Why Pilots of America rocks...

In article , "Morgans" wrote:

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

actually, mx first posted several years ago (iirc - I killfiled him back in 2002)

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Bob Noel wrote:
In article , "Morgans"
wrote:

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

actually, mx first posted several years ago (iirc - I killfiled him
back in 2002)

That Mxsmanic actually posted to r.a.p several years before things went
sideways is often either missed or dismissed.

"Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message
news:X9Zwk.769$sq3.59@trnddc07...

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

You are either using a definition of "sock puppet" that only you
understand, or you don't understand the term as other people use it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet

on 9/7/2008 5:19 PM Jim Logajan said the following:
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.

No, you need to try to keep up. The most common classification of
logical fallacies groups them into fallacies of relevance, of ambiguity,
and of presumption. False dichotomies fall into the group fallacies of
presumption. The presumption is that there are no options other than the
two offered. I previously explained why his question fit this definition.

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.

Do try harder to keep up. You and Jay have both asserted or at least
strongly presumed that I am defending Bertie. I have no obligation to
prove I am not doing so. It's your burden to prove that I am. I need not
play your game or answer your questions.

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.

I simply choose not to. My reasons are my own. You'll undoubtedly draw
your own conclusions. I care not.

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?

No one has been driven away. Some have chosen to leave, but that's their
choice. The fact that Jay and Dudley keep coming back here to sing the
praises of other forums makes it clear they are still free to post or
lurk and in fact do so.

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.

So bloody what, in your own words. I choose providers who are far less
restrictive than Jay would like all to be. If he could netkopp me
successfully, I have no doubt he would.

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.

No tantrum. I'm only responding to your arguments, lame as they may be.

on 9/7/2008 5:22 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
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?

We've had our disagreements. But I'm not going to do your research for
you. If you want to know, you do your own work.

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.

Oh, I certainly can. I have friends whose views are diametrically
opposed to my own. But when someone constantly spouts reactionary drivel
in non-political forums like this one, a habit as destructive as any of
the other posters you despise, it cannot help but color my opinion of
him. The same with an endless stream of self-promotion.

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.

In your opinion, which is rapidly becoming valueless to me. I've been
posting in the rec.aviation newsgroups since the mid-90s, the vast
majority of it on topic and aviation-related. Even during the recent
flamewars I've posted on topic now and then. Certainly more than some
others.

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).

I've met Bertie and flown with him. I have no desire to meet Jay, much
less get in an aircraft with him. Between his online behavior and what
I've been told by friends who have met him face to face, I'd rather read
a book.

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.

You have once again committed the same logical fallacy, but clearly
you're incapable of recognizing it. We can continue as long as you want,
but you're just contributing to the problem you're bitching about.

On 2008-09-08, Rich Ahrens wrote:
you're just contributing to the problem you're bitching about.

Not any more. *plonk*
--
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 9/7/2008 9:27 PM Jim Logajan said the following:
"Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message
news:X9Zwk.769$sq3.59@trnddc07...

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

You are either using a definition of "sock puppet" that only you
understand, or you don't understand the term as other people use it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet

Good luck with this one. We've been trying to hammer it into Maxie's
head but he insists on his own definition.

on 9/7/2008 10:24 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
On 2008-09-08, Rich Ahrens wrote:
you're just contributing to the problem you're bitching about.

Not any more. *plonk*

Oh dear. That hurt dreadfully.

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
...
"Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message
news:X9Zwk.769$sq3.59@trnddc07...

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

You are either using a definition of "sock puppet" that only you
understand, or you don't understand the term as other people use it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet

The term sock puppet has been around much longer than the internet.

My first recollection of it was studying political history in the 9th grade
('60s), but I have heard it used even more often in corporate environments
since. In either case it is used to indicate someone is parroting someone
else's believes or ideals.

Either definition works for me. I don't care if someone has created a covert
identity, or if weak minded individuals simply parrot someone else's
mission, both examples seem transparent here. Let's face it, who cares if
Bich Ahrens, Mikey Mouth or any of the .kook folks, is a fake identity
operated by Bertie, or just another weak minded fool sucking up to him. They
both serve the same purpose.

Links included only because I like ya.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...al+Sock+Puppet

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...hollywood-sock

http://ohiodailyblog.com/content/sar...in-sock-puppet

Rich Ahrens wrote:
on 9/7/2008 5:19 PM Jim Logajan said the following:
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.

No, you need to try to keep up. The most common classification of
logical fallacies groups them into fallacies of relevance, of
ambiguity, and of presumption. False dichotomies fall into the group
fallacies of presumption. The presumption is that there are no options
other than the two offered. I previously explained why his question
fit this definition.

I'm impressed by your attempts at logic. But I now suspect both of us are
not exactly young, so maybe the attempts at patronization are best left
out. It's been over 30 years since I took logic and philosophy classes in
college and later managed to convince them to award me a BSc in physics.
Later I managed to arrange my life to be able to work from the comfort of
my home out in the country. All of which I like to think proves I'm not a
complete idiot. So I'm not persuaded by your arguments at all because I
know from whence they come.

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.

Do try harder to keep up. You and Jay have both asserted or at least
strongly presumed that I am defending Bertie. I have no obligation to
prove I am not doing so. It's your burden to prove that I am. I need
not play your game or answer your questions.

I'm not playing a game. I wasn't even a target of your attack. I'm a third
party here. I simply don't see the point of attacking Jay H, who has never
cross-posted or gotten into deep threaded tit-for-tat attacks, whereas
others have done just that to the detriment of the group.

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.

I simply choose not to. My reasons are my own.

Too bad you couldn't have used that opaque line of "reasoning" when you
were deciding whether to post your attack on Jay H.

You'll undoubtedly draw your own conclusions.

I can't conclude anything - other than you dislike Jay H.

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?

No one has been driven away. Some have chosen to leave, but that's
their choice.

I see. In much the same manner that a person who is attacked by a swarm of
mosquitos is simply making a choice to vacate the area - they aren't being
driven away. Dissembling over a colloquialism.

The fact that Jay and Dudley keep coming back here to
sing the praises of other forums makes it clear they are still free to
post or lurk and in fact do so.

And you are free to complain (and complain (and complain)) about it - both
here - and on PoA if you wanted to, I bet.

And I say this as one who looked in on PoA and AOPA but decided they
weren't for me.

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.

So bloody what, in your own words. I choose providers who are far less
restrictive than Jay would like all to be. If he could netkopp me
successfully, I have no doubt he would.

Jay H. had been reading and posting to this group for years and never
exhibited any sign of "net kopping". Ironically his r.a.p "Rogues Gallery"
appears to have been an attempt to "flesh out" and humanize a community
here. Since he invested some time in a volunteer effort, it stands to
reason he would be reluctant to sever his ties to the group and post a
public mourning when he took it down.

And it wasn't even Jay who precipitated the exodus to PoA and the other web
forums.

I see no facts to support your Jay H. "netkopp" fears.

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.

No tantrum. I'm only responding to your arguments, lame as they may
be.

I love you too! ;-)