More questions on VFR flight following.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:gDDgj.26138$Ux2.14938@attbi_s22...
Oh, come on now. The criticisms here had nothing to do with arcane "standards". They
had everything to do with consistency vs. hypocrisy regarding criticisms by certain
posters over others' content.

You're trying to equate my inclusion of a web address in my signature line with my
opposition to personal attack posts on this newsgroup?

Wow.

Okay, I went back and reviewed your material. I apparently
was conflating your views, but in fairness your 1/1/08 post,

"And I have yet to see anyone blast anyone else, which is
truly refreshing. Imagine -- an entire conversation about flying
without anyone shouting "f*ckwit" ??

"It's sad to think that there are now so few threads here
that aren't polluted with that kind of crap. *Aside from it taking
people's attention away from talking about piloting,* it's just
depressing to read stuff like that every day." (emphasis added)

*could* have been interpreted as a complaint about off-topic posting.

And your 1/7/08 post,

"What we really need to know is why posters feel compelled
to keep telling him what he (and we) already know. The clutter isn't from
responses to his posts -- it's the off-topic responses to HIS on-topic (if
incorrect) responses that are cluttering the forums."

definitely sounds like the same kind of complaint, so I
wasn't totally imagining it.

However, a fair reading of your other comments made me
reconsider, and I apologize for mischaracterizing your views
on off-topic posts. Your main objection is the tone of some posts.

I still find the commercial blurb in your sig objectionable,
a violation of the spirit if not the letter of UseNet
protocols, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree
on that.