Viable alternatives for serious aviation discussion

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Once again I will post below for anyone interested in serious aviation
related discussion the following alternative web based newsgroups. I
will repost this notice periodically.
Many of the pilots who used to post here are now posting at the
following forums. It's a slightly different format from Usenet but in
lieu of what's happening on RAP, you just might want to take a look at
these alternatives.

Reading the answers that follow this post might help to serve as an
added incentive for you to give these groups a try. :-))

--
Dudley Henriques
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/index.php
http://www.purpleboard.net/~purplebo/forums/index.php

Also, Jim Logajan is experimenting with setting up a Google Group.

[buttman]

On Aug 19, 5:13*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Once again I will post below for anyone interested in serious aviation
> related discussion the following alternative web based newsgroups. I
> will repost this notice periodically.
> Many of the pilots who used to post here are now posting at the
> following forums. It's a slightly different format from Usenet but in
> lieu of what's happening on RAP, you just might want to take a look at
> these alternatives.
>
> Reading the answers that follow this post might help to serve as an
> added incentive for you to give these groups a try. :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriqueshttp://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/index.phphttp://www.purpleboard.net/~purplebo/forums/index.php
>
> Also, Jim Logajan is experimenting with setting up a Google Group.

OK we get it you don't like Usenet anymore. Please don't spam the
group about it.

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 19, 7:44 am, buttman > wrote:
> On Aug 19, 5:13 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > Once again I will post below for anyone interested in serious aviation
> > related discussion the following alternative web based newsgroups. I
> > will repost this notice periodically.
> > Many of the pilots who used to post here are now posting at the
> > following forums. It's a slightly different format from Usenet but in
> > lieu of what's happening on RAP, you just might want to take a look at
> > these alternatives.
>
> > Reading the answers that follow this post might help to serve as an
> > added incentive for you to give these groups a try. :-))
>
> > --
> > Dudley Henriqueshttp://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/index.phphttp://www.purpleboard....
>
> > Also, Jim Logajan is experimenting with setting up a Google Group.
>
> OK we get it you don't like Usenet anymore. Please don't spam the
> group about it.

Pot kettle?: Except the kettle ain't black.

[tater]

"buttman" > wrote in message
...

> Please don't spam the
>group about it.

It's been a long time since I've posted anything, even though I read
regularly and
try to sort out what good posts remain.

I don't think he's spamming the group .. I think he's providing a valuable
alternative to
those who might wish to have a place to go to so that they can participate
in
respectful aviation discussion. This place used to be top notch .. but it's
been taken
over by a few that for whatever reason have been working on destroying it.
And it's
working. The sites he posted are moderated and the slime balls that post the
crap
here would be booted out of those sites.

t

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Many of the pilots who used to post here are now posting at the
> following forums. It's a slightly different format from Usenet but in
> lieu of what's happening on RAP, you just might want to take a look at
> these alternatives.
>
> Reading the answers that follow this post might help to serve as an
> added incentive for you to give these groups a try. :-))

Pilots who have left this newsgroup will be replaced by more pilots. There
are plenty of pilots in the world.

Moderated forums and groups typically have a stifling atmosphere,
unfortunately.

[Mike[_22_]]

"tater" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "buttman" > wrote in message
> ...
<snip>
> The sites he posted are moderated and the slime balls that post the crap
> here would be booted out of those sites.

Perhaps, but so would slime balls that advertised other forums on those
"sites" ad nauseum.

[Rocky Stevens]

On Aug 19, 7:13 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Once again I will post below for anyone interested in serious aviation
> related discussion the following alternative web based newsgroups. I
> will repost this notice periodically.
> Many of the pilots who used to post here are now posting at the
> following forums. It's a slightly different format from Usenet but in
> lieu of what's happening on RAP, you just might want to take a look at
> these alternatives.
>
> Reading the answers that follow this post might help to serve as an
> added incentive for you to give these groups a try. :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriqueshttp://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/index.phphttp://www.purpleboard.net/~purplebo/forums/index.php
>
> Also, Jim Logajan is experimenting with setting up a Google Group.

Also, http://forums.aopa.org/

[RST Engineering]

I can count the number of pilots I know on my appendages without taking off
my pants. I know THOUSANDS of airplane drivers, though.

Jim



>
> Pilots who have left this newsgroup will be replaced by more pilots.
> There
> are plenty of pilots in the world.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

buttman wrote:
> On Aug 19, 5:13 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Once again I will post below for anyone interested in serious aviation
>> related discussion the following alternative web based newsgroups. I
>> will repost this notice periodically.
>> Many of the pilots who used to post here are now posting at the
>> following forums. It's a slightly different format from Usenet but in
>> lieu of what's happening on RAP, you just might want to take a look at
>> these alternatives.
>>
>> Reading the answers that follow this post might help to serve as an
>> added incentive for you to give these groups a try. :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriqueshttp://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/index.phphttp://www.purpleboard.net/~purplebo/forums/index.php
>>
>> Also, Jim Logajan is experimenting with setting up a Google Group.
>
> OK we get it you don't like Usenet anymore. Please don't spam the
> group about it.

Life is full of choices. The person reading this could have been engaged
on the forums suggested in discussions on angle of attack, student
training, pre-solo instruction, tail wheel transition, and assorted
other topics being actively discussed.
Not for everybody for you obviously, but others may find the dialog a
bit more challenging than that which you offer here.

More about "Buttman" pasted in below for anyone interested;




D Henriques writes;
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

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Rocky Stevens wrote:
> On Aug 19, 7:13 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Once again I will post below for anyone interested in serious aviation
>> related discussion the following alternative web based newsgroups. I
>> will repost this notice periodically.
>> Many of the pilots who used to post here are now posting at the
>> following forums. It's a slightly different format from Usenet but in
>> lieu of what's happening on RAP, you just might want to take a look at
>> these alternatives.
>>
>> Reading the answers that follow this post might help to serve as an
>> added incentive for you to give these groups a try. :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriqueshttp://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/index.phphttp://www.purpleboard.net/~purplebo/forums/index.php
>>
>> Also, Jim Logajan is experimenting with setting up a Google Group.
>
> Also, http://forums.aopa.org/
The AOPA groups are a fine alternative as you say. The only reason I
ommitted them is because I believe they require membership in AOPA to
access them. To do that I'd actually be spamming the group. The forums
I'm recommending are free access.
I agree with you that if anyone is willing to join or is already a
member of AOPA, their forums would indeed be an alternative to Usenet.
Not sure about the membership requirement however. Will check on this.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Many of the pilots who used to post here are now posting at the
>> following forums. It's a slightly different format from Usenet but in
>> lieu of what's happening on RAP, you just might want to take a look at
>> these alternatives.
>>
>> Reading the answers that follow this post might help to serve as an
>> added incentive for you to give these groups a try. :-))
>
> Pilots who have left this newsgroup will be replaced by more pilots. There
> are plenty of pilots in the world.
>
> Moderated forums and groups typically have a stifling atmosphere,
> unfortunately.

I can readily understand why you would avoid moderated forums. What has
been spawned here on Usenet would NEVER fly on a web based moderated forum.

--
Dudley Henriques

[FREEDOM-OF-SPEECH]

Mike wrote:
> "tater" > wrote in message
> m...
>>
>> "buttman" > wrote in message
>> ...
> <snip>
>> The sites he posted are moderated and the slime balls that post the crap
>> here would be booted out of those sites.
>
> Perhaps, but so would slime balls that advertised other forums on those
> "sites" ad nauseum.


Moderated??

Or thought control from Marxist anti-liberty slime balls?

FREEDOM
LIBERTY
The TRUTH will NEVER be stopped
NEVER

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

FREEDOM-OF-SPEECH wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>> "tater" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>>
>>> "buttman" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>> <snip>
>>> The sites he posted are moderated and the slime balls that post the crap
>>> here would be booted out of those sites.
>>
>> Perhaps, but so would slime balls that advertised other forums on
>> those "sites" ad nauseum.
>
>
> Moderated??
>
> Or thought control from Marxist anti-liberty slime balls?
>
> FREEDOM
> LIBERTY
> The TRUTH will NEVER be stopped
> NEVER

Hey there!!! Welcome to rec.aviation.piloting. You're going to LOVE it
here!!!!

--
Dudley Henriques

[5 by 5]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...

>
> More about "Buttman" pasted in below for anyone interested;
>


More about Dudley the Spammer, for anyone interested. Check out the threads
related to these postings.

He has tried to dilute the group before, touting the wondrous groups
elsewhere, but always seems to return.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dudley Henriques" >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 8:35 AM
Subject: Just a simple announcement for for students


> Just a few lines to let you know that if for any reason you student
> pilots and the pilots and instructors who frequent this Usenet forum and
> have devoted their time and effort freely attempting to make aviation
> safer and educational wish to explore an alternative venue forum that is
> moderated by aviation people, friendly to your questions and those who
> answer you, you might wish to consider adding the online forum "Pilots
> of America" to your list of places to hang out and exchange information.
>
> I have explored this alternate venue and have found it to be quite
> useful and seriously devoted to the aviation format.
>
> Those interested in serious aviation discussion might wish to take note
> of any and all off topic, ad hominem, and vitriolic posting that takes
> place under this simple announcement post in deciding whether exploring
> this new venue might be a worthwhile expenditure of your time. :-))))))
>
> I will continue to post here as always if for no other reason than to
> allow those students who are serious about aviation to be able to
> compare the Usenet experience to the potential alternative experience of
> the moderated aviation forum format.
>
> Hope to see you over at Pilots of America.
> --
> Dudley Henriques


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dudley Henriques" >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 11:12 AM
Subject: Choices continued; Another great moderated pilots forum


> For those interested in additional alternatives to Usenet, I have
> already mentioned the Pilots of America forum and a lot of you have
> checked in there.
> Another great moderated forum for pilots interested in friendly,
> educational, and serious aviation discussion is the "Purple Forums".
> The links for Pilots of America and purple Forums are listed below.
>
> Please note it is not my intention to destroy this forum by posting this
> information. These are simply non profit moderated alternatives where
> serious pilots, students, and those interested in aviation generally
> have gathered to enjoy each other's company and exchange useful
> information in a venue a bit different than what is happening here on
> Usenet.
>
> By all means make your own choices.
> Possibly reading what will most likely appear under this post might help
> some of you with making that choice :-))
>
> Best to all here;
> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=5
>
> http://www.purpleboard.net/~purplebo/forums/index.php
> --

[5 by 5]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Once again I will post below for anyone interested in serious aviation
> related discussion the following alternative web based newsgroups. I will
> repost this notice periodically.
> Many of the pilots who used to post here are now posting at the following
> forums. It's a slightly different format from Usenet but in lieu of what's
> happening on RAP, you just might want to take a look at these
> alternatives.
>
> Reading the answers that follow this post might help to serve as an added
> incentive for you to give these groups a try. :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques
> http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/index.php
> http://www.purpleboard.net/~purplebo/forums/index.php
>
> Also, Jim Logajan is experimenting with setting up a Google Group.
>

If they're so great, what are you doing here?

Don't let the mouse pad hit ya in the ass.

[Jim Logajan]

FREEDOM-OF-SPEECH > wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>> "tater" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>>
>>> "buttman" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> m...
>> <snip>
>>> The sites he posted are moderated and the slime balls that post the
>>> crap here would be booted out of those sites.
>>
>> Perhaps, but so would slime balls that advertised other forums on
>> those "sites" ad nauseum.
>
>
> Moderated??
>
> Or thought control from Marxist anti-liberty slime balls?

Those web servers are private property bozo. You're the one promoting the
socialist crap. Set up your own damn "free" forums. Nobody is stopping you.

> FREEDOM
> LIBERTY
> The TRUTH will NEVER be stopped
> NEVER

You'll still have this group to post to.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

5 by 5 wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Once again I will post below for anyone interested in serious aviation
>> related discussion the following alternative web based newsgroups. I will
>> repost this notice periodically.
>> Many of the pilots who used to post here are now posting at the following
>> forums. It's a slightly different format from Usenet but in lieu of what's
>> happening on RAP, you just might want to take a look at these
>> alternatives.
>>
>> Reading the answers that follow this post might help to serve as an added
>> incentive for you to give these groups a try. :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>> http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/index.php
>> http://www.purpleboard.net/~purplebo/forums/index.php
>>
>> Also, Jim Logajan is experimenting with setting up a Google Group.
>>
>
> If they're so great, what are you doing here?
>
> Don't let the mouse pad hit ya in the ass.
>
>
>

Believe it or not, it's actually possible to be at several places at the
same time; there for aviation, here to bug the likes of you. Doesn't
bopther me a bit yo yo :-)


--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

5 by 5 wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> More about "Buttman" pasted in below for anyone interested;
>>
>
>
> More about Dudley the Spammer, for anyone interested. Check out the threads
> related to these postings.
>
> He has tried to dilute the group before, touting the wondrous groups
> elsewhere, but always seems to return.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dudley Henriques" >
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
> Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 8:35 AM
> Subject: Just a simple announcement for for students
>
>
>> Just a few lines to let you know that if for any reason you student
>> pilots and the pilots and instructors who frequent this Usenet forum and
>> have devoted their time and effort freely attempting to make aviation
>> safer and educational wish to explore an alternative venue forum that is
>> moderated by aviation people, friendly to your questions and those who
>> answer you, you might wish to consider adding the online forum "Pilots
>> of America" to your list of places to hang out and exchange information.
>>
>> I have explored this alternate venue and have found it to be quite
>> useful and seriously devoted to the aviation format.
>>
>> Those interested in serious aviation discussion might wish to take note
>> of any and all off topic, ad hominem, and vitriolic posting that takes
>> place under this simple announcement post in deciding whether exploring
>> this new venue might be a worthwhile expenditure of your time. :-))))))
>>
>> I will continue to post here as always if for no other reason than to
>> allow those students who are serious about aviation to be able to
>> compare the Usenet experience to the potential alternative experience of
>> the moderated aviation forum format.
>>
>> Hope to see you over at Pilots of America.
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dudley Henriques" >
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 11:12 AM
> Subject: Choices continued; Another great moderated pilots forum
>
>
>> For those interested in additional alternatives to Usenet, I have
>> already mentioned the Pilots of America forum and a lot of you have
>> checked in there.
>> Another great moderated forum for pilots interested in friendly,
>> educational, and serious aviation discussion is the "Purple Forums".
>> The links for Pilots of America and purple Forums are listed below.
>>
>> Please note it is not my intention to destroy this forum by posting this
>> information. These are simply non profit moderated alternatives where
>> serious pilots, students, and those interested in aviation generally
>> have gathered to enjoy each other's company and exchange useful
>> information in a venue a bit different than what is happening here on
>> Usenet.
>>
>> By all means make your own choices.
>> Possibly reading what will most likely appear under this post might help
>> some of you with making that choice :-))
>>
>> Best to all here;
>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>>
>> http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=5
>>
>> http://www.purpleboard.net/~purplebo/forums/index.php
>> --
>
>
>
>
>
Please continue posting these comments from me. It saves me from doing
it myself.
Thanks

--
Dudley Henriques

[Rocky Stevens]

On Aug 19, 12:23 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Rocky Stevens wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 7:13 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Once again I will post below for anyone interested in serious aviation
> >> related discussion the following alternative web based newsgroups. I
> >> will repost this notice periodically.
> >> Many of the pilots who used to post here are now posting at the
> >> following forums. It's a slightly different format from Usenet but in
> >> lieu of what's happening on RAP, you just might want to take a look at
> >> these alternatives.
>
> >> Reading the answers that follow this post might help to serve as an
> >> added incentive for you to give these groups a try. :-))
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriqueshttp://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/index.phphttp://www.purpleboard....
>
> >> Also, Jim Logajan is experimenting with setting up a Google Group.
>
> > Also,http://forums.aopa.org/
>
> The AOPA groups are a fine alternative as you say. The only reason I
> ommitted them is because I believe they require membership in AOPA to
> access them. To do that I'd actually be spamming the group. The forums
> I'm recommending are free access.
> I agree with you that if anyone is willing to join or is already a
> member of AOPA, their forums would indeed be an alternative to Usenet.
> Not sure about the membership requirement however. Will check on this.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Yes. membership is required, though it is pretty cheap - $39 a year,
and a pretty good deal at that. FWIW, I usually define spamming as
cross-posting non-relevant, commercial stuff to a massive number of
groups. In any event, if plugging AOPA makes me a spammer, I am fine
with that.

I do sort of wish there was just one board, instead of the big three,
as I do not feel like checking three boards a day. But then again,
choice is a great thing (assuming there is any significant difference
between the three).

[Rocky Stevens]

On Aug 19, 1:23 pm, "5 by 5" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>
> He has tried to dilute the group before, touting the wondrous groups
> elsewhere, but always seems to return.
>

Can't speak for DH, but my purpose in plugging the AOPA forum has
nothing to do with a desire to "dilute the group". Granted, it may
have that effect, but that is not the motivation. My motivation is to
help people that are like me (i.e. looking for real discussion) find
what they need. I'll still check this NG, but I want others
(especially fellow students) to know what else is out there.

[Mike[_22_]]

"KKK wannabe" > wrote in message
...
> Mike wrote:
>> "tater" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>>
>>> "buttman" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>> <snip>
>>> The sites he posted are moderated and the slime balls that post the crap
>>> here would be booted out of those sites.
>>
>> Perhaps, but so would slime balls that advertised other forums on those
>> "sites" ad nauseum.
>
>
> Moderated??
>
> Or thought control from Marxist anti-liberty slime balls?
>
> FREEDOM
> LIBERTY
> The TRUTH will NEVER be stopped
> NEVER

Ah, come now, Grand Wizard. None of the BS you spew has anything to do with
any of the above.

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> I can readily understand why you would avoid moderated forums.

I have a very strong belief in freedom of speech, and you cannot get that on a
moderated forum. Freedom of speech is among the most important freedoms you
can have. Be careful what you wish for.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Rocky Stevens wrote:
> On Aug 19, 1:23 pm, "5 by 5" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>> He has tried to dilute the group before, touting the wondrous groups
>> elsewhere, but always seems to return.
>>
>
> Can't speak for DH, but my purpose in plugging the AOPA forum has
> nothing to do with a desire to "dilute the group". Granted, it may
> have that effect, but that is not the motivation. My motivation is to
> help people that are like me (i.e. looking for real discussion) find
> what they need. I'll still check this NG, but I want others
> (especially fellow students) to know what else is out there.

This is exactly my motivation as well. I have no desire to see RAP
ruined. The other regulars who have posted dissatisfaction with what's
going on here don't wish to see the forum ruined either. I WOULD like to
see it return to the way it used to be however, and since that might not
be happening all that quickly based on the current crop of posters we
have on the forum, and since most of us here come here for the express
purpose of discussing aviation related matters, I feel the suggestion
for alternative forums that are free of what's going on here is not only
justified but prudent.
Those of us who have "left" this newsgroup haven't actually left at all.
All of us check back in quite often to see how things are going. Some of
us, like myself, will either pass if it looks REAL bad, or in my case
anyway, if I see some moron taking my name in vain, I'll post a GFU post
in disgust.
I believe that IF the time comes when what's going on here stops going
on here, those of us who have "left" will certainly return.
I would imagine that this time will come when we open this forum and see
one subject header after another from those who are NOT discussing
aviation in a long list of unanswered subject headers.
But......as of now, it's anyone's guess as to when this will happen.
No sweat for me anyway.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> I can readily understand why you would avoid moderated forums.
>
> I have a very strong belief in freedom of speech, and you cannot get
> that on a moderated forum. Freedom of speech is among the most
> important freedoms you can have. Be careful what you wish for.

The right to "freedom of speech" does not apply to the use of the resources
of private entities that belong to others. You are already subject to
censure on this newsgroup because you are posting through Giganews, a
private entity. In fact according to Giganews' Acceptable Use Policy at
http://www.giganews.com/legal/aup.html the following rules apply:

"Blatant disregard of the intended subject matter in a newsgroup will be
treated as abusive posting. Posting off topic material in large volume or
with apparent malicious intent will lead to immediate account termination.
....
Trolling is the practice of maliciously trying to incite others that use a
newsgroup, to deviate from the stated topic of the group. In other words,
trolling is an attempt to anger others to the point of drawing them into an
argument or an off topic debate. Giganews does not tolerate trolling and
will terminate service of those who abuse the service in this manner."

These criteria for acceptable use and the mechanism of enforcement appear
to be no different than that found on the web sites that Dudley has listed.
So it isn't clear to me why you think those web sites are somehow more
oppressive than the NSP you are using now.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> I can readily understand why you would avoid moderated forums.
>
> I have a very strong belief in freedom of speech, and you cannot get that on a
> moderated forum. Freedom of speech is among the most important freedoms you
> can have. Be careful what you wish for.

This is both true in some cases and an unnecessary premise in others.
A moderated forum is no better or worse than a Usenet forum. In either
case, you are free to speak your mind. On Usenet, you get flamed if
you're out of line. On a moderated forum, you can stay or leave if you
don't like the level of moderation.
The web based forums I frequent are moderated ONLY for abusive and/or
off topic posting. As long as your post is non-abusive and on topic, you
are in effect unmoderated.

One can always spout off the mantra about free speech. If the freedom to
be subjected to abusive posting and off topic posting is your thing,
then by all means, there's Usenet. It's the perfect forum for you.
If on the other hand you are non abusive and on topic, a GOOD moderated
forum is worth your time to try out for size.
Notice I said a GOOD moderated forum. There are of course BAD moderated
forums. It's up to YOU to decide if a specific forum meets your personal
criteria for moderation. No one makes you come to a moderated forum, and
you are always free to leave if the moderation doesn't suit your taste.
Some people will NEVER be happy being moderated. To them it's control of
free speech.
To these people I say this; even in a country that guarantees free
speech, you can not cry "FIRE" in a crowded theater. You CAN do that on
Usenet.
Life is full of choices. You go with what works for you. It's that simple.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Rocky Stevens wrote:
> On Aug 19, 12:23 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Rocky Stevens wrote:
>>> On Aug 19, 7:13 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Once again I will post below for anyone interested in serious aviation
>>>> related discussion the following alternative web based newsgroups. I
>>>> will repost this notice periodically.
>>>> Many of the pilots who used to post here are now posting at the
>>>> following forums. It's a slightly different format from Usenet but in
>>>> lieu of what's happening on RAP, you just might want to take a look at
>>>> these alternatives.
>>>> Reading the answers that follow this post might help to serve as an
>>>> added incentive for you to give these groups a try. :-))
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriqueshttp://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/index.phphttp://www.purpleboard....
>>>> Also, Jim Logajan is experimenting with setting up a Google Group.
>>> Also,http://forums.aopa.org/
>> The AOPA groups are a fine alternative as you say. The only reason I
>> ommitted them is because I believe they require membership in AOPA to
>> access them. To do that I'd actually be spamming the group. The forums
>> I'm recommending are free access.
>> I agree with you that if anyone is willing to join or is already a
>> member of AOPA, their forums would indeed be an alternative to Usenet.
>> Not sure about the membership requirement however. Will check on this.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Yes. membership is required, though it is pretty cheap - $39 a year,
> and a pretty good deal at that. FWIW, I usually define spamming as
> cross-posting non-relevant, commercial stuff to a massive number of
> groups. In any event, if plugging AOPA makes me a spammer, I am fine
> with that.
>
> I do sort of wish there was just one board, instead of the big three,
> as I do not feel like checking three boards a day. But then again,
> choice is a great thing (assuming there is any significant difference
> between the three).
>
I agree with your definition of spamming. I look at it this way too. For
me anyway, to spam someone, there has to be a commercial reward
involved. Simply suggesting an alternative forum is nothing more than a
suggestion. I'm fine with it.

Tell you what I do for forums that might help cut down your surfing time
per day.

If I'm registered on a web based forum, I login and give my password and
select "enter me each time I'm here". I then go into the preferences and
select instant email notification for threads I'm involved with. Then I
go to the main selection page and copy and paste the main forum page URL
on my desktop.
I have a list of various forums in a line on the desktop now.

I can either wait for the notification which is an instant link click to
the post, or I can click the shortcut and go directly to a forum page
where I can surf the headers for something of interest.

Takes little time and works quite well for me.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Aug 19, 5:13*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Once again I will post below for anyone interested in serious
>> aviation related discussion the following alternative web based
>> newsgroups. I will repost this notice periodically.
>> Many of the pilots who used to post here are now posting at the
>> following forums. It's a slightly different format from Usenet but in
>> lieu of what's happening on RAP, you just might want to take a look
>> at these alternatives.
>>
>> Reading the answers that follow this post might help to serve as an
>> added incentive for you to give these groups a try. :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley
>> Henriqueshttp://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/index.phphttp://www.
> purpleboard.net/~purplebo/forums/index.php
>>
>> Also, Jim Logajan is experimenting with setting up a Google Group.
>
> OK we get it you don't like Usenet anymore. Please don't spam the
> group about it.
>

Like you'd even know what spam is, you fjukktard


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"5 by 5" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Once again I will post below for anyone interested in serious
>> aviation related discussion the following alternative web based
>> newsgroups. I will repost this notice periodically.
>> Many of the pilots who used to post here are now posting at the
>> following forums. It's a slightly different format from Usenet but in
>> lieu of what's happening on RAP, you just might want to take a look
>> at these alternatives.
>>
>> Reading the answers that follow this post might help to serve as an
>> added incentive for you to give these groups a try. :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>> http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/index.php
>> http://www.purpleboard.net/~purplebo/forums/index.php
>>
>> Also, Jim Logajan is experimenting with setting up a Google Group.
>>
>
> If they're so great, what are you doing here?
>
> Don't let the mouse pad hit ya in the ass.


Hmmmm.



Wonder who this is?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"tater" > wrote in
m:

>
> "buttman" > wrote in message
> .
> ..
>
>> Please don't spam the
>>group about it.
>
> It's been a long time since I've posted anything, even though I read
> regularly and
> try to sort out what good posts remain.
>
> I don't think he's spamming the group .. I think he's providing a
> valuable alternative to
> those who might wish to have a place to go to so that they can
> participate in
> respectful aviation discussion. This place used to be top notch ..
> but it's been taken
> over by a few that for whatever reason have been working on destroying
> it. And it's
> working. The sites he posted are moderated and the slime balls that
> post the crap
> here would be booted out of those sites.

If you mean me, guess again.


Bertie

[5 by 5]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>>>
> Please continue posting these comments from me. It saves me from doing it
> myself.
> Thanks
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

What ever it takes to highlight the self centered spammer you really are.

[5 by 5]

"Rocky Stevens" > wrote in message
news:5a2ac3eb-48df-45d5-acd1->
> Can't speak for DH, but my purpose in plugging the AOPA forum has
> nothing to do with a desire to "dilute the group". Granted, it may
> have that effect, but that is not the motivation. My motivation is to
> help people that are like me (i.e. looking for real discussion) find
> what they need. I'll still check this NG, but I want others
> (especially fellow students) to know what else is out there.

Bull****. Your just a sock for MX. Nothing lowing in the food chain around
here, I can assure you.

[5 by 5]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> This is exactly my motivation as well. I have no desire to see RAP ruined.
> > Dudley Henriques

As you should. You and your brother Bertie did a number on it.

[5 by 5]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> I can readily understand why you would avoid moderated forums.
>
> I have a very strong belief in freedom of speech, and you cannot get that
> on a
> moderated forum. Freedom of speech is among the most important freedoms
> you
> can have. Be careful what you wish for.

Yea, but you believe a lot of other ignorant **** that isn't true either.

[5 by 5]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>>
> I agree with your definition of spamming. I look at it this way too. For
> me anyway, to spam someone, there has to be a commercial reward involved.
> Simply suggesting an alternative forum is nothing more than a suggestion.
> I'm fine with it.
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Cool. You, Mx and his sock. Hell you don't even need Bertie now. You;re all
set.

[5 by 5]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> Believe it or not, it's actually possible to be at several places at the
> same time; there for aviation, here to bug the likes of you. Doesn't
> bopther me a bit yo yo :-)
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Good. So you openly admit, you're just here to BUG the people you disagree
with.

Very well put, Dumbley.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2008-08-19 13:03:07 -0700, "5 by 5" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> said:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>> I agree with your definition of spamming. I look at it this way too. For
>> me anyway, to spam someone, there has to be a commercial reward involved.
>> Simply suggesting an alternative forum is nothing more than a suggestion.
>> I'm fine with it.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Cool. You, Mx and his sock. Hell you don't even need Bertie now. You;re all
> set.

<sigh> Another one for the kill file.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> FREEDOM-OF-SPEECH > wrote:
>> Mike wrote:
>>> "tater" > wrote in message
>>> m...
>>>>
>>>> "buttman" > wrote in message
>>>> news:6d8e0d0c-a36b-47da-813a-fa3c13d99821
@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.c
>>>> o m...
>>> <snip>
>>>> The sites he posted are moderated and the slime balls that post the
>>>> crap here would be booted out of those sites.
>>>
>>> Perhaps, but so would slime balls that advertised other forums on
>>> those "sites" ad nauseum.
>>
>>
>> Moderated??
>>
>> Or thought control from Marxist anti-liberty slime balls?
>
> Those web servers are private property bozo. You're the one promoting
> the socialist crap. Set up your own damn "free" forums. Nobody is
> stopping you.
>
>> FREEDOM
>> LIBERTY
>> The TRUTH will NEVER be stopped
>> NEVER
>
> You'll still have this group to post to.


I OTOH, will poast wherever I please..

Private or no.


There are a thousand ways to skin a fjukkwit.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"5 by 5" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>>
>> Please continue posting these comments from me. It saves me from
>> doing it myself.
>> Thanks
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> What ever it takes to highlight the self centered spammer you really
> are.
>

Yeah, you're a psychological warfare genius, you are.




Bwawahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwh!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"5 by 5" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> This is exactly my motivation as well. I have no desire to see RAP
>> ruined.
>> > Dudley Henriques
>
> As you should. You and your brother Bertie did a number on it.
>
>
>
>

I do nothing but poast.



Bertie

[John Godwin]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> I have a very strong belief in freedom of speech, and you cannot
> get that on a moderated forum. Freedom of speech is among the
> most important freedoms you can have. Be careful what you wish
> for.

You are a perfect example of a failed educational system. Freedom of
speech (as in the Constitution) applies only to what the government
can't do.



--

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"5 by 5" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Rocky Stevens" > wrote in message
> news:5a2ac3eb-48df-45d5-acd1->
>> Can't speak for DH, but my purpose in plugging the AOPA forum has
>> nothing to do with a desire to "dilute the group". Granted, it may
>> have that effect, but that is not the motivation. My motivation is to
>> help people that are like me (i.e. looking for real discussion) find
>> what they need. I'll still check this NG, but I want others
>> (especially fellow students) to know what else is out there.
>
> Bull****. Your just a sock for MX. Nothing lowing in the food chain
> around here, I can assure you.
>
>

Great moderating there Maxie.


Bertie

[FREEDOM-OF-SPEECH]

Mike wrote:
> "KKK wannabe" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mike wrote:
>>> "tater" > wrote in message
>>> m...
>>>>
>>>> "buttman" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>> The sites he posted are moderated and the slime balls that post the
>>>> crap
>>>> here would be booted out of those sites.
>>>
>>> Perhaps, but so would slime balls that advertised other forums on
>>> those "sites" ad nauseum.
>>
>>
>> Moderated??
>>
>> Or thought control from Marxist anti-liberty slime balls?
>>
>> FREEDOM
>> LIBERTY
>> The TRUTH will NEVER be stopped
>> NEVER
>
> Ah, come now, Grand Wizard. None of the BS you spew has anything to do
> with any of the above.

Grand Wizard??
OK

Poooof!!!
You are a "San Francisco Rump Ranger"

Weeeeeeeeeeeeee I'M voting for Obama girlfriend

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2008-08-19 04:13:32 -0700, Dudley Henriques > said:

> Once again I will post below for anyone interested in serious aviation
> related discussion the following alternative web based newsgroups. I
> will repost this notice periodically.
> Many of the pilots who used to post here are now posting at the
> following forums. It's a slightly different format from Usenet but in
> lieu of what's happening on RAP, you just might want to take a look at
> these alternatives.
>
> Reading the answers that follow this post might help to serve as an
> added incentive for you to give these groups a try. :-))

Thanks, Dudley. And you were right, as usual.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:




> To these people I say this; even in a country that guarantees free
> speech, you can not cry "FIRE" in a crowded theater. You CAN do that
> on Usenet.


Actually, that's not really a good comparison.
If you yell fire in a theatre, there's a good chance that someone will get
physically hurt. There's really no direct equivelant on usenet. About the
only thing it might be possible to do on usenet to actually cause physical
harm is to provoke some k00k to cause physical harm to someone. Saying
someone is a criminal and convincing some unbalanced individual (like some
of the asatru babynazis) to go to his house and do him some actual physical
harm would come close. Or if you were clever enough to pull off some hoax
that caused people to go out and cut their nads off or something and be in
the full knowledge that this actually might happen.
In those cases, the poster would almost certainly get nabbed by the cops.
Some states have laws about cyberstalking as well though that's a bit of a
stretch as a comparison.
Nope. All anyone does on usenet is speak their mind.
People who spam, like Jay, and are called on it have no right to get upset
about it. Whining and throwing their toys out of the sandbox as they run
away like a little girl isn't anything like geting trampled by a crowd in
fear of their lives.
In real life it's more like someone being called a bigmouth asshole, him
getting ****ed off and throwing his toys out of sandbax and running away
like a little girl.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"5 by 5" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>
>>> I can readily understand why you would avoid moderated forums.
>>
>> I have a very strong belief in freedom of speech, and you cannot get
>> that on a
>> moderated forum. Freedom of speech is among the most important
>> freedoms you
>> can have. Be careful what you wish for.
>
> Yea, but you believe a lot of other ignorant **** that isn't true
> either.

Yeh, like the hoards of "sockpuppets" that have infected your tiny mind,
for instance.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"5 by 5" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>> I agree with your definition of spamming. I look at it this way too.
>> For me anyway, to spam someone, there has to be a commercial reward
>> involved. Simply suggesting an alternative forum is nothing more than
>> a suggestion. I'm fine with it.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Cool. You, Mx and his sock. Hell you don't even need Bertie now.
> You;re all set.
>

the only thing I need is ... you...



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"5 by 5" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Believe it or not, it's actually possible to be at several places at
>> the same time; there for aviation, here to bug the likes of you.
>> Doesn't bopther me a bit yo yo :-)
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Good. So you openly admit, you're just here to BUG the people you
> disagree with.
>


Oh but I agree with you 100%

You want to be a major player in the k00k world and I'm here to help it
happen for you.



Bertie

Just glad to do my part.

[The Bunyip Slayer]

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

> In real life it's more like someone being called a bigmouth asshole, him
> getting ****ed off and throwing his toys out of sandbax and running away
> like a little girl.
>
>
>
> Bertie

Ya, like you would have a clue about real life.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> I can readily understand why you would avoid moderated forums.
>
> I have a very strong belief in freedom of speech, and you cannot get that on a
> moderated forum. Freedom of speech is among the most important freedoms you
> can have. Be careful what you wish for.

Then you should learn what it really means.

Freedom of speech means the government can't silence you. It does not
mean everyone has to listen to you.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

C J Campbell > wrote in
news:2008081913103643658-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:

> On 2008-08-19 13:03:07 -0700, "5 by 5" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> said:
>
>>
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>>
>>> I agree with your definition of spamming. I look at it this way too.
>>> For me anyway, to spam someone, there has to be a commercial reward
>>> involved. Simply suggesting an alternative forum is nothing more
>>> than a suggestion. I'm fine with it.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> Cool. You, Mx and his sock. Hell you don't even need Bertie now.
>> You;re all set.
>
> <sigh> Another one for the kill file.

Won't do you much goood. He's nym shifting for three reasons. Primarily, in
an attempt to avoid being sanctioned by his server for spewing like he did
before. Secondly to avoid being hammered by the AUK guys and garnering
another prestiguous AUK award, and last, but not least, to avoid killfiles.




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"The Bunyip Slayer" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:n4Gqk.33792
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> In real life it's more like someone being called a bigmouth asshole, him
>> getting ****ed off and throwing his toys out of sandbax and running away
>> like a little girl.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Ya, like you would have a clue about real life.
>

Like you would have a clue about any life.


Bertie

[The Bunyip Slayer]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "The Bunyip Slayer" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:n4Gqk.33792
> :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> In real life it's more like someone being called a bigmouth asshole, him
>>> getting ****ed off and throwing his toys out of sandbax and running away
>>> like a little girl.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Ya, like you would have a clue about real life.
>>
>
> Like you would have a clue about any life.
>
>
> Bertie

Your actions here speak volumes.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"The Bunyip Slayer" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "The Bunyip Slayer" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:n4Gqk.33792
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> In real life it's more like someone being called a bigmouth
>>>> asshole, him getting ****ed off and throwing his toys out of
>>>> sandbax and running away like a little girl.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Ya, like you would have a clue about real life.
>>>
>>
>> Like you would have a clue about any life.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Your actions here speak volumes.
>

Yes, I know.



Bertie

[Mike[_22_]]

"KKK wannabe" > wrote in message
...
> Mike wrote:
>> "KKK wannabe" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>> "tater" > wrote in message
>>>> m...
>>>>>
>>>>> "buttman" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> The sites he posted are moderated and the slime balls that post the
>>>>> crap
>>>>> here would be booted out of those sites.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps, but so would slime balls that advertised other forums on those
>>>> "sites" ad nauseum.
>>>
>>>
>>> Moderated??
>>>
>>> Or thought control from Marxist anti-liberty slime balls?
>>>
>>> FREEDOM
>>> LIBERTY
>>> The TRUTH will NEVER be stopped
>>> NEVER
>>
>> Ah, come now, Grand Wizard. None of the BS you spew has anything to do
>> with any of the above.
>
> Grand Wizard??
> OK
>
> Poooof!!!
> You are a "San Francisco Rump Ranger"
>
> Weeeeeeeeeeeeee I'M voting for Obama girlfriend

You should let everyone know when you're trying to be funny, GW. Those not
as quick as I am might mistake your ramblings as drug induced (and they
might be right). Then again you're not talking to yourself in the 3rd
person today, so perhaps you're on legitimate meds, no? But I suppose one
can't expect much from a 3rd class moron who thinks exercising
"freedom-of-speech" means he should spam newsgroups with his mouthbreathing
idiocies.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> The right to "freedom of speech" does not apply to the use of the resources
> of private entities that belong to others.

I didn't say anything about rights.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> The right to "freedom of speech" does not apply to the use of the
>> resources of private entities that belong to others.
>
> I didn't say anything about rights.
>

What would rights matter to you?

You don't do anything.


Bertie

[The Bunyip Slayer]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>>
>> <sigh> Another one for the kill file.
>
> Won't do you much goood. He's nym shifting for three reasons. Primarily,
> in
> an attempt to avoid being sanctioned by his server for spewing like he did
> before. Secondly to avoid being hammered by the AUK guys and garnering
> another prestiguous AUK award, and last, but not least, to avoid
> killfiles.
>
>
> Bertie

Classic example of a clueless know-it-all. You really are gone on the kook
**** aren't you. What a lamer.

Nope, just did it because you keep forging my name. Better luck next time.

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> The web based forums I frequent are moderated ONLY for abusive and/or
> off topic posting. As long as your post is non-abusive and on topic, you
> are in effect unmoderated.

I've worked as a moderator in the past. It is virtually impossible to
objectively determine whether or not a post is abusive, off-topic, etc., and
inevitably prejudices work their way into the decisions. Most moderators lack
the experience or will to do things right and are dramatically subjective in
their decisions.

> One can always spout off the mantra about free speech.

The founders of the United States spouted off about it all the time.

> If the freedom to be subjected to abusive posting and off topic posting
> is your thing, then by all means, there's Usenet.

It doesn't bother me, and it's a tiny price to pay for an important liberty.

> To these people I say this; even in a country that guarantees free
> speech, you can not cry "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

Actually you can. There is no prior restraint, and there is no censorship.

[Mxsmanic]

John Godwin writes:

> You are a perfect example of a failed educational system. Freedom of
> speech (as in the Constitution) applies only to what the government
> can't do.

Freedom of speech is a general principle that has no specific connection to
government.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Then you should learn what it really means.
>
> Freedom of speech means the government can't silence you. It does not
> mean everyone has to listen to you.

Freedom of speech means that you can say what you want, without prior
restraint or censorship.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2008-08-19 09:01:13 -0700, "RST Engineering" > said:

> I can count the number of pilots I know on my appendages without taking off
> my pants. I know THOUSANDS of airplane drivers, though.
>
> Jim

Maybe. But tell me, where do you draw the line between them? And who
appointed you to be the one to do so?

And please, keep your pants on, even though we cannot see you.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> The web based forums I frequent are moderated ONLY for abusive and/or
>> off topic posting. As long as your post is non-abusive and on topic,
>> you are in effect unmoderated.
>
> I've worked as a moderator in the past.

Figgers

Nothing in your future, though.


Ever.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"The Bunyip Slayer" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>>
>>> <sigh> Another one for the kill file.
>>
>> Won't do you much goood. He's nym shifting for three reasons.
>> Primarily, in
>> an attempt to avoid being sanctioned by his server for spewing like
>> he did before. Secondly to avoid being hammered by the AUK guys and
>> garnering another prestiguous AUK award, and last, but not least, to
>> avoid killfiles.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Classic example of a clueless know-it-all. You really are gone on the
> kook **** aren't you. What a lamer.
>
> Nope, just did it because you keep forging my name. Better luck next
> time.
>


Nope, I never forged anything.

If i had I would have been booted long ago.


Sonce you komplaned and I am still here, that is proof that you are
lying.

Also, as further proof that you are afraid of getting another award, you
snip froups.



Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

5 by 5 wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Please continue posting these comments from me. It saves me from doing it
>> myself.
>> Thanks
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> What ever it takes to highlight the self centered spammer you really are.
>
>
Here, let's continue to do this. I love dealing with idiots.

Viable alternatives to RAP as it exists for this moron would be;

http://www.purpleboard.net/~purplebo/forums/index.php
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/index.php

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Then you should learn what it really means.
>>
>> Freedom of speech means the government can't silence you. It does not
>> mean everyone has to listen to you.
>
> Freedom of speech means that you can say what you want, without prior
> restraint or censorship.

By the government.

You have no right to say anything to any individual or group of
individuals who don't wish to listen to you.

Your ability to "say" something facilited by privately owned facilities,
whether it be a supermarket bulletin board or an ISP, is at the
pleasure and discretion of the facilities owner.

You can rant all day on any subject you want in a public park, but not
in a mall parking lot if the mall owner doesn't want you there.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> The web based forums I frequent are moderated ONLY for abusive and/or
>> off topic posting. As long as your post is non-abusive and on topic, you
>> are in effect unmoderated.
>
> I've worked as a moderator in the past. It is virtually impossible to
> objectively determine whether or not a post is abusive, off-topic, etc., and
> inevitably prejudices work their way into the decisions. Most moderators lack
> the experience or will to do things right and are dramatically subjective in
> their decisions.
>
>> One can always spout off the mantra about free speech.
>
> The founders of the United States spouted off about it all the time.
>
>> If the freedom to be subjected to abusive posting and off topic posting
>> is your thing, then by all means, there's Usenet.
>
> It doesn't bother me, and it's a tiny price to pay for an important liberty.
>
>> To these people I say this; even in a country that guarantees free
>> speech, you can not cry "FIRE" in a crowded theater.
>
> Actually you can. There is no prior restraint, and there is no censorship.

Obviously, moderated forums are not for you. I know a WHOLE lot of
people who will deeply appreciate that fact :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Then you should learn what it really means.
>>
>> Freedom of speech means the government can't silence you. It does not
>> mean everyone has to listen to you.
>
> Freedom of speech means that you can say what you want, without prior
> restraint or censorship.

Try standing in front of most anyone on this forum and saying "You don't
have the guts to slam me in the teeth". If you like I'll pick out
somebody for you.

Instant example that there are consequences for total unrestrained
freedom of speech that might stay with you for awhile.
--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

5 by 5 wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Believe it or not, it's actually possible to be at several places at the
>> same time; there for aviation, here to bug the likes of you. Doesn't
>> bopther me a bit yo yo :-)
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Good. So you openly admit, you're just here to BUG the people you disagree
> with.
>
> Very well put, Dumbley.
>
>
>
Thank you. I appreciate your support.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2008-08-19 04:13:32 -0700, Dudley Henriques > said:
>
>> Once again I will post below for anyone interested in serious aviation
>> related discussion the following alternative web based newsgroups. I
>> will repost this notice periodically.
>> Many of the pilots who used to post here are now posting at the
>> following forums. It's a slightly different format from Usenet but in
>> lieu of what's happening on RAP, you just might want to take a look at
>> these alternatives.
>>
>> Reading the answers that follow this post might help to serve as an
>> added incentive for you to give these groups a try. :-))
>
> Thanks, Dudley. And you were right, as usual.
Hi CJ;

Getting to be a real circus isn't it? :-)) Somebody apparently put out a
general call to the loony bin for all the loons to gather here for the
feast.
Personally, I see what has happened here as a perfect example of man's
ultimate failure to govern himself; the perfect example of a "Lord of
the Flies" syndrome.
Interesting really....psychologically anyway :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[RST Engineering]

>> I can count the number of pilots I know on my appendages without taking
>> off
>> my pants. I know THOUSANDS of airplane drivers, though.
>>
>> Jim
>
> Maybe. But tell me, where do you draw the line between them?

I guess it's paraphrasing the Supreme Court justice to say I can't define
it, but I know it when I see it.


And who
> appointed you to be the one to do so?

Last I looked, we each appoint ourselves to make judgement calls like this.
I've never met you, never flown with you, and know nothing about you.
THerefore you don't fit either category, do you? I freely admit that the
majority of my students wind up as airplane drivers, though one or perhaps
two of them turned out to be pilots.

>
> And please, keep your pants on, even though we cannot see you.

Chairs in your house have real straight legs on them, don't they? {;-)


Jim

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

RST Engineering wrote:
>>> I can count the number of pilots I know on my appendages without taking
>>> off
>>> my pants. I know THOUSANDS of airplane drivers, though.
>>>
>>> Jim
>> Maybe. But tell me, where do you draw the line between them?
>
> I guess it's paraphrasing the Supreme Court justice to say I can't define
> it, but I know it when I see it.
>
>
> And who
>> appointed you to be the one to do so?
>
> Last I looked, we each appoint ourselves to make judgement calls like this.
> I've never met you, never flown with you, and know nothing about you.
> THerefore you don't fit either category, do you? I freely admit that the
> majority of my students wind up as airplane drivers, though one or perhaps
> two of them turned out to be pilots.
>
>> And please, keep your pants on, even though we cannot see you.
>
> Chairs in your house have real straight legs on them, don't they? {;-)
>
>
> Jim
>
>
A great deal of what either makes a "driver" or a "pilot" depends
heavily on the initial CFI experience. I've had pilots come through my
aerobatic program with 20K hours who couldn't fly their way out of a
paper bag. Conversely, I've had comparatively low time pilots trained by
extremely good instructors who could fly the airplane while blowing up
the paper bag. Almost everything in flying is relative to that initial
training curve.

--
Dudley Henriques

[The Bunyip Slayer]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>>
> A great deal of what either makes a "driver" or a "pilot" depends heavily
> on the initial CFI experience. I've had pilots come through my aerobatic
> program with 20K hours who couldn't fly their way out of a paper bag.
> Conversely, I've had comparatively low time pilots trained by extremely
> good instructors who could fly the airplane while blowing up the paper
> bag. Almost everything in flying is relative to that initial training
> curve.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

You're a legend in your own mind.

[No2]

Mike wrote:
> "KKK wannabe" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mike wrote:
>>> "KKK wannabe" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>> "tater" > wrote in message
>>>>> m...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "buttman" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> The sites he posted are moderated and the slime balls that post
>>>>>> the crap
>>>>>> here would be booted out of those sites.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps, but so would slime balls that advertised other forums on
>>>>> those "sites" ad nauseum.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Moderated??
>>>>
>>>> Or thought control from Marxist anti-liberty slime balls?
>>>>
>>>> FREEDOM
>>>> LIBERTY
>>>> The TRUTH will NEVER be stopped
>>>> NEVER
>>>
>>> Ah, come now, Grand Wizard. None of the BS you spew has anything to
>>> do with any of the above.
>>
>> Grand Wizard??
>> OK
>>
>> Poooof!!!
>> You are a "San Francisco Rump Ranger"
>>
>> Weeeeeeeeeeeeee I'M voting for Obama girlfriend
>
> You should let everyone know when you're trying to be funny, GW. Those
> not as quick as I am might mistake your ramblings as drug induced (and
> they might be right). Then again you're not talking to yourself in the
> 3rd person today, so perhaps you're on legitimate meds, no? But I
> suppose one can't expect much from a 3rd class moron who thinks
> exercising "freedom-of-speech" means he should spam newsgroups with his
> mouthbreathing idiocies.


Mouth(Space inserted)Breathing Idiocies???
WTF?
Would that be the dreaded MBI?

I hear you get that from living in San Francisco, going to bath
houses(Male Only)with your own K-Y and voting for women and America
haters like Nancy Pelosi

Are you a limp wrist sycophant Mike?

Come on fess up it would explain your big words and Marxist ideology

Information for Newsgroup censor fans like Mike and Obamoism also known
as "The Black Messiah"


http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/06/of-maoism-dinosaurs-and-the-mass-mind/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism

Remember if you challenge the above San Francisco Left Coast Obama
loving philosophy which in reality is Mass Mind Maoism 21st century
style you will be labeled a Grand Wizard and live in a trailer park also
(Only in words)

And why is all this in a pilots newsgroup? If we go Obama(Maoism)99
out of 100 private pilots will not be able to afford it

You will be GREEN squeezed out of existence

WAKE THE **** UP

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

The Bunyip Slayer wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> A great deal of what either makes a "driver" or a "pilot" depends heavily
>> on the initial CFI experience. I've had pilots come through my aerobatic
>> program with 20K hours who couldn't fly their way out of a paper bag.
>> Conversely, I've had comparatively low time pilots trained by extremely
>> good instructors who could fly the airplane while blowing up the paper
>> bag. Almost everything in flying is relative to that initial training
>> curve.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> You're a legend in your own mind.
>
>
Actually, I'm a legend in our cat's mind.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"The Bunyip Slayer" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>> A great deal of what either makes a "driver" or a "pilot" depends
>> heavily on the initial CFI experience. I've had pilots come through
>> my aerobatic program with 20K hours who couldn't fly their way out of
>> a paper bag. Conversely, I've had comparatively low time pilots
>> trained by extremely good instructors who could fly the airplane
>> while blowing up the paper bag. Almost everything in flying is
>> relative to that initial training curve.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> You're a legend in your own mind.

Wheras you'r a legend in k00kland CNOTM boi



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

No2 > wrote in :

> Mike wrote:
>> "KKK wannabe" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>> "KKK wannabe" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>>> "tater" > wrote in message
>>>>>> m...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "buttman" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:6d8e0d0c-a36b-47da-813a-fa3c13d99821
@t54g2000hsg.googlegroup
>>>>>>> s.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> The sites he posted are moderated and the slime balls that post
>>>>>>> the crap
>>>>>>> here would be booted out of those sites.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps, but so would slime balls that advertised other forums on
>>>>>> those "sites" ad nauseum.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Moderated??
>>>>>
>>>>> Or thought control from Marxist anti-liberty slime balls?
>>>>>
>>>>> FREEDOM
>>>>> LIBERTY
>>>>> The TRUTH will NEVER be stopped
>>>>> NEVER
>>>>
>>>> Ah, come now, Grand Wizard. None of the BS you spew has anything
>>>> to do with any of the above.
>>>
>>> Grand Wizard??
>>> OK
>>>
>>> Poooof!!!
>>> You are a "San Francisco Rump Ranger"
>>>
>>> Weeeeeeeeeeeeee I'M voting for Obama girlfriend
>>
>> You should let everyone know when you're trying to be funny, GW.
>> Those not as quick as I am might mistake your ramblings as drug
>> induced (and they might be right). Then again you're not talking to
>> yourself in the 3rd person today, so perhaps you're on legitimate
>> meds, no? But I suppose one can't expect much from a 3rd class moron
>> who thinks exercising "freedom-of-speech" means he should spam
>> newsgroups with his mouthbreathing idiocies.
>
>
> Mouth(Space inserted)Breathing Idiocies???
> WTF?
> Would that be the dreaded MBI?
>
> I hear you get that from living in San Francisco, going to bath
> houses(Male Only)with your own K-Y and voting for women and America
> haters like Nancy Pelosi
>
> Are you a limp wrist sycophant Mike?
>
> Come on fess up it would explain your big words and Marxist ideology
>
> Information for Newsgroup censor fans like Mike and Obamoism also
> known as "The Black Messiah"
>
>
> http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/06/of-maoism-dinosaurs-and-the-
mas
> s-mind/
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism
>
> Remember if you challenge the above San Francisco Left Coast Obama
> loving philosophy which in reality is Mass Mind Maoism 21st century
> style you will be labeled a Grand Wizard and live in a trailer park
> also (Only in words)
>
> And why is all this in a pilots newsgroup? If we go Obama(Maoism)99
> out of 100 private pilots will not be able to afford it
>
> You will be GREEN squeezed out of existence
>
> WAKE THE **** UP
>

Mmm k k00kie boi



Bertie

[The Bunyip Slayer]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> Wheras you'r a legend in k00kland CNOTM boi
>
>
>
> Bertie

Yeah, to a dweeb like you, that seems like a real place, doesn't it?

[The Bunyip Slayer]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> And why is all this in a pilots newsgroup? If we go Obama(Maoism)99
>> out of 100 private pilots will not be able to afford it
>>
>> You will be GREEN squeezed out of existence
>>
>> WAKE THE **** UP
>>
>
> Mmm k k00kie boi
>
>
>

Signed - Bertie the wannabe moderator

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"The Bunyip Slayer" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:WcIqk.86$Rs1.50
@newsfe08.iad:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>> And why is all this in a pilots newsgroup? If we go Obama(Maoism)99
>>> out of 100 private pilots will not be able to afford it
>>>
>>> You will be GREEN squeezed out of existence
>>>
>>> WAKE THE **** UP
>>>
>>
>> Mmm k k00kie boi
>>
>>
>>
>
> Signed - Bertie the wannabe moderator

Moi? never. I n fact I loath those that run away.

You're idiocy in remainng here is your one redeeming feature.

Aside form your entertainment value, that is.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"The Bunyip Slayer" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:0cIqk.80$Rs1.40
@newsfe08.iad:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Wheras you'r a legend in k00kland CNOTM boi
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Yeah, to a dweeb like you, that seems like a real place, doesn't it?


Uh, coming form the dweeb "defending" RAP, that's a bit... ironic...



Bertie

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> John Godwin writes:
>
>> You are a perfect example of a failed educational system. Freedom of
>> speech (as in the Constitution) applies only to what the government
>> can't do.
>
> Freedom of speech is a general principle that has no specific
> connection to government.

Describe a scenario under which the "freedom of speech" principle or
concept is applicable to communications among private entities that doesn't
implicitly or explicitly involve government.

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> A great deal of what either makes a "driver" or a "pilot" depends
> heavily on the initial CFI experience. I've had pilots come through my
> aerobatic program with 20K hours who couldn't fly their way out of a
> paper bag. Conversely, I've had comparatively low time pilots trained by
> extremely good instructors who could fly the airplane while blowing up
> the paper bag. Almost everything in flying is relative to that initial
> training curve.

With large amounts of experience, the personality of the student is more
important than the influence of the instructor. Some people will continue to
learn on their own without any prodding, others will immediately stop learning
as soon as the instructor is gone and they've learned enough to do the job.

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Obviously, moderated forums are not for you. I know a WHOLE lot of
> people who will deeply appreciate that fact :-)

I can't recall ever encountering competent moderators, and incompetent ones
inevitably clash with me. I was not satisfied with my own performance as a
moderator, either (although I was better than the run of the mill), and I
didn't like the job.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> Describe a scenario under which the "freedom of speech" principle or
> concept is applicable to communications among private entities that doesn't
> implicitly or explicitly involve government.

It applies to every situation and circumstance. If you are allowed to speak
without restriction, you have freedom of speech. If you are prevented from
speaking or your words are intercepted before they are heard, you do not have
freedom of speech. Extreme penalties for speaking also have a chilling
effect.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> A great deal of what either makes a "driver" or a "pilot" depends
>> heavily on the initial CFI experience. I've had pilots come through
>> my aerobatic program with 20K hours who couldn't fly their way out of
>> a paper bag. Conversely, I've had comparatively low time pilots
>> trained by extremely good instructors who could fly the airplane
>> while blowing up the paper bag. Almost everything in flying is
>> relative to that initial training curve.
>
> With large amounts of experience, the personality of the student is
> more important than the influence of the instructor. Some people will
> continue to learn on their own without any prodding, others will
> immediately stop learning as soon as the instructor is gone and
> they've learned enough to do the job.
>

Wheras you never learn


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Obviously, moderated forums are not for you. I know a WHOLE lot of
>> people who will deeply appreciate that fact :-)
>
> I can't recall ever encountering competent moderators, and incompetent
> ones inevitably clash with me. I was not satisfied with my own
> performance as a moderator, either (although I was better than the run
> of the mill), and I didn't like the job.

You don't like any job.....



Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> By the government.

By anyone. Freedom of speech is independent of the venue.

You're confusing laws that guarantee or eliminate freedom of speech with the
freedom itself.

> You have no right to say anything to any individual or group of
> individuals who don't wish to listen to you.

Oh yes, you do. They don't have to listen. If nobody had the right to speak
unless everyone else within earshot approved of what he said, the world would
be a very sad and bizarre place.

> Your ability to "say" something facilited by privately owned facilities,
> whether it be a supermarket bulletin board or an ISP, is at the
> pleasure and discretion of the facilities owner.

If the owner provides the medium, yes. Many owners are strong supporters of
freedom of speech and will not interfere. In some cases, non-interference
also protects them legally.

> You can rant all day on any subject you want in a public park, but not
> in a mall parking lot if the mall owner doesn't want you there.

And if the mall owner doesn't care, you can rant all you want in the parking
lot, and other people have to hear you.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> Describe a scenario under which the "freedom of speech" principle or
>> concept is applicable to communications among private entities that
>> doesn't implicitly or explicitly involve government.
>
> It applies to every situation and circumstance. If you are allowed to
> speak without restriction, you have freedom of speech. If you are
> prevented from speaking or your words are intercepted before they are
> heard, you do not have freedom of speech. Extreme penalties for
> speaking also have a chilling effect.
>

You are an idiot.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Try standing in front of most anyone on this forum and saying "You don't
> have the guts to slam me in the teeth". If you like I'll pick out
> somebody for you.

Smart people don't want to go to prison, so I'd probably pick someone smart.

You can spend years in prison for hitting someone; only very stupid people
disregard that risk.

> Instant example that there are consequences for total unrestrained
> freedom of speech that might stay with you for awhile.

More like an example of how people resort to metaphors of violence when they
are angered by opinions that differ from their own. It's very common among
men, far less common among women.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Then you're living in the wrong country, Dip****.

There isn't any country that guarantees unfettered freedom of speech. There
just aren't enough people around who believe in the freedom that strongly.
Most are eager to enjoy freedom of speech themselves, but extremely opposed to
granting it to others with whom they disagree--and often they cannot see the
parallels between the two.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> By the government.
>
> By anyone. Freedom of speech is independent of the venue.
>
> You're confusing laws that guarantee or eliminate freedom of speech
> with the freedom itself.
>
>> You have no right to say anything to any individual or group of
>> individuals who don't wish to listen to you.
>
> Oh yes, you do. They don't have to listen. If nobody had the right
> to speak unless everyone else within earshot approved of what he said,
> the world would be a very sad and bizarre place.
>
>> Your ability to "say" something facilited by privately owned
>> facilities, whether it be a supermarket bulletin board or an ISP, is
>> at the pleasure and discretion of the facilities owner.
>
> If the owner provides the medium, yes. Many owners are strong
> supporters of freedom of speech and will not interfere. In some
> cases, non-interference also protects them legally.
>
>> You can rant all day on any subject you want in a public park, but
>> not in a mall parking lot if the mall owner doesn't want you there.
>
> And if the mall owner doesn't care, you can rant all you want in the
> parking lot, and other people have to hear you.
>

No, they don't.


Fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Try standing in front of most anyone on this forum and saying "You
>> don't have the guts to slam me in the teeth". If you like I'll pick
>> out somebody for you.
>
> Smart people don't want to go to prison, so I'd probably pick someone
> smart.
>
> You can spend years in prison for hitting someone; only very stupid
> people disregard that risk.

No jury would convict them.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> Then you're living in the wrong country, Dip****.
>
> There isn't any country that guarantees unfettered freedom of speech.
> There just aren't enough people around who believe in the freedom that
> strongly. Most are eager to enjoy freedom of speech themselves, but
> extremely opposed to granting it to others with whom they
> disagree--and often they cannot see the parallels between the two.
>

Nope, wrong.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> A great deal of what either makes a "driver" or a "pilot" depends
>> heavily on the initial CFI experience. I've had pilots come through my
>> aerobatic program with 20K hours who couldn't fly their way out of a
>> paper bag. Conversely, I've had comparatively low time pilots trained by
>> extremely good instructors who could fly the airplane while blowing up
>> the paper bag. Almost everything in flying is relative to that initial
>> training curve.
>
> With large amounts of experience, the personality of the student is more
> important than the influence of the instructor. Some people will continue to
> learn on their own without any prodding, others will immediately stop learning
> as soon as the instructor is gone and they've learned enough to do the job.

Sorry, this is incorrect. It's instruction 101 for the instructor to
evaluate and ascertain the personality of the student as the student's
personality will interface with their flying. If this is done correctly,
the student's "personality" is molded and/or changed as necessary to
develop into what is needed to have the student do exactly as you have
said they need to do after leaving the instructor; continuing the
learning process. That process exists for the "pilot" all through their
careers in aviation.
On the other hand, if the instructor fails to instill whatever
"personality" change is needed during the time of exposure with the
student, the student will become the "driver" we are discussing.

Either way, the responsibility lies with the instructor. The student is
the workpiece the instructor must complete.



--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Obviously, moderated forums are not for you. I know a WHOLE lot of
>> people who will deeply appreciate that fact :-)
>
> I can't recall ever encountering competent moderators, and incompetent ones
> inevitably clash with me. I was not satisfied with my own performance as a
> moderator, either (although I was better than the run of the mill), and I
> didn't like the job.

Then Usenet is your best bet. Many people find it difficult to have
their input moderated. You are simply expressing a preference to which
you are entitled.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Jim Logajan]

Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> It's instruction 101 for the instructor to
> evaluate and ascertain the personality of the student as the student's
> personality will interface with their flying. If this is done
> correctly, the student's "personality" is molded and/or changed as
> necessary to develop into what is needed to have the student do
> exactly as you have said they need to do after leaving the instructor;
> continuing the learning process. That process exists for the "pilot"
> all through their careers in aviation.
> On the other hand, if the instructor fails to instill whatever
> "personality" change is needed during the time of exposure with the
> student, the student will become the "driver" we are discussing.

Hey - how did this on-topic subthread get in this thread!? I demand a
refund!

Anyway, you are probably correct, but I'm always a little suspicious of
anything that suggests changing of "personality". Sounds like a mistake
some people make when they get married. ;-)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Try standing in front of most anyone on this forum and saying "You don't
>> have the guts to slam me in the teeth". If you like I'll pick out
>> somebody for you.
>
> Smart people don't want to go to prison, so I'd probably pick someone smart.

Remember, you aren't picking this person, I AM!! :-) You won't have any
idea what the reaction will be when you speak. This is what makes this
an experiment in the possible consequenses of exercising your "right" to
speak. In the experiment, you might very well get away with telling
someone they don't have the guts to slam you in the teeth.......but in
your case I wouldn't bet on it :-))
>
> You can spend years in prison for hitting someone; only very stupid people
> disregard that risk.

Happens every day my friend, and people get away with it every day.
Are you telling me you are willing to bet that I couldn't pick someone
from this forum to stand in front of you while you tell them they don't
have the guts to slam you in the chops? :-)
>
>> Instant example that there are consequences for total unrestrained
>> freedom of speech that might stay with you for awhile.
>
> More like an example of how people resort to metaphors of violence when they
> are angered by opinions that differ from their own. It's very common among
> men, far less common among women.

Hardly. Simply an everyday example of possible consequences vs your
"right" to speak.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> It's instruction 101 for the instructor to
>> evaluate and ascertain the personality of the student as the student's
>> personality will interface with their flying. If this is done
>> correctly, the student's "personality" is molded and/or changed as
>> necessary to develop into what is needed to have the student do
>> exactly as you have said they need to do after leaving the instructor;
>> continuing the learning process. That process exists for the "pilot"
>> all through their careers in aviation.
>> On the other hand, if the instructor fails to instill whatever
>> "personality" change is needed during the time of exposure with the
>> student, the student will become the "driver" we are discussing.
>
> Hey - how did this on-topic subthread get in this thread!? I demand a
> refund!
>
> Anyway, you are probably correct, but I'm always a little suspicious of
> anything that suggests changing of "personality". Sounds like a mistake
> some people make when they get married. ;-)

You're right. We can't have aviation talk on this forum. Something will
have to be done :-))

That "personality change" is nothing more than the instilling in a
student of the proper habit patterns necessary to develop further into
an "attitude" about flying that will be conducive to the continuing
learning curve that must exist in a "pilot", but can be found to be
missing in an airplane "driver" as they say.
The development of this state of mind in a pilot is the direct
responsibility of the CFI and should be considered job one for the
instructor.

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> It's instruction 101 for the instructor to
>> evaluate and ascertain the personality of the student as the student's
>> personality will interface with their flying. If this is done
>> correctly, the student's "personality" is molded and/or changed as
>> necessary to develop into what is needed to have the student do
>> exactly as you have said they need to do after leaving the instructor;
>> continuing the learning process. That process exists for the "pilot"
>> all through their careers in aviation.
>> On the other hand, if the instructor fails to instill whatever
>> "personality" change is needed during the time of exposure with the
>> student, the student will become the "driver" we are discussing.
>
> Hey - how did this on-topic subthread get in this thread!? I demand a
> refund!
>
> Anyway, you are probably correct, but I'm always a little suspicious of
> anything that suggests changing of "personality". Sounds like a mistake
> some people make when they get married. ;-)

I have to agree "personality" is a **** poor choice of words.

"Attitude towards learning" is the shortest I can think of that might
be more appropriate.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> By the government.
>
> By anyone. Freedom of speech is independent of the venue.
>
> You're confusing laws that guarantee or eliminate freedom of speech with the
> freedom itself.

Without laws you have mob rule and there is no freedom for anyone other
than the leader of the mob.

>> You have no right to say anything to any individual or group of
>> individuals who don't wish to listen to you.
>
> Oh yes, you do. They don't have to listen. If nobody had the right to speak
> unless everyone else within earshot approved of what he said, the world would
> be a very sad and bizarre place.

That is NOT what I said.

Try going into the nearest church and making a speech about the insanity
of religion and see how far you get.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> You can spend years in prison for hitting someone; only very stupid people
> disregard that risk.

You sure are fixated on "risk".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> It's instruction 101 for the instructor to
>>> evaluate and ascertain the personality of the student as the student's
>>> personality will interface with their flying. If this is done
>>> correctly, the student's "personality" is molded and/or changed as
>>> necessary to develop into what is needed to have the student do
>>> exactly as you have said they need to do after leaving the instructor;
>>> continuing the learning process. That process exists for the "pilot"
>>> all through their careers in aviation.
>>> On the other hand, if the instructor fails to instill whatever
>>> "personality" change is needed during the time of exposure with the
>>> student, the student will become the "driver" we are discussing.
>> Hey - how did this on-topic subthread get in this thread!? I demand a
>> refund!
>>
>> Anyway, you are probably correct, but I'm always a little suspicious of
>> anything that suggests changing of "personality". Sounds like a mistake
>> some people make when they get married. ;-)
>
> I have to agree "personality" is a **** poor choice of words.
>
> "Attitude towards learning" is the shortest I can think of that might
> be more appropriate.
>
>
Not really. A pilot's attitude about flying can easily become an
integral part of their overall personality and indeed does for many
pilots. For example, I don't tolorate fools gladly around and in
airplanes and thoroughly enjoy pilots who demonstrate safe and
intelligent handling of the airplanes they fly. This reflects daily in
every facet involved with my interaction with other pilots.
I am known throughout the world for these "traits" and they indeed make
up part of my overall personality.
Ask my wife if you need verification on these things.
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in :

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>>
>>> By the government.
>>
>> By anyone. Freedom of speech is independent of the venue.
>>
>> You're confusing laws that guarantee or eliminate freedom of speech
>> with the freedom itself.
>
> Without laws you have mob rule and there is no freedom for anyone
> other than the leader of the mob.
>
>>> You have no right to say anything to any individual or group of
>>> individuals who don't wish to listen to you.
>>
>> Oh yes, you do. They don't have to listen. If nobody had the right
>> to speak unless everyone else within earshot approved of what he
>> said, the world would be a very sad and bizarre place.
>
> That is NOT what I said.
>
> Try going into the nearest church and making a speech about the
> insanity of religion and see how far you get.
>
>

Not a problem if it's Buddhist.

Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Sorry, this is incorrect. It's instruction 101 for the instructor to
> evaluate and ascertain the personality of the student as the student's
> personality will interface with their flying. If this is done correctly,
> the student's "personality" is molded and/or changed as necessary to
> develop into what is needed to have the student do exactly as you have
> said they need to do after leaving the instructor; continuing the
> learning process. That process exists for the "pilot" all through their
> careers in aviation.
> On the other hand, if the instructor fails to instill whatever
> "personality" change is needed during the time of exposure with the
> student, the student will become the "driver" we are discussing.
>
> Either way, the responsibility lies with the instructor. The student is
> the workpiece the instructor must complete.

If that were really true, then every student of a good instructor would become
a good pilot. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

I have all sorts of students. Some continue to improve even after I've taught
them, entirely on their own. Others fossilize moments after the class
finishes, and they never get any better. It's a question of personality (and
motivation), and even the best instructors get the same results.

Someone who just wants to be an airline pilot for the money, for example,
isn't going to care about anything beyond the minimum he needs to learn to get
into that position. Someone who just loves to fly may improve a little on
every single flight, even though he might never feel inclined to work for an
airline.

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Then Usenet is your best bet. Many people find it difficult to have
> their input moderated. You are simply expressing a preference to which
> you are entitled.

Most people tolerate moderation very poorly, but they love to see other people
with whom they disagree being silenced. Many people will choose a venue in
which they know that the allowed opinions match their own; that way anyone who
disagrees with them will be "moderated," and those who agree with them will be
left unmolested.

The problem is that many discussion venues stagnate, since nobody is willing
to discuss anything on which there might be a difference of opinion. The only
things people will discuss are the things about which they all agree already.
It gets pretty boring after a while.

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Remember, you aren't picking this person, I AM!! :-) You won't have any
> idea what the reaction will be when you speak.

The implication is pretty clear.

In reality, a lot of people are wise enough to not get into any type of
physical altercation, so you can almost say anything you want with impunity.
But many males can be goaded into physical violence with words alone, if the
words are well chosen. And some jump immediately into violence with any words
at all. Women are more level-headed, as a rule.

> Happens every day my friend, and people get away with it every day.

Many men are too macho to file a complaint. Also, when the police are
involved, often both parties go to jail, at least briefly. If guilt can be
determined, one might go away for several years.

> Are you telling me you are willing to bet that I couldn't pick someone
> from this forum to stand in front of you while you tell them they don't
> have the guts to slam you in the chops?

Why would that be difficult?

> Hardly. Simply an everyday example of possible consequences vs your
> "right" to speak.

With men, the "everyday examples" almost universally involve violence. This
is not a coincidence.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You sure are fixated on "risk".

Proper assessment of risk has kept me alive and safe for many years.

[[email protected]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in :
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> writes:
>>>
>>>> By the government.
>>>
>>> By anyone. Freedom of speech is independent of the venue.
>>>
>>> You're confusing laws that guarantee or eliminate freedom of speech
>>> with the freedom itself.
>>
>> Without laws you have mob rule and there is no freedom for anyone
>> other than the leader of the mob.
>>
>>>> You have no right to say anything to any individual or group of
>>>> individuals who don't wish to listen to you.
>>>
>>> Oh yes, you do. They don't have to listen. If nobody had the right
>>> to speak unless everyone else within earshot approved of what he
>>> said, the world would be a very sad and bizarre place.
>>
>> That is NOT what I said.
>>
>> Try going into the nearest church and making a speech about the
>> insanity of religion and see how far you get.
>>
>>
>
> Not a problem if it's Buddhist.

None I've been in was called a "church" by the members and though
it is hard to do, I've seen devout Buddhists ****ed off.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jim Logajan]

Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> You're right. We can't have aviation talk on this forum. Something will
> have to be done :-))
>
> That "personality change" is nothing more than the instilling in a
> student of the proper habit patterns necessary to develop further into
> an "attitude" about flying that will be conducive to the continuing
> learning curve that must exist in a "pilot", but can be found to be
> missing in an airplane "driver" as they say.
> The development of this state of mind in a pilot is the direct
> responsibility of the CFI and should be considered job one for the
> instructor.

Ah - that makes sense. For a minute there I was afraid you were advocating
that my CFI should nag me to become a more caring person, worry about _her_
needs for once, that I should enjoy gardening, pay more attention to what
she is saying, and that sort of thing. ;-)

(Okay - I DO pay attention to what she is saying. I was just telling her
the other day right after we landed that she _doesn't_ nag me enough! She
said she doesn't nag once it is clear a student knows what they should be
doing. I'm quite the self-nagger.)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in news:jaasn5-t8h.ln1
@mail.specsol.com:
>>
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> By the government.
>>>>
>>>> By anyone. Freedom of speech is independent of the venue.
>>>>
>>>> You're confusing laws that guarantee or eliminate freedom of speech
>>>> with the freedom itself.
>>>
>>> Without laws you have mob rule and there is no freedom for anyone
>>> other than the leader of the mob.
>>>
>>>>> You have no right to say anything to any individual or group of
>>>>> individuals who don't wish to listen to you.
>>>>
>>>> Oh yes, you do. They don't have to listen. If nobody had the
right
>>>> to speak unless everyone else within earshot approved of what he
>>>> said, the world would be a very sad and bizarre place.
>>>
>>> That is NOT what I said.
>>>
>>> Try going into the nearest church and making a speech about the
>>> insanity of religion and see how far you get.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Not a problem if it's Buddhist.
>
> None I've been in was called a "church" by the members and though
> it is hard to do, I've seen devout Buddhists ****ed off.
>

And why wouldn't you? They just wouldn't get ****ed of by that
particular speech.

BTW, you shouldn't be talking to me. You get on the lits, vol 6



Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Sorry, this is incorrect. It's instruction 101 for the instructor to
>> evaluate and ascertain the personality of the student as the student's
>> personality will interface with their flying. If this is done correctly,
>> the student's "personality" is molded and/or changed as necessary to
>> develop into what is needed to have the student do exactly as you have
>> said they need to do after leaving the instructor; continuing the
>> learning process. That process exists for the "pilot" all through their
>> careers in aviation.
>> On the other hand, if the instructor fails to instill whatever
>> "personality" change is needed during the time of exposure with the
>> student, the student will become the "driver" we are discussing.
>>
>> Either way, the responsibility lies with the instructor. The student is
>> the workpiece the instructor must complete.
>


> If that were really true, then every student of a good instructor would become
> a good pilot. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.
>

It most certainly does work this way. If the student doesn't graduate a
good pilot, the instructor has failed. Therefore the instructor by
definition isn't the good instructor in your example.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> You're right. We can't have aviation talk on this forum. Something will
>> have to be done :-))
>>
>> That "personality change" is nothing more than the instilling in a
>> student of the proper habit patterns necessary to develop further into
>> an "attitude" about flying that will be conducive to the continuing
>> learning curve that must exist in a "pilot", but can be found to be
>> missing in an airplane "driver" as they say.
>> The development of this state of mind in a pilot is the direct
>> responsibility of the CFI and should be considered job one for the
>> instructor.
>
> Ah - that makes sense. For a minute there I was afraid you were advocating
> that my CFI should nag me to become a more caring person, worry about _her_
> needs for once, that I should enjoy gardening, pay more attention to what
> she is saying, and that sort of thing. ;-)
>
> (Okay - I DO pay attention to what she is saying. I was just telling her
> the other day right after we landed that she _doesn't_ nag me enough! She
> said she doesn't nag once it is clear a student knows what they should be
> doing. I'm quite the self-nagger.)

She sounds like she knows what she's doing.
I've noticed over time that there seems to be a virtual TON of female
CFI's out here today as opposed to my era. It's good to see the girls
doing the job.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> You sure are fixated on "risk".
>
> Proper assessment of risk has kept me alive and safe for many years.

Aren't you supposed to weigh risk with the corresponding personal value or
benefit of any particular action?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Then Usenet is your best bet. Many people find it difficult to have
>> their input moderated. You are simply expressing a preference to which
>> you are entitled.
>
> Most people tolerate moderation very poorly, but they love to see other people
> with whom they disagree being silenced. Many people will choose a venue in
> which they know that the allowed opinions match their own; that way anyone who
> disagrees with them will be "moderated," and those who agree with them will be
> left unmolested.
>
> The problem is that many discussion venues stagnate, since nobody is willing
> to discuss anything on which there might be a difference of opinion. The only
> things people will discuss are the things about which they all agree already.
> It gets pretty boring after a while.

The group rec.food.recipes has been moderated, healthy and around for
about a quarter century now.

Most moderated groups don't disallow disagreement, they just don't allow
posting 486 lines of old posting just to add a one word comment or
rebuttles to postings with content free ad hominems.

Most moderated groups would eventually ban you not because of the content
of your posts at first, but because your posts are normally carefully
crafted to **** people off and be disruptive in the long run.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> In reality, a lot of people are wise enough to not get into any type of
> physical altercation, so you can almost say anything you want with impunity.
> But many males can be goaded into physical violence with words alone, if the
> words are well chosen. And some jump immediately into violence with any words
> at all. Women are more level-headed, as a rule.

I see you have little experience with real women.

--
Jim Pennino

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> You sure are fixated on "risk".
>
> Proper assessment of risk has kept me alive and safe for many years.

You sure are fixated on "safe".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> BTW, you shouldn't be talking to me. You get on the lits, vol 6

Once in a while, when you aren't quoting 4,891 lines of old text to
add a one word retort, you can be interesting.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> BTW, you shouldn't be talking to me. You get on the lits, vol 6
>
> Once in a while, when you aren't quoting 4,891 lines of old text to
> add a one word retort, you can be interesting.
>
>

I could cut and paste War and Peace if you're missing it.


Bertie

[Viperdoc[_5_]]

Actually the other reason Anthony wouldn't make it on a moderated board is
that Pilots of America (for example) is geared toward pilots (these people,
by definition, are people who actually fly airplanes).

Of course, Anthony's rationale, like always, is specious- he simply doesn't
fly and has nothing to contribute.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Then Usenet is your best bet. Many people find it difficult to have
>> their input moderated. You are simply expressing a preference to which
>> you are entitled.
>
> Most people tolerate moderation very poorly, but they love to see other people
> with whom they disagree being silenced. Many people will choose a venue in
> which they know that the allowed opinions match their own; that way anyone who
> disagrees with them will be "moderated," and those who agree with them will be
> left unmolested.
>
> The problem is that many discussion venues stagnate, since nobody is willing
> to discuss anything on which there might be a difference of opinion. The only
> things people will discuss are the things about which they all agree already.
> It gets pretty boring after a while.

Not for me. For example, I've been involved directly with flight
instruction in one way or another for over 50 years. I'll discuss the
subject with you as I am doing now on another posting. I tolorate you
"telling me" instead of asking me about a subject in which I have
expertise and you have never been involved in.
I won't attack your opposing views even though you present them to me as
statements instead of questions.
I'll do this as long as I feel the discussion is respectful and on
topic. If I determine, after several exchanges of direct opposing
opinion that we are in total disagreement on something, instead of
attacking you directly, I'll allow you your opinion and simply
disengage. You are entitled to both your opinion AND your right to
disagree, even though you are not a flight instructor.
I try to do this with everyone who approaches me with respect. I save
the GFY posts for those who deviate from this criteria.



--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Remember, you aren't picking this person, I AM!! :-) You won't have any
>> idea what the reaction will be when you speak.
>
> The implication is pretty clear.
>
> In reality, a lot of people are wise enough to not get into any type of
> physical altercation, so you can almost say anything you want with impunity.
> But many males can be goaded into physical violence with words alone, if the
> words are well chosen. And some jump immediately into violence with any words
> at all. Women are more level-headed, as a rule.
>
>> Happens every day my friend, and people get away with it every day.
>
> Many men are too macho to file a complaint. Also, when the police are
> involved, often both parties go to jail, at least briefly. If guilt can be
> determined, one might go away for several years.
>
>> Are you telling me you are willing to bet that I couldn't pick someone
>> from this forum to stand in front of you while you tell them they don't
>> have the guts to slam you in the chops?
>
> Why would that be difficult?
>
>> Hardly. Simply an everyday example of possible consequences vs your
>> "right" to speak.
>
> With men, the "everyday examples" almost universally involve violence. This
> is not a coincidence.

You seem to have a very low opinion of men. I think you are probably too
prone to generalization. Better to approach life in a more specific manner.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Aug 19, 8:05 pm, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
>
> >> You sure are fixated on "risk".
>
> > Proper assessment of risk has kept me alive and safe for many years.
>
> You sure are fixated on "safe".
> Jim Pennino

Do you know how many people are electocuted
by keyboards per year, and they have germs
like flesh eating disease, so now I wear a condom
while using the computer...can't be too careful...
these days.
Ken

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Aug 19, 8:05 pm, wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> writes:
>>>> You sure are fixated on "risk".
>>> Proper assessment of risk has kept me alive and safe for many years.
>> You sure are fixated on "safe".
>> Jim Pennino
>
> Do you know how many people are electocuted
> by keyboards per year, and they have germs
> like flesh eating disease, so now I wear a condom
> while using the computer...can't be too careful...
> these days.
> Ken
You mean you can reach the keyboard with it???? I'm duly
impressed!!!!!! :-)))

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, you shouldn't be talking to me. You get on the lits, vol 6
>>
>> Once in a while, when you aren't quoting 4,891 lines of old text to
>> add a one word retort, you can be interesting.
>>
>>
>
> I could cut and paste War and Peace if you're missing it.


Ummm, no thanks, but I don't seem to be able to find my copy of Commentarii
de Bello Gallico.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:6335c9cb-5e33-4d00-
:

> On Aug 19, 8:05 pm, wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> > writes:
>>
>> >> You sure are fixated on "risk".
>>
>> > Proper assessment of risk has kept me alive and safe for many years.
>>
>> You sure are fixated on "safe".
>> Jim Pennino
>
> Do you know how many people are electocuted
> by keyboards per year, and they have germs
> like flesh eating disease, so now I wear a condom
> while using the computer...can't be too careful...
> these days.


I'd certainly wear one if I knew you were anywhere ahead of me.


Bertie
>

[Maxwell's Syphilitic Mother]

In article <YwGqk.304$UX.151@trnddc03>, Mike says...

> "KKK wannabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Mike wrote:
> >> "KKK wannabe" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> Mike wrote:
> >>>> "tater" > wrote in message
> >>>> m...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "buttman" > wrote in message
> >>>>> ...
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>> The sites he posted are moderated and the slime balls that post the
> >>>>> crap
> >>>>> here would be booted out of those sites.
> >>>>
> >>>> Perhaps, but so would slime balls that advertised other forums on those
> >>>> "sites" ad nauseum.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Moderated??
> >>>
> >>> Or thought control from Marxist anti-liberty slime balls?
> >>>
> >>> FREEDOM
> >>> LIBERTY
> >>> The TRUTH will NEVER be stopped
> >>> NEVER
> >>
> >> Ah, come now, Grand Wizard. None of the BS you spew has anything to do
> >> with any of the above.
> >
> > Grand Wizard??
> > OK
> >
> > Poooof!!!
> > You are a "San Francisco Rump Ranger"
> >
> > Weeeeeeeeeeeeee I'M voting for Obama girlfriend
>
> You should let everyone know when you're trying to be funny, GW. Those not
> as quick as I am might mistake your ramblings as drug induced (and they
> might be right). Then again you're not talking to yourself in the 3rd
> person today, so perhaps you're on legitimate meds, no? But I suppose one
> can't expect much from a 3rd class moron who thinks exercising
> "freedom-of-speech" means he should spam newsgroups with his mouthbreathing
> idiocies.

Nice try with teh follow-up.

Have you ever considered that the good folks here in rap *like* spam?

Who are you to deny them their daily bread?

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>
>>>> BTW, you shouldn't be talking to me. You get on the lits, vol 6
>>>
>>> Once in a while, when you aren't quoting 4,891 lines of old text to
>>> add a one word retort, you can be interesting.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I could cut and paste War and Peace if you're missing it.
>
>
> Ummm, no thanks, but I don't seem to be able to find my copy of
> Commentarii de Bello Gallico.
>

Well, I sure as hell didn't take it.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>>> I could cut and paste War and Peace if you're missing it.
>>
>>
>> Ummm, no thanks, but I don't seem to be able to find my copy of
>> Commentarii de Bello Gallico.
>>
>
> Well, I sure as hell didn't take it.

Didn't say you did, but if you're going to cut and paste something,
Caesar is a better read than Tolstoy.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Aug 19, 8:21 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 8:05 pm, wrote:
> >> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >>> writes:
> >>>> You sure are fixated on "risk".
> >>> Proper assessment of risk has kept me alive and safe for many years.
> >> You sure are fixated on "safe".
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> > Do you know how many people are electocuted
> > by keyboards per year, and they have germs
> > like flesh eating disease, so now I wear a condom
> > while using the computer...can't be too careful...
> > these days.
> > Ken
>
> You mean you can reach the keyboard with it???? I'm duly
> impressed!!!!!! :-)))

Well when posting to this group I use a palm *pilot*,
it's a RIM job with blackberries.
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>>> I could cut and paste War and Peace if you're missing it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ummm, no thanks, but I don't seem to be able to find my copy of
>>> Commentarii de Bello Gallico.
>>>
>>
>> Well, I sure as hell didn't take it.
>
> Didn't say you did, but if you're going to cut and paste something,
> Caesar is a better read than Tolstoy.
>
>

Well, if it's quality you're looking for I'll make it Lady Chatterly.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:8a5f57eb-ef0c-44fa-
:

> On Aug 19, 8:21 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> > On Aug 19, 8:05 pm, wrote:
>> >> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> >>> writes:
>> >>>> You sure are fixated on "risk".
>> >>> Proper assessment of risk has kept me alive and safe for many years.
>> >> You sure are fixated on "safe".
>> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> > Do you know how many people are electocuted
>> > by keyboards per year, and they have germs
>> > like flesh eating disease, so now I wear a condom
>> > while using the computer...can't be too careful...
>> > these days.
>> > Ken
>>
>> You mean you can reach the keyboard with it???? I'm duly
>> impressed!!!!!! :-)))
>
> Well when posting to this group I use a palm *pilot*,
> it's a RIM job with blackberries.
> Ken
>

HYou're a very sick little boi, kenny.


Bertie

[The Bunyip Slayer]

> wrote in message
...
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> It's instruction 101 for the instructor to
>>> evaluate and ascertain the personality of the student as the student's
>>> personality will interface with their flying. If this is done
>>> correctly, the student's "personality" is molded and/or changed as
>>> necessary to develop into what is needed to have the student do
>>> exactly as you have said they need to do after leaving the instructor;
>>> continuing the learning process. That process exists for the "pilot"
>>> all through their careers in aviation.
>>> On the other hand, if the instructor fails to instill whatever
>>> "personality" change is needed during the time of exposure with the
>>> student, the student will become the "driver" we are discussing.
>>
>> Hey - how did this on-topic subthread get in this thread!? I demand a
>> refund!
>>
>> Anyway, you are probably correct, but I'm always a little suspicious of
>> anything that suggests changing of "personality". Sounds like a mistake
>> some people make when they get married. ;-)
>
> I have to agree "personality" is a **** poor choice of words.
>
> "Attitude towards learning" is the shortest I can think of that might
> be more appropriate.
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Dudley is going to be spewing a lot of bull**** now. He's obviously only
here to make noise.

[The Bunyip Slayer]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...

major bull**** snip ->
>


Nonsense. You have obviously returned only to add more noise and confusion
than your cohort Bertie.

[Rocky Stevens]

On Aug 19, 10:29 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
> > Then Usenet is your best bet. Many people find it difficult to have
> > their input moderated. You are simply expressing a preference to which
> > you are entitled.
>
> Most people tolerate moderation very poorly, but they love to see other people
> with whom they disagree being silenced. Many people will choose a venue in
> which they know that the allowed opinions match their own; that way anyone who
> disagrees with them will be "moderated," and those who agree with them will be
> left unmolested.
>
> The problem is that many discussion venues stagnate, since nobody is willing
> to discuss anything on which there might be a difference of opinion. The only
> things people will discuss are the things about which they all agree already.
> It gets pretty boring after a while.

I do not actually disagree with people on this NG any more than I do
with people on the AOPA forum (though being new to aviation, I do not
have many strong opinions yet). What I get from the moderated groups
is a much higher signal to noise ratio, as overly personal attacks are
avoided. I think that because people know they will be blocked if they
post some asinine attack, it forces them to put some actual content
into their posts.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"The Bunyip Slayer" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:1jUqk.539
:

>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> It's instruction 101 for the instructor to
>>>> evaluate and ascertain the personality of the student as the
student's
>>>> personality will interface with their flying. If this is done
>>>> correctly, the student's "personality" is molded and/or changed as
>>>> necessary to develop into what is needed to have the student do
>>>> exactly as you have said they need to do after leaving the
instructor;
>>>> continuing the learning process. That process exists for the
"pilot"
>>>> all through their careers in aviation.
>>>> On the other hand, if the instructor fails to instill whatever
>>>> "personality" change is needed during the time of exposure with the
>>>> student, the student will become the "driver" we are discussing.
>>>
>>> Hey - how did this on-topic subthread get in this thread!? I demand
a
>>> refund!
>>>
>>> Anyway, you are probably correct, but I'm always a little suspicious
of
>>> anything that suggests changing of "personality". Sounds like a
mistake
>>> some people make when they get married. ;-)
>>
>> I have to agree "personality" is a **** poor choice of words.
>>
>> "Attitude towards learning" is the shortest I can think of that might
>> be more appropriate.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> Dudley is going to be spewing a lot of bull**** now. He's obviously
only
> here to make noise.
>
>
>
>

How dare he! Doesn't he know that's your job?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"The Bunyip Slayer" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> major bull**** snip ->
>>
>
>
> Nonsense. You have obviously returned only to add more noise and
> confusion than your cohort Bertie.
>


Like anyone could take your place.

Bertie

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Most people tolerate moderation very poorly, but they love to see other
> people
> with whom they disagree being silenced. Many people will choose a venue
> in
> which they know that the allowed opinions match their own; that way anyone
> who
> disagrees with them will be "moderated," and those who agree with them
> will be
> left unmolested.

What's truly ironic, Anthony, is that I have never read anything you've
posted that would result in you being censored on Pilots of America. You
may not know what you're talking about, but ignorance is not an offense on
PofA. As long as conversation is kept in a civil tongue anyone can post
there, unimpeded.

On the flipside, many of the people who blast you to kingdom-come every day
would be instantly removed from PofA for their rudeness and personal
attacks. If anyone would benefit from a moderated group, it would be you.

Yet, you stay here. I can only conclude that you enjoy abuse...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tim[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
> Yet, you stay here. I can only conclude that you enjoy abuse...
>

Nah, that's not it. I conclude he enjoys the affect he has on some people
and what it drives them to do and say.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>> Yet, you stay here. I can only conclude that you enjoy abuse...
>
> Nah, that's not it. I conclude he enjoys the affect he has on some people
> and what it drives them to do and say.

Hmmm....good point. I must confess, it *is* kind of funny/pathetic to watch
how effortlessly he can jerk around pilots who are otherwise (apparently)
logical, even-tempered folks...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[The Bunyip Slayer]

"Tim" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>>
>> Yet, you stay here. I can only conclude that you enjoy abuse...
>>
>
> Nah, that's not it. I conclude he enjoys the affect he has on some people
> and what it drives them to do and say.
>
>

Ding!
Ding!
Ding!
Ding!
Ding!
Ding!
Ding!

Looks like we have a winner!

Anthony is NOT here to talk aviation.

Back in high school, when we wanted to bed Mary Jane Rottencrotch, we didn't
just walk up and say hey, wanna screw?

Neither does Mx. It that respect, he does prove himself much smarter than
many of the "pilots" here, everyday. Are you listening Dudley?

[Tim[_1_]]

"The Bunyip Slayer" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote
> Looks like we have a winner!
>
> Anthony is NOT here to talk aviation.
>
> Back in high school, when we wanted to bed Mary Jane Rottencrotch, we
didn't
> just walk up and say hey, wanna screw?
>
> Neither does Mx. It that respect, he does prove himself much smarter than
> many of the "pilots" here, everyday. Are you listening Dudley?
>

Dudley isn't the problem - I have never seen Dudley respond in any manner
other than to provide an answer to a question. That's what this NG is
supposed to be about after all.

OTOH, there are dozens of posters who go back and forth with the guy
endlessly, eventually resorting to childish name calling and similar
behavior presumably out of frustration. Tell me, how does that help?

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> It most certainly does work this way. If the student doesn't graduate a
> good pilot, the instructor has failed. Therefore the instructor by
> definition isn't the good instructor in your example.

I wasn't thinking of the graduation. After the pilot graduates, he flies. A
good pilot is someone who flies well even years after doing what is necessary
to get a license. The same applies to drivers of cars, doctors, lawyers, and
so on. It's one thing to pass a test; it's another to stay competent and/or
perhaps improve over long periods. Instructors have no control over that.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Most moderated groups would eventually ban you not because of the content
> of your posts at first, but because your posts are normally carefully
> crafted to **** people off and be disruptive in the long run.

As hard as it may be to believe and accept, people **** themselves off; I
don't do it (nor does any other external party). If you cultivate a certain
mindset and attitude, nothing ****es you off.

[Mxsmanic]

Rocky Stevens writes:

> I do not actually disagree with people on this NG any more than I do
> with people on the AOPA forum (though being new to aviation, I do not
> have many strong opinions yet). What I get from the moderated groups
> is a much higher signal to noise ratio, as overly personal attacks are
> avoided. I think that because people know they will be blocked if they
> post some asinine attack, it forces them to put some actual content
> into their posts.

A tremendous number of moderated discussion forums have long lists of
unofficially favored and disfavored members. The favored ones routinely
engage in personal attacks and other "violations" with impunity, whereas the
disfavored ones are often accused of violations even when they haven't
committed any. There are _very_ few moderators who can stay cool, distant,
and objective no matter what happens. Most intervene prematurely, too
invasively, and with extreme prejudice (the less experience they have, the
worse they are).

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> What's truly ironic, Anthony, is that I have never read anything you've
> posted that would result in you being censored on Pilots of America.

I'm never censored based on content, I'm censored because people don't like
me. Typically I follow all the rules.

> On the flipside, many of the people who blast you to kingdom-come every day
> would be instantly removed from PofA for their rudeness and personal
> attacks. If anyone would benefit from a moderated group, it would be you.

It requires quite a remarkable moderator for that to be true. I have rarely
encountered such moderators.

> Yet, you stay here. I can only conclude that you enjoy abuse...

I cannot be banned from a newsgroup, as there are no hamhanded moderators to
censor it.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Hmmm....good point. I must confess, it *is* kind of funny/pathetic to watch
> how effortlessly he can jerk around pilots who are otherwise (apparently)
> logical, even-tempered folks...

I take care to be nice and civil, but I do not engage in the kind of
mollycoddling that some people require in order to stay calm. If they cannot
stand direct, objective discussion, that's their problem, not mine. I do not
have the time or inclination to hold the hands of people who insist on
behaving like children.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> I see you have little experience with real women.

I have a great deal of experience with them, and I tend to prefer their
company because they are less emotional than men. Of course, stupid people of
either sex tend to be excessively emotional, but I try to avoid stupid people.
Most of my female friends are on the smart side of the curve.

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> You seem to have a very low opinion of men.

They are very emotional and often engage in fairly stereotyped, negative
behaviors, especially as a group.

[No2]

"If you cultivate a certain mindset and attitude, nothing ****es you off"

Nothing?

What if you get your Dick caught in your zipper when you are late for
a meeting and the boss is right next to your urinal while you writhe in
agony??

It takes a real man to not get ****ed at that!

You are a tough guy

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> Aren't you supposed to weigh risk with the corresponding personal value or
> benefit of any particular action?

I do. And that drives me to avoid many types of risk.

I lack the thrill-seeking, irritable, and competitive behavior that afflicts
so many males, so I take fewer risks than most people of my gender.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You sure are fixated on "safe".

Yes, and that's a very healthy fixation in aviation.

[Mxsmanic]

Ken S. Tucker writes:

> Do you know how many people are electocuted
> by keyboards per year ...

No, I don't. How many?

Since keyboards operate at extremely low voltages, usually an operator
endangers a keyboard more than a keyboard endangers an operator.

[Mxsmanic]

No2 writes:

> Nothing?

I'm impatient with stupidity; my people have learned to live without it.

Injustice and cruelty tend to irritate me (although that is closely linked to
the above).

> What if you get your Dick caught in your zipper when you are late for
> a meeting and the boss is right next to your urinal while you writhe in
> agony??

That has not occurred to me.

> It takes a real man to not get ****ed at that!

I don't see why it would make anyone angry; it would just be unpleasant.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Most moderated groups would eventually ban you not because of the content
>> of your posts at first, but because your posts are normally carefully
>> crafted to **** people off and be disruptive in the long run.
>
> As hard as it may be to believe and accept, people **** themselves off; I
> don't do it (nor does any other external party). If you cultivate a certain
> mindset and attitude, nothing ****es you off.

The term for that is "catatonic".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"The Bunyip Slayer" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Tim" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>>>
>>> Yet, you stay here. I can only conclude that you enjoy abuse...
>>>
>>
>> Nah, that's not it. I conclude he enjoys the affect he has on some
>> people and what it drives them to do and say.
>>
>>
>
> Ding!
> Ding!
> Ding!
> Ding!
> Ding!
> Ding!
> Ding!
>
> Looks like we have a winner!
>
> Anthony is NOT here to talk aviation.
>
> Back in high school, when we wanted to bed Mary Jane Rottencrotch, we
> didn't just walk up and say hey, wanna screw?



You needed a group to make a pass at a slut?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Tim" > wrote in
:

> "The Bunyip Slayer" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote
>> Looks like we have a winner!
>>
>> Anthony is NOT here to talk aviation.
>>
>> Back in high school, when we wanted to bed Mary Jane Rottencrotch, we
> didn't
>> just walk up and say hey, wanna screw?
>>
>> Neither does Mx. It that respect, he does prove himself much smarter
>> than many of the "pilots" here, everyday. Are you listening Dudley?
>>
>
> Dudley isn't the problem - I have never seen Dudley respond in any
> manner other than to provide an answer to a question. That's what
> this NG is supposed to be about after all.
>
> OTOH, there are dozens of posters who go back and forth with the guy
> endlessly, eventually resorting to childish name calling and similar
> behavior presumably out of frustration. Tell me, how does that help?


Well, for starters, your presumption is incorrect.



Bertie
>

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> I see you have little experience with real women.
>
> I have a great deal of experience with them, and I tend to prefer their
> company because they are less emotional than men.

An obvious lie if you are using the dictionary definition of "emotional".

If you are making up the meaning as you go along, as you often do, who
knows?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:VuVqk.306251$yE1.214770@attbi_s21:

>> Most people tolerate moderation very poorly, but they love to see
>> other people
>> with whom they disagree being silenced. Many people will choose a
>> venue in
>> which they know that the allowed opinions match their own; that way
>> anyone who
>> disagrees with them will be "moderated," and those who agree with
>> them will be
>> left unmolested.
>
> What's truly ironic, Anthony, is that I have never read anything
> you've posted that would result in you being censored on Pilots of
> America. You may not know what you're talking about, but ignorance
> is not an offense on PofA. As long as conversation is kept in a civil
> tongue anyone can post there, unimpeded.
>
> On the flipside, many of the people who blast you to kingdom-come
> every day would be instantly removed from PofA for their rudeness and
> personal attacks. If anyone would benefit from a moderated group, it
> would be you.
>


Yep, he's your sort of pilot alright.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> Hmmm....good point. I must confess, it *is* kind of funny/pathetic
>> to watch how effortlessly he can jerk around pilots who are otherwise
>> (apparently) logical, even-tempered folks...
>
> I take care to be nice and civil, but I do not engage in the kind of
> mollycoddling that some people require in order to stay calm. If they
> cannot stand direct, objective discussion, that's their problem, not
> mine. I do not have the time or inclination to hold the hands of
> people who insist on behaving like children.


You wouldn't know what direct objective discusssion was if it blew you.


Bertie

[RST Engineering]

But Dudley, you must admit, sometimes polishing a turd is impossible.

Jim

>
> Either way, the responsibility lies with the instructor. The student is
> the workpiece the instructor must complete.
>
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

[Tim[_1_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
> Well, for starters, your presumption is incorrect.
>

You are the exception and appear to be in it for the sport.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> It most certainly does work this way. If the student doesn't graduate a
>> good pilot, the instructor has failed. Therefore the instructor by
>> definition isn't the good instructor in your example.
>
> I wasn't thinking of the graduation. After the pilot graduates, he flies. A
> good pilot is someone who flies well even years after doing what is necessary
> to get a license. The same applies to drivers of cars, doctors, lawyers, and
> so on. It's one thing to pass a test; it's another to stay competent and/or
> perhaps improve over long periods. Instructors have no control over that.

Anything you say Anthony. I've reached that point where it's time to say
I'm not interested in changing your opinion.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

RST Engineering wrote:
> But Dudley, you must admit, sometimes polishing a turd is impossible.
>
> Jim
>
>> Either way, the responsibility lies with the instructor. The student is
>> the workpiece the instructor must complete.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>

This of course assumes the instructor passes everything that comes
through the door. This might work for some instructors. GOOD instructors
engage in an ongoing evaluation of each student they take on. If at
ANY time the GOOD instructor realizes that a specific student isn't
developing the required attitude or attitude change as the case might
be, it's incumbent on the instructor to at that point call in an outside
evaluation for that student; the continuance of instruction to be
decided after that evaluation.
For good CFI's, the question of money or profit doesn't enter the
picture when evaluating a student's attitude toward flying.
There are indeed instructors out here who don't operate this way. For
them, the fact that the student exists on the schedule is a
consideration. Not so for the instructor doing the job properly.
It is admittedily a two way street. Each student must be given the very
best the instructor has to offer. In return, the instructor must DEMAND
the same from the student.
There can indeed come a time with a specific student showing signs of an
"attitude issue" where an instructor should disengage. Some CFI's can do
this, some won't. It's a personal choice for the CFI.
Personally, I have had several students with "bad attitudes" that did
not respond directly to instruction designed to change that attitude. To
eliminate myself as the source of the failure to communicate, I in each
case had the affected student evaluated by another instructor. In every
instance (3 in all) the student was evaluated with an attitude problem
by the second instructor. None of these 3 students were graduated from
our program. I can't speak for their eventual disposition within the
training system.

GOOD CFI's don't graduate students with bad attitudes into the system.



--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> You sure are fixated on "safe".
>
> Yes, and that's a very healthy fixation in aviation.

By definition, any fixation is an abnormal and unhealthy condition.


1. The act or process of fixing or fixating.
2. An obsessive preoccupation.
3. Psychology A strong attachment to a person or thing, especially such
an attachment formed in childhood or infancy and manifested in immature
or neurotic behavior that persists throughout life.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ken S. Tucker]

Dudley I think your over complicated, you aren't
a shrink!! I read your essay.

On Aug 20, 11:21 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> RST Engineering wrote:
> > But Dudley, you must admit, sometimes polishing a turd is impossible.
>
> > Jim
>
> >> Either way, the responsibility lies with the instructor. The student is
> >> the workpiece the instructor must complete.
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> This of course assumes the instructor passes everything that comes
> through the door. This might work for some instructors. GOOD instructors
> engage in an ongoing evaluation of each student they take on. If at
> ANY time the GOOD instructor realizes that a specific student isn't
> developing the required attitude or attitude change as the case might
> be, it's incumbent on the instructor to at that point call in an outside
> evaluation for that student; the continuance of instruction to be
> decided after that evaluation.
> For good CFI's, the question of money or profit doesn't enter the
> picture when evaluating a student's attitude toward flying.
> There are indeed instructors out here who don't operate this way. For
> them, the fact that the student exists on the schedule is a
> consideration. Not so for the instructor doing the job properly.
> It is admittedily a two way street. Each student must be given the very
> best the instructor has to offer. In return, the instructor must DEMAND
> the same from the student.
> There can indeed come a time with a specific student showing signs of an
> "attitude issue" where an instructor should disengage. Some CFI's can do
> this, some won't. It's a personal choice for the CFI.
> Personally, I have had several students with "bad attitudes" that did
> not respond directly to instruction designed to change that attitude. To
> eliminate myself as the source of the failure to communicate, I in each
> case had the affected student evaluated by another instructor. In every
> instance (3 in all) the student was evaluated with an attitude problem
> by the second instructor. None of these 3 students were graduated from
> our program. I can't speak for their eventual disposition within the
> training system.
> GOOD CFI's don't graduate students with bad attitudes into the system.
> Dudley Henriques

I've been fortunate to have good instructors and try
to be one. In an upcoming exercise the instructor
informs me of the lesson, say banked turns.
I do the usual preflight, and the instructor (who I'm
happily paying $50/hr), gently provides suggestions,
so I know what he knows, if he's good.

So, in the sky he could demo a 30 deg nicely balanced
banked turn, and then say you try it, left and right, then
recommend procedural aviation corrections.
If the guy cuts it, go to 45 then 60.
((There is no psychobabble))
Nothing complicated.

Personally I perfer an instructor who uses a few soft
well chosen words than someone who yammers
like a 16 yr old chick that just lost her virginity, so
I can concentrate. I like quality communications in
the cockpit.
Regards
Ken

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A tremendous number of moderated discussion forums have long lists of
> unofficially favored and disfavored members.

An assertion made with no basis in fact. Please name examples.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Dudley I think your over complicated, you aren't
> a shrink!! I read your essay.
>
> On Aug 20, 11:21 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> RST Engineering wrote:
>>> But Dudley, you must admit, sometimes polishing a turd is impossible.
>>> Jim
>>>> Either way, the responsibility lies with the instructor. The student is
>>>> the workpiece the instructor must complete.
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>> This of course assumes the instructor passes everything that comes
>> through the door. This might work for some instructors. GOOD instructors
>> engage in an ongoing evaluation of each student they take on. If at
>> ANY time the GOOD instructor realizes that a specific student isn't
>> developing the required attitude or attitude change as the case might
>> be, it's incumbent on the instructor to at that point call in an outside
>> evaluation for that student; the continuance of instruction to be
>> decided after that evaluation.
>> For good CFI's, the question of money or profit doesn't enter the
>> picture when evaluating a student's attitude toward flying.
>> There are indeed instructors out here who don't operate this way. For
>> them, the fact that the student exists on the schedule is a
>> consideration. Not so for the instructor doing the job properly.
>> It is admittedily a two way street. Each student must be given the very
>> best the instructor has to offer. In return, the instructor must DEMAND
>> the same from the student.
>> There can indeed come a time with a specific student showing signs of an
>> "attitude issue" where an instructor should disengage. Some CFI's can do
>> this, some won't. It's a personal choice for the CFI.
>> Personally, I have had several students with "bad attitudes" that did
>> not respond directly to instruction designed to change that attitude. To
>> eliminate myself as the source of the failure to communicate, I in each
>> case had the affected student evaluated by another instructor. In every
>> instance (3 in all) the student was evaluated with an attitude problem
>> by the second instructor. None of these 3 students were graduated from
>> our program. I can't speak for their eventual disposition within the
>> training system.
>> GOOD CFI's don't graduate students with bad attitudes into the system.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I've been fortunate to have good instructors and try
> to be one. In an upcoming exercise the instructor
> informs me of the lesson, say banked turns.
> I do the usual preflight, and the instructor (who I'm
> happily paying $50/hr), gently provides suggestions,
> so I know what he knows, if he's good.
>
> So, in the sky he could demo a 30 deg nicely balanced
> banked turn, and then say you try it, left and right, then
> recommend procedural aviation corrections.
> If the guy cuts it, go to 45 then 60.
> ((There is no psychobabble))
> Nothing complicated.
>
> Personally I perfer an instructor who uses a few soft
> well chosen words than someone who yammers
> like a 16 yr old chick that just lost her virginity, so
> I can concentrate. I like quality communications in
> the cockpit.
> Regards
> Ken

If you are reading anything "complicated" into what I have said, I'm
afraid you might be misinterpreting or misunderstanding the entire point.
Flight instruction in NO WAY has to be complicated, and instructors who
over complicate things with the way they interface with a student might
be in need of some added instruction themselves.
Don't read over complication into a written explanation. In practice,
what you are reading is actually the epitome of simplicity :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>>
>>> You sure are fixated on "safe".
>> Yes, and that's a very healthy fixation in aviation.
>
> By definition, any fixation is an abnormal and unhealthy condition.
>
>
> 1. The act or process of fixing or fixating.
> 2. An obsessive preoccupation.
> 3. Psychology A strong attachment to a person or thing, especially such
> an attachment formed in childhood or infancy and manifested in immature
> or neurotic behavior that persists throughout life.
>
>

Oh hell, I guess this means no more Pamela Anderson for me . :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[No2]

No2 wrote:
> "If you cultivate a certain mindset and attitude, nothing ****es you off"
>
> Nothing?
>
> What if you get your Dick caught in your zipper when you are late for
> a meeting and the boss is right next to your urinal while you writhe in
> agony??
>
> It takes a real man to not get ****ed at that!
>
> You are a tough guy
>
>
>

[Paul Riley]

As long as your wife does not find out, you are safe!! :-))))

Paul

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> writes:
>>>
>>>> You sure are fixated on "safe".
>>> Yes, and that's a very healthy fixation in aviation.
>>
>> By definition, any fixation is an abnormal and unhealthy condition.
>>
>>
>> 1. The act or process of fixing or fixating.
>> 2. An obsessive preoccupation.
>> 3. Psychology A strong attachment to a person or thing, especially such
>> an attachment formed in childhood or infancy and manifested in
>> immature
>> or neurotic behavior that persists throughout life.
>>
>>
>
> Oh hell, I guess this means no more Pamela Anderson for me . :-)
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

[Abbott]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> writes:
>>>
>>>> You sure are fixated on "safe".
>>> Yes, and that's a very healthy fixation in aviation.
>>
>> By definition, any fixation is an abnormal and unhealthy condition.
>>
>>
>> 1. The act or process of fixing or fixating.
>> 2. An obsessive preoccupation.
>> 3. Psychology A strong attachment to a person or thing, especially such
>> an attachment formed in childhood or infancy and manifested in
>> immature
>> or neurotic behavior that persists throughout life.
>>
>>
>
> Oh hell, I guess this means no more Pamela Anderson for me . :-)
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Or Usenet.

[Abbott]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> You sure are fixated on "safe".
>
> Yes, and that's a very healthy fixation in aviation.

Not from a mental health stand point.

[Abbott]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Ken S. Tucker writes:
>
>> Do you know how many people are electocuted
>> by keyboards per year ...
>
> No, I don't. How many?
>
> Since keyboards operate at extremely low voltages, usually an operator
> endangers a keyboard more than a keyboard endangers an operator.

Have you tried Pampers?

[Abbott]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> Aren't you supposed to weigh risk with the corresponding personal value
>> or
>> benefit of any particular action?
>
> I do. And that drives me to avoid many types of risk.
>
> I lack the thrill-seeking, irritable, and competitive behavior that
> afflicts
> so many males, so I take fewer risks than most people of my gender.

You don't have a gender.

[Abbott]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> You seem to have a very low opinion of men.
>
> They are very emotional and often engage in fairly stereotyped, negative
> behaviors, especially as a group.

How would you know, been looking out the window?

[Abbott]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> I see you have little experience with real women.
>
> I have a great deal of experience with them, and I tend to prefer their
> company because they are less emotional than men. Of course, stupid
> people of
> either sex tend to be excessively emotional, but I try to avoid stupid
> people.
> Most of my female friends are on the smart side of the curve.

Yeah, and a Baron has an ejection seat.

[Abbott]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> What's truly ironic, Anthony, is that I have never read anything you've
>> posted that would result in you being censored on Pilots of America.
>
> I'm never censored based on content, I'm censored because people don't
> like
> me. Typically I follow all the rules.

Liar. Then take your silly ass questions to a simulator group.

[Abbott]

"Tim" > wrote in message
...
> "The Bunyip Slayer" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote
>> Looks like we have a winner!
>>
>> Anthony is NOT here to talk aviation.
>>
>> Back in high school, when we wanted to bed Mary Jane Rottencrotch, we
> didn't
>> just walk up and say hey, wanna screw?
>>
>> Neither does Mx. It that respect, he does prove himself much smarter than
>> many of the "pilots" here, everyday. Are you listening Dudley?
>>
>
> Dudley isn't the problem - I have never seen Dudley respond in any manner
> other than to provide an answer to a question. That's what this NG is
> supposed to be about after all.

Oh, you mean like this one?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dudley Henriques" >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 8:03 AM
Subject: Re: RAP is NOT Dead


> Morgans wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>
>>> Look in the mirror you idiot! YOU'RE the problem!!!!
>>
>> I never mentioned you or your view of things, so why don't you trying to
>> STFU for a change?
>
> You ****ing moron. Are you SO stupid you don't realize that I have
> NEVER, and I repeat it again for clarity.....NEVER, posted directly to
> you on this issue unless posted on and lectured to BY you!!!
>
> This post you're answering now is the direct result of you posting to me
> last light lecturing me on how I should behave. I've had it with you!
>
> No. I've been listening to your bull**** long enough. You picked the
> wrong guy to pontificate on this time. I'm sick of you and your bull****
> Morgans. I'll be reminding you you're the problem until you stop being
> the problem.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques






>
> OTOH, there are dozens of posters who go back and forth with the guy
> endlessly, eventually resorting to childish name calling and similar
> behavior presumably out of frustration. Tell me, how does that help?

Anything to discourage the *******, and it does work for weeks at a time,
until you newbees come along and take pity on him.

Go ahead, get in there an work him. You see, everyone usually does.

[Abbott]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> Hmmm....good point. I must confess, it *is* kind of funny/pathetic to
>> watch
>> how effortlessly he can jerk around pilots who are otherwise (apparently)
>> logical, even-tempered folks...
>
> I take care to be nice and civil, but I do not engage in the kind of
> mollycoddling that some people require in order to stay calm. If they
> cannot
> stand direct, objective discussion, that's their problem, not mine. I do
> not
> have the time or inclination to hold the hands of people who insist on
> behaving like children.

Then how do you stand yourself?

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Anything you say Anthony. I've reached that point where it's time to say
> I'm not interested in changing your opinion.

Starting a discussion with the intention of changing someone's opinion is
often a highway to disappointment.

[Abbott]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Rocky Stevens writes:
>
>> I do not actually disagree with people on this NG any more than I do
>> with people on the AOPA forum (though being new to aviation, I do not
>> have many strong opinions yet). What I get from the moderated groups
>> is a much higher signal to noise ratio, as overly personal attacks are
>> avoided. I think that because people know they will be blocked if they
>> post some asinine attack, it forces them to put some actual content
>> into their posts.
>
> A tremendous number of moderated discussion forums have long lists of
> unofficially favored and disfavored members. The favored ones routinely
> engage in personal attacks and other "violations" with impunity, whereas
> the
> disfavored ones are often accused of violations even when they haven't
> committed any. There are _very_ few moderators who can stay cool,
> distant,
> and objective no matter what happens. Most intervene prematurely, too
> invasively, and with extreme prejudice (the less experience they have, the
> worse they are).

Bull****. Most moderator would be smart enough to throw you out at the first
or second attempt to troll.

[Abbott]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> No2 writes:
>
>> Nothing?
>
> I'm impatient with stupidity; my people have learned to live without it.
>
> Injustice and cruelty tend to irritate me (although that is closely linked
> to
> the above).
>
>> What if you get your Dick caught in your zipper when you are late for
>> a meeting and the boss is right next to your urinal while you writhe in
>> agony??
>
> That has not occurred to me.
>
>> It takes a real man to not get ****ed at that!
>
> I don't see why it would make anyone angry; it would just be unpleasant.

That's because you have no penis. Once more your opinion jaded by a lack of
experience.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The term for that is "catatonic".

No, it's just a matter of being ruled by intellect rather than emotion.
Letting your emotions run your life makes you vulnerable to manipulation and
virtually guarantees unhappiness.

[Abbott]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Most moderated groups would eventually ban you not because of the content
>> of your posts at first, but because your posts are normally carefully
>> crafted to **** people off and be disruptive in the long run.
>
> As hard as it may be to believe and accept, people **** themselves off; I
> don't do it (nor does any other external party). If you cultivate a
> certain
> mindset and attitude, nothing ****es you off.

Yeah, like brain death.

[Abbott]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>
>>> It most certainly does work this way. If the student doesn't graduate a
>>> good pilot, the instructor has failed. Therefore the instructor by
>>> definition isn't the good instructor in your example.
>>
>> I wasn't thinking of the graduation. After the pilot graduates, he
>> flies. A
>> good pilot is someone who flies well even years after doing what is
>> necessary
>> to get a license. The same applies to drivers of cars, doctors, lawyers,
>> and
>> so on. It's one thing to pass a test; it's another to stay competent
>> and/or
>> perhaps improve over long periods. Instructors have no control over
>> that.
>
> Anything you say Anthony. I've reached that point where it's time to say
> I'm not interested in changing your opinion.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Oh, don't stop now, you just got him wound up.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> An obvious lie if you are using the dictionary definition of "emotional".

It's not a lie, I'm afraid. Men are more quick-tempered and have stronger
emotions in almost every situation, thanks to those male hormones. They must
constantly struggle to control their emotions. Women, on the other hand, are
often not emotional to begin with, but sometimes they exaggerate their
emotions in order to more closely match the stereotype.

[Abbott]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> RST Engineering wrote:
>> But Dudley, you must admit, sometimes polishing a turd is impossible.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>> Either way, the responsibility lies with the instructor. The student is
>>> the workpiece the instructor must complete.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>>
>
> This of course assumes the instructor passes everything that comes through
> the door. This might work for some instructors. GOOD instructors engage in
> an ongoing evaluation of each student they take on. If at ANY time the
> GOOD instructor realizes that a specific student isn't developing the
> required attitude or attitude change as the case might be, it's incumbent
> on the instructor to at that point call in an outside evaluation for that
> student; the continuance of instruction to be decided after that
> evaluation.
> For good CFI's, the question of money or profit doesn't enter the picture
> when evaluating a student's attitude toward flying.
> There are indeed instructors out here who don't operate this way. For
> them, the fact that the student exists on the schedule is a consideration.
> Not so for the instructor doing the job properly.
> It is admittedily a two way street. Each student must be given the very
> best the instructor has to offer. In return, the instructor must DEMAND
> the same from the student.
> There can indeed come a time with a specific student showing signs of an
> "attitude issue" where an instructor should disengage. Some CFI's can do
> this, some won't. It's a personal choice for the CFI.
> Personally, I have had several students with "bad attitudes" that did not
> respond directly to instruction designed to change that attitude. To
> eliminate myself as the source of the failure to communicate, I in each
> case had the affected student evaluated by another instructor. In every
> instance (3 in all) the student was evaluated with an attitude problem by
> the second instructor. None of these 3 students were graduated from our
> program. I can't speak for their eventual disposition within the training
> system.
>
> GOOD CFI's don't graduate students with bad attitudes into the system.
>
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

You can say more and explain less than a junior high school girl.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Anything you say Anthony. I've reached that point where it's time to say
>> I'm not interested in changing your opinion.
>
> Starting a discussion with the intention of changing someone's opinion is
> often a highway to disappointment.


Confucius?

--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> By definition, any fixation is an abnormal and unhealthy condition.

If you want to fly without a fixation on safety, that's your choice. As long
as I'm not your passenger and not in your airspace, I don't care.

If I fly on a commercial airline, however, I want that airline to be fixated
on safety.

[Mxsmanic]

Abbott writes:

> Not from a mental health stand point.

Organizations can be fixated on safety, and mental health is not an issue for
organizations.

[Abbott]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you are reading anything "complicated" into what I have said, I'm
> afraid you might be misinterpreting or misunderstanding the entire point.
> Flight instruction in NO WAY has to be complicated, and instructors who
> over complicate things with the way they interface with a student might be
> in need of some added instruction themselves.
> Don't read over complication into a written explanation. In practice, what
> you are reading is actually the epitome of simplicity :-)
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Then how did you ever give instruction.

I'm sure you could lecture a have hour on just the door latch.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Abbott wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>
>>>> It most certainly does work this way. If the student doesn't graduate a
>>>> good pilot, the instructor has failed. Therefore the instructor by
>>>> definition isn't the good instructor in your example.
>>> I wasn't thinking of the graduation. After the pilot graduates, he
>>> flies. A
>>> good pilot is someone who flies well even years after doing what is
>>> necessary
>>> to get a license. The same applies to drivers of cars, doctors, lawyers,
>>> and
>>> so on. It's one thing to pass a test; it's another to stay competent
>>> and/or
>>> perhaps improve over long periods. Instructors have no control over
>>> that.
>> Anything you say Anthony. I've reached that point where it's time to say
>> I'm not interested in changing your opinion.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Oh, don't stop now, you just got him wound up.
>
>
If I do that I'll be going against my own Usenet philosophy (new this
year :-)
If someone engages me respectfully I'll return the respect. If any
difference can't be settled after several exchanges, and if I believe
I'm correct as is the case here, I'll disengage and allow my "adversary"
their opinion without slamming them.
Don't know how long this will last, but I'm giving it a shot anyway :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>> The term for that is "catatonic".
>
> No, it's just a matter of being ruled by intellect rather than emotion.
> Letting your emotions run your life makes you vulnerable to manipulation and
> virtually guarantees unhappiness.

Try selling this to "Dear Abby". :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Abbott wrote:
> "Tim" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "The Bunyip Slayer" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote
>>> Looks like we have a winner!
>>>
>>> Anthony is NOT here to talk aviation.
>>>
>>> Back in high school, when we wanted to bed Mary Jane Rottencrotch, we
>> didn't
>>> just walk up and say hey, wanna screw?
>>>
>>> Neither does Mx. It that respect, he does prove himself much smarter than
>>> many of the "pilots" here, everyday. Are you listening Dudley?
>>>
>> Dudley isn't the problem - I have never seen Dudley respond in any manner
>> other than to provide an answer to a question. That's what this NG is
>> supposed to be about after all.
>
> Oh, you mean like this one?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dudley Henriques" >
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
> Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 8:03 AM
> Subject: Re: RAP is NOT Dead

Simply one way to deal with morons, nothing more.



--
Dudley Henriques

[Abbott]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Abbott writes:
>
>> Not from a mental health stand point.
>
> Organizations can be fixated on safety, and mental health is not an issue
> for
> organizations.

Liar. You weren't talking about organizations, you were talking about
yourself.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Abbott wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> You sure are fixated on "safe".
>>>> Yes, and that's a very healthy fixation in aviation.
>>> By definition, any fixation is an abnormal and unhealthy condition.
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. The act or process of fixing or fixating.
>>> 2. An obsessive preoccupation.
>>> 3. Psychology A strong attachment to a person or thing, especially such
>>> an attachment formed in childhood or infancy and manifested in
>>> immature
>>> or neurotic behavior that persists throughout life.
>>>
>>>
>> Oh hell, I guess this means no more Pamela Anderson for me . :-)
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Or Usenet.
>
>

Could be. They're both fantasy worlds.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Abbott]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Abbott wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>>
>>>>> It most certainly does work this way. If the student doesn't graduate
>>>>> a good pilot, the instructor has failed. Therefore the instructor by
>>>>> definition isn't the good instructor in your example.
>>>> I wasn't thinking of the graduation. After the pilot graduates, he
>>>> flies. A
>>>> good pilot is someone who flies well even years after doing what is
>>>> necessary
>>>> to get a license. The same applies to drivers of cars, doctors,
>>>> lawyers, and
>>>> so on. It's one thing to pass a test; it's another to stay competent
>>>> and/or
>>>> perhaps improve over long periods. Instructors have no control over
>>>> that.
>>> Anything you say Anthony. I've reached that point where it's time to say
>>> I'm not interested in changing your opinion.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> Oh, don't stop now, you just got him wound up.
> If I do that I'll be going against my own Usenet philosophy (new this year
> :-)
> If someone engages me respectfully I'll return the respect. If any
> difference can't be settled after several exchanges, and if I believe I'm
> correct as is the case here, I'll disengage and allow my "adversary"
> their opinion without slamming them.
> Don't know how long this will last, but I'm giving it a shot anyway :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Bull****. You're just tweaking Anthony to spread hate and discontent.

[Abbott]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Abbott wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> wrote:
>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>>> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You sure are fixated on "safe".
>>>>> Yes, and that's a very healthy fixation in aviation.
>>>> By definition, any fixation is an abnormal and unhealthy condition.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. The act or process of fixing or fixating.
>>>> 2. An obsessive preoccupation.
>>>> 3. Psychology A strong attachment to a person or thing, especially such
>>>> an attachment formed in childhood or infancy and manifested in
>>>> immature
>>>> or neurotic behavior that persists throughout life.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Oh hell, I guess this means no more Pamela Anderson for me . :-)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> Or Usenet.
>
> Could be. They're both fantasy worlds.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

You sound more like Anthony ever day.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Abbott wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Abbott wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It most certainly does work this way. If the student doesn't graduate
>>>>>> a good pilot, the instructor has failed. Therefore the instructor by
>>>>>> definition isn't the good instructor in your example.
>>>>> I wasn't thinking of the graduation. After the pilot graduates, he
>>>>> flies. A
>>>>> good pilot is someone who flies well even years after doing what is
>>>>> necessary
>>>>> to get a license. The same applies to drivers of cars, doctors,
>>>>> lawyers, and
>>>>> so on. It's one thing to pass a test; it's another to stay competent
>>>>> and/or
>>>>> perhaps improve over long periods. Instructors have no control over
>>>>> that.
>>>> Anything you say Anthony. I've reached that point where it's time to say
>>>> I'm not interested in changing your opinion.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> Oh, don't stop now, you just got him wound up.
>> If I do that I'll be going against my own Usenet philosophy (new this year
>> :-)
>> If someone engages me respectfully I'll return the respect. If any
>> difference can't be settled after several exchanges, and if I believe I'm
>> correct as is the case here, I'll disengage and allow my "adversary"
>> their opinion without slamming them.
>> Don't know how long this will last, but I'm giving it a shot anyway :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Bull****. You're just tweaking Anthony to spread hate and discontent.
>
>

The facts don't seem to support that argument for anyone actually taking
the trouble to READ my responses to him.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Abbott wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> If you are reading anything "complicated" into what I have said, I'm
>> afraid you might be misinterpreting or misunderstanding the entire point.
>> Flight instruction in NO WAY has to be complicated, and instructors who
>> over complicate things with the way they interface with a student might be
>> in need of some added instruction themselves.
>> Don't read over complication into a written explanation. In practice, what
>> you are reading is actually the epitome of simplicity :-)
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Then how did you ever give instruction.
>
> I'm sure you could lecture a have hour on just the door latch.
>
>
>
Max, what I can't figure out about you is why you bother to do all the
name changes when you post here. You seem to come up as the same message
source under all your names. Hell, I'm the worst computer guy in the
world, and even I have you nailed.
Why not simply post under the same name all the time? Doesn't make any
sense at all. It's childish actually.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Abbott]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> The facts don't seem to support that argument for anyone actually taking
> the trouble to READ my responses to him.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Sure it does. The more noise you help Bertie create over here, the more
people will be encouraged to move to other groups.

You might have some of the people here "snowed", but I'm not buying it.
Tweaking Anthony fits right in with spamming for POA.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Abbott wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> RST Engineering wrote:
>>> But Dudley, you must admit, sometimes polishing a turd is impossible.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>>> Either way, the responsibility lies with the instructor. The student is
>>>> the workpiece the instructor must complete.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>
>> This of course assumes the instructor passes everything that comes through
>> the door. This might work for some instructors. GOOD instructors engage in
>> an ongoing evaluation of each student they take on. If at ANY time the
>> GOOD instructor realizes that a specific student isn't developing the
>> required attitude or attitude change as the case might be, it's incumbent
>> on the instructor to at that point call in an outside evaluation for that
>> student; the continuance of instruction to be decided after that
>> evaluation.
>> For good CFI's, the question of money or profit doesn't enter the picture
>> when evaluating a student's attitude toward flying.
>> There are indeed instructors out here who don't operate this way. For
>> them, the fact that the student exists on the schedule is a consideration.
>> Not so for the instructor doing the job properly.
>> It is admittedily a two way street. Each student must be given the very
>> best the instructor has to offer. In return, the instructor must DEMAND
>> the same from the student.
>> There can indeed come a time with a specific student showing signs of an
>> "attitude issue" where an instructor should disengage. Some CFI's can do
>> this, some won't. It's a personal choice for the CFI.
>> Personally, I have had several students with "bad attitudes" that did not
>> respond directly to instruction designed to change that attitude. To
>> eliminate myself as the source of the failure to communicate, I in each
>> case had the affected student evaluated by another instructor. In every
>> instance (3 in all) the student was evaluated with an attitude problem by
>> the second instructor. None of these 3 students were graduated from our
>> program. I can't speak for their eventual disposition within the training
>> system.
>>
>> GOOD CFI's don't graduate students with bad attitudes into the system.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> You can say more and explain less than a junior high school girl.
>
>

Has the fact that people don't seem to be lining up in droves behind you
on these things dawned on you yet?
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Abbott]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Abbott wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> If you are reading anything "complicated" into what I have said, I'm
>>> afraid you might be misinterpreting or misunderstanding the entire
>>> point.
>>> Flight instruction in NO WAY has to be complicated, and instructors who
>>> over complicate things with the way they interface with a student might
>>> be in need of some added instruction themselves.
>>> Don't read over complication into a written explanation. In practice,
>>> what you are reading is actually the epitome of simplicity :-)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> Then how did you ever give instruction.
>>
>> I'm sure you could lecture a have hour on just the door latch.
>>
>>
>>
> Max, what I can't figure out about you is why you bother to do all the
> name changes when you post here. You seem to come up as the same message
> source under all your names. Hell, I'm the worst computer guy in the
> world, and even I have you nailed.
> Why not simply post under the same name all the time? Doesn't make any
> sense at all. It's childish actually.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Sure, you don't have a clue, do ya. Bull****.

Let's just say from this point forward I don't have a name. I don't need
one. I'm not here to "be some body".

[Abbott]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> Has the fact that people don't seem to be lining up in droves behind you
> on these things dawned on you yet?
> :-)
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

It's not necessary, I never expected it.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Abbott wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The facts don't seem to support that argument for anyone actually taking
>> the trouble to READ my responses to him.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Sure it does. The more noise you help Bertie create over here, the more
> people will be encouraged to move to other groups.
>
> You might have some of the people here "snowed", but I'm not buying it.
> Tweaking Anthony fits right in with spamming for POA.
>
>
>

Don't get it do you Max? The only thing I have going with Bertie is when
we "speak" a bit back channel on aviation matters. Here, I leave him
alone and he shows me the same courtesy. We don't "back each other up"
at all.
Now YOU on the other hand Max, are another matter. Neither of us like
you. Personally I don't mind trading jabs with you as every post you
make demonstrates the absolute differences between us all that much more.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Abbott]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Abbott wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> The facts don't seem to support that argument for anyone actually taking
>>> the trouble to READ my responses to him.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> Sure it does. The more noise you help Bertie create over here, the more
>> people will be encouraged to move to other groups.
>>
>> You might have some of the people here "snowed", but I'm not buying it.
>> Tweaking Anthony fits right in with spamming for POA.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Don't get it do you Max? The only thing I have going with Bertie is when
> we "speak" a bit back channel on aviation matters. Here, I leave him alone
> and he shows me the same courtesy. We don't "back each other up" at all.
> Now YOU on the other hand Max, are another matter. Neither of us like you.
> Personally I don't mind trading jabs with you as every post you make
> demonstrates the absolute differences between us all that much more.

Bull****. All of it.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Abbott wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Abbott wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>>>> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You sure are fixated on "safe".
>>>>>> Yes, and that's a very healthy fixation in aviation.
>>>>> By definition, any fixation is an abnormal and unhealthy condition.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. The act or process of fixing or fixating.
>>>>> 2. An obsessive preoccupation.
>>>>> 3. Psychology A strong attachment to a person or thing, especially such
>>>>> an attachment formed in childhood or infancy and manifested in
>>>>> immature
>>>>> or neurotic behavior that persists throughout life.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Oh hell, I guess this means no more Pamela Anderson for me . :-)
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> Or Usenet.
>> Could be. They're both fantasy worlds.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> You sound more like Anthony ever day.
>
>

Hi Max.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Abbott wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Abbott wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> The facts don't seem to support that argument for anyone actually taking
>>>> the trouble to READ my responses to him.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> Sure it does. The more noise you help Bertie create over here, the more
>>> people will be encouraged to move to other groups.
>>>
>>> You might have some of the people here "snowed", but I'm not buying it.
>>> Tweaking Anthony fits right in with spamming for POA.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Don't get it do you Max? The only thing I have going with Bertie is when
>> we "speak" a bit back channel on aviation matters. Here, I leave him alone
>> and he shows me the same courtesy. We don't "back each other up" at all.
>> Now YOU on the other hand Max, are another matter. Neither of us like you.
>> Personally I don't mind trading jabs with you as every post you make
>> demonstrates the absolute differences between us all that much more.
>
> Bull****. All of it.
>
>
Afraid not Maxie. Anyone viewing "message source" in their news reader
for both Maxwell, Bunyip Slayer, and Abbott will come up with exactly
the same data, even to your newsreader version AND build.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Abbott wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Abbott wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> If you are reading anything "complicated" into what I have said, I'm
>>>> afraid you might be misinterpreting or misunderstanding the entire
>>>> point.
>>>> Flight instruction in NO WAY has to be complicated, and instructors who
>>>> over complicate things with the way they interface with a student might
>>>> be in need of some added instruction themselves.
>>>> Don't read over complication into a written explanation. In practice,
>>>> what you are reading is actually the epitome of simplicity :-)
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> Then how did you ever give instruction.
>>>
>>> I'm sure you could lecture a have hour on just the door latch.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Max, what I can't figure out about you is why you bother to do all the
>> name changes when you post here. You seem to come up as the same message
>> source under all your names. Hell, I'm the worst computer guy in the
>> world, and even I have you nailed.
>> Why not simply post under the same name all the time? Doesn't make any
>> sense at all. It's childish actually.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Sure, you don't have a clue, do ya. Bull****.
>
> Let's just say from this point forward I don't have a name. I don't need
> one. I'm not here to "be some body".
>
>
>
Obviously :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Abbott wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Has the fact that people don't seem to be lining up in droves behind you
>> on these things dawned on you yet?
>> :-)
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> It's not necessary, I never expected it.
>
>
>
Actually I expected at least a few takers for your crap. Anyone posting
on a forum for as long as I have has to have made a few enemies, and I'm
sure I have a few here.
Knowing this, it seems even my enemies don't want to support the crap
you've been selling.


--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> The term for that is "catatonic".
>
> No, it's just a matter of being ruled by intellect rather than emotion.
> Letting your emotions run your life makes you vulnerable to manipulation and
> virtually guarantees unhappiness.

There is a difference between being ruled by emotion and being
emotionless, a distinction that is utterly lost on you.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> An obvious lie if you are using the dictionary definition of "emotional".
>
> It's not a lie, I'm afraid. Men are more quick-tempered and have stronger
> emotions in almost every situation, thanks to those male hormones. They must
> constantly struggle to control their emotions. Women, on the other hand, are
> often not emotional to begin with, but sometimes they exaggerate their
> emotions in order to more closely match the stereotype.

It took me a long time to stop laughing after reading this.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> By definition, any fixation is an abnormal and unhealthy condition.


> If I fly on a commercial airline, however, I want that airline to be fixated
> on safety.

So you want airlines to have psychosis?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Confucius?

No, just me.

[Mxsmanic]

Abbott writes:

> Bull****. You're just tweaking Anthony to spread hate and discontent.

I see no "tweaking" in his replies.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> There is a difference between being ruled by emotion and being
> emotionless, a distinction that is utterly lost on you.

No conscious entity is free of emotion. But many emotions are unnecessary and
quite a few are harmful. It's best to minimize or eliminate unnecessary,
negative emotions, and it's perfectly possible to do so.

You're being driven by emotion right now, whereas I am not.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> It took me a long time to stop laughing after reading this.

People with strong emotions are often easily entertained.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> So you want airlines to have psychosis?

Airlines are not living beings, so they are not subject to psychosis.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> There is a difference between being ruled by emotion and being
>> emotionless, a distinction that is utterly lost on you.
>
> No conscious entity is free of emotion. But many emotions are unnecessary and
> quite a few are harmful. It's best to minimize or eliminate unnecessary,
> negative emotions, and it's perfectly possible to do so.

And people that do that are usually psychotic.

> You're being driven by emotion right now, whereas I am not.

If you mean I'm laughing my ass off over your post, yep.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Confucius?
>
> No, just me.

Your getting profound :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> It took me a long time to stop laughing after reading this.
>
> People with strong emotions are often easily entertained.

Do you have a reference for that statement?

In any case, I haven't laughed that hard in years.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> So you want airlines to have psychosis?
>
> Airlines are not living beings, so they are not subject to psychosis.

Which means airlines can't be fixated.

Ergo your post is meaningless babble.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> And people that do that are usually psychotic.

There is no correlation.

> If you mean I'm laughing my ass off over your post, yep.

Yes.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Do you have a reference for that statement?

No.

> In any case, I haven't laughed that hard in years.

QED

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Which means airlines can't be fixated.

Why not?

[Viperdoc[_5_]]

I knew he was a Vulcan, no emotions, but without the smarts. Kind of an
empty box.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> And people that do that are usually psychotic.
>
> There is no correlation.

Google "suppressed emotions" depression 6,400 hits.

Google "suppressed emotions" psychosis, 666 hits.

Google "suppressed emotions" "mental illness" 939 hits.

Wrong as usual.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Do you have a reference for that statement?
>
> No.

Of course not since you made it up.


>> In any case, I haven't laughed that hard in years.
>
> QED

Non sequitur.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Abbott]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Abbott wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Abbott wrote:
>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> The facts don't seem to support that argument for anyone actually
>>>>> taking the trouble to READ my responses to him.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>> Sure it does. The more noise you help Bertie create over here, the more
>>>> people will be encouraged to move to other groups.
>>>>
>>>> You might have some of the people here "snowed", but I'm not buying it.
>>>> Tweaking Anthony fits right in with spamming for POA.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Don't get it do you Max? The only thing I have going with Bertie is when
>>> we "speak" a bit back channel on aviation matters. Here, I leave him
>>> alone and he shows me the same courtesy. We don't "back each other up"
>>> at all.
>>> Now YOU on the other hand Max, are another matter. Neither of us like
>>> you. Personally I don't mind trading jabs with you as every post you
>>> make demonstrates the absolute differences between us all that much
>>> more.
>>
>> Bull****. All of it.
>>
>>
> Afraid not Maxie. Anyone viewing "message source" in their news reader for
> both Maxwell, Bunyip Slayer, and Abbott will come up with exactly the same
> data, even to your newsreader version AND build.
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

What's the matter dumb ass, can't follow a thread?

[Abbott]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Let's just say from this point forward I don't have a name. I don't need
>> one. I'm not here to "be some body".
>>
>>
>>
> Obviously :-)
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Clueless twit, you really don't get do yaw?

[Abbott]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Abbott wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Has the fact that people don't seem to be lining up in droves behind you
>>> on these things dawned on you yet?
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> It's not necessary, I never expected it.
>>
>>
>>
> Actually I expected at least a few takers for your crap. Anyone posting on
> a forum for as long as I have has to have made a few enemies, and I'm sure
> I have a few here.
> Knowing this, it seems even my enemies don't want to support the crap
> you've been selling.
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques


Has nothing to do with it, but nice try.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Which means airlines can't be fixated.
>
> Why not?

Having trouble with your logic?

Fixation is a mental aberation in humans.

Airlines aren't humans.

Therefor airlines can't be fixated.

QED.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Google "suppressed emotions" depression 6,400 hits.

Suppressing is not the same as not experiencing. Trying to suppress emotions
is bad; adjusting one's viewpoint so that one doesn't experience them to begin
with is good.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Having trouble with your logic?
>
> Fixation is a mental aberation in humans.
>
> Airlines aren't humans.
>
> Therefor airlines can't be fixated.

Fixation is just keen attention paid to something, which corporations can
manage as well as human beings.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Google "suppressed emotions" depression 6,400 hits.
>
> Suppressing is not the same as not experiencing. Trying to suppress emotions
> is bad; adjusting one's viewpoint so that one doesn't experience them to begin
> with is good.

You are reaching and babbling; must have hit a sore point.

Or maybe it is because you are staying up all night posting.

Let me guess, you don't go out in the day to avoid the risk of skin
cancer.

Don't bother to answer; I don't care.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Having trouble with your logic?
>>
>> Fixation is a mental aberation in humans.
>>
>> Airlines aren't humans.
>>
>> Therefor airlines can't be fixated.
>
> Fixation is just keen attention paid to something, which corporations can
> manage as well as human beings.

Wrong.

I already posted the definition. Read it.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[yod-yog+ais]

On 8/20/2008 6:10 PM Mxsmanic ignored two million years of human
evolution to write:

> writes:
>
>> Which means airlines can't be fixated.
>
> Why not?

As usual, you employ dishonesty by selective quoting.

> Which means airlines can't be fixated.
>
> Ergo your post is meaningless babble.

The second sentence answers "why not."

And as usual, Anthony, you remain utterly and fundamentally
incapable of discussing flight or piloting aircraft in this
newsgroup, while repeatedly whining that this is what you
wish to do here. Why do you lie so much? Why are you so
dishonest?

[yod-yog+ais]

On 8/20/2008 8:36 PM Mxsmanic ignored two million years of human
evolution to write:

> Fixation is just keen attention paid to something

No, it isn't. You're lying again.

Main Entry:
fix·a·tion
Pronunciation:
\fik-?sa--sh?n\
Function:
noun
Date:
14th century

: the act, process, or result of fixing, fixating, or becoming fixated:
as
a: a persistent concentration of libidinal energies upon objects
characteristic of psychosexual stages of development preceding the
genital stage
b: stereotyped behavior (as in response to frustration)
c: an obsessive or unhealthy preoccupation or attachment

> which corporations can
> manage as well as human beings.

Yes, of course, corporations can certainly manage a persistent
concentration of libidinal energies as well as human beings. Remember,
this is your claim. It's a typical trait of stupid people to be
unable to understand the actual meaning of a word when misapplying
it in context.

[yod-yog+ais]

On 8/20/2008 4:17 PM Mxsmanic ignored two million years of human
evolution to write:

> writes:
>
>> An obvious lie if you are using the dictionary definition of "emotional".
>
> It's not a lie, I'm afraid.

Yes, it is.

> Men are more quick-tempered and have stronger
> emotions in almost every situation, thanks to those male hormones.

Utterly fatuous and wrong. The above quoted statement is result of
extraordinarly poor thinking and even worse research, a common trait
among the very stupid.

Per Dr. Larry Cahill of the University of California at Irvine, "We have
been assuming that the ways in which emotions are organized in the
brain are essentially similar in men and women," but they aren't. Parts
of the limbic cortex, which is involved in emotional responses, are
smaller in men than in women.

Women use the left part of the amygdala — the part of the brain that
creates emotional reactions to events — to put memories in order by
emotional strength, meaning that something emotionally important to them
(like a great first date a couple of months ago) will be ordered in
front of what they ate for breakfast yesterday. Men, however, use the
right part of the amygdala to put memories in order. Traditionally, the
right hemisphere of the brain is associated with the central action of
an event, while the left hemisphere is associated with finer details.

Male brains produce 52 percent more serotonin (the chemical that
influences mood) than female brains, according to a study done at McGill
University. And studies show that fewer men than women suffer from
depression. Guys may also have an easier time rolling with life's big
stresses.

[Tim[_1_]]

"Nomen Nescio" > wrote

>
> For once, I think he has a valid point.
>
> I recently gave up on a forum that claimed 30k members.
> - From what I saw, the 30k consisted of 29,980 who signed up and quickly
> left...............and 20 douchebags who are there every minute of every
day.
>

Hey, that sounds just like RAP!

[Mxsmanic]

yod-yog+ais writes:

> Per Dr. Larry Cahill of the University of California at Irvine, "We have
> been assuming that the ways in which emotions are organized in the
> brain are essentially similar in men and women," but they aren't. Parts
> of the limbic cortex, which is involved in emotional responses, are
> smaller in men than in women.
>
> Women use the left part of the amygdala — the part of the brain that
> creates emotional reactions to events — to put memories in order by
> emotional strength, meaning that something emotionally important to them
> (like a great first date a couple of months ago) will be ordered in
> front of what they ate for breakfast yesterday. Men, however, use the
> right part of the amygdala to put memories in order. Traditionally, the
> right hemisphere of the brain is associated with the central action of
> an event, while the left hemisphere is associated with finer details.

Dr. Cahill is freely speculating.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

yod-yog+ais wrote:
> On 8/20/2008 4:17 PM Mxsmanic ignored two million years of human
> evolution to write:
>
>> writes:
>>
>>> An obvious lie if you are using the dictionary definition of
>>> "emotional".
>>
>> It's not a lie, I'm afraid.
>
> Yes, it is.
>
>> Men are more quick-tempered and have stronger
>> emotions in almost every situation, thanks to those male hormones.
>
> Utterly fatuous and wrong. The above quoted statement is result of
> extraordinarly poor thinking and even worse research, a common trait
> among the very stupid.
>
> Per Dr. Larry Cahill of the University of California at Irvine, "We have
> been assuming that the ways in which emotions are organized in the
> brain are essentially similar in men and women," but they aren't. Parts
> of the limbic cortex, which is involved in emotional responses, are
> smaller in men than in women.
>
> Women use the left part of the amygdala — the part of the brain that
> creates emotional reactions to events — to put memories in order by
> emotional strength, meaning that something emotionally important to them
> (like a great first date a couple of months ago) will be ordered in
> front of what they ate for breakfast yesterday. Men, however, use the
> right part of the amygdala to put memories in order. Traditionally, the
> right hemisphere of the brain is associated with the central action of
> an event, while the left hemisphere is associated with finer details.
>
> Male brains produce 52 percent more serotonin (the chemical that
> influences mood) than female brains, according to a study done at McGill
> University. And studies show that fewer men than women suffer from
> depression. Guys may also have an easier time rolling with life's big
> stresses.

Unless I miss my guess, you have just been indoctrinated into the
Mxsmanic way of doing things :-)
It works this way.
He loves to engage people with expertise in a specific area. Doesn't
matter what area, the requisite is simply expertise.
He will then take the 200 word post supplied by that person and answer
it with a one liner designed to demonstrate that he can nullify the
entire comment with a minimum of thought. This is supposed to display
the vast difference between the two intellects; his and the poster's.
It's interesting to watch.
His other modus operandi is to find people with obvious expertise and
experience in an area and directly confront them using statements rather
then questions. Another unique Anthony trait.
Also quite interesting to watch.
Some ignore Anthony. The rest engage him in different ways. Some, like
me, have evolved into taking his posts one at a time. I engage as long
as it remains respectful as he has the same rights to post here as
anyone else.
The rest hate his guts and make it known to him with every unrelated
answer to his comments that they make.
That also can be interesting to watch.
It's become entertainment for me actually.
If Anthony was an Indian, one could with some degree of truth, say he
counts many coup here, which of course is part of the gambit as well :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Fillard Millmore]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> Unless I miss my guess, you have just been indoctrinated into the Mxsmanic
> way of doing things :-)
> It works this way.
> He loves to engage people with expertise in a specific area. Doesn't
> matter what area, the requisite is simply expertise.
> He will then take the 200 word post supplied by that person and answer it
> with a one liner designed to demonstrate that he can nullify the entire
> comment with a minimum of thought. This is supposed to display the vast
> difference between the two intellects; his and the poster's.
> It's interesting to watch.
> His other modus operandi is to find people with obvious expertise and
> experience in an area and directly confront them using statements rather
> then questions. Another unique Anthony trait.
> Also quite interesting to watch.
> Some ignore Anthony. The rest engage him in different ways. Some, like me,
> have evolved into taking his posts one at a time. I engage as long as it
> remains respectful as he has the same rights to post here as anyone else.
> The rest hate his guts and make it known to him with every unrelated
> answer to his comments that they make.
> That also can be interesting to watch.
> It's become entertainment for me actually.
> If Anthony was an Indian, one could with some degree of truth, say he
> counts many coup here, which of course is part of the gambit as well :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

That's because you are stroking him, and stimulating his derogatory input,
in an attempt dilute group to POA.

[Tim[_1_]]

"Fillard Millmore" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote
>
> That's because you are stroking him, and stimulating his derogatory input,
> in an attempt dilute group to POA.
>

NOW THAT'S FUNNY!!! How can you possibly dilute this group beyond where it
currently is?

People are not leaving because of Mx, they are leaving because of the
immature, childish, and endless back-and-forth that takes place between him
and a dozen or so nitwits here.

If Mx left the same nitwits would find a new "cause".

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Fillard Millmore wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Unless I miss my guess, you have just been indoctrinated into the Mxsmanic
>> way of doing things :-)
>> It works this way.
>> He loves to engage people with expertise in a specific area. Doesn't
>> matter what area, the requisite is simply expertise.
>> He will then take the 200 word post supplied by that person and answer it
>> with a one liner designed to demonstrate that he can nullify the entire
>> comment with a minimum of thought. This is supposed to display the vast
>> difference between the two intellects; his and the poster's.
>> It's interesting to watch.
>> His other modus operandi is to find people with obvious expertise and
>> experience in an area and directly confront them using statements rather
>> then questions. Another unique Anthony trait.
>> Also quite interesting to watch.
>> Some ignore Anthony. The rest engage him in different ways. Some, like me,
>> have evolved into taking his posts one at a time. I engage as long as it
>> remains respectful as he has the same rights to post here as anyone else.
>> The rest hate his guts and make it known to him with every unrelated
>> answer to his comments that they make.
>> That also can be interesting to watch.
>> It's become entertainment for me actually.
>> If Anthony was an Indian, one could with some degree of truth, say he
>> counts many coup here, which of course is part of the gambit as well :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> That's because you are stroking him, and stimulating his derogatory input,
> in an attempt dilute group to POA.
>
>
>
Actually, if you and the other nitwits posting all this nonsense about
my pushing POA bothered to actually check POA, you will find that there
are exactly 5 postings for me on POA.
Google reveals as of today 68,200 postings for me....all on Usenet, most
on THIS forum.
Where's your logic?

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Dr. Cahill is freely speculating.

I would imagine Dr. Cahill is basing his statements on training, observation,
and study while Mr. mxsmanic is just pulling stuff out of his ass to
justify his pathetic existence.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Fillard Millmore]

> wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> Dr. Cahill is freely speculating.
>
> I would imagine Dr. Cahill is basing his statements on training,
> observation,
> and study while Mr. mxsmanic is just pulling stuff out of his ass to
> justify his pathetic existence.
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>

Exactly.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Abbott writes:
>
>> Not from a mental health stand point.
>
> Organizations can be fixated on safety, and mental health is not an
> issue for organizations.
>

Joined a club, have you?


Bertie

[Jim Logajan]

Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> From: Jim Logajan >
>>Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> A tremendous number of moderated discussion forums have long lists
>>> of unofficially favored and disfavored members.
>>
>>An assertion made with no basis in fact. Please name examples.
>
> For once, I think he has a valid point.
>
> I recently gave up on a forum that claimed 30k members.
> - From what I saw, the 30k consisted of 29,980 who signed up and
> quickly left...............and 20 douchebags who are there every
> minute of every day.

To be clear: I agree there are moderated discussion forums where the
moderators have lists of unofficial favored and disfavored members. I just
don't think there are "tremondous" numbers of such groups. I don't think
people who have made themselves "regulars" exist on some unofficial list
kept by the moderators and that somehow makes them "regulars".

I mean look at all the "regulars" on r.a.p for example. And look at how
people appear to fall into groups that are favored, unfavored, and neither.
I don't see any correlation of that social affect vis-a-vis moderated
versus unmoderated. Furthermore, on web forums most of the moderation is
set up so it tends to occur after-the-fact. The moderators are more like
cops in the donut shop who only lumber into action if forced to. ;-)

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> To be clear: I agree there are moderated discussion forums where the
> moderators have lists of unofficial favored and disfavored members. I just
> don't think there are "tremondous" numbers of such groups. I don't think
> people who have made themselves "regulars" exist on some unofficial list
> kept by the moderators and that somehow makes them "regulars".

Every moderated forum I can recall has had a ban list.

> The moderators are more like
> cops in the donut shop who only lumber into action if forced to.

You probably haven't seen very many moderators. Most are overbearing control
freaks when they encounter anyone with whom they disagree. Most people are
not suited to this type of job.