More questions on VFR flight following.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:gDDgj.26138$Ux2.14938@attbi_s22...
Oh, come on now. The criticisms here had nothing to do with arcane "standards". They
had everything to do with consistency vs. hypocrisy regarding criticisms by certain
posters over others' content.

You're trying to equate my inclusion of a web address in my signature line with my
opposition to personal attack posts on this newsgroup?

Wow.

Okay, I went back and reviewed your material. I apparently
was conflating your views, but in fairness your 1/1/08 post,

"And I have yet to see anyone blast anyone else, which is
truly refreshing. Imagine -- an entire conversation about flying
without anyone shouting "f*ckwit" ??

"It's sad to think that there are now so few threads here
that aren't polluted with that kind of crap. *Aside from it taking
people's attention away from talking about piloting,* it's just
depressing to read stuff like that every day." (emphasis added)

*could* have been interpreted as a complaint about off-topic posting.

And your 1/7/08 post,

"What we really need to know is why posters feel compelled
to keep telling him what he (and we) already know. The clutter isn't from
responses to his posts -- it's the off-topic responses to HIS on-topic (if
incorrect) responses that are cluttering the forums."

definitely sounds like the same kind of complaint, so I
wasn't totally imagining it.

However, a fair reading of your other comments made me
reconsider, and I apologize for mischaracterizing your views
on off-topic posts. Your main objection is the tone of some posts.

I still find the commercial blurb in your sig objectionable,
a violation of the spirit if not the letter of UseNet
protocols, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree
on that.

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote in
news:Xns9A1EDD1476E5JamesLLugojcom@ 216.168.3.30:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote:
You're trying to equate my inclusion of a web address in my
signature line with my opposition to personal attack posts on this
newsgroup?


Well then how about your personal attacks, then ?

Not to mention your behind the back attempts to ostracise posters
as
well as your netkkkoping?


Scumball.


Can't we all just not get along?


I'm getting on great!

You?

I need practice. Just don't have much time for it. While I'm here...

Don't you have someplace to fly to?

Not at the moment.

Been out building instead.

If you're off to your Hatz, my hat's off to you.

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote in
news:Xns9A1EDD1476E5JamesLLugojcom@ 216.168.3.30:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote:
You're trying to equate my inclusion of a web address in my
signature line with my opposition to personal attack posts on
this
newsgroup?


Well then how about your personal attacks, then ?

Not to mention your behind the back attempts to ostracise posters
as
well as your netkkkoping?


Scumball.


Can't we all just not get along?


I'm getting on great!

You?

I need practice. Just don't have much time for it. While I'm here...

Don't you have someplace to fly to?

Not at the moment.

Been out building instead.

If you're off to your Hatz, my hat's off to you.

Thanks!

Bertie

On Jan 8, 10:08*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
WingFlaps wrote :





On Jan 8, 9:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"John Mazor" wrote in news:5Fvgj.5893$qV.3541
@trnddc03:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
. ..
"John Mazor" wrote in
news:K6vgj.674$Z61.537@trnddc07:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:s2tgj.25407$Ux2.16602@attbi_s22...

And, actually, I've eliminated MX's tormentors, and left him be,
for now. He, at least, occasionally asks a good question.

And then provokes scornful reponses when he wanders off into his
goofball opinions.

A fool can ask more questions than an entire newsgroup can
answer.

Your patience and caginess sometimes *astounds me.

I'm an easygoing, genial guy loved by all who know me.

I just don't suffer fools gladly.

I, OTOH, just love a good fool

A strawberry one is my favorite!

OK.I like fruit and nuts.


Yes we know, and that would be a well whipped fool to boot.

Cheers

John Mazor schrieb:

I still find the commercial blurb in your sig objectionable,

hu?

a violation of the spirit if not the letter of UseNet
protocols, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree
on that.

no, this is NOT a violation. One might have Jay reduce his signature
down to *4* lines, but that's it. The content of a signature is almost
never topic of a discussion (unless one is out of arguments).

#m
--
I am not a terrorist http://www.casualdisobedience.com/

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 12:48:58 +0100, Martin Hotze
wrote in :

John Mazor schrieb:

I still find the commercial blurb in your sig objectionable,

hu?

a violation of the spirit if not the letter of UseNet
protocols, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree
on that.

no, this is NOT a violation. One might have Jay reduce his signature
down to *4* lines, but that's it. The content of a signature is almost
never topic of a discussion (unless one is out of arguments).

#m

While I tend to agree with you, it is not born out in these documents:
http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3676.txt

And the information provided by this pseudo Usenet expert isn't much
help at all: http://www.albion.com/netiquette/boo...702513p62.html

However there is a clue he
http://blog.entourage.mvps.org/2007/...netiquett.html

and he
http://www.answers.com/topic/mcquary...cat=technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlording
http://lipas.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/signatur.html
http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/home/leagal/netguide/signat.txt

But I was unable to find mention of commercial content contained in
Usenet signatures mentioned in any of the reference articles during my
research of the subject with this exception:
http://www.sideroad.com/Netiquette/signature-files.html