugh their asses off while they do exactly what they are
lecturing others NOT to do.
It's laughable!

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

On Aug 16, 8:23*pm, "Morgans"

> Why do you say reinstall, what happened that got it "uninstalled?"

Replaced it with a Garmin 430 and held on to it

My second King 170 NAV/COM started dying a slow death, soooo, the slim
line Garmin 30, gave me enough room to put back the VFR GPS in the
same slot as the 30SL. Only reason I needed the new Garmin SL is for
my second NAV otherwise I would have just stuck with the VFR GPS for
my second COM.

> Keep up the videos. *I enjoy them.
>
> My _only_ request.
>
> When you say takeoff from POD, and landing at NOW, would you consider add
> the city name, like takeoff from Podunk POD and landing at Nowhere NOW?

Generally, I have it in the web page title or description, but I will
go back and check that I have them all labeled in "English". I like
this kind of input :-)

> the ones playing with the clouds. *A lot of us don't get to do that! * <g>

YOu are right and I know it's a privilege not to be taken for
granted :-)))

[Helen Waite]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Try posting an aviation related comment to me if you want mature and
>> reasonable exchange.
>
> I don't think you ever addressed the question I had about nose-up
> pitch in Cessnas on rotation.

Why should any pilot help a jackass sim kiddie like you. You repeatedly
told all the real pilots, including CFIs and ATPs, who did try and answer
your questions in the past how much more you know about aviation than all
of them combined, even though your only experience with flying was through
MSFS. You have no concept of the difference between MSFS and reality, but
nonetheless you constantly lectured those of us who did how you were right
and we were wrong. Do you expect any of us to now help you for free? Go
ask all the pilots you claim you regualarly talk with. Or were you lying
about that?

You are a complete and total fraud Anthony. You are not worth helping.
Crawl back into your hovel and play with yourself.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 16, 8:35*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> On second thought, don't bother with me on other forums. Wouldn't work
> well at all.
> Thank you
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Ummm, did you wrongly attribute Mx posting to me regarding cessna
pitch up????????

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Try posting an aviation related comment to me if you want mature and
>> reasonable exchange.
>
> I don't think you ever addressed the question I had about nose-up pitch in
> Cessnas on rotation.

No problem. If my worst enemy posts an aviation related question to me
in a respectful manner on this forum, they deserve a respectful answer,
and that includes you Mx. If everybody else around here dealt with
people in this way the group would be much better for it.
Notice no "GFU" this time!

Anyway, about your question;

As you know, lift increases with airspeed, so actually, the pilot, by
applying back pressure at rotation, is simply helping a natural process
that would lift the aircraft off the runway as the airspeed produces the
needed lift for the gross weight and at the same time controlling that
natural process in both direction and pitch.

I haven't actually noticed the behavior of the 182 in the simulator so I
can't comment on that, but if I recall, you said something about it
being too flat???

You don't want a lot of pitch input at rotation in most airplanes as it
is possible if you lead the lift a bit to drag the tail. If you have the
needed lift, as soon as the wing senses the increase in angle of attack
the airplane will leave the runway. The trick when this happens is
actually to keep the nose down in some airplanes rather than raise it
because if the aircraft is accelerating (and it is), it "wants" to go UP!

A B52 is a perfect example of a flat rotation. Watch a video of a B52
takeoff and you will notice that the aircraft just seems to "leave the
runway". This is a normal take off for the 52. In the cockpit, the
actual yoke pitch input is quite small in this airplane.

For a 182, you should be getting a normal rotation with just a little
yoke pressure at lift off causing that as the airplane reaches the
airspeed where lift is being created that allows the airplane to fly.

If you are seeing a flat rotation in the sim for the 182, try simply
using a bit more yoke pressure but not enough that you exceed Vy. Just
rotate and then find the nose attitude that produces a Vy airspeed for
you as you clean up the airplane into climb settings.

Hope this is helpful.


--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

On Aug 16, 7:20*pm, Dudley Henriques

> Just sick of dealing with it and won't any more.

So don't..... :-((((((((

Lowers your blood pressure and improves the quality of the group.

I really thought better of you.... but again, oh well...

Last I will post on this topic........

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Aug 16, 8:35 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>> On second thought, don't bother with me on other forums. Wouldn't work
>> well at all.
>> Thank you
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Ummm, did you wrongly attribute Mx posting to me regarding cessna
> pitch up????????

I don't think so. I've simply realized that you and I might not be the
best pairing for meaningful aviation dialog. You seem more interested in
my persona than in any expertise I might have or not have.
Anyway, you get one off topic lecture shot at me, and you have taken yours.

Hey, best to you. No hard feelings.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
" > wrote:

> On Aug 16, 8:35*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> > On second thought, don't bother with me on other forums. Wouldn't work
> > well at all.
> > Thank you
> >
> > --
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> Ummm, did you wrongly attribute Mx posting to me regarding cessna
> pitch up????????

More likely: someone is impersonating DH.

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

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Aug 16, 7:20 pm, Dudley Henriques
>
>> Just sick of dealing with it and won't any more.
>
> So don't..... :-((((((((
>
> Lowers your blood pressure and improves the quality of the group.
>
> I really thought better of you.... but again, oh well...
>
> Last I will post on this topic........

THANK GOD!!! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Could be bad even if you go in a BIG boat.
>
> That has occurred to me, which is probably why I'm unlikely to go on a cruise
> (even though I've been told that the best cruises are quite nice).
>
> "She can stay afloat with the first four compartments flooded, but not
> five--not five."

Swimming is something you could learn with little trouble Anthony. Not
much cost involved I would think. I'm a lousy swimmer myself, but can
get along well enough not to drown.
For cruises, I pay very close attention to the life boat drill :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

On Aug 16, 9:32*pm, Bob Noel >
wrote:

> More likely: someone is impersonating DH.

Hopefull thinking?????? Something weird going on....

Responses I have received way have been I thought undeserving and way
off base from DH (if indeed him). My responses to him were in the
interest of preserving the newsgroup and NOTHING about his
personality.....

Back on topic..... Jeeez, need to get my plane back in service so I
can commit aviation rather then sit in front of this durn
computer :-)

Hoping this thunderstormy weather will break so I can get a big enough
"playing field" to do some "sky writing" in Flight Aware.

Been one crazy August down here in the deep south. 83 as a high temp
without a tropical system involved just about unheard of for this time
of the year :-)

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> As you know, lift increases with airspeed, so actually, the pilot, by
> applying back pressure at rotation, is simply helping a natural process
> that would lift the aircraft off the runway as the airspeed produces the
> needed lift for the gross weight and at the same time controlling that
> natural process in both direction and pitch.
>
> I haven't actually noticed the behavior of the 182 in the simulator so I
> can't comment on that, but if I recall, you said something about it
> being too flat???

It doesn't seem to pitch up in the way that other aircraft do. I pull back on
the stick and it rises a little bit, but not like other aircraft.

Watching videos of these Cessnas taking off, it also appears that they don't
pitch up much as they leave the runway, or before leaving the runway.

I figured it might have something to do with the high-wing design (?).

As far as I can tell (I just compared again), the videos match the sim, or
perhaps I should say the sim matches the videos, and I tried two different
Cessnas (one by Carenado, and one by Flight1).

> You don't want a lot of pitch input at rotation in most airplanes as it
> is possible if you lead the lift a bit to drag the tail. If you have the
> needed lift, as soon as the wing senses the increase in angle of attack
> the airplane will leave the runway. The trick when this happens is
> actually to keep the nose down in some airplanes rather than raise it
> because if the aircraft is accelerating (and it is), it "wants" to go UP!

Cessnas seem eager to fly. But I'm still rotating at too high a speed (around
80 KIAS), which could have something to do with that.

> A B52 is a perfect example of a flat rotation. Watch a video of a B52
> takeoff and you will notice that the aircraft just seems to "leave the
> runway". This is a normal take off for the 52. In the cockpit, the
> actual yoke pitch input is quite small in this airplane.

I've read that the angle of incidence on the B-52 is so severe that it can
take off with the fuselage level, and it can land with the fuselage nose-down.
Videos seem to confirm this.

> For a 182, you should be getting a normal rotation with just a little
> yoke pressure at lift off causing that as the airplane reaches the
> airspeed where lift is being created that allows the airplane to fly.

That seems to be what is happening. In the Baron I need to be more brisk
about pulling back the yoke.

> If you are seeing a flat rotation in the sim for the 182, try simply
> using a bit more yoke pressure but not enough that you exceed Vy. Just
> rotate and then find the nose attitude that produces a Vy airspeed for
> you as you clean up the airplane into climb settings.

I will keep practicing. Right now I'm wrestling with the AFDS on a 767 (VNAV
on the FMC isn't very good at respecting altitude constraints on a descent
profile), but I'll probably fire up my 182 just to take a break (something
_completely_ different).

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Swimming is something you could learn with little trouble ...

Tried several times, failed. Almost drowned on several occasions. I just
avoid water now.

> For cruises, I pay very close attention to the life boat drill :-))

On overseas flights I scrutinize the waves below and try to remain hopeful.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Yeah, also, like airplanes, motorcycles, social contact, finding a
> real job, relationships...

I don't see anything scary about these things, although some of them don't
sound very interesting.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> As you know, lift increases with airspeed, so actually, the pilot, by
>> applying back pressure at rotation, is simply helping a natural process
>> that would lift the aircraft off the runway as the airspeed produces the
>> needed lift for the gross weight and at the same time controlling that
>> natural process in both direction and pitch.
>>
>> I haven't actually noticed the behavior of the 182 in the simulator so I
>> can't comment on that, but if I recall, you said something about it
>> being too flat???
>
> It doesn't seem to pitch up in the way that other aircraft do. I pull back on
> the stick and it rises a little bit, but not like other aircraft.

It might be a glitch in the program. Microsoft had the DC3 coupling in
yaw/roll in the wrong direction until we spotted it during the FSX beta
process and had them correct it :-)
>
> Watching videos of these Cessnas taking off, it also appears that they don't
> pitch up much as they leave the runway, or before leaving the runway.
>
> I figured it might have something to do with the high-wing design (?).

The wing on the Cessna is slippery with angle of attack and will react
quickly. Each wing on an airplane is a bit different. It all has to do
with how the leading edge handles the angle of attack change as the
airplane rotates. Some leading edges are more pronounced than others.
The Cherokee wing for example (the old Hershey Bar wing) had a very
pronounced leading edge curve that rotated the airplane quickly as the
angle of attack increased. The Cessna leading edge is a bit more
streamlined and the lift increase RATE at rotation might be a bit flatter.
The answer is on the individual lift curves for every wing where lift
coefficient vs aoa can be viewed.
>
> As far as I can tell (I just compared again), the videos match the sim, or
> perhaps I should say the sim matches the videos, and I tried two different
> Cessnas (one by Carenado, and one by Flight1).
>
>> You don't want a lot of pitch input at rotation in most airplanes as it
>> is possible if you lead the lift a bit to drag the tail. If you have the
>> needed lift, as soon as the wing senses the increase in angle of attack
>> the airplane will leave the runway. The trick when this happens is
>> actually to keep the nose down in some airplanes rather than raise it
>> because if the aircraft is accelerating (and it is), it "wants" to go UP!
>
> Cessnas seem eager to fly. But I'm still rotating at too high a speed (around
> 80 KIAS), which could have something to do with that.

80 isn't all that bad for a normal takeoff in a 182. Sea Level Vy for
the airplane if I remember is right around 78kts? Been a long time :-)
>
>> A B52 is a perfect example of a flat rotation. Watch a video of a B52
>> takeoff and you will notice that the aircraft just seems to "leave the
>> runway". This is a normal take off for the 52. In the cockpit, the
>> actual yoke pitch input is quite small in this airplane.
>
> I've read that the angle of incidence on the B-52 is so severe that it can
> take off with the fuselage level, and it can land with the fuselage nose-down.
> Videos seem to confirm this.

It is interesting to watch.
>
>> For a 182, you should be getting a normal rotation with just a little
>> yoke pressure at lift off causing that as the airplane reaches the
>> airspeed where lift is being created that allows the airplane to fly.
>
> That seems to be what is happening. In the Baron I need to be more brisk
> about pulling back the yoke.

That computes for me.
>
>> If you are seeing a flat rotation in the sim for the 182, try simply
>> using a bit more yoke pressure but not enough that you exceed Vy. Just
>> rotate and then find the nose attitude that produces a Vy airspeed for
>> you as you clean up the airplane into climb settings.
>
> I will keep practicing. Right now I'm wrestling with the AFDS on a 767 (VNAV
> on the FMC isn't very good at respecting altitude constraints on a descent
> profile), but I'll probably fire up my 182 just to take a break (something
> _completely_ different).

Hang in there. You're doing fine!


--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> 80 isn't all that bad for a normal takeoff in a 182. Sea Level Vy for
> the airplane if I remember is right around 78kts? Been a long time :-)

Hmm ... in that case I guess I'm doing okay. I like having airspeed.

> Hang in there. You're doing fine!

Well, my last 767 flight (and most 767 flights before that) ended in tragedy.
I've only managed two decent landings, and they were both autolands. It seems
that 767s just don't want to descend.

However, I just managed a very clean flight in the 182, VFR at night no less.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> You panic quite easily, don't you?

Not at all.

> BTW, panic in the air will kill you just as fast as panic in the water.

I'm not prone to panic in the air.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Aug 17, 1:37 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Nomen Nescio writes:
> > You panic quite easily, don't you?
>
> Not at all.
>
> > BTW, panic in the air will kill you just as fast as panic in the water.
>
> I'm not prone to panic in the air.

I have a friend like that, one helluva nice guy, but
he has a hard time figuring out fact from fiction,
he reads a novel and then believes it was his own
personal experience, and that becomes part of his
memory of something he actually did.
The shrinks likely have a name for that specific
syndrome. Of course everyone has an issue with
deciding fact from fiction, so I guess it's a matter
of degree.
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Aug 17, 1:37 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Nomen Nescio writes:
>> > You panic quite easily, don't you?
>>
>> Not at all.
>>
>> > BTW, panic in the air will kill you just as fast as panic in the
>> > water.
>>
>> I'm not prone to panic in the air.
>
> I have a friend like that, one helluva nice guy, but
> he has a hard time figuring out fact from fiction,
> he reads a novel and then believes it was his own
> personal experience, and that becomes part of his
> memory of something he actually did.
> The shrinks likely have a name for that specific
> syndrome. Of course everyone has an issue with
> deciding fact from fiction, so I guess it's a matter
> of degree.


yeah, a "friend"


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:6a627bf1-88c6-4c54-
:

> On Aug 16, 2:27 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker writes:
>> > Ok, have you ever been in a sail boat?
>>
>> No.
>
> Well you must try it.
> Your doing a tack with the sail fully stable suckin'
> energy from the wind, cuttin' water and bouncin'
> waves off the starboards, that's the sound you hear.
>
> Next, you reverse tact and the sail flutters (stalls)

Nope, you're a dfjukktard. A sail luffing is the opposite of what a stall
is, you moron.



> until re-acquistion of stability going in nearly the
> opposite direction and you're still heading into the
> wind, so the net motion is into the wind. Every pilot
> should do that. I was on trapeze, with a good fat old
> captain on the til, and me being a skinny lively bitch
> loved jumped to either side of the boat, pulling the
> sail to max the energy out of the wind.



Good grief, you're straight out of ALice in Wondeland, you are.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:98849715-81a2-4e1a-
:

> On Aug 16, 6:52 pm, Dallas > wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 15:08:35 -0700 (PDT), Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> > and me being a skinny lively bitch
>>
>> First you say you wouldn't want to be in the cockpit with a homosexual,
>> then you refer to yourself as a "bitch".
>> Very strange.
>
> Not really, I *was* 36-26-40, didn't know that until
> some fella asked me to be his best man and the
> fitters couldn't believe how skinny my waist was,
> doing the tux thing, man I was centered out!
> My friends started calling me Katy (KT) and makin'
> fun of me, but it was all in good humor.


Sorry, I was a bit premature with the Alice in Ownderland comment. We;re
into Naked Lunch territory here.



Bertie
>

[[email protected]]

On Aug 16, 6:08*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Aug 16, 2:27 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Ken S. Tucker writes:
> > > Ok, have you ever been in a sail boat?
>
> > No.
>
> Well you must try it.
> Your doing a tack with the sail fully stable suckin'
> energy from the wind, cuttin' water and bouncin'
> waves off the starboards, that's the sound you hear.
>
> Next, you reverse tact and the sail flutters (stalls)
> until re-acquistion of stability going in nearly the
> opposite direction and you're still heading into the
> wind, so the net motion is into the wind. Every pilot
> should do that. I was on trapeze, *with a good fat old
> captain on the til, and me being a skinny lively bitch
> loved jumped to either side of the boat, pulling the
> sail to max the energy out of the wind.
> Regards
> Ken
> PS: Read about it.

On our boat we put the crew to the windward side to keep the mast more
vertical. We adjust the sail by pulling on the correct strings, and
it depends on the tack as to which is the lee rail going awash.

As for stalling a sail -- on a beat there's lots of flow separation on
the low pressure side of the sail, but it continues to drive the boat.
The luffing at the trailing edge just means there's marginal flow
separation there, not at the leading edge. If you want to really see a
sail stall, do a jibe, not a come about. If you don't duck you'll
learn soon enough why the part sweeping across the cockpit is called a
boom.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> I may actually try creating a Google Groups piloting group as a
> final experiment.

No offense (honest), but why would I want you as my moderator? I don't even
know you, and your unsolicited offer to appoint yourself does nothing to give me
confidence.

Vaughn

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> You panic quite easily, don't you?
>
> Not at all.

Right, that's why you've almost drowned several times when all you had
to do was relax, lean your head back, and float.

> I'm not prone to panic in the air.

Right.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Right, that's why you've almost drowned several times when all you had
> to do was relax, lean your head back, and float.

I had not been taught what to do, and in one case the surf would have made it
difficult to just lie back and float (and unnecessary, since the water was
only a few feet deep).

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Right, that's why you've almost drowned several times when all you had
>> to do was relax, lean your head back, and float.
>
> I had not been taught what to do, and in one case the surf would have made it
> difficult to just lie back and float (and unnecessary, since the water was
> only a few feet deep).

How does anyone other than an infant "almost drown" in a few feet
of water?

And THAT is what this discussion was about, i.e. you almost drowning
several times.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jim Logajan]

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> I may actually try creating a Google Groups piloting group as a
>> final experiment.
>
> No offense (honest), but why would I want you as my moderator?

That is a question I would ask of anyone else if they created a
moderated group. So no offense taken at all. I believe the intro I
posted here provides an (admittedly slanted) background of myself:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec_aviation_piloting/browse_thread/thread/a9c57e45a3b88c8a?hl=en

> I don't even
> know you, and your unsolicited offer to appoint yourself does nothing
> to give me confidence.

I concur with your reasoning - I think anyone willing to nominate
themselves as a discussion group moderator is suspect. But on the matter
of consistent application of such reasoning: do you (or did many of the
members of this group who migrated) apply that same reasoning with
regard to the people who set up and run the AOPA forums or Pilots of
America? (Not sure if you are a member of either group.) Likewise, did
you use the same confidence check in determining whether you should use
AT&T as your Usenet provider (they must have some Terms of Service you
must abide by even on Usenet postings)?

Consider this: anyone can create a group - that is what would presumably
keep me (or anyone else) "honest" and fair. Competition always lurks. It
is not like you or anyone is forever doomed by joining. It costs nothing
(except time) to check out a new group. Heavy handed moderation would be
counterproductive to the whole point of the endeavor.

Lastly, I would be very happy to see someone else deal with such
moderation. Got any names you'd suggest as possibilties that we could
draft? I already have identified one person that I'd like to see as a
moderator of an aviation group:

Vaughn Simon

(Yes, I'm serious.)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Right, that's why you've almost drowned several times when all you
>> had to do was relax, lean your head back, and float.
>
> I had not been taught what to do, and in one case the surf would have
> made it difficult to just lie back and float (and unnecessary, since
> the water was only a few feet deep).
>









God I love usenet.


Bertie

[george]

On Aug 18, 1:07 am, wrote:
> On Aug 16, 6:08 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 16, 2:27 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > > Ken S. Tucker writes:
> > > > Ok, have you ever been in a sail boat?
>
> > > No.
>
> > Well you must try it.
> > Your doing a tack with the sail fully stable suckin'
> > energy from the wind, cuttin' water and bouncin'
> > waves off the starboards, that's the sound you hear.
>
> > Next, you reverse tact and the sail flutters (stalls)
> > until re-acquistion of stability going in nearly the
> > opposite direction and you're still heading into the
> > wind, so the net motion is into the wind. Every pilot
> > should do that. I was on trapeze, with a good fat old
> > captain on the til, and me being a skinny lively bitch
> > loved jumped to either side of the boat, pulling the
> > sail to max the energy out of the wind.
> > Regards
> > Ken
> > PS: Read about it.
>
> On our boat we put the crew to the windward side to keep the mast more
> vertical. We adjust the sail by pulling on the correct strings, and
> it depends on the tack as to which is the lee rail going awash.
>
> As for stalling a sail -- on a beat there's lots of flow separation on
> the low pressure side of the sail, but it continues to drive the boat.
> The luffing at the trailing edge just means there's marginal flow
> separation there, not at the leading edge. If you want to really see a
> sail stall, do a jibe, not a come about. If you don't duck you'll
> learn soon enough why the part sweeping across the cockpit is called a
> boom.

With all that technical data I can see him lining up for the next
Americas Cup :-)

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> How does anyone other than an infant "almost drown" in a few feet
> of water?

By being capsized and held under (briefly) by the surf.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
>(Not sure if you are a member of either group.)

I am an AOPA member, but not a member of any of their forums.

>But also did
> you use the same confidence check in determining whether you should use
> AT&T as your Usenet provider (they must have some Terms of Service you
> must abide by even on Usenet postings)?

Bad comparison. I am a customer of AT&T. They please me on a day-to-day
basis or I fire them and move on to the next ISP.
>
> Consider this: anyone can create a group

Exactly, that is why there are way too many groups. The world does not need
any more Google groups.

> Lastly, I would be very happy to see someone else deal with such
> moderation. Got any names you'd suggest as possibilties that we could
> draft?

I already have made a suggestion; God. Until then, we are better off without
a hall monitor. Learn to use filters. I use them all the time and they work
fine.


--
Vaughn

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nothing personal, but if you are posting through Google Groups I may not receive
your message. Google refuses to control the flood of spam messages originating
in their system, so on any given day I may or may not have Google blocked. Try
a real NNTP server & news reader program and you will never go back. All you
need is access to an NNTP server (AKA "news server") and a news reader program.
You probably already have a news reader program in your computer (Hint: Outlook
Express). Assuming that your Usenet needs are modest, use
http://news.aioe.org/ for free and/or http://www.teranews.com/ for a one-time
$3.95 setup fee.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Will poofread for food.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> How does anyone other than an infant "almost drown" in a few feet
>> of water?
>
> By being capsized and held under (briefly) by the surf.
>

Bwawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhah!

No wonder you're afraid of going for a walk. Probably afraid youre going to
be attacked by a pile of blowing leaves.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> How does anyone other than an infant "almost drown" in a few feet
>> of water?
>
> By being capsized and held under (briefly) by the surf.

Right.

Since adults can go about 3 minutes without air, in other words, you
paniced and were thrasing around like a flounder instead of relaxing,
letting the surf pass, and simply standing up.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Aug 17, 6:07 am, wrote:
> On Aug 16, 6:08 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 16, 2:27 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > > Ken S. Tucker writes:
> > > > Ok, have you ever been in a sail boat?
>
> > > No.
>
> > Well you must try it.
> > Your doing a tack with the sail fully stable suckin'
> > energy from the wind, cuttin' water and bouncin'
> > waves off the starboards, that's the sound you hear.
>
> > Next, you reverse tact and the sail flutters (stalls)
> > until re-acquistion of stability going in nearly the
> > opposite direction and you're still heading into the
> > wind, so the net motion is into the wind. Every pilot
> > should do that. I was on trapeze, with a good fat old
> > captain on the til, and me being a skinny lively bitch
> > loved jumped to either side of the boat, pulling the
> > sail to max the energy out of the wind.
> > Regards
> > Ken
> > PS: Read about it.
>
> On our boat we put the crew to the windward side to keep the mast more
> vertical. We adjust the sail by pulling on the correct strings, and
> it depends on the tack as to which is the lee rail going awash.
>
> As for stalling a sail -- on a beat there's lots of flow separation on
> the low pressure side of the sail, but it continues to drive the boat.
> The luffing at the trailing edge just means there's marginal flow
> separation there, not at the leading edge. If you want to really see a
> sail stall, do a jibe, not a come about. If you don't duck you'll
> learn soon enough why the part sweeping across the cockpit is called a
> boom.

I have no problem with the boom, I have a thick skull :-).
Best time, we had was in a 10-20 knot wind, I was on
trapeze, fairly small lake with white caps, 2 maybe 3
person boat, hot day with a stiff breeze, getting soaked
with splash, and slippery with wet shoes. I slipped a bit
but with sober adrenaline I recovered fast, whata rush.
Cheers
Ken

[Jim Logajan]

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote:
>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote:
>> But also did
>> you use the same confidence check in determining whether you should
>> use AT&T as your Usenet provider (they must have some Terms of
>> Service you must abide by even on Usenet postings)?
>
> Bad comparison. I am a customer of AT&T. They please me on a
> day-to-day basis or I fire them and move on to the next ISP.

Well that's the point I was trying to make. Hmmm. Guess I did a bad job
communicating.

>> Consider this: anyone can create a group
>
> Exactly, that is why there are way too many groups. The world does
> not need any more Google groups.

Ah, but you can't filter out or stop the creation of new forums. And not
all forums are identical in nature - that's the great thing about having a
choice.

>> Lastly, I would be very happy to see someone else deal with such
>> moderation. Got any names you'd suggest as possibilties that we could
>> draft?
>
> I already have made a suggestion; God.

But I'm an atheist. :-)

> Until then, we are better off without
> a hall monitor. Learn to use filters. I use them all the time and
> they work fine.

If filters were as effective as you believe then we wouldn't be having this
discussion.

I don't use filters and have no problems ignoring or disregarding posts -
but I do have a problem when this group's membership declines because other
people have problems with the naked and uncontrollable animosities. They
are moving to other groups (or simply leaving all online forums)
irrespective of our own mechanisms. I've simply decided to go out of my way
a bit and expend some effort trying to help people who might like an
alternative. It isn't meant to be perfect - just hopefully better.

I still think you should be the moderator of an alternative group - none is
so effective as the one who is most skeptical.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:db865cf9-883d-
:

> On Aug 17, 6:07 am, wrote:
>> On Aug 16, 6:08 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 16, 2:27 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>> > > Ken S. Tucker writes:
>> > > > Ok, have you ever been in a sail boat?
>>
>> > > No.
>>
>> > Well you must try it.
>> > Your doing a tack with the sail fully stable suckin'
>> > energy from the wind, cuttin' water and bouncin'
>> > waves off the starboards, that's the sound you hear.
>>
>> > Next, you reverse tact and the sail flutters (stalls)
>> > until re-acquistion of stability going in nearly the
>> > opposite direction and you're still heading into the
>> > wind, so the net motion is into the wind. Every pilot
>> > should do that. I was on trapeze, with a good fat old
>> > captain on the til, and me being a skinny lively bitch
>> > loved jumped to either side of the boat, pulling the
>> > sail to max the energy out of the wind.
>> > Regards
>> > Ken
>> > PS: Read about it.
>>
>> On our boat we put the crew to the windward side to keep the mast
more
>> vertical. We adjust the sail by pulling on the correct strings, and
>> it depends on the tack as to which is the lee rail going awash.
>>
>> As for stalling a sail -- on a beat there's lots of flow separation
on
>> the low pressure side of the sail, but it continues to drive the
boat.
>> The luffing at the trailing edge just means there's marginal flow
>> separation there, not at the leading edge. If you want to really see
a
>> sail stall, do a jibe, not a come about. If you don't duck you'll
>> learn soon enough why the part sweeping across the cockpit is called
a
>> boom.
>
> I have no problem with the boom, I have a thick skull :-).
> Best time, we had was in a 10-20 knot wind, I was on
> trapeze, fairly small lake with white caps, 2 maybe 3
> person boat, hot day with a stiff breeze, getting soaked
> with splash, and slippery with wet shoes. I slipped a bit
> but with sober adrenaline I recovered fast, whata rush.


Is there anything you know anything about?

Anythign at all?

Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

>
>
>
> God I love usenet.
>
>
> Bertie

Liar. You're just here to **** and poison.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> I may actually try creating a Google Groups piloting group as a
>> final experiment.
>
> No offense (honest), but why would I want you as my moderator? I don't
> even know you, and your unsolicited offer to appoint yourself does nothing
> to give me confidence.
>
> Vaughn
>

If you stay here, it's moderated by Bertie, Dudley and their ilk. At least
Jim is an agreeable fellow with humble motives.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:5_0qk.18821$Bt6.15015
@newsfe04.iad:

>
>>
>>
>>
>> God I love usenet.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Liar. You're just here to **** and poison.
>


Snort!

God I love k00ks


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

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

>
> "Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> I may actually try creating a Google Groups piloting group as a
>>> final experiment.
>>
>> No offense (honest), but why would I want you as my moderator? I
>> don't
>> even know you, and your unsolicited offer to appoint yourself does
>> nothing to give me confidence.
>>
>> Vaughn
>>
>
> If you stay here, it's moderated by Bertie, Dudley and their ilk. At
> least Jim is an agreeable fellow with humble motives.


Wow, you're like Batman, or something, aintcha?



Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:5_0qk.18821$Bt6.15015
> @newsfe04.iad:
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> God I love usenet.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Liar. You're just here to **** and poison.
>>
>
>
> Snort!
>
> God I love k00ks
>
>
> Bertie

You must, you try hard enough to be one.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:A41qk.18827$Bt6.4971
@newsfe04.iad:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:5_0qk.18821$Bt6.15015
>> @newsfe04.iad:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> God I love usenet.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Liar. You're just here to **** and poison.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Snort!
>>
>> God I love k00ks
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You must, you try hard enough to be one.
>

But alas, I see the competition and become so disheartened....



Bertie

[CovvTseTung]

In article >, Bertie the
Bunyip says...

> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> >> .. .
> >>> I may actually try creating a Google Groups piloting group as a
> >>> final experiment.
> >>
> >> No offense (honest), but why would I want you as my moderator? I
> >> don't
> >> even know you, and your unsolicited offer to appoint yourself does
> >> nothing to give me confidence.
> >>
> >> Vaughn
> >>
> >
> > If you stay here, it's moderated by Bertie, Dudley and their ilk. At
> > least Jim is an agreeable fellow with humble motives.
>
>
> Wow, you're like Batman, or something, aintcha?

The question, is, what does the 'Maxwell light' look like?

A worm?

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

CovvTseTung > wrote in
:

> In article >, Bertie the
> Bunyip says...
>
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >
>> > "Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>> >> .. .
>> >>> I may actually try creating a Google Groups piloting group as a
>> >>> final experiment.
>> >>
>> >> No offense (honest), but why would I want you as my moderator?
I
>> >> don't
>> >> even know you, and your unsolicited offer to appoint yourself does
>> >> nothing to give me confidence.
>> >>
>> >> Vaughn
>> >>
>> >
>> > If you stay here, it's moderated by Bertie, Dudley and their ilk.
At
>> > least Jim is an agreeable fellow with humble motives.
>>
>>
>> Wow, you're like Batman, or something, aintcha?
>
> The question, is, what does the 'Maxwell light' look like?
>
> A worm?
>

I think it looks like this... *


It's an asshole.



Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Aug 17, 5:38*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Aug 17, 6:07 am, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 16, 6:08 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 16, 2:27 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > > > Ken S. Tucker writes:
> > > > > Ok, have you ever been in a sail boat?
>
> > > > No.
>
> > > Well you must try it.
> > > Your doing a tack with the sail fully stable suckin'
> > > energy from the wind, cuttin' water and bouncin'
> > > waves off the starboards, that's the sound you hear.
>
> > > Next, you reverse tact and the sail flutters (stalls)
> > > until re-acquistion of stability going in nearly the
> > > opposite direction and you're still heading into the
> > > wind, so the net motion is into the wind. Every pilot
> > > should do that. I was on trapeze, *with a good fat old
> > > captain on the til, and me being a skinny lively bitch
> > > loved jumped to either side of the boat, pulling the
> > > sail to max the energy out of the wind.
> > > Regards
> > > Ken
> > > PS: Read about it.
>
> > On our boat we put the crew to the windward side to keep the mast more
> > vertical. We adjust the sail by *pulling on the correct strings, and
> > it depends on the tack as to which is the lee rail going awash.
>
> > As for stalling a sail -- on a beat there's lots of flow separation on
> > the low pressure side of the sail, but it continues to drive the boat.
> > The luffing at the trailing edge just means there's marginal flow
> > separation there, not at the leading edge. If you want to really see a
> > sail stall, do a jibe, not a come about. If you don't duck you'll
> > learn soon enough why the part sweeping across the cockpit is called a
> > boom.
>
> I have no problem with the boom, I have a thick skull :-).
> Best time, we had was in a 10-20 knot wind, I was on
> trapeze, fairly small lake with white caps, 2 maybe 3
> person boat, hot day with a stiff breeze, getting soaked
> with splash, and slippery with wet shoes. I slipped a bit
> but with sober adrenaline I recovered fast, whata rush.
> Cheers
> Ken

You're casting some doubts here. Boat shoes don't slip on wet
surfaces. If you got hit with our boom I'd be betting on the boom,
especially on a jibe. First rule on our boat is to get out of the way
on the commands "Ready about" or "Ready Jibe". Those are NOT
suggestions and are not negotiable. You want not to be saying "What
did you say?" on "Jibe ho" or "Hard Alee".

No traps on our boat, it's a cruiser, not a racer. It does cast a nice
shadow though. Come to think of it. some other people here probably
cast nice shadows, they are mostly two dimensional anyway.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in

>>>
>>
>> If you stay here, it's moderated by Bertie, Dudley and their ilk. At
>> least Jim is an agreeable fellow with humble motives.
>
>
> Wow, you're like Batman, or something, aintcha?
>
>
>
> Bertie

If you were going to post a rebuttal, looks like you would at least try to
keep it relevant.

I guess you need some exercise Squirty the ****Drip.

[Jim Logajan]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> "Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> I may actually try creating a Google Groups piloting group as a
>>> final experiment.
>>
>> No offense (honest), but why would I want you as my moderator? I
>> don't
>> even know you, and your unsolicited offer to appoint yourself does
>> nothing to give me confidence.
>>
>> Vaughn
>>
>
> If you stay here, it's moderated by Bertie, Dudley and their ilk.

Well - not really moderated except in one's own head. At least that is the
way I see it.

> At least Jim is an agreeable fellow with humble motives.

First, thank you for that compliment. I do appreciate it.

Second, I'm afraid I mist tell you that I rather like Dudley - even when I
don't always agree with him. As a less than perfect human, I am very averse
to disliking people just because they have faults.

Lastly, I'm not all that humble, I'm afraid. Just not accomplished enough
to trumpet my greatness. ;-)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

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

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you stay here, it's moderated by Bertie, Dudley and their ilk. At
>>> least Jim is an agreeable fellow with humble motives.
>>
>>
>> Wow, you're like Batman, or something, aintcha?
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> If you were going to post a rebuttal, looks like you would at least
> try to keep it relevant.
>
> I guess you need some exercise Squirty the ****Drip.
>

Nope, bu tif you need some just jump on the hamster wheel again and i'll
poke you with a sharp stick at regular intervals to keep you going.


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .

>>
>> If you stay here, it's moderated by Bertie, Dudley and their ilk.
>
> Well - not really moderated except in one's own head. At least that is the
> way I see it.
>
>> At least Jim is an agreeable fellow with humble motives.
>
> First, thank you for that compliment. I do appreciate it.
>
> Second, I'm afraid I mist tell you that I rather like Dudley - even when I
> don't always agree with him. As a less than perfect human, I am very
> averse
> to disliking people just because they have faults.
>
> Lastly, I'm not all that humble, I'm afraid. Just not accomplished enough
> to trumpet my greatness. ;-)

I just suggested you might make a reasonable moderator.

I never meant to indicate you were a good judge of character, or had a clue
what was going on around here.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

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

>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>>
>>> If you stay here, it's moderated by Bertie, Dudley and their ilk.
>>
>> Well - not really moderated except in one's own head. At least that
>> is the way I see it.
>>
>>> At least Jim is an agreeable fellow with humble motives.
>>
>> First, thank you for that compliment. I do appreciate it.
>>
>> Second, I'm afraid I mist tell you that I rather like Dudley - even
>> when I don't always agree with him. As a less than perfect human, I
>> am very averse
>> to disliking people just because they have faults.
>>
>> Lastly, I'm not all that humble, I'm afraid. Just not accomplished
>> enough to trumpet my greatness. ;-)
>
> I just suggested you might make a reasonable moderator.
>
> I never meant to indicate you were a good judge of character, or had a
> clue what was going on around here.
>


Snort!


And you do?


Bwawhahwhhwhhwhahwhahwhahwhahw!

Bertie

[Jim Logajan]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>
>>>>
>>>> If you stay here, it's moderated by Bertie, Dudley and their ilk.
>>>
>>> Well - not really moderated except in one's own head. At least that
>>> is the way I see it.
>>>
>>>> At least Jim is an agreeable fellow with humble motives.
>>>
>>> First, thank you for that compliment. I do appreciate it.
>>>
>>> Second, I'm afraid I mist tell you that I rather like Dudley - even
>>> when I don't always agree with him. As a less than perfect human, I
>>> am very averse
>>> to disliking people just because they have faults.
>>>
>>> Lastly, I'm not all that humble, I'm afraid. Just not accomplished
>>> enough to trumpet my greatness. ;-)
>>
>> I just suggested you might make a reasonable moderator.
>>
>> I never meant to indicate you were a good judge of character, or had a
>> clue what was going on around here.
>>
>
> Snort!

Here's the clue I have so you both know precisely where I stand:

When "Bertie" cross-posts to the groups he does, then he exhibits the same
level of morality of a person who would flash a strobe light in the eyes of
a epileptic: for the simple pleasure of seeing that person convulse in an
epileptic seizure. He knows that there is no "learning" or "unlearning"
involved. He claims as much. He knows that it wont change things - he does
it for the sake of doing it.

When "Maxwell" continues to claim "Bertie" is responsible for "forging" his
name to posts, he is relying only on motivation - nothing more. There
exists other immoral (or amoral or simply immature) people in abundance who
are more than likely responsible.

I feel sad for both of you because neither of you seem to have a real clue
to what is really important. If you did, neither of you would find
yourselves in the online positions you now inhabit.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> When "Maxwell" continues to claim "Bertie" is responsible for "forging"
> his
> name to posts, he is relying only on motivation - nothing more. There
> exists other immoral (or amoral or simply immature) people in abundance
> who
> are more than likely responsible.

It matters not, if it's Bertie, or his ilk. That's the one of the points of
his cross posts (which you neglected to remove). Bertie is responable for it
either directly, or indirectly. Further, those messages are responsable for
the so called trolls idiot award that he claims I won.

Sorry Jim, I really thought you were a little smarter.

>
> I feel sad for both of you because neither of you seem to have a real clue
> to what is really important. If you did, neither of you would find
> yourselves in the online positions you now inhabit.

And what position do you think I inhabit?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you stay here, it's moderated by Bertie, Dudley and their ilk.
>>>>
>>>> Well - not really moderated except in one's own head. At least that
>>>> is the way I see it.
>>>>
>>>>> At least Jim is an agreeable fellow with humble motives.
>>>>
>>>> First, thank you for that compliment. I do appreciate it.
>>>>
>>>> Second, I'm afraid I mist tell you that I rather like Dudley - even
>>>> when I don't always agree with him. As a less than perfect human, I
>>>> am very averse
>>>> to disliking people just because they have faults.
>>>>
>>>> Lastly, I'm not all that humble, I'm afraid. Just not accomplished
>>>> enough to trumpet my greatness. ;-)
>>>
>>> I just suggested you might make a reasonable moderator.
>>>
>>> I never meant to indicate you were a good judge of character, or had
>>> a clue what was going on around here.
>>>
>>
>> Snort!
>
> Here's the clue I have so you both know precisely where I stand:

Stand? You have a stand?

How sad.


>
> When "Bertie" cross-posts to the groups he does, then he exhibits the
> same level of morality of a person who would flash a strobe light in
> the eyes of a epileptic: for the simple pleasure of seeing that person
> convulse in an epileptic seizure. He knows that there is no "learning"
> or "unlearning" involved. He claims as much. He knows that it wont
> change things - he does it for the sake of doing it.

Now waht that so hard?
>
> When "Maxwell" continues to claim "Bertie" is responsible for
> "forging" his name to posts, he is relying only on motivation -
> nothing more. There exists other immoral (or amoral or simply
> immature) people in abundance who are more than likely responsible.

What forgery?
>
> I feel sad for both of you because neither of you seem to have a real
> clue to what is really important. If you did, neither of you would
> find yourselves in the online positions you now inhabit.
>

Position?


Snort!


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Aug 17, 7:04*pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>
> .. .
>
>
>
> > When "Maxwell" continues to claim "Bertie" is responsible for "forging"
> > his
> > name to posts, he is relying only on motivation - nothing more. There
> > exists other immoral (or amoral or simply immature) people in abundance
> > who
> > are more than likely responsible.
>
> It matters not, if it's Bertie, or his ilk. That's the one of the points of
> his cross posts (which you neglected to remove). Bertie is responable for it
> either directly, or indirectly. Further, those messages are responsable for
> the so called trolls idiot award that he claims I won.
>
> Sorry Jim, I really thought you were a little smarter.
>
>
>
> > I feel sad for both of you because neither of you seem to have a real clue
> > to what is really important. If you did, neither of you would find
> > yourselves in the online positions you now inhabit.
>
> And what position do you think I inhabit?

Oh, I know the answer to that. An otherwise intelligent person who
enjoys ****ing contests. The thing those back and forth posts do is
annoy people, so you and Bertie have succeeded in doing that. I don't
think the world or the 'net is a better place because of it, but carry
on -- there's no stopping you.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

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

>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> When "Maxwell" continues to claim "Bertie" is responsible for
>> "forging" his
>> name to posts, he is relying only on motivation - nothing more. There
>> exists other immoral (or amoral or simply immature) people in
>> abundance who
>> are more than likely responsible.
>
> It matters not, if it's Bertie, or his ilk. That's the one of the
> points of his cross posts (which you neglected to remove). Bertie is
> responable for it either directly, or indirectly. Further, those
> messages are responsable for the so called trolls idiot award that he
> claims I won.


Don;t be so modest! You won it fair and square..


The Clueless Newbie of the Month is a very prestigious award!
>
> Sorry Jim, I really thought you were a little smarter.
>
>>
>> I feel sad for both of you because neither of you seem to have a real
>> clue to what is really important. If you did, neither of you would
>> find yourselves in the online positions you now inhabit.
>
> And what position do you think I inhabit?



And the cluelessness continues. If you're going to make it this easy for
me I may become bored.


Bertie
>
>
>
>

[Maxwell[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...

<Oh, I know the answer to that. An otherwise intelligent person who
<enjoys ****ing contests. The thing those back and forth posts do is
<annoy people, so you and Bertie have succeeded in doing that. I don't
<think the world or the 'net is a better place because of it, but carry
<on -- there's no stopping you.

And what did you just do, dumb ass.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:Ll2qk.18842$Bt6.12516
@newsfe04.iad:

>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>
> <Oh, I know the answer to that. An otherwise intelligent person who
> <enjoys ****ing contests. The thing those back and forth posts do is
> <annoy people, so you and Bertie have succeeded in doing that. I don't
> <think the world or the 'net is a better place because of it, but carry
> <on -- there's no stopping you.
>
> And what did you just do, dumb ass.


Wow, you really are a complete idiot, aren;t you?


Bertie

[Jim Logajan]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> When "Maxwell" continues to claim "Bertie" is responsible for
>> "forging" his
>> name to posts, he is relying only on motivation - nothing more. There
>> exists other immoral (or amoral or simply immature) people in
>> abundance who
>> are more than likely responsible.
>
> It matters not, if it's Bertie, or his ilk. That's the one of the
> points of his cross posts (which you neglected to remove). Bertie is
> responable for it either directly, or indirectly. Further, those
> messages are responsable for the so called trolls idiot award that he
> claims I won.
>
> Sorry Jim, I really thought you were a little smarter.

That Bertie relies on imbeciles to mix things up is blindingly obvious to
most everyone. We all get that - why haven't you picked up on that?

And I'm a lot smarter than you. You let Bertie get under your skin but he
will never get under mine. That makes me vastly smarter than you.

So don't mistake diplomatically nice language for naivety. Ever.

>> I feel sad for both of you because neither of you seem to have a real
>> clue to what is really important. If you did, neither of you would
>> find yourselves in the online positions you now inhabit.
>
> And what position do you think I inhabit?

The only thing your most recent posts accomplished was to confirm what
everyone already knew. My humble opinion is that you currently inhabit the
land of "I've been abused by someone. Now every time I kick him he kicks
back. Why does everyone not notice my pain?"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>>
>>> When "Maxwell" continues to claim "Bertie" is responsible for
>>> "forging" his
>>> name to posts, he is relying only on motivation - nothing more.
>>> There exists other immoral (or amoral or simply immature) people in
>>> abundance who
>>> are more than likely responsible.
>>
>> It matters not, if it's Bertie, or his ilk. That's the one of the
>> points of his cross posts (which you neglected to remove). Bertie is
>> responable for it either directly, or indirectly. Further, those
>> messages are responsable for the so called trolls idiot award that he
>> claims I won.
>>
>> Sorry Jim, I really thought you were a little smarter.
>
> That Bertie relies on imbeciles to mix things up is blindingly obvious
> to most everyone. We all get that - why haven't you picked up on that?
>
> And I'm a lot smarter than you. You let Bertie get under your skin but
> he will never get under mine. That makes me vastly smarter than you.


A challenge!

>
> So don't mistake diplomatically nice language for naivety. Ever.
>
>>> I feel sad for both of you because neither of you seem to have a
>>> real clue to what is really important. If you did, neither of you
>>> would find yourselves in the online positions you now inhabit.
>>
>> And what position do you think I inhabit?
>
> The only thing your most recent posts accomplished was to confirm what
> everyone already knew. My humble opinion is that you currently inhabit
> the land of "I've been abused by someone. Now every time I kick him he
> kicks back. Why does everyone not notice my pain?"


i think you're giving him waaaaaaay too much credit.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Aug 17, 7:18*pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> <Oh, I know the answer to that. An otherwise intelligent person who
> <enjoys ****ing contests. The thing those back and forth posts do is
> <annoy people, so you and Bertie have succeeded in doing that. I don't
> <think the world or the 'net is a better place because of it, but carry
> <on -- there's no stopping you.
>
> And what did you just do, dumb ass.

I obviously misspoke when I typed 'otherwise intelligent'. Sorry.

The last posts are yours -- fire away.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>>
>>> When "Maxwell" continues to claim "Bertie" is responsible for
>>> "forging" his
>>> name to posts, he is relying only on motivation - nothing more. There
>>> exists other immoral (or amoral or simply immature) people in
>>> abundance who
>>> are more than likely responsible.
>>
>> It matters not, if it's Bertie, or his ilk. That's the one of the
>> points of his cross posts (which you neglected to remove). Bertie is
>> responable for it either directly, or indirectly. Further, those
>> messages are responsable for the so called trolls idiot award that he
>> claims I won.
>>
>> Sorry Jim, I really thought you were a little smarter.
>
> That Bertie relies on imbeciles to mix things up is blindingly obvious to
> most everyone. We all get that - why haven't you picked up on that?
>
> And I'm a lot smarter than you. You let Bertie get under your skin but he
> will never get under mine. That makes me vastly smarter than you.
>
> So don't mistake diplomatically nice language for naivety. Ever.
>
>>> I feel sad for both of you because neither of you seem to have a real
>>> clue to what is really important. If you did, neither of you would
>>> find yourselves in the online positions you now inhabit.
>>
>> And what position do you think I inhabit?
>
> The only thing your most recent posts accomplished was to confirm what
> everyone already knew. My humble opinion is that you currently inhabit the
> land of "I've been abused by someone. Now every time I kick him he kicks
> back. Why does everyone not notice my pain?"

Exactly Jim. You are not nearly as smart as you thing, and this proves you
just don't get it.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

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

>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>>
>>>> When "Maxwell" continues to claim "Bertie" is responsible for
>>>> "forging" his
>>>> name to posts, he is relying only on motivation - nothing more.
>>>> There exists other immoral (or amoral or simply immature) people in
>>>> abundance who
>>>> are more than likely responsible.
>>>
>>> It matters not, if it's Bertie, or his ilk. That's the one of the
>>> points of his cross posts (which you neglected to remove). Bertie is
>>> responable for it either directly, or indirectly. Further, those
>>> messages are responsable for the so called trolls idiot award that
>>> he claims I won.
>>>
>>> Sorry Jim, I really thought you were a little smarter.
>>
>> That Bertie relies on imbeciles to mix things up is blindingly
>> obvious to most everyone. We all get that - why haven't you picked up
>> on that?
>>
>> And I'm a lot smarter than you. You let Bertie get under your skin
>> but he will never get under mine. That makes me vastly smarter than
>> you.
>>
>> So don't mistake diplomatically nice language for naivety. Ever.
>>
>>>> I feel sad for both of you because neither of you seem to have a
>>>> real clue to what is really important. If you did, neither of you
>>>> would find yourselves in the online positions you now inhabit.
>>>
>>> And what position do you think I inhabit?
>>
>> The only thing your most recent posts accomplished was to confirm
>> what everyone already knew. My humble opinion is that you currently
>> inhabit the land of "I've been abused by someone. Now every time I
>> kick him he kicks back. Why does everyone not notice my pain?"
>
> Exactly Jim. You are not nearly as smart as you thing, and this proves
> you just don't get it.
>

Nobody's as smart as their thing.


Bertie

[Dakota]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> writes:
>>
>>> How does anyone other than an infant "almost drown" in a few feet
>>> of water?
>>
>> By being capsized and held under (briefly) by the surf.
>>
>
> Bwawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhah!
>
> No wonder you're afraid of going for a walk. Probably afraid youre going
> to
> be attacked by a pile of blowing leaves.
>
> Bertie

You don't know **** about surf, do ya ButtLipp.

[Dakota]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Open minded" is not a mainstream expression for having a hole in your
> head, Kenny.
>
>
>
> Bertie

What do you call a bunyip with half a brain?

Extremely gifted.

[Dakota]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> Your repeated idiocy is all the fact required.....
>
> Bertie

Does that mean your own efforts are just a method of proving yourself?

[Dakota]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> I consider it all the time, but you continue to post idiocy in a never
> ending stream that pretty much closes off the door to the possibility
> that you may actually have any sense whatsoever.
>
> Bertie
>
>
>

Is this what your doctor tells you?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Dakota" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:sE4qk.21395$LF2.3646
@newsfe09.iad:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Open minded" is not a mainstream expression for having a hole in your
>> head, Kenny.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> What do you call a bunyip with half a brain?
>

>

Maxie?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

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

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> writes:
>>>
>>>> How does anyone other than an infant "almost drown" in a few feet
>>>> of water?
>>>
>>> By being capsized and held under (briefly) by the surf.
>>>
>>
>> Bwawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhah!
>>
>> No wonder you're afraid of going for a walk. Probably afraid youre
>> going to
>> be attacked by a pile of blowing leaves.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You don't know **** about surf, do ya ButtLipp.
>

Wouldn't like to see your beach..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Dakota" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:nF4qk.21396$LF2.11320
@newsfe09.iad:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Your repeated idiocy is all the fact required.....
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Does that mean your own efforts are just a method of proving yourself?
>
>
>

Nope, they're all designed to make you shine..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Dakota" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:5G4qk.21397$LF2.1026
@newsfe09.iad:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> I consider it all the time, but you continue to post idiocy in a never
>> ending stream that pretty much closes off the door to the possibility
>> that you may actually have any sense whatsoever.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>>
>
> Is this what your doctor tells you?
>

Nah, usualy she tells me to cut out rice cakes.

Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

In article >, Maxwell says...

>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > When "Maxwell" continues to claim "Bertie" is responsible for "forging"
> > his
> > name to posts, he is relying only on motivation - nothing more. There
> > exists other immoral (or amoral or simply immature) people in abundance
> > who
> > are more than likely responsible.
>
> It matters not, if it's Bertie, or his ilk. That's the one of the points of
> his cross posts (which you neglected to remove). Bertie is responable for it
> either directly, or indirectly. Further, those messages are responsable for
> the so called trolls idiot award that he claims I won.
>
> Sorry Jim, I really thought you were a little smarter.

How to make friends and influence people...


> > I feel sad for both of you because neither of you seem to have a real clue
> > to what is really important. If you did, neither of you would find
> > yourselves in the online positions you now inhabit.
>
> And what position do you think I inhabit?

Left out

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[Maxwell[_2_]]

In article <b1d372aa-c341-4912-a948-a18ff371748a@
34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, says...

> On Aug 17, 7:18*pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> >
> > ....
> >
> > <Oh, I know the answer to that. An otherwise intelligent person who
> > <enjoys ****ing contests. The thing those back and forth posts do is
> > <annoy people, so you and Bertie have succeeded in doing that. I don't
> > <think the world or the 'net is a better place because of it, but carry
> > <on -- there's no stopping you.
> >
> > And what did you just do, dumb ass.
>
> I obviously misspoke when I typed 'otherwise intelligent'. Sorry.
>
> The last posts are yours -- fire away.

You do understand that he's not well, don't you?

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[Maxwell[_2_]]

In article >, Maxwell says...

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>
> >>>
> >>
> >> If you stay here, it's moderated by Bertie, Dudley and their ilk. At
> >> least Jim is an agreeable fellow with humble motives.
> >
> >
> > Wow, you're like Batman, or something, aintcha?
> >
> >
> >
> > Bertie
>
> If you were going to post a rebuttal, looks like you would at least try to
> keep it relevant.
>
> I guess you need some exercise Squirty the ****Drip.

How dare you steal my nym!

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[Maxwell[_2_]]

In article >, Dakota says...

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > I consider it all the time, but you continue to post idiocy in a never
> > ending stream that pretty much closes off the door to the possibility
> > that you may actually have any sense whatsoever.
> >
> > Bertie
>
> Is this what your doctor tells you?

You're just another one of Bertie's socks.

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in news:MPG.2312a8a45874878798b279
@notbxpats.edu:

> In article >, Dakota says...
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >
>> > I consider it all the time, but you continue to post idiocy in a never
>> > ending stream that pretty much closes off the door to the possibility
>> > that you may actually have any sense whatsoever.
>> >
>> > Bertie
>>
>> Is this what your doctor tells you?
>
> You're just another one of Bertie's socks.
>

Is not. I prefer much more imaginative names. The person who came up with
that is a dullard..


Bertie

[dai|gea/isss+0nhe/3hrree/zer0_zer0_]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> In between your tantrums,

Personal attack.

> an objective discussion of aviation would be most
> welcome.

What you consider to be "most welcome" is irrelevant. You do not speak
for this group or any other on Usenet.

> I'm sure you're capable of it, but you must have the will to do it.

Whereas you've repeatedly shown yourself utterly incapable of it, thus
lacking the will.