Okay, folks, enough is enough. We've got good, long-term, high
quality pilots seriously discussing vandalizing someone's website,
because of said someone's troll-dom.

In the past, I have defended said troll, and lambasted said vandals,
but have now come to realize that this troll is obviously so divisive
and upsetting to some that this issue risks tearing apart the very
fabric of rec.aviation.

I personally find this amazing (he truly doesn't bother me that much)
but, in the interest of keeping this newsgroup intact and (relatively)
harmonious, I hereby publically make the following pledges, and urge
others to join me here:

1. I will not respond to MX's posts.
2. I will not lambaste MX on these newsgroups.
3. I will not vandalize MX's website.

All in favor, say "aye"...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> 1. I will not respond to MX's posts.
> 2. I will not lambaste MX on these newsgroups.
> 3. I will not vandalize MX's website.
>
> All in favor, say "aye"...

Aye

One question, though. What is the punishment for breaking the pledge?

Thirty lashes with a wet noodle? No beer at the OSH party? <g>
--
Jim in NC

Jay Honeck wrote:
> 1. I will not respond to MX's posts.
> 2. I will not lambaste MX on these newsgroups.
> 3. I will not vandalize MX's website.
>
> All in favor, say "aye"...

4. You will place the "XXX" identifier in your replies, such that any
and all MX traffic is hereby sent to yonder circular file.

TheSmokingGnu

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Okay, folks, enough is enough. We've got good, long-term, high
> quality pilots seriously discussing vandalizing someone's website,
> because of said someone's troll-dom.
>
> In the past, I have defended said troll, and lambasted said vandals,
> but have now come to realize that this troll is obviously so divisive
> and upsetting to some that this issue risks tearing apart the very
> fabric of rec.aviation.
>
> I personally find this amazing (he truly doesn't bother me that much)
> but, in the interest of keeping this newsgroup intact and (relatively)
> harmonious, I hereby publically make the following pledges, and urge
> others to join me here:
>
> 1. I will not respond to MX's posts.
> 2. I will not lambaste MX on these newsgroups.
> 3. I will not vandalize MX's website.
>

He doesn't bother me a bit. I killfiled him long ago. I only see his
messages when someone else responds to him, and then I ignore that subject.

> One question, though. What is the punishment for breaking the pledge?
>
> Thirty lashes with a wet noodle? No beer at the OSH party? <g>

Ooooo, I don't know about that. That's like giving someone the death
penalty for shop-lifting!

I think, perhaps, it just means that they have to bring a TWELVE-pack
of good beer to the party, rather than a mere 6-pack...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> He doesn't bother me a bit. I killfiled him long ago. I only see his
> messages when someone else responds to him, and then I ignore that subject.

I hear ya -- but the trouble with that tactic is that you end up
missing a huge percentage of the threads in this newsgroup. MX *does*
respond to virtually every thread.

Although it makes me feel silly to even suggest it, if only to keep
peace in the group, I think we should try the "no answer"
technique.

I just don't want to see this group reduced to flame wars, like I've
seen in other groups. It gets ugly quickly, and I'm already seeing
some of that here.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"TheSmokingGnu" > wrote

>> 1. I will not respond to MX's posts.
>> 2. I will not lambaste MX on these newsgroups.
>> 3. I will not vandalize MX's website.
>>
>> All in favor, say "aye"...
>
> 4. You will place the "XXX" identifier in your replies, such that any and
> all MX traffic is hereby sent to yonder circular file.
>
Nope, you missed number 1. No responses to MX, and no XXX will be needed.

The only way this will work, is if all communication on this subject stops.
Including posts like this.
--
Jim in NC

On 3 Mar 2007 20:49:29 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
. com>:

>1. I will not respond to [trolls].

>2. I will not lambaste [trolls] on these newsgroups.

>3. I will not vandalize [a troll's] website.

4. I will not whine about the whiners or trolls,
unless you count this as a whine, in which case
it is done now. ;o)

5. I will killfile trolls silently and concentrate
on the many good posts and posters in the group.

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

>Okay, folks, enough is enough. We've got good, long-term, high
>quality pilots seriously discussing vandalizing someone's website,
>because of said someone's troll-dom.
>
>In the past, I have defended said troll, and lambasted said vandals,
>but have now come to realize that this troll is obviously so divisive
>and upsetting to some that this issue risks tearing apart the very
>fabric of rec.aviation.
>
>I personally find this amazing (he truly doesn't bother me that much)
>but, in the interest of keeping this newsgroup intact and (relatively)
>harmonious, I hereby publically make the following pledges, and urge
>others to join me here:
>
>1. I will not respond to MX's posts.
>2. I will not lambaste MX on these newsgroups.
>3. I will not vandalize MX's website.
>
>All in favor, say "aye"...


Has anyone thought about using a program that looks a certain
individuals name and immediatly issues a usenet message cancel based
upon said users name and the newly posted subject?

http://home.att.net/~marjie1/Cancels.htm

Mike Alexander
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
See my online aerial photo album at
http://flying.4alexanders.com

>Okay, folks, enough is enough. We've got good, long-term, high
>quality pilots seriously discussing vandalizing someone's website,
>because of said someone's troll-dom.
>
>In the past, I have defended said troll, and lambasted said vandals,
>but have now come to realize that this troll is obviously so divisive
>and upsetting to some that this issue risks tearing apart the very
>fabric of rec.aviation.
>
>I personally find this amazing (he truly doesn't bother me that much)
>but, in the interest of keeping this newsgroup intact and (relatively)
>harmonious, I hereby publically make the following pledges, and urge
>others to join me here:
>
>1. I will not respond to MX's posts.
>2. I will not lambaste MX on these newsgroups.
>3. I will not vandalize MX's website.
>
>All in favor, say "aye"...


Has anyone thought about using a program that looks a certain
individuals name and immediatly issues a usenet message cancel based
upon said users name and the newly posted subject?

http://home.att.net/~marjie1/Cancels.htm

Mike Alexander
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
See my online aerial photo album at
http://flying.4alexanders.com

"Mike 'Flyin'8'" > wrote

> Has anyone thought about using a program that looks a certain
> individuals name and immediatly issues a usenet message cancel based
> upon said users name and the newly posted subject?
>
> http://home.att.net/~marjie1/Cancels.htm

Lordy, I didn't know such an animal existed!

What do we need to do to get this thing going. Will someone take
responsibility to get this working for us? Does it really work, or is it a
scam?

Marty, you know about this stuff, don't you? Do you know about it Mike? I
can't remember, but I seem to recall that you might be part of the big 8, or
something. I'm not doubting you, but can you tell us if it is legitimate?

If someone will do it, (if it can be done) and it takes money to get it, I
presume we can get enough people to chip in to do it. I know I will.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
> Nope, you missed number 1. No responses to MX, and no XXX will be needed.

_I_ won't respond to him, doesn't mean the rest of you lot will follow
the same rules. In such case, identify, if you please. :)

TheSmokingGnu

I am not part of the big 8... but it certainly does work. Or, at least
used to work. I have only tried it on my own posts, so I am not sure
about thrid party cancels... I see no reason it shouldn't work.

To try it manually, all you gotta do is change your name to the said
individuals name and issue a cancel with the same subject as the
offending post. It is trivial really. I am not an expert by any
means, but this could likely be accomplished with Agent and simple
script using AutoHotkey.

For an automatic program, you just need a reasonably decent VB
programmer with some free time... Again, this is almost a trivial task
as well... Just have it log into a news server every 30 minutes and
search for new posts by said individual and if exists, then retrieve
the subject and generate a new cancel msg and send it out. There you
have it... An automated troll buster.

I would imagine it is likely considered an abuse of policy of some
type to cancel someone elses usenet post, but I would be willing to
bet that someone would be willing to take that risk given the
responses I have seen to said individual..

I just wanted to put the question as to why I had not seen it
mentioned when I can not see a reason it could not be done.

>
>Lordy, I didn't know such an animal existed!
>
>What do we need to do to get this thing going. Will someone take
>responsibility to get this working for us? Does it really work, or is it a
>scam?
>
>Marty, you know about this stuff, don't you? Do you know about it Mike? I
>can't remember, but I seem to recall that you might be part of the big 8, or
>something. I'm not doubting you, but can you tell us if it is legitimate?
>
>If someone will do it, (if it can be done) and it takes money to get it, I
>presume we can get enough people to chip in to do it. I know I will.


Mike Alexander
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
See my online aerial photo album at
http://flying.4alexanders.com

Jay Honeck wrote:
> All in favor, say "aye"...
> --

Yeah, but his latest post is seeking info on freakin' 747
autothrottles. You know the answer; I know the answer.
Don't we just gots to help? :-)

F--

"TheSmokingGnu" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans wrote:
>> Nope, you missed number 1. No responses to MX, and no XXX will be
>> needed.
>
> _I_ won't respond to him, doesn't mean the rest of you lot will follow the
> same rules. In such case, identify, if you please. :)

It won't work, under those conditions. It has to be total, from everyone.

What you are saying is like saying I quit smoking cigarettes, but it is ok
if I still smoke cigars.

The oath is for those who will quit posting, not for those that are going to
continue.

Hopefully, everyone will take it.
--
Jim in NC

"Mike 'Flyin'8'" > wrote

> To try it manually, all you gotta do is change your name to the said
> individuals name and issue a cancel with the same subject as the
> offending post. It is trivial really. I am not an expert by any
> means, but this could likely be accomplished with Agent and simple
> script using AutoHotkey.
>
> For an automatic program, you just need a reasonably decent VB
> programmer with some free time... Again, this is almost a trivial task
> as well... Just have it log into a news server every 30 minutes and
> search for new posts by said individual and if exists, then retrieve
> the subject and generate a new cancel msg and send it out. There you
> have it... An automated troll buster.

Any volunteers to take on this project? It's above my head, for sure.
--
Jim in NC

"Mike 'Flyin'8'" > wrote in message
...
>
> Has anyone thought about using a program that looks a certain
> individuals name and immediatly issues a usenet message cancel based
> upon said users name and the newly posted subject?

As a form of censorship, it would be quite effective if it worked. I
wondered briefly about the cancel-bot messages that've been popping up more
and more frequently.

I vote a resounding "No!" to any form of censorship, especially removing
others's posts from a public forum. Taken to it's logical conclusion, after
removing all messages that any one of us finds offensive will leave us with
exactly nothing left. We'll end up huddled in our darkened homes, talking
only to ourselves. I can already do that without destroying a communication
infrastructure.

Retroactive tagging on subject lines already goes too far as it is, IMO. I
hesitate to say anything at all, simply because it is still your right to
express your opinion in what you post. This is different from defacing or
removing what someone else writes. Just the same, it still reeks of our
impending death as a society. God help us all.

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 22:19:51 -0800, Mike 'Flyin'8' wrote:

>I am not part of the big 8... but it certainly does work. Or, at least
>used to work. I have only tried it on my own posts, so I am not sure
>about thrid party cancels... I see no reason it shouldn't work.

read http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/cancel-faq/part1/
and you need newsservers honoring your cancel messages ...

your best way is ignoring/filtering on your (client) side.

#m
--
I am not a terrorist. <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> 1. I will not respond to MX's posts.
> 2. I will not lambaste MX on these newsgroups.
> 3. I will not vandalize MX's website.
>
> All in favor, say "aye"...

aye

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

That's tougher than giving up smoking, but it's worth a try..



On Mar 3, 11:56 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
> > 1. I will not respond to MX's posts.
> > 2. I will not lambaste MX on these newsgroups.
> > 3. I will not vandalize MX's website.
>
> > All in favor, say "aye"...
>
> Aye
>
> One question, though. What is the punishment for breaking the pledge?
>
> Thirty lashes with a wet noodle? No beer at the OSH party? <g>
> --
> Jim in NC

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 21:40:30 -0800, Mike 'Flyin'8'
> wrote in
>:

>Has anyone thought about using a program that looks a certain
>individuals name and immediatly issues a usenet message cancel based
>upon said users name and the newly posted subject?

So you're implying that you'd like to give the troll the power to
drive you to fraudulent behavior in a worldwide forum? :-(

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 01:00:39 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote in >:

>What do we need to do to get this thing going. Will someone take
>responsibility to get this working for us?


GROW UP. Take responsibility for your own Usenet experience, and
learn a little restraint. No one is forcing you to read his words,
and no one is making you respond to them. Only you have the power to
take control of your Usenet experience, and you need to personally
take responsibility for it instead of blaming others.

Usenet is the only egalitarian forum of which I'm aware. That's what
makes it so unique, and special: EVERYONE has the same right to
access. Attempting to change that by committing fraud says more about
your morals than you'd probably really care to reveal publicly.

Take a few deep breaths, and realize you have only two legitimate
choices on Usenet: whether to read an article or not, and whether to
post an article or not. That's it. Nothing more.

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 22:19:51 -0800, Mike 'Flyin'8'
> wrote in
>:

>I have only tried it on my own posts, so I am not sure
>about thrid party cancels... I see no reason it shouldn't work.

To suggest fraudulently canceling message is irresponsible, and
contrary to EVERY Usenet providers Use Agreement. It will, or should,
get your Usenet account terminated.

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Okay, folks, enough is enough. We've got good, long-term, high
> quality pilots seriously discussing vandalizing someone's website,
> because of said someone's troll-dom.
>
> In the past, I have defended said troll, and lambasted said vandals,
> but have now come to realize that this troll is obviously so divisive
> and upsetting to some that this issue risks tearing apart the very
> fabric of rec.aviation.
>
> I personally find this amazing (he truly doesn't bother me that much)
> but, in the interest of keeping this newsgroup intact and (relatively)
> harmonious, I hereby publically make the following pledges, and urge
> others to join me here:
>
> 1. I will not respond to MX's posts.
> 2. I will not lambaste MX on these newsgroups.
> 3. I will not vandalize MX's website.
>
> All in favor, say "aye"...

Absolutely. Then again, I began this several months ago when a plonked
him. I now only am bothered by all of the replies to his posts ... and
that is bad enough.

Matt

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 01:52:36 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote in >:

>It's above my head, for sure.

Thankfully.

It seems many things concerning Usenet are over your head. Do a
little research to educate yourself, and learn some self-restraint
instead of empowering the troll to drive you to publicly committing
fraudulent acts.

Perhaps you've failed to study the appropriate Netiquette:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855

3.1.3 NetNews Guidelines

NetNews is a globally distributed system which allows people to
communicate on topics of specific interest. It is divided into
hierarchies, with the major divisions being: sci - science related
discussions; comp - computer related discussions; news - for
discussions which center around NetNews itself; rec - recreational
activities; soc - social issues; talk - long-winded never-ending
discussions; biz - business related postings; and alt - the
alternate hierarchy. Alt is so named because creating an alt group
does not go through the same process as creating a group in the
other parts of the hierarchy. There are also regional hierarchies,
hierarchies which are widely distributed such as Bionet, and your
place of business may have its own groups as well. Recently, a
"humanities" hierarchy was added, and as time goes on its likely
more will be added. For longer discussions on News see references
[2,8,22,23] in the Selected Bibliography.

- In NetNews parlance, "Posting" refers to posting a new article
to a group, or responding to a post someone else has posted.
"Cross-Posting" refers to posting a message to more than one
group. If you introduce Cross-Posting to a group, or if you
direct "Followup-To:" in the header of your posting, warn
readers! Readers will usually assume that the message was
posted to a specific group and that followups will go to
that group. Headers change this behavior.

- Read all of a discussion in progress (we call this a thread)
before posting replies. Avoid posting "Me Too" messages,
where content is limited to agreement with previous posts.
Content of a follow-up post should exceed quoted content.

- Send mail when an answer to a question is for one person only.
Remember that News has global distribution and the whole world
probably is NOT interested in a personal response. However,
don't hesitate to post when something will be of general
interest to the Newsgroup participants.

- Check the "Distribution" section of the header, but don't
depend on it. Due to the complex method by which News is
delivered, Distribution headers are unreliable. But, if you
are posting something which will be of interest to a limited
number or readers, use a distribution line that attempts to
limit the distribution of your article to those people. For
example, set the Distribution to be "nj" if you are posting
an article that will be of interest only to New Jersey readers.





Hambridge Informational [Page
11]

RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines October
1995


- If you feel an article will be of interest to more than one
Newsgroup, be sure to CROSSPOST the article rather than
individually post it to those groups. In general, probably only
five-to-six groups will have similar enough interests to warrant
this.

- Consider using Reference sources (Computer Manuals, Newspapers,
help files) before posting a question. Asking a Newsgroup where
answers are readily available elsewhere generates grumpy "RTFM"
(read the fine manual - although a more vulgar meaning of the
word beginning with "f" is usually implied) messages.

- Although there are Newsgroups which welcome advertising,
in general it is considered nothing less than criminal
to advertise off-topic products. Sending an advertisement
to each and every group will pretty much guarantee your loss of
connectivity.

- If you discover an error in your post, cancel it as soon as
possible.

- DO NOT attempt to cancel any articles but your own. Contact
your administrator if you don't know how to cancel your post,
or if some other post, such as a chain letter, needs canceling.

- If you've posted something and don't see it immediately,
don't assume it's failed and re-post it.

- Some groups permit (and some welcome) posts which in other
circumstances would be considered to be in questionable taste.
Still, there is no guarantee that all people reading the group
will appreciate the material as much as you do. Use the Rotate
utility (which rotates all the characters in your post by 13
positions in the alphabet) to avoid giving offense. The
Rot13 utility for Unix is an example.

- In groups which discuss movies or books it is considered
essential to mark posts which disclose significant content as
"Spoilers". Put this word in your Subject: line. You may add
blank lines to the beginning of your post to keep content out of
sight, or you may Rotate it.

- Forging of news articles is generally censured. You can protect
yourself from forgeries by using software which generates a
manipulation detection "fingerprint", such as PGP (in the US).

- Postings via anonymous servers are accepted in some Newsgroups
and disliked in others. Material which is inappropriate when
posted under one's own name is still inappropriate when posted
anonymously.

- Expect a slight delay in seeing your post when posting to a
moderated group. The moderator may change your subject
line to have your post conform to a particular thread.

- Don't get involved in flame wars. Neither post nor respond
to incendiary material.

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

> Okay, folks, enough is enough. We've got good, long-term, high
> quality pilots seriously discussing vandalizing someone's website,
> because of said someone's troll-dom.
>
> In the past, I have defended said troll, and lambasted said vandals,
> but have now come to realize that this troll is obviously so divisive
> and upsetting to some that this issue risks tearing apart the very
> fabric of rec.aviation.
>
> I personally find this amazing (he truly doesn't bother me that much)
> but, in the interest of keeping this newsgroup intact and (relatively)
> harmonious, I hereby publically make the following pledges, and urge
> others to join me here:
>
> 1. I will not respond to MX's posts.
> 2. I will not lambaste MX on these newsgroups.
> 3. I will not vandalize MX's website.
>
> All in favor, say "aye"...
>
I think that more practical suggestions have already been made. For
example, one recent suggestion was to answer legitimate questions and
correct inaccurate information regardless of the originator, and avoid
arguing with those that just want to disrupt. Much easier, more civil,
covers more than just mx's posts and keeps the traffic on topic.

Neil

"Neil Gould" > wrote

> I think that more practical suggestions have already been made. For
> example, one recent suggestion was to answer legitimate questions and
> correct inaccurate information regardless of the originator, and avoid
> arguing with those that just want to disrupt. Much easier, more civil,
> covers more than just mx's posts and keeps the traffic on topic.

Could you go along with this proposal, if it is the wishes of the majority
of the group?
--
Jim in NC

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 07:03:27 GMT, "Mike Young"
> wrote in
>:

>Taken to it's logical conclusion, after
>removing all messages that any one of us finds offensive will leave us with
>exactly nothing left.

At last a Netizen who's reason triumphs over his emotions. Thank you
for lighting the lamp for these newbies who would destroy Usenet.

"Morgans" wrote:

> One question, though. What is the punishment for breaking the pledge?
>



Defaulters are sentenced to 30 days in alt.disasters.aviation.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

> I just don't want to see this group reduced to flame wars, like I've
> seen in other groups.

All we have to do is not engage in flame wars. It's quite simple.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote

> All we have to do is not engage in flame wars. It's quite simple.

Would you go along with it, if it looks like the majority of the group
wishes it?
--
Jim in NC

> Take a few deep breaths, and realize you have only two legitimate
> choices on Usenet: whether to read an article or not, and whether to
> post an article or not. That's it. Nothing more.

Well put, Larry. For once, we are in total agreement.

I don't want to be part of any active measures against any particular
poster. All I have suggested is that I shall not respond to The Troll
anymore -- and if we all take that "Pledge", things might settle down
around here.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> I think that more practical suggestions have already been made. For
> example, one recent suggestion was to answer legitimate questions and
> correct inaccurate information regardless of the originator, and avoid
> arguing with those that just want to disrupt. Much easier, more civil,
> covers more than just mx's posts and keeps the traffic on topic.

I am personally in favor of your suggestion, Neil, but I am apparently
in the minority.

Therefore, before we lose any more quality members, I am suggesting
taking "The Pledge" simply as a way of maintaining some group
cohesion.

I tried answering MX's legitimate questions, and watched in horror as
the group descended into flames. I think it's better, at this point,
to simply ignore his threads, and see where this goes.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay,

At this point after everything thats gone, I will also take the pledge and I
already put the character in a kill file that is working very well so far in
4 Usenet groups.

So;

> 1. I will not respond to MX's posts.
> 2. I will not lambaste MX on these newsgroups.
> 3. I will not vandalize MX's website.
>
> All in favor, say "aye"...

Ayeeeeeee

Not4wood




"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> I think that more practical suggestions have already been made. For
>> example, one recent suggestion was to answer legitimate questions and
>> correct inaccurate information regardless of the originator, and avoid
>> arguing with those that just want to disrupt. Much easier, more civil,
>> covers more than just mx's posts and keeps the traffic on topic.
>
> I am personally in favor of your suggestion, Neil, but I am apparently
> in the minority.
>
> Therefore, before we lose any more quality members, I am suggesting
> taking "The Pledge" simply as a way of maintaining some group
> cohesion.
>
> I tried answering MX's legitimate questions, and watched in horror as
> the group descended into flames. I think it's better, at this point,
> to simply ignore his threads, and see where this goes.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

Jay,

At this time I would like to ask you if you could post this in the other
Aviation Newsgroups as well including the Flight Sim Newsgroup.

They are having a hard time from the same character as well.

Thank you in advance.

Mark G
Not4wood


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Okay, folks, enough is enough. We've got good, long-term, high
> quality pilots seriously discussing vandalizing someone's website,
> because of said someone's troll-dom.
>
> In the past, I have defended said troll, and lambasted said vandals,
> but have now come to realize that this troll is obviously so divisive
> and upsetting to some that this issue risks tearing apart the very
> fabric of rec.aviation.
>
> I personally find this amazing (he truly doesn't bother me that much)
> but, in the interest of keeping this newsgroup intact and (relatively)
> harmonious, I hereby publically make the following pledges, and urge
> others to join me here:
>
> 1. I will not respond to MX's posts.
> 2. I will not lambaste MX on these newsgroups.
> 3. I will not vandalize MX's website.
>
> All in favor, say "aye"...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 07:33:37 -0600, "Neil Gould"
> wrote in
>:

>I think that more practical suggestions have already been made. For
>example, one recent suggestion was to answer legitimate questions and
>correct inaccurate information regardless of the originator, and avoid
>arguing with those that just want to disrupt. Much easier, more civil,
>covers more than just mx's posts and keeps the traffic on topic.

Thank you for that enlightened voice of reason. It is truly a breath
of fresh air in a sea of yammering, emotional, fools.

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 07:37:41 -0600, "Dan Luke"
> wrote in
>:

>
>Defaulters are sentenced to 30 days in alt.disasters.aviation.


Cruel and unusual. :-)

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 13:41:44 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>
>All we have to do is not engage in flame wars. It's quite simple.

It's only simple for non-creations. :-)

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Okay, folks, enough is enough. We've got good, long-term, high
> quality pilots seriously discussing vandalizing someone's website,
> because of said someone's troll-dom.
> ... I hereby publically make the following pledges, and urge
> others to join me here:
>
> 1. I will not respond to MX's posts.
> 2. I will not lambaste MX on these newsgroups.
> 3. I will not vandalize MX's website.
>
> All in favor, say "aye"...
>
Your heart is in the right place. But engaging in "loyalty oaths" of
sorts sends a chill up my spine. Among the great things I find in the
aviation community is the strong personal liberty/libertarian bent of
the participants. This speaks to a strong cultural identity of US
citizens in particular but I'm sure other net denizens as well.

The USENET is a strong pure form of democracy and open discourse. It has
been this way for the 20+ years I've been reading, involved with and
enjoying it. People should behave a certain way because it is the
appropriate way to behave not because they have sworn allegiance to a
group. This includes posters and responders to posters.

It is the height of arrogance for me to suggest a certain way to behave
or look or dress or act or anything else. We have individual rights,
choices and responsibilities. I've made my choice on the person in
question's behavior. While it is frustrating to watch these train wrecks
in this and other forums, it is equally frustrating to walk down the
street and find some unfortunate person haranguing the sky or some
unseen enemy. Shake your head, walk on, but make a difference where you
can, when you can. But most of all pray for the wisdom to know the
difference.

Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too.
~Voltaire

Voltaire, ironically, a Frenchman. :-)

KC

On 4 Mar 2007 05:45:32 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in om>:

>
>> Take a few deep breaths, and realize you have only two legitimate
>> choices on Usenet: whether to read an article or not, and whether to
>> post an article or not. That's it. Nothing more.
>
>Well put, Larry. For once, we are in total agreement.

That's because it's difficult to refute the truth.

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 14:08:48 GMT, Kevin Clarke >
wrote in et>:

>People should behave a certain way because it is the
>appropriate way to behave not because they have sworn allegiance to a
>group. This includes posters and responders to posters.


Absolutely.

Unfortunately, some people are incapable of thinking, and need someone
to lead them. That's what empowers shamans to make them drink arsenic
laced KoolAid, and copulate with their children. The human race is
still evolving. We must be patient.

There is no expedient to which a man will not resort
to avoid the real labor of thinking.
-- Sir Joshua Reynolds

>>All we have to do is not engage in flame wars. It's quite simple.
>
> Would you go along with it, if it looks like the majority of the group
> wishes it?

I will not engage in flame wars. I don't think I have ever done so
(though I suppose that's a matter of opinion :)

I will however =not= let the mob however make my decisions for me.
Likewise, I will not make decisions for the mob. The tools for ignoring
are easy to use, and there's no reason to make noise about using them.
If everyone just silently ignored what they didn't want to read, there
would be no problem. Not to say there would be no trolls, just that the
trolls wouldn't be a problem.

So no, I won't join the mob.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In a previous article, Mike 'Flyin'8' > said:
>Has anyone thought about using a program that looks a certain
>individuals name and immediatly issues a usenet message cancel based
>upon said users name and the newly posted subject?
>
>http://home.att.net/~marjie1/Cancels.htm

I've been a Usenet news administrator since before Geoff Peck championed
the split of rec.aviation, and I have a couple of things to say:

- Any decent Usenet administrator who finds people doing content based
third party cancels on his system will remove the person doing the
content based cancels. Censorship will not be tolerated on a system I
run.
- Because so few news sites are run by decent Usenet administrators,
however, and because people like you are ****ing idiots and have abused
the cancel system, many major sites ignore all cancels, so you can't
even cancel your own messages off those sites, never mind legitimate
spam cancelling. If your newsgroups are drowning in spam, you have only
the idiots who think they can cancel people they disagree with to blame.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"The Internet is so big, so powerful and pointless that for some people it
is a complete substitute for life." --Andrew Brown

"Jose" > wrote

> I will not engage in flame wars. I don't think I have ever done so
> (though I suppose that's a matter of opinion :)
>
> I will however =not= let the mob however make my decisions for me.
> Likewise, I will not make decisions for the mob. The tools for ignoring
> are easy to use, and there's no reason to make noise about using them. If
> everyone just silently ignored what they didn't want to read, there would
> be no problem. Not to say there would be no trolls, just that the trolls
> wouldn't be a problem.
>
> So no, I won't join the mob.

Figures.

Note: Jose- not a team player.

> Likewise, I will not make decisions for the mob. The tools for ignoring
> are easy to use, and there's no reason to make noise about using them.
> If everyone just silently ignored what they didn't want to read, there
> would be no problem. Not to say there would be no trolls, just that the
> trolls wouldn't be a problem.
>
> So no, I won't join the mob.

So, in other words, you will join the mob -- you just won't announce
it.

Better yet!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 08:44:14 -0500, Morgans wrote:

>> All we have to do is not engage in flame wars. It's quite simple.
>
>Would you go along with it, if it looks like the majority of the group
>wishes it?

You'll never know the majority of this or any other open group. You only
see the regulars, that's all. And be aware that the group can be "hijacked"
any time by a bunch of MX-like people.

#m
--
I am not a terrorist. <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

"Larry Dighera" wrote:

> Unfortunately, some people are incapable of thinking, and need someone
> to lead them. That's what empowers shamans to make them drink arsenic
> laced KoolAid, and copulate with their children.

Not to mention fly airplanes into buildings [aviation content!].

> The human race is still evolving. We must be patient.

Sorry, I don't have another 100,000 years to wait around. I reserve the right
to be impatient.

> There is no expedient to which a man will not resort
> to avoid the real labor of thinking.
> -- Sir Joshua Reynolds

Indeed. That is why we have priests and politicians, the twin curses of the
human race.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

>>>>> "JH" == Jay Honeck > writes:
JH> I personally find this amazing (he truly doesn't bother me
JH> that much)

A rare occasion when I agree with Jay. What's the big deal with this
mxsmanic guy? I have to conclude that it's the newsreader people use;
if you don't use any filtering the guy's post and followups are in
your face as much as the occasional post related to piloting an
airplane.

But I would take Jay's pledge a lot more seriously if it included a
sacrifice on his part...like not posting his own off-topic **** here.
At least mxsmanic's posts are related to aviation. Too often Jay's
posts have nothing whatsover to do with aviation, or piloting, and
exhibit an offensive bigotry towards some group he doesn't like.
These posts then start long followups, for and against, which is what
I think Jay really likes--"look what I did! I generated the longest
reply chain this month!"

So Jay's pledge is meaningless. The real antidote to mxsmanic, Jay's
racial rants, and like kind? Do some flying and post your stories.
Mine is to follow.

--
When Armageddon comes, it would be good to be an Olympic athlete,
because running real fast and jumping over stuff could come in
handy.
- Jack Handey

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 09:40:54 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote in >:

>
>> So no, I won't join the mob.
>
>Figures.
>
>Note: Jose- not a team player.


Jose is capable of independent thought.

If the herd want's to jump off the cliff, he has the good sense to go
his own way.

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 09:29:42 -0600, "Dan Luke"
> wrote in
>:

>
>> The human race is still evolving. We must be patient.
>
>Sorry, I don't have another 100,000 years to wait around. I reserve the right
>to be impatient.

I should have put a :-) after that statement.

When you evolve a little further, you'll see that impatience only
works against you. :-)

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 01:00:39 -0500, "Morgans" > wrote in >:

>> http://home.att.net/~marjie1/Cancels.htm

>Lordy, I didn't know such an animal existed!

> ... Marty, you know about this stuff, don't you?

Sort of.

I'm on the "Big-8 Management Board," which is
responsible for managing the canonical lists
of the eight hierarchies (see my signature).

"Cancel wars" have been going on ever since
cancels were invented--long before my time.

Tim Skirvin, chair of the b8mb, uses PGP Moose
to cancel phony posts to the group he moderates
and to recreate posts that have been cancelled
by others. So, in a sense, I can't say that
cancelling messages is intrinsically evil.

Cancelbots are running all the time to try to
limit spam. They aren't as effective as Clean
Feed, which is a set of anti-spam measures taken
at the server level (I think).

I am personally opposed to trying to cancel
posts on the basis of hating a troll. Whatever
tool you use to make the troll's life miserable
can be used against you.

I heartily endorse killfiles, pledges, positive
posting, and patience. Reward those whose posts
you enjoy by replying to them early and often.
Ignore those whose posts you don't enjoy.

I'm speaking just for myself in this post, not
for the board. I've been reading r.a.p since
the spring of 1996. I didn't join the board
until fall of 2005. I like this group a lot
and I hope people can learn to filter out
what they don't like and enjoy what they do
like.

Marty

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

On Mar 4, 9:40 am, "Morgans" > wrote:

> Figures.
>
> Note: Jose- not a team player.

Jawohl, mein furher!!

> So Jay's pledge is meaningless. The real antidote to mxsmanic, Jay's
> racial rants, and like kind? Do some flying and post your stories.

"Jay's racial rants"? More tripe from "Bob"....

:-(

It's people like "Bob" here that make MX look positively pleasant.
Everything in "Bob's" world is negative, everyone is out to get him,
and anyone who disagrees with "him" must be stupid. Worse, dissenters
must be "corrected", preferably in the most unpleasant way.

Resorting to slurs is the norm in "Bob's" world. There is no room for
counterpoint in "Bob's" world.

I would gladly take TEN Mxsmanic's to one "Bob". If personally
slanderous posts like this one from "Bob" could be eliminated, Usenet
would be a better place, and far more aviation content would be
presented here.

Sadly, my response will only give "him" the opportunity to produce
another vindictive, monotonal, off-kilter whine about all the "idiots"
who disagree with "him". But that, after all, is what makes people
like "Bob" -- and MX -- tick.

Have at it, "Bob". I can hardly wait.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

What about when MX is right and some "real" pilot is wrong?

mike

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> 1. I will not respond to MX's posts.

No Larry... Do not read any desire into my post. Frankly the guys
posts do not bug me in the least. The constant barage of anti said
person posts bug me a whole lot more than the original posts. From
what I have seen his original posts are all on topic and most do raise
good questions. The immediate posts of "blah blah only flies sims and
never flown a real plane" in response are the ones which fuel the
problem.


>On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 21:40:30 -0800, Mike 'Flyin'8'
> wrote in
>:
>
>>Has anyone thought about using a program that looks a certain
>>individuals name and immediatly issues a usenet message cancel based
>>upon said users name and the newly posted subject?
>
>So you're implying that you'd like to give the troll the power to
>drive you to fraudulent behavior in a worldwide forum? :-(


Mike Alexander
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
See my online aerial photo album at
http://flying.4alexanders.com

Jay Honeck wrote:


> I personally find this amazing (he truly doesn't bother me that much)
> but, in the interest of keeping this newsgroup intact and (relatively)
> harmonious, I hereby publically make the following pledges, and urge
> others to join me here:
>
> 1. I will not respond to MX's posts.
> 2. I will not lambaste MX on these newsgroups.
> 3. I will not vandalize MX's website.
>
> All in favor, say "aye"...
> --
> Jay Honeck


Aye.

The problem with your pledge drive is that some naive or altruistic
individual will always provide an answer, and therefore validate his
existence.

However, I agree to try, although insults and sarcastic comments at least
provide a measure of self satisfaction that are absent when he is just
ignored. Besides, his posts dominate the group, and are nearly impossible to
ignore anyway.

Perhaps on my next trip to France I should make a point of looking him up,
so we could have a personal chat.

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 12:32:53 -0500, mike regish wrote:

> What about when MX is right and some "real" pilot is wrong?

The fabric of the universe will unravel.

--
Dallas

Larry Dighera wrote:
> Jose is capable of independent thought.
>
> If the herd want's to jump off the cliff, he has the good sense to go
> his own way.


Restated, if the herd veers away from the cliff, he may still choose to steam
full speed ahead.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

> Restated, if the herd veers away from the cliff, he may still choose to steam
> full speed ahead.

.... and invent aviation.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On 3/3/2007 11:49:29 PM, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

> All in favor, say "aye"...

Welcome to the other side. I have been doing this, sans pledge, for several
months now and see no reason to ever deviate from the promised path.

aye-choo.

--
Peter

On 3/4/2007 12:40:27 AM, Mike 'Flyin'8' wrote:

> immediatly issues a usenet message cancel based
> upon said users name and the newly posted subject?

Cancels no longer are honored by many Usenet hosts so it would be an exercise
in futility.

--
Peter

On Mar 3, 11:49 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> Okay, folks, enough is enough. We've got good, long-term, high
> quality pilots seriously discussing vandalizing someone's website,
> because of said someone's troll-dom.
>
> In the past, I have defended said troll, and lambasted said vandals,
> but have now come to realize that this troll is obviously so divisive
> and upsetting to some that this issue risks tearing apart the very
> fabric of rec.aviation.
>
> I personally find this amazing (he truly doesn't bother me that much)
> but, in the interest of keeping this newsgroup intact and (relatively)
> harmonious, I hereby publically make the following pledges, and urge
> others to join me here:
>
> 1. I will not respond to MX's posts.
> 2. I will not lambaste MX on these newsgroups.
> 3. I will not vandalize MX's website.
>
> All in favor, say "aye"...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"


>From my observation, there has been more posts _about_ MX by other
people than his posts. His questions are about aviation, albeit
irritating, but others' posts about him have little to do with
aviation (ie lets vandalize his website; lets get even, etc..).

Honestly, I am a bit surprised by the negative reaction from others,.
It seems to be that some pilots find his questions which are
uncharacteristic of a nonpilot to be threatening. There have been
cases when he was right and the responding pilots were wrong, yet he
got lambasted for asking such simple questions and arguing with the
responders.

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:47:41 -0500, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
<mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
>:

>
>Restated, if the herd veers away from the cliff, he may still choose to steam
>full speed ahead.

I'm aware you have a particular antipathy toward Anthony.

Personally, I also find discussion with him unsatisfactory. He lacks
empathy and respect for others, is too rigidly unwilling to accept
advice, and his superiority complex makes it unrewarding to debate
with him, because he refuses to cite independent authoritative sources
that support his views, and refuses to read the citations provided for
him. (To be fair, he is intelligent, knowledgeable about things other
than aviation, and I have gained knowledge from some of the content he
has provided.)

Each of us is free to post and read or not. That is all. Nothing
more.

The beer drinking, OSH crony group among the newsgroup readership
deludes themselves, in their ignorance, by believing they can effect a
total and complete ostracization of Anthony by swearing an oath.

If Anthony received no more responses to his posts, he'd probably move
along to more fertile virtual venues. But because of the very
unregulated/self-regulated nature of Usenet, it is highly unlikely
that a complete cessation of responses to his articles is achievable
for the requisite period of time to effect such a move. Therefore, it
makes little difference what the readership of this newsgroup does.
It's all about what Anthony does, and he's an obsessive gamer, and
demon article composer. Given his stated mania, it's unlikely
anything can be done to reduce his silhouette in
rec.aviation.piloting. But like a lot of folks, he'll move on
eventually.

And Jose is sagacious enough to accurately perceive the dynamics of
the situation and act appropriately.

And hopefully others will figure it out, and grow a bit in maturity,
understanding, wisdom, and not grant Anthony the power to anger them
nor impact the rec.aviation.newsgroup any more than he has already. If
not, it is the emotionality and insistence in "doing something" that
poses the true threat to the newsgroup. Think about it.

It is the immaturity and bickering that truly motivates many
accomplished airmen to distance themselves from association with this
newsgroup. Unfortunately, Anthony is accomplished at precipitating
that behavior. Folks may wise-up to it eventually, but probably not
everyone.

That's life. It's an imperfect world; make the best of it.

There is no expedient to which a man will not resort
to avoid the real labor of thinking.
-- Sir Joshua Reynolds

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> The beer drinking, OSH crony group among the newsgroup readership
> deludes themselves, in their ignorance, by believing they can effect a
> total and complete ostracization of Anthony by swearing an oath.
>

Whoa, big fella. You're coming very close to giving beer drinking and/or
OSH a bad name.

It's already happened.

So, what does this unraveling look like?

mike
"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 12:32:53 -0500, mike regish wrote:
>
>> What about when MX is right and some "real" pilot is wrong?
>
> The fabric of the universe will unravel.
>
> --
> Dallas

Ummm..

Will 2 out of 3 do?

I still must reserve the right to respond to whom I wish..

Dave


On 3 Mar 2007 20:49:29 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>Okay, folks, enough is enough. We've got good, long-term, high
>quality pilots seriously discussing vandalizing someone's website,
>because of said someone's troll-dom.
>
>In the past, I have defended said troll, and lambasted said vandals,
>but have now come to realize that this troll is obviously so divisive
>and upsetting to some that this issue risks tearing apart the very
>fabric of rec.aviation.
>
>I personally find this amazing (he truly doesn't bother me that much)
>but, in the interest of keeping this newsgroup intact and (relatively)
>harmonious, I hereby publically make the following pledges, and urge
>others to join me here:
>
>1. I will not respond to MX's posts.
>2. I will not lambaste MX on these newsgroups.
>3. I will not vandalize MX's website.
>
>All in favor, say "aye"...

Me too... I said several months ago that I was done with Anthony and I
haven't missed him at all..

Pledge my ass... Silliest thing I ever heard...

Anthony seems to live rent-free in the head of several member's of this
distinguished group.... Pretty freakn' sad...

Peter R. wrote:

>
> Welcome to the other side. I have been doing this, sans pledge, for several
> months now and see no reason to ever deviate from the promised path.
>
> aye-choo.
>

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net
>
> He doesn't bother me a bit. I killfiled him long ago.

No kidding. I don't understand why more people don't take advantage of this.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

> > 1. I will not respond to MX's posts.
> > 2. I will not lambaste MX on these newsgroups.
> > 3. I will not vandalize MX's website.
> >
> > All in favor, say "aye"...
>
> 4. You will place the "XXX" identifier in your replies, such that any
> and all MX traffic is hereby sent to yonder circular file.
>
> TheSmokingGnu
Try very hard not to answer; but if you must, use the identifier.

Peter

> >> Nope, you missed number 1. No responses to MX, and no XXX will be
> >> needed.
> >
> > _I_ won't respond to him, doesn't mean the rest of you lot will follow
the
> > same rules. In such case, identify, if you please. :)
>
> It won't work, under those conditions. It has to be total, from everyone.
>
> What you are saying is like saying I quit smoking cigarettes, but it is ok
> if I still smoke cigars.
>
> The oath is for those who will quit posting, not for those that are going
to
> continue.
>
> Hopefully, everyone will take it.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>
In principle, I agree completely. In practice, however, I believe that the
use of the identifier will be most helpfull. As more and more people are
able to filter the troubling part of the conversations, they will diminish
and dissappear.

Try to think of it as a cyber version of Nicarette. (sp?)

Peter :-)

> > immediatly issues a usenet message cancel based
> > upon said users name and the newly posted subject?
>
> Cancels no longer are honored by many Usenet hosts so it would be an
exercise
> in futility.
>
> --
> Peter
Unfortunately that is very true, I have tried without success to cancel a
couple of incomplete messages after I pressed "send" without proof
reading...

Peter

> >I am not part of the big 8... but it certainly does work. Or, at least
> >used to work. I have only tried it on my own posts, so I am not sure
> >about thrid party cancels... I see no reason it shouldn't work.
>
> read http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/cancel-faq/part1/
> and you need newsservers honoring your cancel messages ...
>
> your best way is ignoring/filtering on your (client) side.
>
True. And if any poster cannot resist replying to someone who he regards as
a troll, PLEASE identify your response so that others can filter his
responses as well...

Peter

> >I have only tried it on my own posts, so I am not sure
> >about thrid party cancels... I see no reason it shouldn't work.
>
> To suggest fraudulently canceling message is irresponsible, and
> contrary to EVERY Usenet providers Use Agreement. It will, or should,
> get your Usenet account terminated.

This is possibly trivial, since there is some question whether any providers
still allow third party cancellations--except by the moderator of a
moderated group. My ISP does not appear to accept even first party
cancellations so I doubt they accept anything else.

Peter

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
:

> The problem with your pledge drive is that some naive or altruistic
> individual will always provide an answer, and therefore validate his
> existence.

I would tend to agree... No matter how many of the regulars seem to ignore
him, someone always chimes in. (sometimes even me)

> However, I agree to try, although insults and sarcastic comments at
> least provide a measure of self satisfaction that are absent when he is
> just ignored. Besides, his posts dominate the group, and are nearly
> impossible to ignore anyway.

I think the insults and sarcasm only fuel his fire. I'm not certain whether
it's the satisfaction of knowing that he has pushed someone's buttons and set
them off, or it's the challenge that it presents to him to convince the
insulter that he is right...

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Okay, folks, enough is enough. We've got good, long-term, high
> quality pilots seriously discussing vandalizing someone's website,
> because of said someone's troll-dom.
>
> In the past, I have defended said troll, and lambasted said vandals,
> but have now come to realize that this troll is obviously so divisive
> and upsetting to some that this issue risks tearing apart the very
> fabric of rec.aviation.
>
> I personally find this amazing (he truly doesn't bother me that much)
> but, in the interest of keeping this newsgroup intact and (relatively)
> harmonious, I hereby publically make the following pledges, and urge
> others to join me here:
>
> 1. I will not respond to MX's posts.
> 2. I will not lambaste MX on these newsgroups.
> 3. I will not vandalize MX's website.
>
> All in favor, say "aye"...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
I'm in.

On Mar 3, 10:49 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> Okay, folks, enough is enough. We've got good, long-term, high
> quality pilots seriously discussing vandalizing someone's website,
> because of said someone's troll-dom.
>
> In the past, I have defended said troll, and lambasted said vandals,
> but have now come to realize that this troll is obviously so divisive
> and upsetting to some that this issue risks tearing apart the very
> fabric of rec.aviation.
>
> I personally find this amazing (he truly doesn't bother me that much)
> but, in the interest of keeping this newsgroup intact and (relatively)
> harmonious, I hereby publically make the following pledges, and urge
> others to join me here:
>
> 1. I will not respond to MX's posts.
> 2. I will not lambaste MX on these newsgroups.
> 3. I will not vandalize MX's website.
>
> All in favor, say "aye"...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

I have no problem ignoring MX's posts - if I want to.

I have no problem ignoring the dozens whining about his posts - if I
want to.

I have no problem ignoring the dozens who think their approach is
better - if I want to.

I have no problem ignoring the 90% of the posts on this group that are
of no interest to me.

Before everyone starts thinking how all-fired important it is what
they think and what goes on here, it might be good to realize that
probably 700,000 + pilots in this country don't even know this group
exists and they get along just fine.

I only pledge to keep flying.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

> Try very hard not to answer; but if you must, use the identifier.

The identifier I'd like to see put into play is
MXB
It stands for "Mx bashing". If your post pertains to bashing (or not
bashing) Mx, the prepend would allow us to skip it. That's what the
real problem (IMEO) is.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> >Well put, Larry. For once, we are in total agreement.
>
> That's because it's difficult to refute the truth.

And, for once, you've stated it.

Twice, now, actually!

<ducking!>

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> It's already happened.
>
> So, what does this unraveling look like?

The Midwest in winter...

I'm glad to have someone to blame.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Anthony seems to live rent-free in the head of several member's of this
> distinguished group.... Pretty freakn' sad...

Agreed.

I'm more concerned about that aspect of MX then I am about his posts.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 2007-03-04, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> The beer drinking, OSH crony group among the newsgroup readership
> deludes themselves, in their ignorance, by believing they can effect a
> total and complete ostracization of Anthony by swearing an oath.

It worked for the "wide mouthed fish" problem around 2000 or so. That
particular troll was far more virulent, too. The majority of the group
sent him to coventry - and he didn't stay much longer.

It doesn't require total participation. Just a good enough majority that
hardly anyone responds.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On 2007-03-04, Morgans > wrote:
>
> Any volunteers to take on this project? It's above my head, for sure.

Don't even think of doing it. The ummm... "wide mouth fish" troll of
2000 did this, and quite rightly, caused a great deal of annoyance.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2007-03-04, Morgans > wrote:
>> Any volunteers to take on this project? It's above my head, for sure.
>
> Don't even think of doing it. The ummm... "wide mouth fish" troll of
> 2000 did this, and quite rightly, caused a great deal of annoyance.
>
I remember the bass wars but had not realized they had occurred that
long ago. Guess I've been following the group longer then I thought.

Get a life.
"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Okay, folks, enough is enough. We've got good, long-term, high
> quality pilots seriously discussing vandalizing someone's website,
> because of said someone's troll-dom.
>
> In the past, I have defended said troll, and lambasted said vandals,
> but have now come to realize that this troll is obviously so divisive
> and upsetting to some that this issue risks tearing apart the very
> fabric of rec.aviation.
>
> I personally find this amazing (he truly doesn't bother me that much)
> but, in the interest of keeping this newsgroup intact and (relatively)
> harmonious, I hereby publically make the following pledges, and urge
> others to join me here:
>
> 1. I will not respond to MX's posts.
> 2. I will not lambaste MX on these newsgroups.
> 3. I will not vandalize MX's website.
>
> All in favor, say "aye"...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

"Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> Before everyone starts thinking how all-fired important it is what
> they think and what goes on here, it might be good to realize that
> probably 700,000 + pilots in this country don't even know this group
> exists and they get along just fine.

FYI, there are a little less than 600K pilots in this country...

No one is going to commit suicide if this group goes away. Your post has a
condescending tone so I must ask why you participate in this group if you
think it is of such little importance.

Public forums are only as good as the participants' contributions. The
groups encompassing r.a.piloting, r.a.owning, r.a.student, and r.a.ifr are
some of the most active and appreciated groups in the system. It became that
way because the posters [in general] spend lots of time to craft thoughtful,
on-topic, and courteous posts that allow others to learn a little something
and keep everyone coming back. You've posted many quality, though-provoking
posts to these groups Gene, so you've helped create these groups as well. I
would think that time you spent has been of some value to you.

When a single poster creates such a disturbence (rightly or wrongly) that it
drives many--if not most--of the quality posters away, the folks who've
spent that time to make these groups what they are have a legitimate gripe.

Losing quality participants is equivalent to killing the group. The
different reactions we see from all these folks are just the different ways
that people fight for what is of value to them.

Marco

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 12:55:23 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote in
>:

>
>It doesn't require total participation. Just a good enough majority that
>hardly anyone responds.

Are you aware that Anthony now crossposts to rec.aviation.student.
You'll have to get them on board too.

"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
> Get a life.

Anyone who knows Jay either through this forum or has met him in person
knows that he has not only a life, but a pretty fulfilling one at that. If
there's anyone living the "American Dream," it's Jay.

Although I'm not sure if he's got a white picket fence around his house...

I guess you're one of those people that still think interaction using the
internet as a medium is not actually "real" but just imagined.

Marco

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Anthony seems to live rent-free in the head of several member's of this
>> distinguished group.... Pretty freakn' sad...
>
> Agreed.
>
> I'm more concerned about that aspect of MX then I am about his posts.

I also find it interesting how different people react to him. However, like
you, what concerns me is how he's driving good, quality participants away
from the rec.aviation groups. The quality of the posters define the group.
Without them, it's dead--simple as that. We've all worked hard to make this
forum what it is today and it will disappointing to see it go away.

Marco

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 01:05:43 GMT, Judah wrote:

> I think the insults and sarcasm only fuel his fire.

Anthony is one of those people that would rather live in infamy than
obscurity.

--
Dallas

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Okay, folks, enough is enough. We've got good, long-term, high
> quality pilots seriously discussing vandalizing someone's website,
> because of said someone's troll-dom.
>
> In the past, I have defended said troll, and lambasted said vandals,
> but have now come to realize that this troll is obviously so divisive
> and upsetting to some that this issue risks tearing apart the very
> fabric of rec.aviation.
>
> I personally find this amazing (he truly doesn't bother me that much)
> but, in the interest of keeping this newsgroup intact and (relatively)
> harmonious, I hereby publically make the following pledges, and urge
> others to join me here:
>
> 1. I will not respond to MX's posts.
> 2. I will not lambaste MX on these newsgroups.
> 3. I will not vandalize MX's website.
>
> All in favor, say "aye"...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
Hi Jay;

In the years I've been posting on the aviation newsgroups I've seen a
lot of people and situations come and go ( including myself on more than
one occasion :-)
I remember the first day I opened up a newsgroup. It was
Rec.aviation.military (RAM). The first thing I noticed was that the
entire group, and I mean almost the entire list of threads I was looking
at on the screen were between two characters; one with a persona Bertie
The Bunyip; the other apparently his arch Usenet rival named Ralphie.
These two were engaged in what I can only characterize as a TOTAL
dominance of the group with their posting back and forth to each other.
Reading down the multiple threads between these two was a Usenet
education in one swell swoop for anyone with a modicum of intelligence.
To me, (the Usenet intelligence factor up for grabs with my first
experience ongoing :-) the lesson was immediate. It took about five
seconds to ascertain that anything either of these two had to say wasn't
worth reading. Also, it immediately became apparent that opening posts
connected to what these two had going on was a waste of my time.
The solution was simple really, and what I did then still holds true for
today in these situations. I simply avoid them and move on to other
postings.
Hell, I don't even use filters! No need to. A simple look down the list
of any newsgroup reveals to me instantly what is potentially interesting
and what's simply a high noise level thread.
In fact, take this thread for example. When I first saw your initial
post yesterday, I invested a few seconds (by choice) to get the gist of
what was being said. Once I had it, I knew instinctively that what was
to follow would be the usual potpourri on this topic. No NEED to read
further with the answering posting since I already had a good read on
how anything connected with Mxmanic.
Now here's the interesting part of all this. Knowing that Mxmanic is
someone I personally won't deal with by CHOICE, I also have a CHOICE to
avoid threads involved with him. Notice it's all about CHOICE! That's
the key to dealing with a Usenet experience.
Nothing on Usenet is perfect and it never will be. The entire thing is
based on choice. Sure we have rules and net protocols, and most of us
try to follow the basic path on what's right and wrong, but in the end
analysis, when it comes to Usenet and handling the way an individual
uses a newsgroup, it all boils down to CHOICES.
As long as you have a newsgroup, you are going to have CHOICES! You're
unfortunately also going to have disruptive influences and a whole
plethora of ways people try to deal with these influences.
Hell, we're always going to have a Mxmanic around these groups. If it's
not this particular person, it will be another coming down the line
sooner or later.
Developing rock solid "rules" to handle these "situations" just ain't
gonna cut it as they say. The very nature of Usenet denies that everyone
be of a like mind. Opinions will always vary. While one poster will kill
file someone, another will not. While one poster will take a specific
position on something, the next will not. It goes on and on.
In the end, it's just Usenet. You come and take part or you don't. You
like it or you don't. The only way to change Usenet is by your own
individual behavior and the choices you personally make.
So for Mxmanic; my choice is to avoid him. I let those who wish to
engage him do so freely and without malice. After all, they have
opinions and choices too, and who am I to dictate to the world what the
world should or shouldn't do.
The solution to the Mxmanic issue is so simple it defies confusion. He's
here with us for as long as he posts here. You engage or avoid by simple
choice!
It's Usenet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Dudley

("Marco Leon" wrote)
> Although I'm not sure if he's got a white picket fence around his house...


It's brown, it's around his hotel ...and it keeps getting squished.

http://www.digitalmediafx.com/Features/TerryGilliam/Gilliam06.jpg


Montblack

Well said Dudley!

I remember "Bertie the Bunyip", THAT was a long time ago!

They come, they go...

And MX is not even trying!

(sigh)

Cheers!

Dave



On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 14:26:53 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Okay, folks, enough is enough. We've got good, long-term, high
>> quality pilots seriously discussing vandalizing someone's website,
>> because of said someone's troll-dom.
>>
>> In the past, I have defended said troll, and lambasted said vandals,
>> but have now come to realize that this troll is obviously so divisive
>> and upsetting to some that this issue risks tearing apart the very
>> fabric of rec.aviation.
>>
>> I personally find this amazing (he truly doesn't bother me that much)
>> but, in the interest of keeping this newsgroup intact and (relatively)
>> harmonious, I hereby publically make the following pledges, and urge
>> others to join me here:
>>
>> 1. I will not respond to MX's posts.
>> 2. I will not lambaste MX on these newsgroups.
>> 3. I will not vandalize MX's website.
>>
>> All in favor, say "aye"...
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993
>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>
>Hi Jay;
>
>In the years I've been posting on the aviation newsgroups I've seen a
>lot of people and situations come and go ( including myself on more than
>one occasion :-)
>I remember the first day I opened up a newsgroup. It was
>Rec.aviation.military (RAM). The first thing I noticed was that the
>entire group, and I mean almost the entire list of threads I was looking
>at on the screen were between two characters; one with a persona Bertie
>The Bunyip; the other apparently his arch Usenet rival named Ralphie.
>These two were engaged in what I can only characterize as a TOTAL
>dominance of the group with their posting back and forth to each other.
>Reading down the multiple threads between these two was a Usenet
>education in one swell swoop for anyone with a modicum of intelligence.
>To me, (the Usenet intelligence factor up for grabs with my first
>experience ongoing :-) the lesson was immediate. It took about five
>seconds to ascertain that anything either of these two had to say wasn't
>worth reading. Also, it immediately became apparent that opening posts
>connected to what these two had going on was a waste of my time.
>The solution was simple really, and what I did then still holds true for
>today in these situations. I simply avoid them and move on to other
>postings.
>Hell, I don't even use filters! No need to. A simple look down the list
>of any newsgroup reveals to me instantly what is potentially interesting
>and what's simply a high noise level thread.
>In fact, take this thread for example. When I first saw your initial
>post yesterday, I invested a few seconds (by choice) to get the gist of
>what was being said. Once I had it, I knew instinctively that what was
>to follow would be the usual potpourri on this topic. No NEED to read
>further with the answering posting since I already had a good read on
>how anything connected with Mxmanic.
>Now here's the interesting part of all this. Knowing that Mxmanic is
>someone I personally won't deal with by CHOICE, I also have a CHOICE to
>avoid threads involved with him. Notice it's all about CHOICE! That's
>the key to dealing with a Usenet experience.
>Nothing on Usenet is perfect and it never will be. The entire thing is
>based on choice. Sure we have rules and net protocols, and most of us
>try to follow the basic path on what's right and wrong, but in the end
>analysis, when it comes to Usenet and handling the way an individual
>uses a newsgroup, it all boils down to CHOICES.
>As long as you have a newsgroup, you are going to have CHOICES! You're
>unfortunately also going to have disruptive influences and a whole
>plethora of ways people try to deal with these influences.
>Hell, we're always going to have a Mxmanic around these groups. If it's
>not this particular person, it will be another coming down the line
>sooner or later.
>Developing rock solid "rules" to handle these "situations" just ain't
>gonna cut it as they say. The very nature of Usenet denies that everyone
>be of a like mind. Opinions will always vary. While one poster will kill
>file someone, another will not. While one poster will take a specific
>position on something, the next will not. It goes on and on.
>In the end, it's just Usenet. You come and take part or you don't. You
>like it or you don't. The only way to change Usenet is by your own
>individual behavior and the choices you personally make.
>So for Mxmanic; my choice is to avoid him. I let those who wish to
>engage him do so freely and without malice. After all, they have
>opinions and choices too, and who am I to dictate to the world what the
>world should or shouldn't do.
>The solution to the Mxmanic issue is so simple it defies confusion. He's
>here with us for as long as he posts here. You engage or avoid by simple
>choice!
>It's Usenet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
>Dudley

Dave wrote:
> Well said Dudley!
>
> I remember "Bertie the Bunyip", THAT was a long time ago!
>
> They come, they go...
>
> And MX is not even trying!
>
> (sigh)
>
> Cheers!
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 14:26:53 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> Okay, folks, enough is enough. We've got good, long-term, high
>>> quality pilots seriously discussing vandalizing someone's website,
>>> because of said someone's troll-dom.
>>>
>>> In the past, I have defended said troll, and lambasted said vandals,
>>> but have now come to realize that this troll is obviously so divisive
>>> and upsetting to some that this issue risks tearing apart the very
>>> fabric of rec.aviation.
>>>
>>> I personally find this amazing (he truly doesn't bother me that much)
>>> but, in the interest of keeping this newsgroup intact and (relatively)
>>> harmonious, I hereby publically make the following pledges, and urge
>>> others to join me here:
>>>
>>> 1. I will not respond to MX's posts.
>>> 2. I will not lambaste MX on these newsgroups.
>>> 3. I will not vandalize MX's website.
>>>
>>> All in favor, say "aye"...
>>> --
>>> Jay Honeck
>>> Iowa City, IA
>>> Pathfinder N56993
>>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>>
>> Hi Jay;
>>
>> In the years I've been posting on the aviation newsgroups I've seen a
>> lot of people and situations come and go ( including myself on more than
>> one occasion :-)
>> I remember the first day I opened up a newsgroup. It was
>> Rec.aviation.military (RAM). The first thing I noticed was that the
>> entire group, and I mean almost the entire list of threads I was looking
>> at on the screen were between two characters; one with a persona Bertie
>> The Bunyip; the other apparently his arch Usenet rival named Ralphie.
>> These two were engaged in what I can only characterize as a TOTAL
>> dominance of the group with their posting back and forth to each other.
>> Reading down the multiple threads between these two was a Usenet
>> education in one swell swoop for anyone with a modicum of intelligence.
>> To me, (the Usenet intelligence factor up for grabs with my first
>> experience ongoing :-) the lesson was immediate. It took about five
>> seconds to ascertain that anything either of these two had to say wasn't
>> worth reading. Also, it immediately became apparent that opening posts
>> connected to what these two had going on was a waste of my time.
>> The solution was simple really, and what I did then still holds true for
>> today in these situations. I simply avoid them and move on to other
>> postings.
>> Hell, I don't even use filters! No need to. A simple look down the list
>> of any newsgroup reveals to me instantly what is potentially interesting
>> and what's simply a high noise level thread.
>> In fact, take this thread for example. When I first saw your initial
>> post yesterday, I invested a few seconds (by choice) to get the gist of
>> what was being said. Once I had it, I knew instinctively that what was
>> to follow would be the usual potpourri on this topic. No NEED to read
>> further with the answering posting since I already had a good read on
>> how anything connected with Mxmanic.
>> Now here's the interesting part of all this. Knowing that Mxmanic is
>> someone I personally won't deal with by CHOICE, I also have a CHOICE to
>> avoid threads involved with him. Notice it's all about CHOICE! That's
>> the key to dealing with a Usenet experience.
>> Nothing on Usenet is perfect and it never will be. The entire thing is
>> based on choice. Sure we have rules and net protocols, and most of us
>> try to follow the basic path on what's right and wrong, but in the end
>> analysis, when it comes to Usenet and handling the way an individual
>> uses a newsgroup, it all boils down to CHOICES.
>> As long as you have a newsgroup, you are going to have CHOICES! You're
>> unfortunately also going to have disruptive influences and a whole
>> plethora of ways people try to deal with these influences.
>> Hell, we're always going to have a Mxmanic around these groups. If it's
>> not this particular person, it will be another coming down the line
>> sooner or later.
>> Developing rock solid "rules" to handle these "situations" just ain't
>> gonna cut it as they say. The very nature of Usenet denies that everyone
>> be of a like mind. Opinions will always vary. While one poster will kill
>> file someone, another will not. While one poster will take a specific
>> position on something, the next will not. It goes on and on.
>> In the end, it's just Usenet. You come and take part or you don't. You
>> like it or you don't. The only way to change Usenet is by your own
>> individual behavior and the choices you personally make.
>> So for Mxmanic; my choice is to avoid him. I let those who wish to
>> engage him do so freely and without malice. After all, they have
>> opinions and choices too, and who am I to dictate to the world what the
>> world should or shouldn't do.
>> The solution to the Mxmanic issue is so simple it defies confusion. He's
>> here with us for as long as he posts here. You engage or avoid by simple
>> choice!
>> It's Usenet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
>> Dudley
>
Yeah; never found out what happened to old Bertie and Ralphie. I guess
they're still out here somewhere.
They WERE a pair!!!!! :-)))))))))))))))))))))
Dudley

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Yeah; never found out what happened to old Bertie and Ralphie. I guess
> they're still out here somewhere.
> They WERE a pair!!!!! :-)))))))))))))))))))))
> Dudley

Probably hanging out with Robert Bass of rec.aviation.student infamy.

Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> The solution was simple really, and what I did then still
> holds true for today in these situations. I simply avoid them and move
> on to other postings.

The simplest and most effective solution.

> Hell, I don't even use filters! No need to. A simple look down the
> list of any newsgroup reveals to me instantly what is potentially
> interesting and what's simply a high noise level thread.

That is what I've been doing for the 19-some years I've been reading
Usenet.

With a few minor differences your post is one I would have written had I
gotten around to it. Hmmm ... have you been reading my mind? :-)

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> The solution was simple really, and what I did then still
>> holds true for today in these situations. I simply avoid them and move
>> on to other postings.
>
> The simplest and most effective solution.
>
>> Hell, I don't even use filters! No need to. A simple look down the
>> list of any newsgroup reveals to me instantly what is potentially
>> interesting and what's simply a high noise level thread.
>
> That is what I've been doing for the 19-some years I've been reading
> Usenet.
>
> With a few minor differences your post is one I would have written had I
> gotten around to it. Hmmm ... have you been reading my mind? :-)

:-))
Dudley

Hi Dudley!

They never even crossed my mind for years till you mentioned them.

What a pair..!

Hadda wear a flame suit just to "lurk the threads" :)

Was a hoot for a while..

MX and his bashers have a looooong way to go to match those dudes, and
it will never happen, 'cause MX won't stoop to their game. :)

Maybe they met in person...maybe that's what happened, never heard
from them again... hehe...

There I go feeling old again... :)

Dave



On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:43:23 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Dave wrote:
>> Well said Dudley!
>>
>> I remember "Bertie the Bunyip", THAT was a long time ago!
>>
>> They come, they go...
>>
>> And MX is not even trying!
>>
>> (sigh)
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 14:26:53 -0500, Dudley Henriques
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>> Okay, folks, enough is enough. We've got good, long-term, high
>>>> quality pilots seriously discussing vandalizing someone's website,
>>>> because of said someone's troll-dom.
>>>>
>>>> In the past, I have defended said troll, and lambasted said vandals,
>>>> but have now come to realize that this troll is obviously so divisive
>>>> and upsetting to some that this issue risks tearing apart the very
>>>> fabric of rec.aviation.
>>>>
>>>> I personally find this amazing (he truly doesn't bother me that much)
>>>> but, in the interest of keeping this newsgroup intact and (relatively)
>>>> harmonious, I hereby publically make the following pledges, and urge
>>>> others to join me here:
>>>>
>>>> 1. I will not respond to MX's posts.
>>>> 2. I will not lambaste MX on these newsgroups.
>>>> 3. I will not vandalize MX's website.
>>>>
>>>> All in favor, say "aye"...
>>>> --
>>>> Jay Honeck
>>>> Iowa City, IA
>>>> Pathfinder N56993
>>>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>>>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>>>
>>> Hi Jay;
>>>
>>> In the years I've been posting on the aviation newsgroups I've seen a
>>> lot of people and situations come and go ( including myself on more than
>>> one occasion :-)
>>> I remember the first day I opened up a newsgroup. It was
>>> Rec.aviation.military (RAM). The first thing I noticed was that the
>>> entire group, and I mean almost the entire list of threads I was looking
>>> at on the screen were between two characters; one with a persona Bertie
>>> The Bunyip; the other apparently his arch Usenet rival named Ralphie.
>>> These two were engaged in what I can only characterize as a TOTAL
>>> dominance of the group with their posting back and forth to each other.
>>> Reading down the multiple threads between these two was a Usenet
>>> education in one swell swoop for anyone with a modicum of intelligence.
>>> To me, (the Usenet intelligence factor up for grabs with my first
>>> experience ongoing :-) the lesson was immediate. It took about five
>>> seconds to ascertain that anything either of these two had to say wasn't
>>> worth reading. Also, it immediately became apparent that opening posts
>>> connected to what these two had going on was a waste of my time.
>>> The solution was simple really, and what I did then still holds true for
>>> today in these situations. I simply avoid them and move on to other
>>> postings.
>>> Hell, I don't even use filters! No need to. A simple look down the list
>>> of any newsgroup reveals to me instantly what is potentially interesting
>>> and what's simply a high noise level thread.
>>> In fact, take this thread for example. When I first saw your initial
>>> post yesterday, I invested a few seconds (by choice) to get the gist of
>>> what was being said. Once I had it, I knew instinctively that what was
>>> to follow would be the usual potpourri on this topic. No NEED to read
>>> further with the answering posting since I already had a good read on
>>> how anything connected with Mxmanic.
>>> Now here's the interesting part of all this. Knowing that Mxmanic is
>>> someone I personally won't deal with by CHOICE, I also have a CHOICE to
>>> avoid threads involved with him. Notice it's all about CHOICE! That's
>>> the key to dealing with a Usenet experience.
>>> Nothing on Usenet is perfect and it never will be. The entire thing is
>>> based on choice. Sure we have rules and net protocols, and most of us
>>> try to follow the basic path on what's right and wrong, but in the end
>>> analysis, when it comes to Usenet and handling the way an individual
>>> uses a newsgroup, it all boils down to CHOICES.
>>> As long as you have a newsgroup, you are going to have CHOICES! You're
>>> unfortunately also going to have disruptive influences and a whole
>>> plethora of ways people try to deal with these influences.
>>> Hell, we're always going to have a Mxmanic around these groups. If it's
>>> not this particular person, it will be another coming down the line
>>> sooner or later.
>>> Developing rock solid "rules" to handle these "situations" just ain't
>>> gonna cut it as they say. The very nature of Usenet denies that everyone
>>> be of a like mind. Opinions will always vary. While one poster will kill
>>> file someone, another will not. While one poster will take a specific
>>> position on something, the next will not. It goes on and on.
>>> In the end, it's just Usenet. You come and take part or you don't. You
>>> like it or you don't. The only way to change Usenet is by your own
>>> individual behavior and the choices you personally make.
>>> So for Mxmanic; my choice is to avoid him. I let those who wish to
>>> engage him do so freely and without malice. After all, they have
>>> opinions and choices too, and who am I to dictate to the world what the
>>> world should or shouldn't do.
>>> The solution to the Mxmanic issue is so simple it defies confusion. He's
>>> here with us for as long as he posts here. You engage or avoid by simple
>>> choice!
>>> It's Usenet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
>>> Dudley
>>
>Yeah; never found out what happened to old Bertie and Ralphie. I guess
>they're still out here somewhere.
>They WERE a pair!!!!! :-)))))))))))))))))))))
>Dudley

Dave wrote:
> Hi Dudley!
>
> They never even crossed my mind for years till you mentioned them.
>
> What a pair..!
>
> Hadda wear a flame suit just to "lurk the threads" :)
>
> Was a hoot for a while..
>
> MX and his bashers have a looooong way to go to match those dudes, and
> it will never happen, 'cause MX won't stoop to their game. :)
>
> Maybe they met in person...maybe that's what happened, never heard
> from them again... hehe...
>
> There I go feeling old again... :)
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:43:23 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Dave wrote:
>>> Well said Dudley!
>>>
>>> I remember "Bertie the Bunyip", THAT was a long time ago!
>>>
>>> They come, they go...
>>>
>>> And MX is not even trying!
>>>
>>> (sigh)
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 14:26:53 -0500, Dudley Henriques
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>>> Okay, folks, enough is enough. We've got good, long-term, high
>>>>> quality pilots seriously discussing vandalizing someone's website,
>>>>> because of said someone's troll-dom.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the past, I have defended said troll, and lambasted said vandals,
>>>>> but have now come to realize that this troll is obviously so divisive
>>>>> and upsetting to some that this issue risks tearing apart the very
>>>>> fabric of rec.aviation.
>>>>>
>>>>> I personally find this amazing (he truly doesn't bother me that much)
>>>>> but, in the interest of keeping this newsgroup intact and (relatively)
>>>>> harmonious, I hereby publically make the following pledges, and urge
>>>>> others to join me here:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. I will not respond to MX's posts.
>>>>> 2. I will not lambaste MX on these newsgroups.
>>>>> 3. I will not vandalize MX's website.
>>>>>
>>>>> All in favor, say "aye"...
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jay Honeck
>>>>> Iowa City, IA
>>>>> Pathfinder N56993
>>>>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>>>>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>>>>
>>>> Hi Jay;
>>>>
>>>> In the years I've been posting on the aviation newsgroups I've seen a
>>>> lot of people and situations come and go ( including myself on more than
>>>> one occasion :-)
>>>> I remember the first day I opened up a newsgroup. It was
>>>> Rec.aviation.military (RAM). The first thing I noticed was that the
>>>> entire group, and I mean almost the entire list of threads I was looking
>>>> at on the screen were between two characters; one with a persona Bertie
>>>> The Bunyip; the other apparently his arch Usenet rival named Ralphie.
>>>> These two were engaged in what I can only characterize as a TOTAL
>>>> dominance of the group with their posting back and forth to each other.
>>>> Reading down the multiple threads between these two was a Usenet
>>>> education in one swell swoop for anyone with a modicum of intelligence.
>>>> To me, (the Usenet intelligence factor up for grabs with my first
>>>> experience ongoing :-) the lesson was immediate. It took about five
>>>> seconds to ascertain that anything either of these two had to say wasn't
>>>> worth reading. Also, it immediately became apparent that opening posts
>>>> connected to what these two had going on was a waste of my time.
>>>> The solution was simple really, and what I did then still holds true for
>>>> today in these situations. I simply avoid them and move on to other
>>>> postings.
>>>> Hell, I don't even use filters! No need to. A simple look down the list
>>>> of any newsgroup reveals to me instantly what is potentially interesting
>>>> and what's simply a high noise level thread.
>>>> In fact, take this thread for example. When I first saw your initial
>>>> post yesterday, I invested a few seconds (by choice) to get the gist of
>>>> what was being said. Once I had it, I knew instinctively that what was
>>>> to follow would be the usual potpourri on this topic. No NEED to read
>>>> further with the answering posting since I already had a good read on
>>>> how anything connected with Mxmanic.
>>>> Now here's the interesting part of all this. Knowing that Mxmanic is
>>>> someone I personally won't deal with by CHOICE, I also have a CHOICE to
>>>> avoid threads involved with him. Notice it's all about CHOICE! That's
>>>> the key to dealing with a Usenet experience.
>>>> Nothing on Usenet is perfect and it never will be. The entire thing is
>>>> based on choice. Sure we have rules and net protocols, and most of us
>>>> try to follow the basic path on what's right and wrong, but in the end
>>>> analysis, when it comes to Usenet and handling the way an individual
>>>> uses a newsgroup, it all boils down to CHOICES.
>>>> As long as you have a newsgroup, you are going to have CHOICES! You're
>>>> unfortunately also going to have disruptive influences and a whole
>>>> plethora of ways people try to deal with these influences.
>>>> Hell, we're always going to have a Mxmanic around these groups. If it's
>>>> not this particular person, it will be another coming down the line
>>>> sooner or later.
>>>> Developing rock solid "rules" to handle these "situations" just ain't
>>>> gonna cut it as they say. The very nature of Usenet denies that everyone
>>>> be of a like mind. Opinions will always vary. While one poster will kill
>>>> file someone, another will not. While one poster will take a specific
>>>> position on something, the next will not. It goes on and on.
>>>> In the end, it's just Usenet. You come and take part or you don't. You
>>>> like it or you don't. The only way to change Usenet is by your own
>>>> individual behavior and the choices you personally make.
>>>> So for Mxmanic; my choice is to avoid him. I let those who wish to
>>>> engage him do so freely and without malice. After all, they have
>>>> opinions and choices too, and who am I to dictate to the world what the
>>>> world should or shouldn't do.
>>>> The solution to the Mxmanic issue is so simple it defies confusion. He's
>>>> here with us for as long as he posts here. You engage or avoid by simple
>>>> choice!
>>>> It's Usenet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
>>>> Dudley
>> Yeah; never found out what happened to old Bertie and Ralphie. I guess
>> they're still out here somewhere.
>> They WERE a pair!!!!! :-)))))))))))))))))))))
>> Dudley
>
Mx is an interesting case indeed. I always end up feeling sorry for him
somehow. If his interest in aviation is authentic, he's missed
meaningful communication with a lot of talented and knowledgeable people
by allowing this unfortunate situation to continue and prosper. On the
other hand, if he is indeed a troll, all he's learned from the
experience is the one thing that's learn able for every troll; that
being the knowledge that he's a good or bad troll.
Oh well, whatever turns him on I guess. That's Usenet! :-))
Dudley

("Steve S" wrote)
> Probably hanging out with (TFWNWDNS) of rec.aviation.student infamy.


"The fish whose name we dare not speak"


Montblack
(The "frog" whose name ....?)

"Montblack" < wrote

> "The fish whose name we dare not speak"

The fish that ends in "ass", and begins in "B."
--
Jim in NC

> Anyone who knows Jay either through this forum or has met him in person
> knows that he has not only a life, but a pretty fulfilling one at that. If
> there's anyone living the "American Dream," it's Jay.

Thanks, Marco! We work our keisters off -- but we have fun, too!

:-)

> Although I'm not sure if he's got a white picket fence around his house...

Nope. However, I HAVE been toying with building a fence out of bent
propellers, but haven't figured out how to make it liability-safe...
(And that would be at the hotel, anyway, not at home... :-)

> I guess you're one of those people that still think interaction using the
> internet as a medium is not actually "real" but just imagined.

After I've dealt with the public all day long, it's refreshing to come
"here" and converse with people who are generally educated, eloquent,
and have a sense of humor. I think that's why I've found this whole
MX thing so disturbing -- I'm seeing a side of my fellow airmen that I
hoped didn't exist.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> The solution to the Mxmanic issue is so simple it defies confusion. He's
> here with us for as long as he posts here. You engage or avoid by simple
> choice!
> It's Usenet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Well put, Dudley.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> > Although I'm not sure if he's got a white picket fence around his house...
>
> It's brown, it's around his hotel ...and it keeps getting squished.
>
> http://www.digitalmediafx.com/Features/TerryGilliam/Gilliam06.jpg

Ouch -- no fair! :-)

Last year by the tornado, this year by the ice storm bringing trees
down on it.

The tornado required a complete re-do. This storm will only require a
few boards, thankfully.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Yeah; never found out what happened to old Bertie and Ralphie. I guess
> they're still out here somewhere.

I remember Bertie... No way to forget him.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
>> It's brown, it's around his hotel ...and it keeps getting squished.

>> http://www.digitalmediafx.com/Features/TerryGilliam/Gilliam06.jpg

> Ouch -- no fair! :-)


http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/selfdef.htm
It was either that or, ...a 16-ton weight!


MontyBlack
4th Man: No pointed sticks?
Sergeant: Shut up.

"Dallas" wrote:

>> I think the insults and sarcasm only fuel his fire.
>
> Anthony is one of those people that would rather live in infamy than
> obscurity.

The unmistakable mark of a troll.

"Never wrestle with a pig....etc."

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:56:29 -0800, TheSmokingGnu
> wrote:

>Jay Honeck wrote:
>> 1. I will not respond to MX's posts.
>> 2. I will not lambaste MX on these newsgroups.
>> 3. I will not vandalize MX's website.
>>
>> All in favor, say "aye"...
>
>4. You will place the "XXX" identifier in your replies, such that any
>and all MX traffic is hereby sent to yonder circular file.

The XXX is already spoken for as a flame identifier.

>
>TheSmokingGnu
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com