"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...
In article et,
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

It's hard to understand when the question isn't answered leaving
nothing
to understand.

Whatever this means :-)



It probably would have been simpler to just answer the damn
question
initially instead demanding people guess your reasoning.

I don't "demand" that people "guess" my reasoning in any post I make
on
Usenet. I don't give a rat's ass who reads what into any reasoning I
might or might not have. Opinion is opinion on Usenet.

Indeed. Usenet is also generally not considered a one-way medium. If
one
states an opinion in a public forum, its not unreasonable for that
person to be asked the reasoning for that opinion.

You asked for clarification and I referred you to the thread for the
answer. If you're too lazy to go read it, that's not my problem, it's
yours!

I don't have to
justify my opinion to you any more than you have to justify yours to
me.
There are people out here who will agree with what a particular
person
has to say, and most certainly those who won't.


And there are still others who will withhold any notions of agreement
or
disagreement until they have heard/read the basis for one's opinion.

The statement "I detest people like you" requires no agreement or
disagreement unless someone wants to comment. If they don't wish to
comment, that's their perogative. Do you actually believe that every
post out here requires your definition of "reasoning"? Get real! You
asked for the reasoning, I told you to go read the thread. Do your own
damn homework. Quit bothering me for your own remedial education! :-)



I'm not in a popularity
context out here. I say what I want to say for the reasons I have in
saying it. The responses will be both pro and con at any given time
on
any given topic.
If you're looking for a detailed account for the reasoning behind
everything someone says out here you're going to become very
frustrated.
In this case, the man was pushing crash video outside the boundries
of
what I (obviously from my cogent comment) consider to be in bad
taste.
My reaction to that was a simple one line comment that expressed my
displeasure. "I detest people like you". It really doesn't take any
intelligence to ascertain that I don't like this person. That's all
you
need to know. My reasons for disliking him are personal to me. You
can
of course comment as you have, expressing whatever countering
opinion
you choose. But don't sit there and tell me that I owe YOU an
explanation for the comments I make on Usenet. You've noted your
opinion
as I've made my comment. That's all there is pal. Welcome to Usenet!


Thanks for the Usenet lecture, but given that I've been doing the
Usenet
thing a good ten years longer than you, I think I have a pretty good
handle on Usenet discussion dynamics.

Oh....the old I've been at this longer than YOU thing huh? Well, then
let's consider that since I've been involved in airshow demonstration
safety longer than you have, I don't owe you the reasons for my opinions
:-)


I did not read other threads on this aviation disasters topic. I
simply
asked for further clarification on one statement you made.

Well then...since that was exactly what I asked you to do when you asked
for this "clarification", I'd say you simply weren't following the path
I gave you to the answer you were seeking :-)


Not sure why
you would feel all defensive about it.

I see you need some remedial education on the old offensive/defensive
thing. I've been offensive with you since that little "I'll ask you a
second time" thing back there, or haven't you noticed? As you can see,
you come at me with that crap and this is what you get in return.
And to think you could have had a quiet intelligent discussion with a
guy who messes with Fermat's last theorem for kicks. What a waste!! :-)

Not every question in this n.g.
is partisan baiting. Sometimes a question is just a question.


Brilliant!!! But you WERE engaged in baiting.That's the not so subtle
little
"I'll ask you again for the second time" thing you threw back at me.
You want to talk to me about my reasoning for something related directly
to my area of expertise Mike, you come at me with something a bit less
sarcastic than this little tidbit...or at least something not quite so
damn obvious. :-)




Now, that being said, had you come back at me with a post I felt was
a
neutral request for additional information on my reasoning, I would
have
more than glad to enter into an intelligent discourse with you and
go
much deeper into that reasoning; but you didn't. This "I'll ask you
a
second time" crap is better used on someone else.


Then maybe you should try answering the question the first time.

Maybe you should learn to follow directions and read the thread like I
asked you to do. The answer was there!


BTW, I'm still curious to know if you have any issues with hobbyists
filming airshows for thrill-seeking prurient reasons when the content
does not contain a crash?

Answered already. See other post.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired