Should I stay or should I go now?

[mar]

I would've left it.

TIS--It was a good post. I would've left it up. To hell with the peanut gallery.

These lily livered prima donnas just don't like to be told they're just another cog in the machine and not quite god's gift to aviation.

Where I come from we're just a different form of heavy equipment operators.

 

[pilotyip]

for Tony C

Hey that is English's job, are you sure you are really Tony C? The BBQ stufff makes you sound like a DA Capt alter ego

 

[TonyC]

Hey that is English's job, are you sure you are really Tony C? The BBQ stufff makes you sound like a DA Capt alter ego

What? You don't think I'm refined enough to appreciate good barbeque? Search the Forums for Bozo'z and you'll see I've proclaimed my allegiance to the best BBQ in the world on several occassions. Unfortunately, there are no colleges near Mason, TN, so it doesn't fit the bill for this question.


OK, I admit, I haven't been thinking about BBQ and colleges for a while. It occurred to me that the best way to hijack a thread is to talk about BBQ, and you reminded me of the "Oh, no, you don't have to have a college degree to get a good airline job" mentality, so I seized an opportunity to combine the two thoughts - - college, and BBQ. Was there a good BBQ joint near your college?


And if English appreciates good BBQ, too, then good on her!

 

[TIS]

Spoken like a true liberal

My words: "Seriously, if you cannot add anything to the discussion you needn't utter so much as a word. That way no one will know that you're a complainer. No one likes a complainer you know."

Then this response:

This sounds a whole lot like "If you don't like it, quit."


Oh, the irony.

Actually Tony, it doesn't sound ANYTHING like, "If you don't like it, quit." And, simply saying it is so does NOT make it so. Let me explain the difference to you since you apparently don't understand what the meaning of "is" is.

My phrase - "...if you cannot add anything to the discussion you needn't utter so much as a word," - means what it says. To expound upon the gist of the thought, it means if you don't like what I write, the way I write it, or where I choose to post what I write, the solution is very simple: DON'T READ WHAT I WRITE!

As an aside, I find it interesting that even though I suggest this solution to help alleviate the deep discontent of certain individuals regarding the things I say in my posts over and over again, none of my detractors seems to have enough sense to act on the suggestion. I guess this runs along the lines of intentionally beating your head against a wall - it feels really good when you stop.

So you see, there really isn't much room for interpretation. I meant what I said, not what YOU say I meant. That you find some level of equivalency between advocacy of an early exit from an aviation career based on growing distaste for the job requirements, and what I wrote says pretty much all that needs to be said, so I'll end my response here.

TIS

 

[G4 Driver]

Late Night Humor

Quote:

So you see, there really isn't much room for interpretation. I meant what I said, not what YOU say I meant.

Simply put, for communication to occur, you must have a sender, a receiver, and a message. The sender must formulate the message in such a way that the receiver can understand it. The sender will thereby send the message in said form to the receiver. The receiver will then interpret the message and formulate another message which is sent back to the sender. The sender then interprets the second message from the receiver to gauge whether or not the original message was understood...and so on and so on.

The bottom line is that you guys are not communicating well.

...Sorry, It's late and I couldn't resist and BTW...we could walk or stumble to and from the BBQ joint at my college. Did somebody say Boomer Sooner...

 

[TonyC]

Spoken like a true liberal

Them’s fightin’ words…

So you see, there really isn't much room for interpretation.

Oh, really? I beg to differ. As long as you're using the English language to construct sentences, there will be room for interpretation, and generally speaking, the more words you use, the more room there will be. Anyway, I digress...

Let me explain the difference to you since you apparently don't understand what the meaning of "is" is.

Is that your best tactic for bolstering your weak position, insulting your opponent by accusing him of being a liberal and attempting to draw a ridiculous comparison with a disgusting excuse for a President?



Liberal? You have got to be out of your ever-lovin' mind. TIS, you're going to give conservatives a bad name if you resort to that sort of name-calling with everyone that doesn't agree with you. This has nothing to do with conservative or liberal, it has to do with a completely apolitical concept. It's language.



Now, back to the meat of the issue.

Spoken like a true liberal



My words: "Seriously, if you cannot add anything to the discussion you needn't utter so much as a word. That way no one will know that you're a complainer. No one likes a complainer you know."



Then this response:

This sounds a whole lot like "If you don't like it, quit."


Oh, the irony.

Your words... indeed, you did say those words. You neglected, however, to address the title which you gave the post, and which I included in my original quote of you. Let's bring those words back, shall we?

Perhaps you should go now

Now, THOSE words carry the flavor of dismissal. It sounds like you're conveying an attitude that says:



"If you don't like what I have to say, don't participate in this conversation."



"If you don't agree, don't talk."



"If you don't agree, go away."



Now, I realize there's a lot of room for interpretation, and it's quite possible that you've not properly articulated your true intent. That's no reason, however, for you to lash out at someone who has reasonably interpreted the words you have recorded for posterity.



I feel somewhat reaffirmed, however, that my interpretation is not far off base, for even in your most recent tirade, you've articulated the "If you don't like it, quit" mentality with this:

if you don't like what I write ... DON'T READ WHAT I WRITE!

Now, really, how is one to determine whether he likes what you write until he has read it, and after having read it, how is he supposed to NOT read it? That notion is, in a word, absurd.







One cannot deny the parallels in construction and sentiment between "If you don't like it, quit" and "If you don't like what I say, go away." The only difference is you oppose the former, and you espouse the latter.



As I observed in the first place, they sound a lot alike.

And, simply saying it is so does NOT make it so.

Where did I use such a flabby argument as this? What good does it do to prop up a ridiculous claim as this, and then attack it? Did you think destroying a scarecrow would make you look smarter?



By the way, simply saying it IS NOT so doesn't make it NOT so, either.





Moving right along…

My phrase - "...if you cannot add anything to the discussion you needn't utter so much as a word," - means what it says. To expound upon the gist of the thought, it means if you don't like what I write, the way I write it, or where I choose to post what I write, the solution is very simple: DON'T READ WHAT I WRITE!

Funny, I thought expound meant “to explain in careful detail,” but it appears you’ve taken some liberty with the process.



First, let’s just look at the independent clause in both of these cases, the original phrase, and your “expounding.” I’m referring to the last “half,” if you will, of the sentences, that half that explains what happens “if” the first half is satisfied. If you cannot add anything to the discussion, then what?



“… if you cannot add anything to the discussion…”



In the original, the reader is supposed to not “utter so much as a word.” Silencing an opponent is a luxury I don’t enjoy. Do you suppose we should afford you that luxury?



In the “expounding,” the reader is supposed to not “read what [you] write!” I’ve already addressed how ridiculous that notion is on the surface, but now I must ask you how the two are equivalent. How does “don’t talk” equal “don’t read”?





Now let’s revisit the propositional phrase, the first half of the sentence, the part that begins with “If.”



In the original, the condition is “if you cannot add anything to the discussion… ”. In the “expounding,” the condition is “if you don’t like what I write… ”. Are we to know then, that we cannot add anything to the discussion unless we like what you write? After all, you just told us that’s what you mean.



TIS, I hate to belabor the issue, but you seem so adamant in your claim that your words have only one interpretation: yours. Well, that clearly isn’t true.

I meant what I said, not what YOU say I meant.

I never claimed to know, nor attempted to tell anyone what you meant to say. I said, “ …it sounds a whole lot like… ”. I don’t understand why that’s gotten your panties in such a twist.

That you find some level of equivalency between advocacy of an early exit from an aviation career based on growing distaste for the job requirements, and what I wrote says pretty much all that needs to be said, so I'll end my response here.

(emph. added)

I’m not even going to attempt to decipher that one, even though you’ll likely claim there is only one way to interpret it.



Do you enjoy complaining about complainers?

 

[Brett Hull]

Search the Forums for Bozo'z and you'll see I've proclaimed my allegiance to the best BBQ in the world on several occassions.

I'm making a citizens arrest on the spelling police. It's occasion.

 

[mar]

I'll gladly serve as witness.

As one who appreciates good spelling and grammar as much as the next guy I must say that last exhibition by TonyC qualifies as gratuitous and almost pornographic.

I'm mean, C'mon! For crying out loud, what are we trying to accomplish here?

I happen to be well acquainted with TIS's posts from over the years.

He's always been a solid source of good advice and seasonsed perspective.

The only problem is this: He got his buttons pushed by a couple of instigators.

And it's a shame because now the larger message has been lost and buried forever in a mountain of rhetoric, syntax, spelling and grammar.

As for TonyC being a liberal, well, that *was* pretty funny. I just had to sit back and see if any of that was gonna stick.

Nevertheless, I'd encourage TIS to turn the other cheek and continue to contribute here. I, for one, happen to miss his observations and comments on the industry. I would be a real shame if he was alienated from this board.

So. Let's lighten up a little, all right?

 

[TonyC]

I'm making a citizens arrest on the spelling police. It's occasion.

LOL. Thanks, Brett! I misspelled Bozo's, too. Oh, well.

I'm glad someone's takin' care of me.

 

[TonyC]

As one who appreciates good spelling and grammar as much as the next guy I must say that last exhibition by TonyC qualifies as gratuitous and almost pornographic.

I'm mean, C'mon! For crying out loud, what are we trying to accomplish here?

I'm sorry if I offended you with my post. I observed early in this thread that TIS's suggestion "if you don't like what I say, leave" resembles the "if you don't like it, quit" advice that he despises. (NO, those are not direct quotes, but rather paraphrases.)

He lashed out at me for making a casual observation, declared that there was only one way to interpret his words, and called me a liberal - - I was compelled to defend myself. Well, I probably wouldn't have used both barrels if he hadn't suggested a comparison to Slick Willy, but neither barrel was aimed at spelling or grammar. I examined sentence structure to demonstrate the validity of my original observation, and the inconsistencies of his claims. I understand how, coming from me, you could assume it was an attack on spelling and grammar. That was not my intent.

Nevertheless, I'd encourage TIS to turn the other cheek and continue to contribute here. I, for one, happen to miss his observations and comments on the industry. I would be a real shame if he was alienated from this board.

So. Let's lighten up a little, all right?

I'll go one further, and suggest that he restore the original post. If it's valid, it'll hold up to scrutiny. No sense backing out of a discussion because you meet dissenting opinions.

Just don't call me no liberal no more !


Which BBQ joint was that in Oklahoma??