in search of J.C. Kamienski

"Snowbird" wrote in message
m...
Your milage may vary. You may disapprove of me and these posts
instead. I have no problem with that.

I'm not sure I understand your vehemence. My point was simply that you have
no way of knowing who the person is or is not, and that's true for every
single person that posts here. Even if you had found the person's name in
the FAA database and they appeared to hold the appropriate ratings, that
would mean nothing. The person posting could have simply borrowed someone
else's identity.

For example, how do you know for sure that my real name is "Peter Duniho"?
And even if it's not, why would you care? The answer to both questions is
"you don't".

If anything, Richard Kaplan's experience (whatever it was) is a cautionary
tale. A person should not take statements from anonymous people at face
value, especially on Usenet where it is *known* to be a sizable group of
people who do nothing but try to gum up the works with a variety of tactics,
including fraud.

As far as the posts made under the name of "Lynne Miller" go, I've never
paid much attention to them. They've been inconsistent and uninformative,
and that alone is reason enough to ignore her. I'm not defending her, I'm
just pointing out that a) your research has proved nothing regarding her
actual identify, positive or negative and b) it doesn't really matter who
she is, since the "proof is in the pudding", so to speak. Her posts provide
sufficient reason to blow her off...we don't need an FAA database to do
that.

I guess if there's a point at all to what I'm saying here is that if one is
going to participate in the Usenet environment, one needs to bring a healthy
sense of skepticism. I don't see why you're singling out Lynne Miller's
posts; there's been any number of other posts here that are similarly
content-free. What got stuck in your craw this time?

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
"Snowbird" wrote in message
m...
Your milage may vary. You may disapprove of me and these posts
instead. I have no problem with that.

I'm not sure I understand your vehemence.

I'm not sure you understand at all, but in fact I don't see
any particular vehemence of mine.

I simply stated facts available to anyone who cares to search
a publically accessible database and publically accessible news
archives, along with a brief explanation of my personal reasons
for so doing (that I don't feel recent arrivals and long-term
contributors who lack time for such research should be imposed
on).

My point was simply that you have
no way of knowing who the person is or is not

I disagree. We have no way of knowing for sure who a person is.

But at times, we can know with reasonable certainty who (or what)
a person is not.

It appears to me to be a rather important distinction.

You, on the other hand, appeared to have a rather vehement
additional point. You appeared to object rather strongly
to my post. If that's not the case, it puzzles me to know
why you responded at all, much less at such length.

For example, how do you know for sure that my real name is "Peter Duniho"?
And even if it's not, why would you care? The answer to both questions is
"you don't".

That depends, actually, on what you're doing on the group. If
you were making requests of people which cross over into their
lives or work (say, asking Jay to reserve 3 suites for you for
a week, you'd be paying cash. or asking Chip to clear your
Citation Bravo direct), and I had reason to believe you weren't
as you presented yourself, I would undoubtedly state my reasons
for so believing. You, of course, could refute them if you
chose.

If you're simply posting factual responses or personal experiences,
you're right, I don't care who you are, only whether your responses
are indeed factual.

If anything, Richard Kaplan's experience (whatever it was) is a cautionary
tale. A person should not take statements from anonymous people at face
value, especially on Usenet where it is *known* to be a sizable group of
people who do nothing but try to gum up the works with a variety of tactics,
including fraud.

Well, perhaps it's idealistic, but IMO there is a certain sense
of community here in the piloting newsgroups. I gather you don't
feel it, but I think others do. I've certainly benefitted tangibly
from that sense of community. But with community comes responsibility
(in my idealistic mind at least).

As far as the posts made under the name of "Lynne Miller" go, I've never
paid much attention to them.

Peter, I mean no offense here, but I'm really not concerned
with your personal reactions. As far as I'm concerned, you're
welcome to react as you choose and believe as you choose.

I don't see why you're singling out Lynne Miller's
posts; there's been any number of other posts here that are similarly
content-free.

Yes, I gather that you don't see.

I lack faith in my ability to explain any better. I thought it
was already quite clear that the issue isn't content or the lack
thereof.

Cheers,
Sydney

Snowbird wrote:
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
I'm not sure I understand your vehemence.


I'm not sure you understand at all, but in fact I don't see
any particular vehemence of mine.

I have to say that I don't get this either. Sydney clearly
believes that Lynne Miller is a troll and posted some data
in support of that belief. It's generally useful in a news
group to know who the trolls are -- that is, it's not just
some random fact, but rather helps keep discussions on track.

Sydney's post didn't seem particularly "vehement". It mostly
seemed helpful.

--
David Rind