A reluctance to take the controls

Actually, our own Jay Honeck still hasn't figured it out.

Perhaps a better example for Jay - you're at a party, and a friend
offers you the chance to try a line of some prime Coke. Most people
don't get a chance to do this. A lot of people think it's terrific. I
don't know the actual numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if the number
of pilots is less than the number of drug users.

Do you decline?

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
Jose wrote:

Actually, our own Jay Honeck still hasn't figured it out.

Perhaps a better example for Jay - you're at a party, and a friend
offers you the chance to try a line of some prime Coke. Most people
don't get a chance to do this. A lot of people think it's terrific. I
don't know the actual numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if the number
of pilots is less than the number of drug users.

"better example"? Not!

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"better example"? Not!

Why not?

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
om...
"better example"? Not!

Why not?

Because it's too extreme, of course. Haven't you been paying attention? If
you come up with an example that is so obviously not within the interests of
the people with whom you are "discussing" this, then you clearly are
hijacking the thread, using personal attacks for your own agenda and
distracting from the real issue (whatever that might be).

I mean, really...the nerve of you, Jose. Using an example that your
debating partners can't wiggle out of with a "sure, I'd do that". What are
you thinking? If you don't leave loopholes, how are they going to maintain
a facade of having a point?

Pete

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 12:18:35 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Jose" wrote in message
. com...
"better example"? Not!

Why not?

Because it's too extreme, of course. Haven't you been paying attention? If
you come up with an example that is so obviously not within the interests of
the people with whom you are "discussing" this, then you clearly are
hijacking the thread, using personal attacks for your own agenda and
distracting from the real issue (whatever that might be).

I mean, really...the nerve of you, Jose. Using an example that your
debating partners can't wiggle out of with a "sure, I'd do that". What are
you thinking? If you don't leave loopholes, how are they going to maintain
a facade of having a point?

Pete



Now THAT was hysterical.

z

In article ,
Jose wrote:

"better example"? Not!

Why not?

For the same reason Russian Roulette would be a dumb example.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

For the same reason Russian Roulette would be a dumb example.

Well, no. Russian Roulette does not provide any benefits for the
player. This is not just my opinion, it is an inference from the fact
that so few people actually play the game. However, a lot of people do
lines. There must be something in it.

And it is not without merit that some argue that the primary damage done
by (illegal) drugs is due to their illegality, and not their
pharmacology. In any case, there are places where it is legal to do
drugs. If Jay were at such a location, would he take the opportunity?

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

For the same reason Russian Roulette would be a dumb example.


Well, no. Russian Roulette does not provide any benefits for the
player.



Neither do drugs.

Neither do drugs.

That is an opinion, not a fact. Many people find that (illegal
recreational) drugs =do= provide a benefit. That's why they take them.

There are those that say personal flying provides no benefit.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Newps,

Neither do drugs.


Let's have a beer on that. Or a smoke.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)