Why Pilots of America rocks...

Jay Maynard wrote in
:

On 2008-09-07, Rich Ahrens wrote:
First off, I'm not defending him. He's quite capable of doing so
himself if he chooses. Holding the same opinion as someone some of
the time (e.g., Maxie is an idiot) is not defending that person.
Neither is conversing with him. Or correcting factual errors about
past history. The fact that you cannot tell the difference places
your judgment in question.

When was the last time you told him he was wrong?

I would turn it around and suggest that for you to praise Jay only
sullies your own reputation. He's a reactionary, self-promoting
asshole, and I stepped away from here for a good while because of the
constant pollution of his political crap.

If he's reactionary, then you definitely won't like my politics.
However, there's more to a person than his political views. I can
separate my opinion of someone's politics from my opinion of them as a
person. You apparently cannot.

Jay Honeck posted far more stuff on topic for this group than you
have. He was one of the few folks around here actually writing about
aviation. He certainly did so far more often than your buddy Bertie.




No, he did not. And most of what he did post was crap.


Bertie

"Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net wrote in :


"Jay Maynard" wrote in message
...
On 2008-09-07, Rich Ahrens wrote:
on 9/7/2008 1:04 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
On 2008-09-07, Rich Ahrens wrote:
And Bertie has been posting in aviation groups since 1998, as a
simple Google search will turn up. He even posted in RAP on 9/11:
Has he been a flaming asshole troll for that long, or did he just
go over
the edge recently? (And no, I'm not about to dredge up that sewer
on my own.)
A false dichotomy that I'm not going to bite on. Besides, Maxie
would insist I was defending him either way, but I'm simply
presenting facts.

Rich, my dim recollection from my previous time as a member of the
rec.aviation community was that you were, like a lot of other folks,
calm, rational, and knowledgeable. When I got away from flying, I got
away from rec.aviation. When I got back into flying, I got back in
here, only to find
that the group is full of people like Mxsmanic and Bertie, each
working to destroy the sense of community and mutual assistance by
being as trollish, or as much a flaming asshole, as possible, and the
few who were still trying
to be helpful (such as Jay Honeck) being ruthlessly driven away.
Imagine my
surprise to discover you defending Bertie, one of the worst, and
repeatedly
slamming Jay Honeck, one of the better of those remaining.

I still have my "rec.aviation: Global Hangar Flying" patch,
somewhere. It doesn't apply any more. If we had this kind of hangar
flying, we could sell
tickets and market it on pay-per-view to the unlimited fighting fans.

Bertie's one of the primary causes of the hangar getting burned to
the ground. For you to defend him as you do merely sullies your own
reputation.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC

Jay,

Thanks for having the guts to tell it like it is. Hopefully in time,
more people find the courage to come forward and tell Bertie and his
socks where to go.



You can tell me as much as you like. But I'm not going anywhere,
fjukkwit.


Bertie

"Morgans" wrote in
:


"Jay Maynard" wrote

Rich, my dim recollection from my previous time as a member of the
rec.aviation community was that you were, like a lot of other folks,
calm, rational, and knowledgeable.

Bertie's one of the primary causes of the hangar getting burned to
the ground. For you to defend him as you do merely sullies your own
reputation.

Rich has been on my plonked list, for almost as long as I can
remember. He has not always been a flamer, but he has always had an
smart a**ed a**hole, as far as I can remember.

Is Rich Ahrens a real name? I have wondered if it is just the name of
another Bertie sock puppet.



God, antoher idiot heard from.


Bertie

Jay Maynard wrote in
:

On 2008-09-08, Rich Ahrens wrote:
you're just contributing to the problem you're bitching about.

Not any more. *plonk*

You'll be back.


Bertie

buttman wrote in news:cd7c4377-d32e-4006-afb4-
:

On Sep 7, 5:14*pm, Rich Ahrens wrote:
In this case there is at least one other
option: that Bertie is not a flaming asshole troll. This clearly meets

Theres people who think Bertie isn't a flaming asshole troll?


Apparently.

Go figger.


I do my best, but...

Bertie

"Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net wrote in :


"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
. net...
on 9/7/2008 2:28 PM Jim Logajan said the following:
Rich Ahrens wrote:
on 9/7/2008 1:04 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
On 2008-09-07, Rich Ahrens wrote:
And Bertie has been posting in aviation groups since 1998, as a
simple Google search will turn up. He even posted in RAP on 9/11:
Has he been a flaming asshole troll for that long, or did he just
go over the edge recently? (And no, I'm not about to dredge up
that sewer on my own.)
A false dichotomy

Well ... Jay did not use a dichotomy - that I can see. Rather, his
question made a presumption: that Bertie is a flaming asshole. The
question was when did he become one. The distant past and the recent
past are not normally considered dichotomous - merely a subjective
matter.

A false dichotomy is an instance of a bifurcation fallacy and falls
into the category of fallacies of presumption. A bifurcation fallacy
is committed when someone is asked to choose between two options when
there is at least one other option available. Jay clearly presented
two options and asked me to choose. In this case there is at least
one other option: that Bertie is not a flaming asshole troll. This
clearly meets the definition.

An answer to Jay's question doesn't appear to yield anything useful,
though. At least not that I can see.

On that we agree.

Wow! Great big words, little bitty pecker.




Funny the way your mind works.


No.. Hilarious.....!



Bertie

Jay Maynard wrote in
:

On 2008-09-07, Jim Logajan wrote:
Rich Ahrens wrote:
on 9/7/2008 1:04 PM Jay Maynard said the following:
Has he been a flaming asshole troll for that long, or did he just
go over the edge recently? (And no, I'm not about to dredge up that
sewer on my own.)
A false dichotomy
Well ... Jay did not use a dichotomy - that I can see. Rather, his
question made a presumption: that Bertie is a flaming asshole.

Exactly. This isn't in serious question except among Bertie and his
supporters.


?? To me it's not even a question.


An answer to Jay's question doesn't appear to yield anything useful,
though. At least not that I can see.

Oh, I was mainly curious as to when this group started its downhill
slide from community of aviators to flaming cesspit.


When did you arrive again, tronboi?



Bertie

on 9/8/2008 2:50 PM Bertie the Bunyip said the following:
"Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net wrote in :

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
. ..

That sounds like the start of a "Live forever" joke -- it's not
forever, it just seems that way in OK. But an OK friend had a nice
comeback. "Why do all the trees in OK lean toward Texas?"


"Texas sucks".

I admit it. I laughed. Now I'm ashamed!



If it wasn't for Oklahoma truckers and Mexican whores, there would never
have been a Texas.



Yeh, Maxine, We're thirlled you'r proud of your roots.

I think you meant his parents.

"Stella Starr" wrote

Okay, dear. Whatever you say. I agree completely.

(I just love the little thrill it gives a guy when I say that!)

OMG! I would be more likely to flip a lid, rather than get a thrill.

I think the word "whatever" should be banned from use between a woman and a
man.

Combined with a roll of the eyes, it has started wars, IIRC. g
--
Jim in NC

"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
. net...
on 9/8/2008 12:07 AM Lonnie said the following:
"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
...
First I've heard of that meaning. On Usenet I always took it to mean
someone posting under multiple aliases. I may be wrong, but I may be
typical in understanding it by that meaning.

The links you include below appear to me to be unrelated to the meaning
traditionally used on Usenet. To avoid confusion, you might want to
modify
your accusations by saying they are parrots, or parroting, or
brainwashed,
or something other than sock puppets.


If we can't tell one from the other, and they both serve the same
purpose, why do they need two names.

Because anyone with two working neurons can tall the difference. Which
eliminates you, I realize...

Considering their actual motives, I guess we could call the real people
"suck puppets".

Considering the amount of crap you spew, we'll just have to keep calling
you an asshole.

Shame yor to lame to speak to the issue. Keep sumbling fupid.