Thrown out of an FBO...

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
Is it trolling when the reaction is always the same?

It is trolling when you post *because* you know the reaction is always the
same. Which is exactly what you said you did.

[...]
Sometimes I swear Mike, Pete and Jose are simply Usenet AI programs,
set up to respond
with three specific responses that are triggered by any given stimuli.

The precise same thing could be said about you. So what? I'd say most of
the people who post here have fairly predictable responses.

The reaction of "some" people might be the same. Others might be different.
Still others might just enjoy reading and not have any reaction. YMMV.

Steve Foley wrote:

Every privately owned hotel I have stayed in has been worse than any chain.

Most chain hotels are "privately owned" and many of them are individually owned
too.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
Jay filled the courtesy car because he's too cheap to fill his airplane.

Which brings up an interesting point. Would the average FBO rather
have his courtesy car's tank filled, or would he rather pump 8 gallons
of Avgas into a plane that doesn't need gas?

I had 76 gallons on board when I landed, Karl. Making the line guy
bring the truck over didn't make much sense.


He'd MUCH rather sell you fuel. That's his business.
Would you rather a customer just spend one night in your hotel, or fill up
your courtesy car?

And a charter pilot might be a cheap ******* by your accounts, but he'd
NEVER go on a one hour flight in a Cherokee with 500 pounds of gas.

The Cessna 185 holds 92 gallons of gas. There are times that I like to take
that much fuel, like on floats into the interior of British Columbia. But
for just cruising around, I like to have FUN, and that means a light
airplane for the $200 hamburger.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

Said like a true latent homosexual...

mike

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
news:ihatessppaamm-

i.e., that sexual perversion is
a basic right.

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

mike regish wrote:

Well, let's see here.

In the past month or 2 you've declared your bigotry towards government
employees, unions, union employees, charter pilots and charter owners. I may
have left a few out, but that's CRS for ya.

Where was the declaration? Don't be afraid to back up your statement.



I'd be willing to bet I can throw in homosexuals and gay married couples.

Bet's on. Where is your cite?

mike regish wrote:

Just what makes you think this is even an issue the people should vote on?
Since when do people get to vote on basic rights? Do you think slavery would
have been abolished if the people got to vote on it?

Absolutely!



Maybe we should get to vote on kicking the right wing, ultra conservative,
neo-con, war-mongering, fear-inducing, bible beating regressives out of the
country. I know how I'd vote.

Well at least you're not bigotted enough to resort to labels and calling names.

I'm just sorry that you didn't vote the terrorists away ten years ago.

mike regish wrote:

Just what makes you think this is even an issue the people should vote on?

Because people participated in the democratic process, collected the
prerequisite signatures, followed the constitutional process, and petitioned the
government to do what the constitution called for.


Since when do people get to vote on basic rights?

Have you not heard of the Constitution?

Gary Drescher wrote:

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"mike regish" wrote:

One of my daughter's best friends has 3 dads-2 of whom are married. And I
went to the wedding of one of my wife's coworkers and friends who married
her girlfriend.

You live in Taxachusetts?

Ya think one of these days the citizens can actually vote on the issue,

That would be inappropriate, for the same reason that it would be wrong to
launch a referendum on whether interracial couples should be prohibited from
marrying, or whether Jews should be required to wear yellow stars.

Democracy is not the same as absolute tyranny of the majority. In a
democracy, equality before the law enjoys constitutional protections that
cannot be overridden by a majority vote.

(In addition to being inappropriate, a referendum on the issue would not
change the law: a solid majority of Massachusetts citizens and legislators
support same-sex marriage rights.)

Then why are they so afraid of following the constitutional process? If this
is truly a right, and not an activist court's proclamations, why not make it
legimately so by the voice of the people?

Gary Drescher wrote:

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
You and Mike assume facts not in evidence, i.e., that sexual perversion is
a basic right.

Some call interracial marriage a perversion; others call intragender
marriage a perversion. In either case, it's just bigoted name-calling,
unsupported by any rational argument. (A couple's ability or intention to
reproduce together has never been a prerequisite for marriage, nor should it
be.)

You're an American version of the Taliban.

I'll bet he's a bigot and a racist and a --phobe too, right! Glad to see your
own "tolerance" expressed in words.

Bob Noel wrote:

In article ,
"Gary Drescher" wrote:

(A couple's ability or intention to
reproduce together has never been a prerequisite for marriage, nor should
it
be.)

hmmm, is that what you think the issue is about?

It's a commonly cited excuse for opposing same-sex marriage.

The ONLY people I've ever heard cite that "excuse" actually support same-sex
marriage and are using it to misrepresent the opposing view.

I would be happily supportive of same-sex marrige if that is what the VOTERS
decide to support. Instead in one state we had a court say something and the
legislature has now twice rejected the a legitimate petititon of the government by
the people who participated in the process.