Why Pilots of America rocks...

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


"Mike" wrote in message
news:NxUwk.739$sq3.364@trnddc07...

Ah, come on. Everyone knows Okies only marry their sisters and first
cousins.

Just shows your ignorance about folklore is second only to your
ignorance about flying.




That's not caled folklore in Okie, It's called evolution.


Those whut fux their dogs call it intelijunt deeesahn.



Bertie

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

How long have you been observing Mx?

Regardless of his "being on topic", his threads most often prove very
detrimental to the group.

Yeah, and your's are such a boon.


Bertie

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


"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.



Bull****.



Bertie

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


"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
...

First I've heard of that meaning. On Usenet I always took it to mean
someone posting under multiple aliases. I may be wrong, but I may be
typical in understanding it by that meaning.


The links you include below appear to me to be unrelated to the
meaning traditionally used on Usenet. To avoid confusion, you might
want to modify your accusations by saying they are parrots, or
parroting, or brainwashed, or something other than sock puppets.


If we can't tell one from the other, and they both serve the same
purpose, why do they need two names.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck,
you've got a duck.

Considering their actual motives, I guess we could call the real
people "suck puppets".


No, you can, the rest of the universe will call them posters, fjukkktard.




Bertie

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


"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
. net...
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.

Maybe you should expand your horizons a little beyond the troll sites,
dumb ass.

You're an idiot. Don;t ever change.




Been flying with Gertie lately?


Nope. Not for a while.

Jay Maynard wrote in
:

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.)


Awww, Jay huwt?

Bertie laffing.


Bertie

Jay Maynard wrote in
:

On 2008-09-07, 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 that I'm not going to bite on. Besides, Maxie would
insist I was defending him either way, but I'm simply presenting
facts.

Rich, my dim recollection from my previous time as a member of the
rec.aviation community was that you were, like a lot of other folks,
calm, rational, and knowledgeable. When I got away from flying, I got
away from rec.aviation. When I got back into flying, I got back in
here, only to find that the group is full of people like Mxsmanic and
Bertie, each working to destroy the sense of community and mutual
assistance by being as trollish, or as much a flaming asshole, as
possible, and the few who were still trying to be helpful (such as Jay
Honeck) being ruthlessly driven away. Imagine my surprise to discover
you defending Bertie, one of the worst, and repeatedly slamming Jay
Honeck, one of the better of those remaining.


No he isn't he's an accomplished liar who's only fooing himself and a
few others dim enough to swallow his line.

Like you, apparently.



I still have my "rec.aviation: Global Hangar Flying" patch, somewhere.
It doesn't apply any more. If we had this kind of hangar flying, we
could sell tickets and market it on pay-per-view to the unlimited
fighting fans.

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.


Moi?

Never.


I just post.


Bertie

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


"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
. net...

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


Dumn dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum


Bertie

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

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.


No, it wasn't.


Bertie

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

"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.



Nope, it's a fact, fjukkktard.


Bertie