Why Pilots of America rocks...

Opinions vary...

But it would be difficult to dispute that MX is one of the most "on
topic" posters here..

Dave



On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 09:51:03 -0500, "Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net wrote:

That's because Mx has a long history with this group, and many of us can
assure you, he is not a productive member and feeding his threads do not pay
off in the long run. Quite the contrary.

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

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

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

"Jay Maynard" wrote in message
...
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.

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.
--
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,

Thanks for having the guts to tell it like it is. Hopefully in time, more
people find the courage to come forward and tell Bertie and his socks where
to go.

"Jay Maynard" wrote

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.

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.

Rich has been on my plonked list, for almost as long as I can remember. He
has not always been a flamer, but he has always had an smart a**ed a**hole,
as far as I can remember.

Is Rich Ahrens a real name? I have wondered if it is just the name of
another Bertie sock puppet.
--
Jim in NC

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.

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. ;-)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

How long have you been observing Mx?

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

He has a very loose grip on the real world in general, and a desire to
irritate any of the dozens of people who have honestly try to help him
understand. He seems to have an honest resentment for the messenger, when
reality doesn't live up to his needs and expectations.

You will find it much simpler and rewarding, explaining the hazards of adult
male/female relationships, to a 15 year old girl that thinks she's has just
fallen in love.



"Dave" wrote in message
...
Opinions vary...

But it would be difficult to dispute that MX is one of the most "on
topic" posters here..

Dave



On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 09:51:03 -0500, "Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net wrote:

That's because Mx has a long history with this group, and many of us can
assure you, he is not a productive member and feeding his threads do not
pay
off in the long run. Quite the contrary.

"Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net wrote in message
...
How long have you been observing Mx?

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

No more so than you, Okie.

He has a very loose grip on the real world in general, and a desire to
irritate any of the dozens of people who have honestly try to help him
understand. He seems to have an honest resentment for the messenger, when
reality doesn't live up to his needs and expectations.

No more so than you, Okie.

You will find it much simpler and rewarding, explaining the hazards of
adult male/female relationships, to a 15 year old girl that thinks she's
has just fallen in love.

No more so than you, Okie.

Also the differences between you and Mx, is Mx at least appears to be a few
years older, doesn't change his sock puppet several times per week, and is
at least one standard deviation to the right on the bell curve.

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

"Mike" wrote in message
news:sCXwk.681$Af3.511@trnddc06...

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

Interesting document Mikey Mouth.

Is that required reading where you are institutionalized, or are you just
trying to understand Bertie?

It would really make someone wonder how you came to be associated with
such a study.

Oh dear, who would have ever anticipated a clever repackaging of the old
"I'm rubber, you're glue" line? I didn't see that one coming, kookboi.
Your Okie wit is simply overwhelming and the rest of us stand in awe.

Dave wrote:
Opinions vary...

A problem I am attempting to correct. Everyone should have my opinion!
The world would be a much more congenial place. On the other hand, no one
would want to do hard or unpleasant work.

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.