A reluctance to take the controls

For example, suppose a gentleman approached you and offered to sodomize you.
Would you accept that opportunity?

How about if someone offers you the opportunity to eat human flesh. Jump at
that, would you?

Ah, Pete, you never let me down, or fail to amuse. Only a true pedant
could possibly take this argument to such extremes, with a straight
face.

Don't ever change!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
For example, suppose a gentleman approached you and offered to sodomize
you.
Would you accept that opportunity?

How about if someone offers you the opportunity to eat human flesh. Jump
at
that, would you?

Ah, Pete, you never let me down, or fail to amuse. Only a true pedant
could possibly take this argument to such extremes, with a straight
face.

Nor do you let me down, nor fail to amuse.

You are completely failing to observe that your reluctance to do things that
you find abhorrent is no different than someone else's reluctance to do
things that they find abhorrent. Such as, for example, operating or riding
in an airplane.

Just because you don't find flying an airplane to be abhorrent, scary,
terrifying, disgusting, whatever, that doesn't mean that everyone shares
your feelings.

It's pretty funny, actually. You refuse to acknowledge a point when it is
too subtle for your simple, close-minded approach to the discussion to
comprehend, and then when someone comes along to adjust the example so that
it is so extreme, even someone like you could understand, you take issue
with it being extreme, calling it pedantry.

If I'm being so pedantic, how come you couldn't understand what Jose was
correctly pointing out before?

I'd say "only you, Jay", except unfortunately our country is filled with
non-thinkers such as yourself who treat every debate in this very way.

Pete

If I'm being so pedantic, how come you couldn't understand what Jose was
correctly pointing out before?

I'd say "only you, Jay", except unfortunately our country is filled with
non-thinkers such as yourself who treat every debate in this very way.

It's not that I don't "get" your argument, Pete. It's that I think
your argument is irrelevant to the thread, and your debate style is so
rude as to reduce your arguments to noise.

I try to be polite and explain *why* your argumentativeness is
irrelevant, and you continue to escalate your absurd examples until
you're talking about sodomy, and making personal attacks, in some sort
of a lame attempt to make a feeble point.

It doesn't matter if you believe I don't "get" it, nor does it matter
if you think I don't understand that people are "different". Your
"explanation" of why some people won't take the controls of an airplane
is, as usual, needlessly rude, pointlessly sarcastic, and over-blown to
the point where your absurd arguments themselves become the focal point
of an otherwise interesting thread.

Just once, try sticking to the point...please? It would be nice to
have a real discussion about growing general aviation without you going
off.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
It's not that I don't "get" your argument, Pete. It's that I think
your argument is irrelevant to the thread, and your debate style is so
rude as to reduce your arguments to noise.

"My argument"? It's not just "my argument". In fact, Jose is the person
who first attempted to politely put a fine point on it for you. In fact, he
tried twice, and both times you insisted on jerking him around in your
supposedly polite manner, while pointedly ignoring the underlying truth in
what he was saying.

As far as being "rude" goes, I suggest you look at your own reply to my post
elaborating on Jose's post. Rather than discussing the post itself, you
replied with an entirely condescending assessment of my own personality. I
hadn't written a single rude thing to you up until that point. It's a bit
disingenuous for you to accuse me of being rude, when in fact you serve up
great helpings of rudeness on a regular basis, in both veiled and overt
forms.

I try to be polite and explain *why* your argumentativeness is
irrelevant, and you continue to escalate your absurd examples until
you're talking about sodomy, and making personal attacks, in some sort
of a lame attempt to make a feeble point.

The point wasn't feeble, nor was the attempt lame. It only escalated to the
point to which it did because you refused to acknowledge Jose's point. The
point being made cuts right to the heart of the whole issue here. Your
inability to acknowledge the point is simply a symptom of your dismissively
rude treatment of anyone who might have an opinion different from yours.

And you have the nerve to call ME rude. Right. Frankly, I prefer the term
"disrespectful", and you have gone to great lengths to earn that disrespect,
through your own disrespect of others (including but hardly limited to
myself).

And you have the nerve to call ME rude. Right. Frankly, I prefer the term
"disrespectful", and you have gone to great lengths to earn that disrespect,
through your own disrespect of others (including but hardly limited to
myself).

I used to work with someone like you, Pete. She was a died-in-the-wool
liberal, never wrong, always opinionated and willing to defend any
point to the death, no matter how irrelevant. The point of contention
was always the argument -- never the underlying point, which we both
knew the other would never concede, or even acknowledge.

At the end of a long day of sparring, we would occasionally end up at a
bar, and she would always close the evening with a tongue-in-cheek
imitation of me saying "The only abortion that I would have approved
was when your mother was pregnant with you!"

Well, at least I think it was tongue-in-cheek.... ;-)

I suspect that in-person, that's pretty much the way these threads
would end. Unfortunately, there is no written equivalent to that sort
of live-and-let-live tone, or, if there is, we haven't found it, yet.

You simply have a nasty habit of converting any thread into personal
attacks. It's a bad thing, and you really should take a chill-pill.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay,

You simply have a nasty habit of converting any thread into personal
attacks.


Where exactly did he do that? I just can't see it in his posts.

FWIW and IMHO, he is also absolutely right in his assessment (sp?) and
his argument makes complete sense. But I guess for you that's just
another example of them in-the-wool liberals ganging up on you.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On 26 Nov 2006 21:28:37 -0800, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

the focal point
of an otherwise interesting thread.


This is not an interesting thread. This thread persists because you
don't understand what people are saying to you. You see the words,
but obviously don't get it.

z