Thrown out of an FBO...

No love here. You and your ilk, make me sick.

mike

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

Said like a true latent homosexual...

feel the love people!

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

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
If you had ever studied statistics, you would know that is not true. That
is
why sample sizes are less than population sizes, and how confidence levels
are relevant.

I have studied statistics. Statistics are only relevant if you are trying
to make a statement about some proportion of a population.

Not true. The very foundation of Statistics is infering facts about an entire
population through the use of a much smaller representative sample.

A blanket
generalization is necessarily about 100% of the population, and the only way
to actually *prove* something about 100% of the population is to survey the
entire population.

Not true. We can prove that a medicine is effective at treating a malady
without testing its effectiveness on 100% of its population. We can prove that
chronic smokers have a higher risk of bladder and lung cancers than their peers
who have never smoked without needing to find the entire populations of smokers
and non smokers.

Statistics has nothing to do with it.

Not true but then again, I don't believe that the original poster said 100%.

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Except he wasn't the one who said "all pilots" or "never" in the context
of
charter pilots or their pay. You were. Actually the words used by
Jay/Mary
included "some." Go back to sleep.

You might try waking up before you jump in. It's bad enough being a
latecomer to the party, but you ought to at least make an effort to
comprehend what the discussion is about first.

Your premises are false here as well.

The word "some" was never used in either of the statements to which I'm
referring.

I never said Jay used the words "all" or "never". What I said
is that his statement clearly implied that.

You said, " charter pilots never fill the tank, and all charter pilots are
poorly paid.

He has no basis for making either claim."

I did read all of Jay's statements and did not find such a claim, expressly
written or implied.

mike regish wrote:

Hope I didn't get any on you.

Or...do I?

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...

And of course the most irrational is the one who like to spew out the
bigotry/racist claims.


Care to explain what you might have been trying to say?

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
The reaction of "some" people might be the same. Others might be
different.

What "might" be is irrelevant. Jay specifically wrote that he posted
because of the reactions he knew *would* happen. Not those that he thought
*might* happen.

Actually he gave two reasons for this post. I believe the first reason was to
share the experience, which he thought was pretty unbelievable. The secondary
reason was because it was fun to watch the reactions from other posters who are
predictable, such as yourself. There was not "would" involved.

mike regish wrote:

Again...huh?

mike

Sorry to confuse you, that should say 'midwest.'

To clarify for you, midwes was typed in error, the correct word was
midwest.

mike regish wrote:

Duh.

mike

"Newps" wrote in message
...

Do you think slavery would
have been abolished if the people got to vote on it?

In the North? Hello? Read your history. It wouldn't have been close.

There was a lot of slavery in colonies/states such as Connecticut and
Massachusetts in early years. The tide turned and it was turning in the
South as well. The civil war happened in the middle of this, and was
partially a result thereof.

mike regish wrote:

No love here. You and your ilk, make me sick.

The intolerant only prefer to be amongst themselves and could certainly
not love anyone else.

Gary Drescher wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
I believe that the Constitutional process should actually be followed
instead of
trampled on.

The constitution is being followed. Adjourning the constitutional convention
was lawfully accomplished by a vote of the legislature.

As lawful as putting a supreme court justice in the Court when she already
declared what she would do as a quid-pro-quo.

Parliamentary
maneuvering has always been a routine part of the constitutional process.

You are using bad behavior to justify more bad behavior.



Massachusetts' gay marriage is supported by the majority of the state's
population and all three branches of government (when the governor-elect
takes office). Elections have been held since same-sex marriage began, and
the number of legislators supporting equal marriage rights has increased,
not decreased.

Which is not relevant when a constitutional petition is recessed ad-infiniteum.
If there is so much support, which you claim, why can the legislators

Apparently the gay lobby just got their million dollars worth of legislators.
The best state legislature that money can buy, and the same legislature who
passed spending bills while partially (or fully) drunk a few years ago and
ajourned this summer because they were too busy raising money (from the gay
lobby for example) then to vote for war veteran state college benefits.

The democratic process is working just as it should here to
protect equal rights under the law.

If that it is true, then there surely there is no harm in following the
constitutional process and allowing people who petition the government under the
proper means to have their voice heard. You say that the majority of the
state's population is in favor of "gay marriage." You also said that "democracy
is distinct from tyranny of the majority." So why shouldn't a group of people,
even a minority, be in able to exercise their voice instead of being quenched?

Even if you favor gay marriage, the rule of law and the ability of people to
vote should actually mean something.



So if another Court says that same sexes cannot marry, that would be true
democracy too, right?

No, just as the Dred Scott decision was not an example of true democracy.
Court decisions in a democracy are *supposed to* protect individual and
minority rights against tyranny of the majority, but they do not always do
so.

Clearly. You pointed out that minorities in Massachusetts are not entitled to
have their voices heard.
By the way courts in other states, and direct true democracy via referendums
have been opposed to gay marriage, so using your own logic, that is true
justice as well. The difference, in a true democracy, representative or not,
there is debate. The gay lobby in Massachusetts is opposed to having a debate.

mike regish wrote:

Well, at least I didn't call a charter owner a cheap SOB employer.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
mike regish wrote:

There's the key word...Evolve.

You're using it on a person who is incapable of evolving. It scares him,
so
he'd rather keep things the same for as long as possible.

How 'liberal' of you. Just spew out personal insults and ad-hominem
attacks.
Maybe then they could become true, you don't need any facts.



So what? You have displayed no shortage of personal insults.