Great fly-in destination (New York/New Jersey)

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
[...]
If this continues, Pete, we're not gonna have anything to argue about
anymore...

;-)

lol...hardly a chance of that.

Although I probably wouldn't have called Emily an "idiot".

I normally wouldn't have. I hate it when people start name-calling. But
I'm not immune to the occasional lapse of reason myself.

I apologize for the use of the word "idiot". I still believe
"narrow-minded" applies in spades and don't retract that phrase at all.

Pete

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
How about watching a dirty movie?

Where is the line?


Out the door and around the block, now open the doors - it's almost 7:00pm.

"I'm here for the FREE aviation-theme movie."

"Sorry. That was last night ...Tuesday night."


Montblack

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
oups.com:

So, okay, let's get to the bottom line here -- Are we all gonna chip in
and buy the brothel? I'll be in charge of keeping the brass pole shined
up.....

How much is it selling for?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"



The web page http://www.cottontail-ranch.com says they are asking
$1,000,000.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

"I'm here for the FREE aviation-theme movie."

"Sorry. That was last night ...Tuesday night."

Heeeeeeyyy. I hadn't THOUGHT of that. What a great way to fill the
hotel!

Nah. Mary won't go for it.

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

City Dweller's post is IMVHO, indeed sexist, based on the following:

Big Snip

Well, Jim, the obvious way to balance things out is for Emily (or
anyone else, for that matter) to post PIREPs for airports close to
Chippendale Clubs -- the strip clubs made for women.

That way, no one is offended by being left out. (Or, perhaps, EVERYONE
is offended!)

We *do* want to remain inclusive, here at rec.aviation!

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

Jim Logajan wrote:

"Peter Duniho" wrote:

A "fairly rabid libertarian" would not go around judging other
people's actions, especially when they don't affect you, the way you
are here.


That's a basic misunderstanding of libertarianism, which concerns itself
only with the limits of government. For example, a libertarian may deplore
racism and try not to engage in it, but would still object to government
laws calling for hiring quotas for minorities.

That sounds like what it used to be to be a Republican ... sigh. Just
as my wife switched from Democrat to Republican a few years ago, we both
may have to switch from Republican in a few more years. I'm just no
sure which direction. Certainly Republicans are no longer the purveyors
of fiscal conservatism and constrained government. I'm just waiting for
use fees to pass...


Matt

AJ wrote:

So, okay, let's get to the bottom line here -- Are we all gonna chip in
and buy the brothel? I'll be in charge of keeping the brass pole shined
up.....

AJ


Will a brass pole fit in Jay's lobby? That might help him compete
against the large hotel that just opened. :-)

Matt

Emily wrote in
:

And who's judging? Sex doesn't belong in public, plain and simple.

Hold on.

Sex is a natural, beautiful thing, without which the human race (as well
as pretty much every other breathing species on this planet) would not
continue to exist.

I am trying to figure out on what basis you make your claims against it.
If it is religious, that's fine, but not everyone subscribes to your
religious beliefs, and each religion seems to have its own opinion on it
anyway. Some religions don't approve of sex even in private unless it is
specifically for the purpose of spawning children. Others only have issues
with sex with relatives and/or animals.

To my knowledge, the Judeo-Christian belief is that sex is indeed a
beautiful thing, ideally for the purpose of spawning children (interpreted
from a Biblical commandment). And while you are not restricted from having
sex that is not specifically for the purpose of having children, you are
not supposed to "spill your seed in waste". It is for this reason that
certain types of contraceptives and self-satisfaction are prohibited.

From there, the religions place a prohibition on "impure thoughts". After
all, impure thoughts *could* lead to wasted seed. (In the Jewish religion,
the impure thought itself is not a sin. I'm not quite as sure if that
holds true in all Christian variations.) In order to protect people from
having impure thoughts, rules of modesty were developed - this is why
ultra-religious Jewish women cover their hair, and always wear dresses
down to their ankles and sleeves down to their wrists - a woman's hair,
arms, and legs are considered sexy and *could* lead to impure thoughts and
ultimately wasted seed. Clearly having sex in Central Park or some other
such public display of sex would also be a problem in these religions. But
NOT because sex is wrong. It is because of the off chance that some guy
might walk by, see it, and think about it all day, and go home and spill
his seed. If this is the belief you subscribe to, I applaud you because
being so religious is very difficult and requires much self-discipline,
especially in today's society.

Strip clubs are not public. They are open to the public with some
restrictions, but there is no risk of someone who subscribes to the
aforementioned beliefs of ever spilling his seed, because he would not
enter a strip club if he was indeed a true follower of the religion.

I'm curious, how do you feel about Prime Time Network Television? After
all, they are much worse than strip clubs in my opinion. They make
Television Shows under the guise of being entertainment, and then include
numerous situation that would lead to impure thoughts, such as adult-
oriented humor, sexual situations, and sexy advertisements. At least with
a strip club, the person who is going in knows that what he is about to
do, and makes a conscious decision to do it. With TV, even the
unsuspecting innocent will be lured in and tricked into having impure
thoughts.

Now THAT is wrong!


Sorry if you can't understand that, but don't judge those of us who feel
differently.

I believe your interpretations are clearly more sexist than the original
post. IMVHO...

The original post made no assumptions. It was a public announcement of an
interesting attraction for pilots.

You have managed to make it sexist by creating the distinction that anyone
who might be interested is "male pilots who aren't getting any". But I
think it isn't until you create that distinction that it becomes sexist.
Certainly there are many people who are interested in strip clubs,
otherwise there wouldn't be so many of them in this country. And
presumably, they are not all pilots who aren't getting any, otherwise
there wouldn't be so many HBO specials about them.

There are many announcements of interesting places to visit for pilots. I
appreciate all of the announcements, even if they don't necessarily apply
to me.

For example, some announcements are about hiking and camping spots. I
don't do much hiking or camping, as I am a fat guy with 3 kids including
an 18 month old toddler, and hiking and camping are not real practical for
me. I wouldn't be interested in visiting a hiking/camping spot. But does
the act of posting an announcement about a hiking/camping spot insult me?
Is it a bigoted post that should have included a preface in the title that
the post is only for thin, fit, single people without kids? Should it
insult ALL fat people with young children? Should I start the AFPYC
(American Fat People with Young Children) association to protect all of
the oppressed like myself?

That is ass-backwards if you ask me. People have become so hyper-sensitive
about their unique qualities and about being simply human that we spend
all of our time fine tuning everything we say and do to avoid offending
somebody. And most of the time, that only offends somebody else, anyway.

No wonder it's so easy for us to be terrorized!


Jim Logajan wrote in
:

"City Dweller" wrote:
Warning: adult content. Prudes and john ashcrofts of this group do not
read further.

Grumble. This dang thread refuses to die a proper death. Was going to
remain silent, but what the heck - may as well throw in my 2 cents.

Anyway, to make a long story short, I discovered a strip club in
Pennsylvania where the girls are good looking and the view is
unobstructed. And, what's most important, this club is within short
walking distance from a GA airport.

City Dweller's post is IMVHO, indeed sexist, based on the following:

It assumed all pilots are male and all r.a.p readers are male. It
doesn't say "Single heterosexual male pilot report" (or more accurately:
"PIREP for male pilots who aren't getting any"). Nope. Only warns Former
U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and prudes to not read further. So -
presumably women who don't get excited seeing other women nearly naked
are prudes? I would have thought they were merely heterosexual females -
go figure! Nothing like a lead-in that implicitly insults heterosexual
women! Nice job CD!

For City Dweller, only good looking "girls" need apply. (Equity on this
issue would seem to require the presumption that City Dweller be an
Adonis - though if that were the case, one has to wonder why he has to
fly long distances to see nearly naked women. Hmmm.) So it seems that
women don't seem to register in City Dweller's world view as either
pilots _or_ Usenet readers - they only register with City Dweller if
they are "good looking girls" who strip. If that doesn't add up to a
sexist attitude, then nothing does.

In my youth I went a few times to "strip clubs"/"topless bars". The very
first time was in the company of a female friend. After dressing after
her "act", one of the performers came over to our table to chat. It
seems that couples were sufficiently rare that the woman was curious why
my friend was there (my friend was curious - in fact she was the one who
suggested we go there!). But other than that incident, I'd say the
experience in those joints is a waste of money at best, and frustrating
at worst. There are better, legal, and more enjoyable ways to satisfy
sexual desires - but none of them are related to the OP's alleged PIREP.

All IMHO of course.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in news:12evp0a529b9a39
@corp.supernews.com:

Although I probably wouldn't have called Emily an "idiot".

I normally wouldn't have. I hate it when people start name-calling. But

Who are you trying to kid? We've all seen your posts!

Oh wait, I take it back. You normally would have used the word "ignorant"
instead of "idiot."