Translation
hey turtle boy .......GET A F%^&*N CLUE !
You don't state any valid facts.
It is apparent from the post that the turtle is speaking from a position of knowledge that is, euphamistically speaking, limited at best with regard to the state of affairs at CHQ.
Whether the assertions the turtle chose to put forth were distorted by design or are merely the the parroting of escalated crew room gossip is irrelevant. There is a basis in fact for the statements in the post, however there are what can only be referred to as "glaring inaccuracies" in the majority of the statements which significantly alter the context of and indicate a profound lack of insight into the true nature of the situation.
Furthermore, the accuracy, or lack thereof, of the assertions put forth in the turtle's "argument" is irrelevant as well. The sylogism that he or she attempted to create to support the conclusion that CHQ's contract will be concessionary is invalid and therefore is by definition logically fallacious.
That being said, it is understandable that some, myself included, might have taken umbrage at the post.
As a statement of pure opinion, absent supporting argument as I do not have sufficient knowledge of the true state of affairs at Mesa, I would venture that the turtle and his Mesa colleagues are anxious for another pilot group to further "lower the bar" so that the attention of their peers will be distracted from the disastrous (or successful, depending on your point of view) outcome of their own contract negotiations.
Despite the precedent, CHQ will not accommodate that desire.