A reluctance to take the controls

She's old and fat now. I've seen her picture on the web, 40
year HS reunion. She's also married. Ruined all those
wonderful memories of the sweet young innocent Patti Jo.

My memories of the girls of my youth are better than reality
today.



"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
| When I was in the 8th grade, I was madly "in love" with
| Patti Jo. At the graduation party she actually came up
to
| me and asked me if I want to dance. Since there were 40
| some witnesses present who could talk about my
clumsiness I
| said no. That has bothered me for more than 40 years.
|
| So Google her. Maybe she still wants to dance?
|
| ;-)
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|

Her brother was my last of several CFIs when I got my PPL.


"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in news:W5qah.1003
| :
|
| When I was in the 8th grade, I was madly "in love" with
| Patti Jo. At the graduation party she actually came up
to
| me and asked me if I want to dance. Since there were 40
| some witnesses present who could talk about my
clumsiness I
| said no. That has bothered me for more than 40 years.
| Just to prove the point, the worst landing I ever made
was
| with 3 FAA Inspectors on the airplane.
|
| Coulda been worse. One of the FAA inspectors coulda been
Patti Jo.

"Scott Post" wrote in message
...
Your prerogative. IMHO, you're missing out. Why limit your experiences
to
things you can only do to some minimum standard? You're sitting there.
You've got nothing better to do. Why not take the moment?

How does this jive with your question for Jay about experiencing being
sodomized by a guy? :-)

Because you clearly have a willingness to fly generally.

I take it as granted that there are things that any given person simply will
never have any interest in doing. But that's not the situation with respect
to you and flying.

Just so you don't think I'm a total dud, I did drive a cherry picker
yesterday. My neighbor rented it to hang xmas lights. I took him up on
his offer to use it. Great fun - ended up hanging lights all over the
house and in every tree in the front yard. I hope he rents it again
after xmas 'cuz otherwise I'll have to cut down the trees to get the
lights down.

Yeah, but would you have taken him up on an offer to simply operate the
cherry picker to no useful end for a few minutes? Or was it a requirement
that you actually *did* something with it?

I don't think you're a total dud at all. It's important that you do what
you want, and that you don't waste time doing things you don't want to do.
I just think you're missing some things that you might otherwise enjoy, and
simply don't realize it.

Pete

"Morgans" wrote in message
...
[...]
Your last two pronouncments (including this one) are easily disproved
simply by looking at what those posters actually post.

Last two?

If you are talking about MX, you would have to prove me wrong. You
couldn't
do it.

No...Mxsmanic is clearly a troll, in spite of a handful of other people
defending him as otherwise.

I'm referring to your reply to another poster, whose name I've forgotten.
Starts with a "T" I think. If I recall, their post came up in the context
of hangar doors? Or maybe it was just around the same time that thread was
here. I don't recall.

This one, I guess it is guilt by association with and support of troll
number 1. Perhaps it is wrong, so I'll wait and see.

There is no way you could legitimately call the person posting as
"Xmnushal8y" a troll. If you'd look at any of the articles posted
previously, that would be apparent. She goes some time between posts
occasionally, but isn't anything like a troll.

Frankly, we're actually relatively lucky. As disruptive as "Mxsmanic" has
been, he's really the only active troll around here these days. Not all
newsgroups are so lucky, nor has r.a.piloting been so lucky in days past
(recalling people like Mulcahy, Zoom, Eagleson, AcroCFI, etc....we've had
our share of nutcases, and just as they all eventually faded away, so too
will "Mxsmanic")

Pete

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
I guess you're right.

Did I just hear Jay Honeck say that? i just lost a fortune on air
conditioning stock in Hades.

You still have your a/c stock. He did the Usenet equivalent of crossing his
fingers (attaching a smiley).

And, I'll point out, he only implied that he was wrong. He did not actually
explicitly admit it.

Pete

"Morgans" wrote in message
...
[...]
I'm sure I can name quite a few things that, in spite of being popular
with some people, you would refuse to try even once.

Darn few.

But that isn't really important to the discussion.

Sure it is. The fact is, just as having sex with another man may be
abhorrent to you, taking the controls of (or even riding as a passenger in)
an airplane may be abhorrent to someone else.

The concept is *extremely* important to the discussion. It is the *core* of
the discussion.

"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"

And, I'll point out, he only implied that he was wrong. He did not actually
explicitly admit it.

If he ever admits it, I'll open an ice skating rink down there.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Peter Duniho" wrote

I'm referring to your reply to another poster, whose name I've forgotten.
Starts with a "T" I think. If I recall, their post came up in the context of
hangar doors? Or maybe it was just around the same time that thread was here.
I don't recall.

Oh, I remember. Something like tater shood.

He was a troll, too. He was not nearly as staying and persistant, and is long
gone. He seemed to think you could fly on a minimum wage job, as part of his
central argument. Shoot, you can't even live on a minimum wage job.

There is no way you could legitimately call the person posting as "Xmnushal8y"
a troll. If you'd look at any of the articles posted previously, that would
be apparent. She goes some time between posts occasionally, but isn't
anything like a troll.

OK, but I don't remember the name, without googling. It was her support of MX
that got me.

Frankly, we're actually relatively lucky. As disruptive as "Mxsmanic" has
been, he's really the only active troll around here these days.

If you call MX being here lucky, OK, but he is the most destructive I have seen
around here, ever, IMHO. His argumentative style, and hijacking of threads
reaches into every thread. I, for one, am sick of it, and of all of the people
responding to him as though he is just a lost soul, in need of support and
encouragement.

Dudley had it right, when he said he had not seen one play the group so
skillfully in a long time.

I have spent all of my energy that I want to on him, for a while. Somebody else
will need to take up the fight.
--
Jim in NC