Thrown out of an FBO...

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
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.

Wow...having trouble with the English language too?

First of all, the presence of any other reason is irrelevant. If trolling
was ANY reason for posting according to Jay, then he's trolling. Having
other reasons doesn't take away from the desire to troll.

Secondly, the word "would" is an English language construct to describe a
future outcome. Given that Jay's reasons (both of them) related to his
desire for a future outcome, it is simply *absurd* for you to claim that
"there was no 'would' involved" (even if that were a grammatically correct
phrase).

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
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.

correction: should be no "would" involved.



Wow...having trouble with the English language too?

Not at all, thank you for asking. But I speak several other languages, if
you'd prefer another. I hope you don't make any typos!



First of all, the presence of any other reason is irrelevant. If trolling
was ANY reason for posting according to Jay, then he's trolling. Having
other reasons doesn't take away from the desire to troll.

And where can we find this new law of trolling that apparently doesn't need
any support other than you say so?
I found Jay's story entertaining and interesting to read. Since you knew that
you thought it was just a troll, why would you respond to a troll?

Secondly, the word "would" is an English language construct to describe a
future outcome.

Among other definitions.

Given that Jay's reasons (both of them) related to his
desire for a future outcome, it is simply *absurd* for you to claim that
"there was no 'would' involved" (even if that were a grammatically correct
phrase).

I disagree. I also find it amazing that you think Jay has some crystal ball
and knew that you *would* post.

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Not at all, thank you for asking. But I speak several other languages, if
you'd prefer another.

I doubt you'd do any better in some other language.

[...]
And where can we find this new law of trolling that apparently doesn't
need
any support other than you say so?

It's not a "law of trolling". It's a simple matter of intent. Part of
Jay's intent was to troll. That's trolling.

Suppose a person mugs another person, killing them in the process. Suppose
also that the mugger was looking to a) obtain some property from the other
person, and b) murder the other person.

Does the fact that they wanted property from the other person negate the
fact that their intent was also murder? Do we decide that the mugger was
not a murderer, even though they DID intent to murder, simply because they
also wanted to obtain property?

No, of course not. Your assertion that Jay's other motive somehow obscures
this motive to troll is, quite frankly, idiotic.

I found Jay's story entertaining and interesting to read. Since you knew
that
you thought it was just a troll, why would you respond to a troll?

I did NOT think it was just a troll, until Jay admitted that it was. In
that respect, I admit he was quite successful. There's a true art to
trolling, as an effective troll can be accomplished only by hiding the fact
that one *is* trolling.

Secondly, the word "would" is an English language construct to describe a
future outcome.

Among other definitions.

The other definitions, such as they are, are irrelevant. The "would" with
respect to the definition *I* was using is still appropriate, and very much
"there".

I disagree. I also find it amazing that you think Jay has some crystal
ball
and knew that you *would* post.

No crystal ball is needed when predicting another person's reaction, based
on previous experience with that person. It's the reason that, as I said,
most of the regulars in this newsgroup are *very* predictable.

But in any case, Jay has in so many words admitted that he "knew I would
post". I find it remarkable that you would even consider debating that
point. Of all the points in this thread, it is the most directly provable,
since Jay has written an explicit statement to that effect.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Not at all, thank you for asking. But I speak several other languages, if
you'd prefer another.

I doubt you'd do any better in some other language.

I do just fine.



[...]
And where can we find this new law of trolling that apparently doesn't
need
any support other than you say so?

It's not a "law of trolling". It's a simple matter of intent. Part of
Jay's intent was to troll. That's trolling.

Suppose a person mugs another person, killing them in the process. Suppose
also that the mugger was looking to a) obtain some property from the other
person, and b) murder the other person.

Does the fact that they wanted property from the other person negate the
fact that their intent was also murder? Do we decide that the mugger was
not a murderer, even though they DID intent to murder, simply because they
also wanted to obtain property?

No, of course not. Your assertion that Jay's other motive somehow obscures
this motive to troll is, quite frankly, idiotic.

I found Jay's story entertaining and interesting to read. Since you knew
that
you thought it was just a troll, why would you respond to a troll?

I did NOT think it was just a troll, until Jay admitted that it was. In
that respect, I admit he was quite successful. There's a true art to
trolling, as an effective troll can be accomplished only by hiding the fact
that one *is* trolling.

Secondly, the word "would" is an English language construct to describe a
future outcome.

Among other definitions.

The other definitions, such as they are, are irrelevant. The "would" with
respect to the definition *I* was using is still appropriate, and very much
"there".

I disagree. I also find it amazing that you think Jay has some crystal
ball
and knew that you *would* post.

No crystal ball is needed when predicting another person's reaction, based
on previous experience with that person. It's the reason that, as I said,
most of the regulars in this newsgroup are *very* predictable.

But in any case, Jay has in so many words admitted that he "knew I would
post". I find it remarkable that you would even consider debating that
point. Of all the points in this thread, it is the most directly provable,
since Jay has written an explicit statement to that effect.

The comparison of sharing one's experience with others in a public forum to
mugging, stealing, and murdering is quite impressive, if not eccentric. But you
like to toss around words like idiotic, so suit yourself.

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
The comparison of sharing one's experience with others in a public forum
to
mugging, stealing, and murdering is quite impressive, if not eccentric.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that using such a graphic analogy would be so
offensive to your tender sensibilities. Try this one instead:

Suppose a little girl wants to have a tea party. She has a desire to both
a) pour and consume imaginary tea from very tiny, doll-sized cups, and b)
engage in friendly, witty conversation with her doll friends.

Does the fact that she wants to drink imaginary tea negate the fact that
they also want to have a conversation with her dolls? Do we decide that she
is not a conversationalist, simply because she is also a drinker of
imaginary tea?

Why you fail to comprehend this, I can't say. But the fact remains, the
exact example is irrelevant. Whether I talk about a murderer or someone
attending a tea party, the point is that if a person has two motivations,
they are BOTH valid and open for criticism or comment. Having one
motivation in no way makes a second motivation irrelevant or nonexistent.

But you like to toss around words like idiotic, so suit yourself.

Anyone here, even those who rarely agree with me, can attest to the fact
that I do *not* "like to toss around words like idiotic". I use them very
rarely, and only when they seem clearly applicable.

In other words, if the shoe fits...

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
bunch of rambling analogies snipped to conserve bandwidth

Don't worry, Pete, no offense taken, although your imaginary dolls and
murder/usenet posting analogies are quite humorous to read! I did appreciate
the chuckle, so thank you.

I think Jessica is really Jay...in e-drag...trying to defend his careless
mouth from another angle.

mike

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message


I found Jay's story entertaining and interesting to read. Since you knew
that
you thought it was just a troll, why would you respond to a troll?

I did NOT think it was just a troll, until Jay admitted that it was. In
that respect, I admit he was quite successful. There's a true art to
trolling, as an effective troll can be accomplished only by hiding the
fact that one *is* trolling.

mike regish wrote:

I think Jessica is really Jay...in e-drag...trying to defend his careless
mouth from another angle.

mike

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message


I found Jay's story entertaining and interesting to read. Since you knew
that
you thought it was just a troll, why would you respond to a troll?

I did NOT think it was just a troll, until Jay admitted that it was. In
that respect, I admit he was quite successful. There's a true art to
trolling, as an effective troll can be accomplished only by hiding the
fact that one *is* trolling.


Yeah, that's me. You are so smart, tell us some more funny stuff! LoL! You
can have another hit off your bong now.

I think Jessica is really Jay...in e-drag...trying to defend his careless
mouth from another angle.

Dang, Mike, I don't know who Jessica is, either -- but I can guarantee
you that there is NO WAY I would spend so much time and effort refuting
your silly posts.

Actually, let me amend that statement. There is no way I COULD do such
a wonderful job refuting your silly posts. Her eloquence, logic, and
debate styles are clearly superior to mine, and (although I think she's
wasting her breath) I tip my hat to her for trying. She has exposed
you for what you are in ways that I could never have dreamt.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I think you 2 were made for each other.

J, she really, I mean really , really likes you.
I think you got a thing for her, too.
Better not let your wife find out.

mike
..
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

Her eloquence, logic, and
debate styles are clearly superior to mine, and (although I think she's
wasting her breath) I tip my hat to her for trying. She has exposed
you for what you are in ways that I could never have dreamt.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"