Why airplanes fly

Larry Dighera writes:

Well, adolescent children are programmed to oppose parental
constraints in order to establish their independence as adult
individuals. It's inevitable; it's (probably) in our genes. We all
did it, and future generations will likely continue to challenge
authority in an attempt to establish their independence and announce
their adulthood. Much to the consternation of more mature adults, its
fundamental to the maturation process of transitioning from dependence
on parental oversight to becoming an autonomous person.

There's nothing fundamentally required or normal about misbehavior, and many
people get through adolescence without engaging in it.

As I have said before (with the exceptions above), there are only two
clear choices responsible Usenet participants are able to exercise:

1. Choosing what they read, and
2. Choosing to post or not.

That's it. Simple.

And that is sufficient.

"Michael Ash" wrote

Other examples abound. Just because he is well-spoken and doesn't swear
doesn't make him nice. In fact in some ways it makes it worse, because
it's all part of a manner which is used to make him look like the victim
when he comes along and insults all of these fine people with vastly more
knowledge and experience than himself (and more than me).

Exactly.

His presence here is an insult to all people that have found this forum to
be of value to them.

Everyone should be wise enough to realize this, and start treating him like
"he whose name must not be spoken."

Hell, I think I would rather have the "he whose name must not be spoken"
back, and MX gone. At least the other one was not playing games with the
group. You knew where he stood. In reality.

Yep, I'm sure of it. I'll vote for the switch.
--
Jim in NC

On 8 Feb, 04:13, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
but when a
small-but-determined group of trolls with (seemingly endless) time on
their
hands takes a hankering to a group, it's obvious that they can destroy it
pretty easily.

That appears to be their stated agenda:

* *http://www.gwu.edu/~trivia/meow.html
* *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meow_Wars

Interesting history. *Sad to see this sort of thing has happened many time

You ****ing moron. you have no idea what you are talking about, as
usual. If the meow army was involved here you would know it.

Would you like me to introduce you?




Bertie

On 8 Feb, 16:47, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 04:13:33 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in NFQqj.20667$9j6.17497@attbi_s22:



Interesting history. *Sad to see this sort of thing has happened many times.

Well, adolescent children are programmed to oppose parental
constraints in order to establish their independence as adult
individuals. *It's inevitable; it's (probably) in our genes. *We all
did it, and future generations will likely continue to challenge
authority in an attempt to establish their independence and announce
their adulthood. *Much to the consternation of more mature adults, its
fundamental to the maturation process of transitioning from dependence
on parental oversight to becoming an autonomous person.

What is disappointing is the breakdown of the traditional method of
controlling rogue Usenet nodes that inject into the newsstream
inappropriate, off-topic, and articles clearly intended to be
disruptive. *In the past, if a downstream node gatewayed abusive
content into Usenet, its upstream nodes would cut off its access to
the network through their systems until the news administrator of the
rogue site got his users back in line. *Today there are at least two
reasons that method is breaking down. *

First, there are news administrators who actually condone abusive
articles thinly guised in the name of free speech. *While I am a firm
believer in free speech, I'm at a loss to understand their true
motivation. *Any thinking adult accepts the constraints of order on
freedom. *If Usenet lacked order and structure, there would only be
one newsgroup that contained the sum of all Usenet content. *Clearly
that wouldn't be very useful.

But more importantly is the immunity granted Common Carriers (such as
the phone company) against liability for the content they carry. *If a
news administrator can be shown to be censoring content, he is in
danger of losing that immunity. *Rather than taking responsibility for
the quality of the content emanating from their nodes, these meek news
administrators abdicate that responsibility out of fear, laziness and
indifference. *They are as much to blame for the decline in the
quality of Usenet content as the abusive posters whom they tolerate.

So aside from reporting articles that violate the Usenet provider's
Acceptable Use Policy to their abuse department, about the only other
acceptable course of action to stem the tide of noise is to lobby the
news administrator of the abusive node's upstream feed to disconnect
the abusive node. *The identity of that site is usually discernable
from the article's 'Path:' header field.

There is also, what I would characterize as a feeble and largely
self-defeating course of action against intentionally disruptive
posters: peer pressure. *Publicly admonishing them, while providing
the admonisher with a certain amount of satisfaction in venting his
frustration, in reality only contributes to reducing the newsgroup's
signal to noise ratio. *But worse than that, public admonishment can
be a construed as a reward by the abuser, as it validates the abuser's
ability to affect the newsgroup's readership, and it opens a line of
communication for further off-topic articles. *If one cannot resist
responding to abusive articles, he should respond to it via private
e-mail, so that the abuser is denied a public forum to spew additional
disruptive content.

As I have said before (with the exceptions above), there are only two
clear choices responsible Usenet participants are able to exercise:

* * 1. *Choosing what they read, and
* * 2. *Choosing to post or not. *

That's it. *Simple. *


Nope, it's not anythign like as simple as that.


Of course, everything is simple in your world, Lar..


Bertie

On 8 Feb, 20:14, Mxsmanic wrote:
Larry Dighera writes:
Well, adolescent children are programmed to oppose parental
constraints in order to establish their independence as adult
individuals. *It's inevitable; it's (probably) in our genes. *We all
did it, and future generations will likely continue to challenge
authority in an attempt to establish their independence and announce
their adulthood. *Much to the consternation of more mature adults, its
fundamental to the maturation process of transitioning from dependence
on parental oversight to becoming an autonomous person.

There's nothing fundamentally required or normal about misbehavior, and many
people get through adolescence without engaging in it.

As I have said before (with the exceptions above), there are only two
clear choices responsible Usenet participants are able to exercise:

* * 1. *Choosing what they read, and
* * 2. *Choosing to post or not. *

That's it. *Simple. *

And that is sufficient.

This is my favorite part!


When k00ks who can't stand each other form little slurpie alliances..

Bertie

Regardless, there's nothing that can be done to control it other than
withdraw and give up.

Not true, Doc. Kill files are your friend.

Example: I am certain that The Bunyip has responded to this thread, as flies
are attracted to you-know-what. I would bet a thousand bucks on it. You
may even be responding to his post.

But I'll never see it. It's absolutely wonderful.

I highly recommend creating one.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

As I have said before (with the exceptions above), there are only two
clear choices responsible Usenet participants are able to exercise:

1. Choosing what they read, and
2. Choosing to post or not.

Thankfully, so long as you're not using Google Groups to access Usenet,
Option #1 is enhanced by the judicious creation and use of kill files. With
three keystrokes, it is possible to eliminate 70% of the chaff here -- all
of it (amazingly) from a single troll.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

To take one personal example, he called me a bad pilot because I make poor
landings in a simulator.

Tell me that's not an insult. Tell me that's being a gentleman.

No, that's not having experience in both worlds, and being stupid.

Many real pilots struggle to land our sim, at first. (See it he
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm ) Our 104" screen makes
it much more realistic (and, thus, easier for a real pilot) -- but it's
still not the same. (No peripheral vision in the flare is the primary
problem for most.)

Bottom line: If MX drives you that nuts, create a simple kill file that
eliminates his posts from your newsreader. It literally takes three key
strokes.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

You really still have nice things to say about him, even as the smell
lingers?

I prefer to look at MX differently.

Almost every Movie Night, we have a mildly retarded young man and his
"keeper" show up. (For those who don't know, we show an aviation movie
every Tuesday night, at our aviation themed hotel.) The event is open to
the public, and free -- and the kid loves airplanes, so he comes.

All of the real pilots have made him feel welcome, even though he
occasionally blurts out something stupid or inappropriate. They recognize
that he's harmless, happens to love aviation, and -- although he's mildly
annoying -- we all slap him on the back when he arrives.

That's MX.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Trust me on this: Anthony is not mildly retarded. I'd guess his IQ is
in at least the mid 120s (I wouldn't know what side of 127 to bet on,
frankly). His problems have to do with failures in different life
skills areas, and he gets his kicks cheaply here by annoying people
who for the most part have successful lives. Where else can someone
with a simulated life annoy so many people with real ones?

And of course responses feed his ego.

The interesting thing is, others who exhibit the same characteristics
who have been my patients really do think of themselves as superior
and don't, for the most part, understand why that isn't generally
recognized..




8:53*am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
You really still have nice things to say about him, even as the smell
lingers?

I prefer to look at MX differently.

Almost every Movie Night, we have a mildly retarded young man and his
"keeper" show up. * (For those who don't know, we show an aviation movie
every Tuesday night, at our aviation themed hotel.) *The event is open to
the public, and free -- and the kid loves airplanes, so he comes.

All of the real pilots have made him feel welcome, even though he
occasionally blurts out something stupid or inappropriate. *They recognize
that he's harmless, happens to love aviation, and -- although he's mildly
annoying -- we all slap him on the back when he arrives.

That's MX.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"