Why Pilots of America rocks...

on 9/7/2008 3:33 PM Lonnie said the following:
"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
. net...

Bull****, you fancy yourself as one of his favorite socks, and you
constantly treat him like your hero.

Good gawd, you're an idiot, Maxie. How can I fancy myself as one of his
socks when I accept the standard definition of sock puppet, which
excludes that possibility? *You* continue to erroneously make that
flight of fancy, not me.

Echoing his ideals, feeding his cross posted threads with nonsense, and
supporting him and his nonsense whenever you can.

If his ideals include the conclusions that you, MX, and Jay are all
assholes, then he is perceptive. But I reached those conclusions
independently from the copious evidence supporting them.

on 9/7/2008 3:43 PM Jim Logajan said the following:
Rich Ahrens wrote:
on 9/7/2008 1:49 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
Bertie's one of the primary causes of the hangar getting burned to
the ground. For you to defend him as you do merely sullies your own
reputation.
First off, I'm not defending him. He's quite capable of doing so
himself if he chooses. Holding the same opinion as someone some of the
time (e.g., Maxie is an idiot) is not defending that person. Neither
is conversing with him. Or correcting factual errors about past
history. The fact that you cannot tell the difference places your
judgment in question.

Well shucks, you confused a false dichotomy with an unproven assumption in
another post, but I wouldn't hold that against you.

No, you falsely characterized it, as I've explained elsewhere. But I
won't hold it against you.

I'm with Jay Maynard on suspecting you are using a stealth defense of the
person posting as Bertie. Feel free to consider my judgment in question
too. I've always suspected my judgment to be **** poor too. ;-)

Couldn't say one way or the other in other contexts. But you're wrong
here. By your reasoning: Jimmy Carter condemns Israel's treatment of
Palestinians, as does OBL, therefore Carter is using a stealth defense
of OBL. That kind of spurious reasoning might fly in some circles (Jay
H's reactionary mind, for instance), but it's ****-poor judgment.

Excellent: your opinion on Jay Honeck's views is clear. Now if you can make
(or point to a past posting) of a clear opinion of Bertie's postings it
will be clear whether your posts are in fact a stealth defense of him or
merely an incidental byproduct of objective observations.

I have no obligation to do so. It is your assertion, Jay's, or both. The
burden of proof is on you.

However, no one is driving Jay away.

"However, no one is driving X away."
Where X = {Bob Gardner, Dudley Henriques, Jay Honeck, C. Gattman, ... }

In other words, a throw-away rhetorical line.

No. Jay M asserted that Jay H was "being ruthlessly driven away." I
simply contradicted him with an equally bald assertion.

So if someone posts an opinion on PoA that Jay Honeck disagrees with, then
are you claiming it will be squelched? Are you claiming Jay controls PoA?
I'm having a hard time relating the objective facts of the operation of PoA
with your pseudo-psychological analysis.

I'm saying it is inherent in the nature of that heavily moderated forum
to meet Jay's need to be coddled, as supported by their having at least
temporarily shut down the one area where anything is supposedly fair
game. And further supported by Jay's blathering in praise of that action.

"Mike" wrote in message
news:X9Zwk.769$sq3.59@trnddc07...

Socken and sucken up to Mx now, eh Mikey Mouth.

"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
. net...
on 9/7/2008 3:43 PM Jim Logajan said the following:
Rich Ahrens wrote:
on 9/7/2008 1:49 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
Bertie's one of the primary causes of the hangar getting burned to
the ground. For you to defend him as you do merely sullies your own
reputation.
First off, I'm not defending him. He's quite capable of doing so
himself if he chooses. Holding the same opinion as someone some of the
time (e.g., Maxie is an idiot) is not defending that person. Neither
is conversing with him. Or correcting factual errors about past
history. The fact that you cannot tell the difference places your
judgment in question.

Well shucks, you confused a false dichotomy with an unproven assumption
in another post, but I wouldn't hold that against you.

No, you falsely characterized it, as I've explained elsewhere. But I won't
hold it against you.

I'm with Jay Maynard on suspecting you are using a stealth defense of the
person posting as Bertie. Feel free to consider my judgment in question
too. I've always suspected my judgment to be **** poor too. ;-)

Couldn't say one way or the other in other contexts. But you're wrong
here. By your reasoning: Jimmy Carter condemns Israel's treatment of
Palestinians, as does OBL, therefore Carter is using a stealth defense of
OBL. That kind of spurious reasoning might fly in some circles (Jay H's
reactionary mind, for instance), but it's ****-poor judgment.

Excellent: your opinion on Jay Honeck's views is clear. Now if you can
make (or point to a past posting) of a clear opinion of Bertie's postings
it will be clear whether your posts are in fact a stealth defense of him
or merely an incidental byproduct of objective observations.

I have no obligation to do so. It is your assertion, Jay's, or both. The
burden of proof is on you.

However, no one is driving Jay away.

"However, no one is driving X away."
Where X = {Bob Gardner, Dudley Henriques, Jay Honeck, C. Gattman, ... }

In other words, a throw-away rhetorical line.

No. Jay M asserted that Jay H was "being ruthlessly driven away." I simply
contradicted him with an equally bald assertion.

So if someone posts an opinion on PoA that Jay Honeck disagrees with,
then are you claiming it will be squelched? Are you claiming Jay controls
PoA? I'm having a hard time relating the objective facts of the operation
of PoA with your pseudo-psychological analysis.

I'm saying it is inherent in the nature of that heavily moderated forum to
meet Jay's need to be coddled, as supported by their having at least
temporarily shut down the one area where anything is supposedly fair game.
And further supported by Jay's blathering in praise of that action.

Cool, nice spin.

"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
. net...
on 9/7/2008 2:28 PM Jim Logajan said the following:
Rich Ahrens wrote:
on 9/7/2008 1:04 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
On 2008-09-07, Rich Ahrens wrote:
And Bertie has been posting in aviation groups since 1998, as a
simple Google search will turn up. He even posted in RAP on 9/11:
Has he been a flaming asshole troll for that long, or did he just go
over the edge recently? (And no, I'm not about to dredge up that
sewer on my own.)
A false dichotomy

Well ... Jay did not use a dichotomy - that I can see. Rather, his
question made a presumption: that Bertie is a flaming asshole. The
question was when did he become one. The distant past and the recent past
are not normally considered dichotomous - merely a subjective matter.

A false dichotomy is an instance of a bifurcation fallacy and falls into
the category of fallacies of presumption. A bifurcation fallacy is
committed when someone is asked to choose between two options when there
is at least one other option available. Jay clearly presented two options
and asked me to choose. In this case there is at least one other option:
that Bertie is not a flaming asshole troll. This clearly meets the
definition.

An answer to Jay's question doesn't appear to yield anything useful,
though. At least not that I can see.

On that we agree.

Wow! Great big words, little bitty pecker.

Rich Ahrens wrote:
on 9/7/2008 3:43 PM Jim Logajan said the following:
Rich Ahrens wrote:
on 9/7/2008 1:49 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
Bertie's one of the primary causes of the hangar getting burned to
the ground. For you to defend him as you do merely sullies your own
reputation.
First off, I'm not defending him. He's quite capable of doing so
himself if he chooses. Holding the same opinion as someone some of
the time (e.g., Maxie is an idiot) is not defending that person.
Neither is conversing with him. Or correcting factual errors about
past history. The fact that you cannot tell the difference places
your judgment in question.

Well shucks, you confused a false dichotomy with an unproven
assumption in another post, but I wouldn't hold that against you.

No, you falsely characterized it, as I've explained elsewhere. But I
won't hold it against you.

If there was no presumption in Jay M's question then it wasn't the
dichotomy you claimed it was. You need to make up your mind.

Excellent: your opinion on Jay Honeck's views is clear. Now if you
can make (or point to a past posting) of a clear opinion of Bertie's
postings it will be clear whether your posts are in fact a stealth
defense of him or merely an incidental byproduct of objective
observations.

I have no obligation to do so. It is your assertion, Jay's, or both.
The burden of proof is on you.

Huh? Are you saying the burden of proof of your opinions is on me? Sorry,
I don't follow that.

Look, I'm not asking for any obligations. I'm trying to figure out what
your opinion is of the person who posts using the "Bertie the Bunyip"
handle. You aren't shy about telling the world your opinion of Jay
Honeck's affect on this newsgroup. I'm not sure why you object to telling
the world your opinion of "Bertie's" affect on this newsgroup.

However, no one is driving Jay away.

"However, no one is driving X away."
Where X = {Bob Gardner, Dudley Henriques, Jay Honeck, C. Gattman, ...
}

In other words, a throw-away rhetorical line.

No. Jay M asserted that Jay H was "being ruthlessly driven away." I
simply contradicted him with an equally bald assertion.

Are you now claiming no one has been driven away, or are you quibbling
over whether there was ruthless intent involved?

So if someone posts an opinion on PoA that Jay Honeck disagrees with,
then are you claiming it will be squelched? Are you claiming Jay
controls PoA? I'm having a hard time relating the objective facts of
the operation of PoA with your pseudo-psychological analysis.

I'm saying it is inherent in the nature of that heavily moderated
forum to meet Jay's need to be coddled, as supported by their having
at least temporarily shut down the one area where anything is
supposedly fair game. And further supported by Jay's blathering in
praise of that action.

So bloody what? PoA has terms of use. So does your Usenet provider. You
can be bounced from your Usenet provider if you cross the line too, you
know.

Look - if you don't like Jay H's opinions or the man himself - fine. But
in my opinion all you are doing is rationalizing your dislike into a fine
tantrum of your own. And I say this as someone who doesn't agree with Jay
H on a huge range of issues.

On 2008-09-07, Rich Ahrens wrote:
First off, I'm not defending him. He's quite capable of doing so himself
if he chooses. Holding the same opinion as someone some of the time
(e.g., Maxie is an idiot) is not defending that person. Neither is
conversing with him. Or correcting factual errors about past history.
The fact that you cannot tell the difference places your judgment in
question.

When was the last time you told him he was wrong?

I would turn it around and suggest that for you to praise Jay only
sullies your own reputation. He's a reactionary, self-promoting asshole,
and I stepped away from here for a good while because of the constant
pollution of his political crap.

If he's reactionary, then you definitely won't like my politics. However,
there's more to a person than his political views. I can separate my opinion
of someone's politics from my opinion of them as a person. You apparently
cannot.

Jay Honeck posted far more stuff on topic for this group than you have. He
was one of the few folks around here actually writing about aviation. He
certainly did so far more often than your buddy Bertie.

I've met Jay Honeck. He's a great guy. I strongly doubt I could say the same
about your buddy Bertie, even if I were to meet him (doubtful, since he
won't even stand behind his words).

However, no one is driving Jay away. He's merely running away because he
can't stand not being in control and having people disagree with him. He
can't even just ignore criticism or disagreement. He has to have it
squelched completely, or he'll take his ball and go home. Well, good
riddance.

People disagree with him all the time on PoA. He's still there. The
difference is that PoA isn't filled with flaming assholes (no, that's not a
false dichotomy; Bertie is a flaming asshole, and that reduces the
possibilities to the two I wrote about) like your buddy Bertie, more intent
on tearing down than building a community.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC

On 2008-09-07, Jim Logajan wrote:
Rich Ahrens wrote:
on 9/7/2008 1:04 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
Has he been a flaming asshole troll for that long, or did he just go
over the edge recently? (And no, I'm not about to dredge up that
sewer on my own.)
A false dichotomy
Well ... Jay did not use a dichotomy - that I can see. Rather, his question
made a presumption: that Bertie is a flaming asshole.

Exactly. This isn't in serious question except among Bertie and his
supporters.

An answer to Jay's question doesn't appear to yield anything useful,
though. At least not that I can see.

Oh, I was mainly curious as to when this group started its downhill slide
from community of aviators to flaming cesspit.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC

"Jay Maynard" wrote

Oh, I was mainly curious as to when this group started its downhill slide
from community of aviators to flaming cesspit.

I can tell you that, exactly.

When MX came, and stayed, it was the beginning of the end.

We have had disruptive influences come and go, and if a person was
disruptive enough, everyone agreed to stop all communications with them, and
they usually left in a short period of time. I can probably think of 6 or
8 that fall into that classification. Other lesser levels of
disruptiveness, many people have a kill file to help them deal with the
individual.

Not so with this one. He posted enough on topic that some can not even
admit that he is a disruptive influence. He thrived on abuse, which was
also dished out to other people in the past, which I believe helped some
people decide to leave.

Bertie came in with his "yor an idiot" posts, and cross posted to every kook
group he could think of.

It all spins out of control, after that. At some point, critical mass was
reached, and people left by the handfuls.

Everyone has always realized that being a newsgroup, there were going to be
people that would not stay on topic, and post views that they did not agree
with. They had to develop thick skins, or they would not last long. People
came and went, and those that thought it was worth putting up with off topic
posts, and pure BS and flamefests, mostly became regulars.

I can't remember the last "new" regular that has joined, that posts somewhat
on topic, aviation based posts. On the other hand, it is not hard to make a
list of all of the people that were regulars, posting mostly (or even
somewhat mostly) on topic posts, that now have gone elsewhere, probably
never to return.

So yes, there have always been disruptions, and flames, and a balance has
always been maintained; with high and low points being part of the norm.

The new norm is the cesspool. Look up MX's first post. That is your "Black
Friday."
--
Jim in NC

"Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net wrote in message
...

"Mike" wrote in message
news:X9Zwk.769$sq3.59@trnddc07...

Socken and sucken up to Mx now, eh Mikey Mouth.

Pointing out that someone else is considerably to the right of you on the
bell curve is not necessarily a complement, Okie.