A Google Groups alternative to rec.aviation.piloting?

On Aug 15, 2:43*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Dudley Henriques writes:

You're so full of crap it's amazing. Your problem with me started the
day we got into a discussion on you pulling mixture on a student and
you've been a royal PIA ever since.

Nothing in his post indicated to me that he had any problem with you.

Retaliating against a personal attack makes a poor impression. *Retaliating
when there was no attack in the first place makes an even worse impression.

Go **** yourself!

--
Dudley Henriques

Thank you for proving my point.

buttman wrote:
On Aug 15, 2:43 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Dudley Henriques writes:
You're so full of crap it's amazing. Your problem with me started the
day we got into a discussion on you pulling mixture on a student and
you've been a royal PIA ever since.
Nothing in his post indicated to me that he had any problem with you.
Retaliating against a personal attack makes a poor impression. Retaliating
when there was no attack in the first place makes an even worse impression.
Go **** yourself!

--
Dudley Henriques

Thank you for proving my point.

Quite to the contrary, you have proved MY point. You will notice that
the posts reacting to my answer to you are mixed, therefore your premise
that I was being treated "specially" on this forum is as incorrect as my
opinion that you are probably the worst instructor I've ever seen
posting on these forums IS correct.

--
Dudley Henriques

On Aug 15, 12:40*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
buttman wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:53 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
I note that some people who wish to migrate to a more controlled aviation
forum have a couple issues with the alternatives such as AOPA and POA. The
first being that they appear U.S. centric. The second that the layout is
actually a backward step in user friendliness.

While it isn't as good as some of the classic threaded newsreaders, it
occurs to me that creating a "Google Groups only" (non-Usenet) forum might
help a little toward addressing the two main issues (that I'm aware of,
anyway.) This is Google's info on creating a group on their systems:

http://groups.google.com/intl/en/goo.../overview.html

The third issue is who would most people feel comfortable with as the PIC
of such a group?

That would be worse. The reason this group has degraded is because of
ad-hominem arguments. Notice I didn't say ad-hominem attacks. In my
opinion more damage has been done to this group by allowing
"annointed" people free rides and giving "non-anointed" people attacks
regardless of what they say. The way it should be is that if someone
like Dudley says something stupid, he should get called out on it. If
MX says something, he should get called out on it. If Dudley says
something great he should be praised for it. If MX says something
good, he should get praised for it. But thats not how its done here.
No matter what MX says, he'll get ribbed. No matter what Dudley says,
he'll get praised. If you have a group of people officially annointed
as group moderators, this effect will only be magnified and the
discussion will be even less useless.

I see this sort of thing happen with moderated groups all the time.
You have 4 or 5 people anointed as the "chosen ones", who then strut
around the group with their chests puffed out. They no longer put any
effort into their postings because why bother when you are already
automatically revered by the whole group? If, for some reason you
aren't revered by a member, you can just delete their messages or ban
them from the group.

You're so full of crap it's amazing. Your problem with me started the
day we got into a discussion on you pulling mixture on a student and
you've been a royal PIA ever since.
Not that I mind, but take this post for example. You state something
that is totally false as though it's accepted fact and think it will
stand It won't!
First of all, I am not now, nor have I ever been anything "special" on
this forum, either in my own opinion or in that of others. You simply
pull this crap out of your ass and post it I guess for your own
amusement or for whatever damage you envision it doing.
No big deal. Post away. I think most of the people who frequent this
forum, or at least the ones who would matter anyway, know you have an
agenda here.
Now on to something else you said that reeks of false premise. I've been
posting on these forums for over ten years. Go Google me and come up
with something "stupid" I've posted on these groups and present it here
for everyone to see will you please. I'd be very interested to read what
that happened to be.

--
Dudley Henriques

Jeez, calm down. I was just using you as an example. I said " if
someone like Dudley says something stupid", not "Dudley always says
something stupid". And to be quite honest, 90% of you posts are
neither great nor crappy. Usually you just end up either stating the
obvious or posting something completely banal. The problem is with
sycophants replying to your less than great posts with "OH WOW ANOTHER
GREAT GREAT DUDLEY POST THANK YOU DUDLEY YOU ARE SO AWESOME" which
gives you that sense of importance you have.

But anyways, to illustrate the point I'm trying to make a little
further, consider for a minute what would happen if I were to go back
to 2002, find a well received Dudley post, and post it here right now
under my name. Will it get the exact same response as it did under
Dudley's name? *Should* that post get the same response? If it doesn't
get the same warm response, why not? What if MX reposted it instead of
me?

That is what is wrong with this group right now. No one judges what
your post contains, they only judge who you are, or worse, who they
think you are.

What I'm trying to say here is if this place truly needs *less of* is
creating more celebrity-type personalities to further underminethe
creation of true down-to-business aviation discussion.

buttman wrote:
On Aug 15, 12:40 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
buttman wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:53 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
I note that some people who wish to migrate to a more controlled aviation
forum have a couple issues with the alternatives such as AOPA and POA. The
first being that they appear U.S. centric. The second that the layout is
actually a backward step in user friendliness.
While it isn't as good as some of the classic threaded newsreaders, it
occurs to me that creating a "Google Groups only" (non-Usenet) forum might
help a little toward addressing the two main issues (that I'm aware of,
anyway.) This is Google's info on creating a group on their systems:
http://groups.google.com/intl/en/goo.../overview.html
The third issue is who would most people feel comfortable with as the PIC
of such a group?
That would be worse. The reason this group has degraded is because of
ad-hominem arguments. Notice I didn't say ad-hominem attacks. In my
opinion more damage has been done to this group by allowing
"annointed" people free rides and giving "non-anointed" people attacks
regardless of what they say. The way it should be is that if someone
like Dudley says something stupid, he should get called out on it. If
MX says something, he should get called out on it. If Dudley says
something great he should be praised for it. If MX says something
good, he should get praised for it. But thats not how its done here.
No matter what MX says, he'll get ribbed. No matter what Dudley says,
he'll get praised. If you have a group of people officially annointed
as group moderators, this effect will only be magnified and the
discussion will be even less useless.
I see this sort of thing happen with moderated groups all the time.
You have 4 or 5 people anointed as the "chosen ones", who then strut
around the group with their chests puffed out. They no longer put any
effort into their postings because why bother when you are already
automatically revered by the whole group? If, for some reason you
aren't revered by a member, you can just delete their messages or ban
them from the group.
You're so full of crap it's amazing. Your problem with me started the
day we got into a discussion on you pulling mixture on a student and
you've been a royal PIA ever since.
Not that I mind, but take this post for example. You state something
that is totally false as though it's accepted fact and think it will
stand It won't!
First of all, I am not now, nor have I ever been anything "special" on
this forum, either in my own opinion or in that of others. You simply
pull this crap out of your ass and post it I guess for your own
amusement or for whatever damage you envision it doing.
No big deal. Post away. I think most of the people who frequent this
forum, or at least the ones who would matter anyway, know you have an
agenda here.
Now on to something else you said that reeks of false premise. I've been
posting on these forums for over ten years. Go Google me and come up
with something "stupid" I've posted on these groups and present it here
for everyone to see will you please. I'd be very interested to read what
that happened to be.

--
Dudley Henriques

Jeez, calm down. I was just using you as an example. I said " if
someone like Dudley says something stupid", not "Dudley always says
something stupid". And to be quite honest, 90% of you posts are
neither great nor crappy. Usually you just end up either stating the
obvious or posting something completely banal. The problem is with
sycophants replying to your less than great posts with "OH WOW ANOTHER
GREAT GREAT DUDLEY POST THANK YOU DUDLEY YOU ARE SO AWESOME" which
gives you that sense of importance you have.

But anyways, to illustrate the point I'm trying to make a little
further, consider for a minute what would happen if I were to go back
to 2002, find a well received Dudley post, and post it here right now
under my name. Will it get the exact same response as it did under
Dudley's name? *Should* that post get the same response? If it doesn't
get the same warm response, why not? What if MX reposted it instead of
me?

That is what is wrong with this group right now. No one judges what
your post contains, they only judge who you are, or worse, who they
think you are.

What I'm trying to say here is if this place truly needs *less of* is
creating more celebrity-type personalities to further underminethe
creation of true down-to-business aviation discussion.

With me you have no point. You are possibly the worst CFI I have ever
seen posting on these groups and I've said that on more than one
occasion and will continue to use any credibility I own to advise
students NOT to fly with you.

I'll be glad to use every opportunity you give me by insisting to use my
name in these ridiculous posts of yours to point students to the
following thread started by you on the student group some time ago.
Students reading this thread will note that the procedure you are asking
about as being a good idea you had already done with a student before
asking. They will as well note that several other CFI's besides myself
engaged you on the issue.
Your "mentioning" and "using" of my name in many posts you make has been
based on my absolute and total lack of respect for you as a CFI. I
accept that, and in fact would expect that from someone I have said
public ally I would not fly with, nor recommend anyone else fly with.

So for those who might need a "refresher" on exactly wht I'm talking
about concerning you, I suggest reading the following thread;


http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...d5ed01c0a5aac0


Thank you for the opportunity to present this again. I will continue
doing this every time you post mentioning my name.
Thank you

--
Dudley Henriques

On Aug 15, 4:53*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Thank you for the opportunity to present this again. I will continue
doing this every time you post mentioning my name.
Thank you

--
Dudley Henriques

You're doing it again! You're just illustrating my point for me.

This thread is not about me, its not about you, its not about pulling
the fuel valve on takeoff. Its about how certain people's egos degrade
discussion on this forum by bringing personalities into the picture.
Your sole argument here is "this guy made a lot of dumb posts in the
past, don't listen to anything he says, because by definition he is
wrong" by bringing up completely unrelated posts I made a year ago.

Instead of arguing against the argument, you rather argue against the
person. And it's not just you, many others are guilty too.

buttman wrote in
:

On Aug 14, 6:53*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
I note that some people who wish to migrate to a more controlled
aviation forum have a couple issues with the alternatives such as
AOPA and POA. Th
e
first being that they appear U.S. centric. The second that the layout
is actually a backward step in user friendliness.

While it isn't as good as some of the classic threaded newsreaders,
it occurs to me that creating a "Google Groups only" (non-Usenet)
forum migh
t
help a little toward addressing the two main issues (that I'm aware
of, anyway.) This is Google's info on creating a group on their
systems:

http://groups.google.com/intl/en/goo.../overview.html

The third issue is who would most people feel comfortable with as the
PIC of such a group?

That would be worse. The reason this group has degraded is because of
ad-hominem arguments. Notice I didn't say ad-hominem attacks. In my
opinion more damage has been done to this group by allowing
"annointed" people free rides and giving "non-anointed" people attacks
regardless of what they say. The way it should be is that if someone
like Dudley says something stupid, he should get called out on it. If
MX says something, he should get called out on it. If Dudley says
something great he should be praised for it. If MX says something
good, he should get praised for it. But thats not how its done here.
No matter what MX says, he'll get ribbed. No matter what Dudley says,
he'll get praised. If you have a group of people officially annointed
as group moderators, this effect will only be magnified and the
discussion will be even less useless.


Awww, Maxie... You feeling left out because you're an idiot?

Bertie

Tony wrote in
:

On Aug 15, 2:40 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
buttman wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:53 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
I note that some people who wish to migrate to a more controlled
aviation forum have a couple issues with the alternatives such as
AOPA and POA. The first being that they appear U.S. centric. The
second that the layout is actually a backward step in user
friendliness.

While it isn't as good as some of the classic threaded
newsreaders, it occurs to me that creating a "Google Groups only"
(non-Usenet) forum might help a little toward addressing the two
main issues (that I'm aware of, anyway.) This is Google's info on
creating a group on their systems:

http://groups.google.com/intl/en/goo.../overview.html

The third issue is who would most people feel comfortable with as
the PIC of such a group?

That would be worse. The reason this group has degraded is because
of ad-hominem arguments. Notice I didn't say ad-hominem attacks. In
my opinion more damage has been done to this group by allowing
"annointed" people free rides and giving "non-anointed" people
attacks regardless of what they say. The way it should be is that
if someone like Dudley says something stupid, he should get called
out on it. If MX says something, he should get called out on it. If
Dudley says something great he should be praised for it. If MX says
something good, he should get praised for it. But thats not how its
done here. No matter what MX says, he'll get ribbed. No matter what
Dudley says, he'll get praised. If you have a group of people
officially annointed as group moderators, this effect will only be
magnified and the discussion will be even less useless.

I see this sort of thing happen with moderated groups all the time.
You have 4 or 5 people anointed as the "chosen ones", who then
strut around the group with their chests puffed out. They no longer
put any effort into their postings because why bother when you are
already automatically revered by the whole group? If, for some
reason you aren't revered by a member, you can just delete their
messages or ban them from the group.

You're so full of crap it's amazing. Your problem with me started the
day we got into a discussion on you pulling mixture on a student and
you've been a royal PIA ever since.
Not that I mind, but take this post for example. You state something
that is totally false as though it's accepted fact and think it will
stand It won't!
First of all, I am not now, nor have I ever been anything "special"
on this forum, either in my own opinion or in that of others. You
simply pull this crap out of your ass and post it I guess for your
own amusement or for whatever damage you envision it doing.
No big deal. Post away. I think most of the people who frequent this
forum, or at least the ones who would matter anyway, know you have an
agenda here.
Now on to something else you said that reeks of false premise. I've
been posting on these forums for over ten years. Go Google me and
come up with something "stupid" I've posted on these groups and
present it here for everyone to see will you please. I'd be very
interested to read what that happened to be.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dud, the most stupid thing you might have done is to engage buttman in
a dialog. Think of his posts as a gambit: it's sometimes best to
decline them. One of the more popular chess openings in the Queen's
Gambit, and in most circles the opening continues with Queen's Gambit
Declined. I've resolved to treat Mx's posts as gambits and my
preferred play for a while is going to be Mx gambit declined.


He doesn't do Gambits. He just flails around like a goldfish on the
floor.

Pretty much just like he flies.


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Dudley Henriques writes:

You're so full of crap it's amazing. Your problem with me started the
day we got into a discussion on you pulling mixture on a student and
you've been a royal PIA ever since.

Nothing in his post indicated to me that he had any problem with you.

you're an idiot.

Bertie

buttman wrote in
:

On Aug 15, 2:43*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Dudley Henriques writes:

You're so full of crap it's amazing. Your problem with me started
the day we got into a discussion on you pulling mixture on a
student and you've been a royal PIA ever since.

Nothing in his post indicated to me that he had any problem with
you.

Retaliating against a personal attack makes a poor impression.
*Retal
iating
when there was no attack in the first place makes an even worse
impress
ion.

Go **** yourself!

--
Dudley Henriques

Thank you for proving my point.


And how did he do that fjukktard?

Bertie

buttman wrote in
:

On Aug 15, 12:40*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
buttman wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:53 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
I note that some people who wish to migrate to a more controlled
aviat
ion
forum have a couple issues with the alternatives such as AOPA and
POA.
The
first being that they appear U.S. centric. The second that the
layout
is
actually a backward step in user friendliness.

While it isn't as good as some of the classic threaded
newsreaders, it occurs to me that creating a "Google Groups only"
(non-Usenet) forum m
ight
help a little toward addressing the two main issues (that I'm
aware of
,
anyway.) This is Google's info on creating a group on their
systems:

http://groups.google.com/intl/en/goo.../overview.html

The third issue is who would most people feel comfortable with as
the
PIC
of such a group?

That would be worse. The reason this group has degraded is because
of ad-hominem arguments. Notice I didn't say ad-hominem attacks. In
my opinion more damage has been done to this group by allowing
"annointed" people free rides and giving "non-anointed" people
attacks regardless of what they say. The way it should be is that
if someone like Dudley says something stupid, he should get called
out on it. If MX says something, he should get called out on it. If
Dudley says something great he should be praised for it. If MX says
something good, he should get praised for it. But thats not how its
done here. No matter what MX says, he'll get ribbed. No matter what
Dudley says, he'll get praised. If you have a group of people
officially annointed as group moderators, this effect will only be
magnified and the discussion will be even less useless.

I see this sort of thing happen with moderated groups all the time.
You have 4 or 5 people anointed as the "chosen ones", who then
strut around the group with their chests puffed out. They no longer
put any effort into their postings because why bother when you are
already automatically revered by the whole group? If, for some
reason you aren't revered by a member, you can just delete their
messages or ban them from the group.

You're so full of crap it's amazing. Your problem with me started the
day we got into a discussion on you pulling mixture on a student and
you've been a royal PIA ever since.
Not that I mind, but take this post for example. You state something
that is totally false as though it's accepted fact and think it will
stand It won't!
First of all, I am not now, nor have I ever been anything "special"
on this forum, either in my own opinion or in that of others. You
simply pull this crap out of your ass and post it I guess for your
own amusement or for whatever damage you envision it doing.
No big deal. Post away. I think most of the people who frequent this
forum, or at least the ones who would matter anyway, know you have an
agenda here.
Now on to something else you said that reeks of false premise. I've
been posting on these forums for over ten years. Go Google me and
come up with something "stupid" I've posted on these groups and
present it here for everyone to see will you please. I'd be very
interested to read what that happened to be.

--
Dudley Henriques

Jeez, calm down. I was just using you as an example. I said " if
someone like Dudley says something stupid", not "Dudley always says
something stupid". And to be quite honest, 90% of you posts are
neither great nor crappy. Usually you just end up either stating the
obvious or posting something completely banal. The problem is with
sycophants replying to your less than great posts with "OH WOW ANOTHER
GREAT GREAT DUDLEY POST THANK YOU DUDLEY YOU ARE SO AWESOME" which
gives you that sense of importance you have.

But anyways, to illustrate the point I'm trying to make a little
further, consider for a minute what would happen if I were to go back
to 2002, find a well received Dudley post, and post it here right now
under my name. Will it get the exact same response as it did under
Dudley's name?


Nope, because it would be patently obvious that you stole it since
you're a fjukkkktard.


Bertie