What takes longer, a witty riposte from a PPL CC or a gin and tonic ?

Good to see you back Jude, now where's my G&T ? :ok:

Flying Lawyer, when someone recognises himself in the description "arrogant, ignorant pompous troll", it is logical that he feels offended. Funny how nobody else has taken offence eh?

G-AWZK


If you read the link, you'll see the target of "arrogant, ignorant and pompous" is bigelz1214, a PPL who posted in another forum.
The originator of this thread has already suggested there that he has 'limited brains' which are 'firmly stuck up his bum' and also accused him of being 'a disgrace to his licence' for some reason.

This thread is 'jocular' only in the sense that the originator isn't really suggesting that all PPLs fit the description and, in contrast to the thread in the other forum, people here have responded in good humour. Thankfully, we very rarely have personal attacks in this forum.

You, and those who agree with you, are entitled to your view. Mine is that describing another poster in those terms is a personal attack. If we all held the same opinions about everything, PPRuNe would be a very dull place.

Feel free to think what you wish of me.

FWIW I agree with you Flying Lawyer. :ok:

Flying Lawyer, although your comments seem mainly to be addressed to G-AWZK, I should like to place it on the record that I do – of course – agree totally and wholeheartedly with your basic premise that and – naturally – should not be tolerated on PPRuNe. But then you are, of course, fully aware that my opinion of personal attacks (from wherever they may issue), is that they are intolerable.

As far as is concerned, I have to admit that it does seem odd that you would post a criticism of said poster in an entirely different thread, indeed another forum entirely (without making it clear that bigelz1215 was indeed the target), rather than in the thread to which your criticism of personal attacks should apply. Most unlike a lawyer to leave anything open to misinterpretation, but I suppose we all have moments when we make untypical and unlikely errors. I certainly do.

However, your statement that could perhaps be interpreted as only a partially correct version of the actual situation. Even though you carefully use the word “suggested”, your chosen phraseology does imply that you do actually think that bigelz1215 was specifically being told that he had limited brains and that they were stuck firmly up his bum, whereas what the originator of this thread said is This is a slight but significant difference as I am sure you will agree, merely being a suggestion by association that the individual himself indeed has that particular brain/bum interface situation.

However, I do agree that the originator of this thread did say [QUOTE]bigelz1215, you're a disgrace to your licence.[QUOTE]

I believe (perhaps erroneously) that this is merely an opinion which she is entitled to state and does not constitute a personal attack.

For example, if I were to say that someone was a pompous, arrogant, self-important, pretentious, haughty, conceited, egotistical, superior, supercilious, condescending, vindictive, spiteful, malicious, cruel, mean, hurtful, nasty, unkind, malevolent, wicked, mean-spirited, heartless, revengeful, resentful, bitter, ruthless, uncharitable, ingratiating, sycophantic, obsequious, fawning, toadying, slimy, smarmy, greasy, oily, slippery, creepy, unctuous, foul, offensive, nauseating, sickening, vile, ghastly, unpleasant, dangerous prat, then that would be a personal attack for which I should be tied to the mast and given 20 lashes.

However, if I were to see an RAF officer strolling down the street in uniform with a fag on, jacket undone, hat in hand and other hand in pocket, I might well say to him “you are a disgrace to your uniform” and I would be entitled to so give my opinion, and that would not – in my view – constitute a personal attack, but rather be my opinion of how he is representing the RAF. There are – naturally – subtle nuances which mean that each and every case will always be adjudged differently by various people, but – as you yourself say - .

A merry Christmas and a happy new year.

Hahahahahaha!!! You are so wrong mate.....there are many more cabin crew who hold a PPL than you can imagine...!! :D

Juud....as I have said in the sister thread on the SLF forum sometimes radio frequencies transmit pure simple comedies :E does that mean all Private Pilots are airheads then ;) :}

flybywire - Indeed! Plus those who hold CPLs and frozen ATPLs.

:ok:

So, according to our friend in the SLF forum it would be a serious case of being both airheads and arrogant ignorant pompuous trolls :E ;) :}

If you have a frozen ATPL then be a poppet and fetch some ice for my G&T. :ok:

Wholigan,

Unctuous is such a rich and satisfying word, thank you for the entertaining post.

Flying Lawyer you do seem to be taking this rather personally when, to my mind at least, it doesn't appear to be a personal attack. Now, if the poster had said "Bigelz is ...etc" then it would be.
An interesting thought has just occurred to me, Bigelz isn't by any chance an alter ego of yours is he? :hmm: IF he is,(and I stress "IF"), then all I can say is you should know better than to have started the original post which is offensive to Cabin Crew and therefore you would deserve all that has been said which you, and apparently only you, finds offensive.

No, not taking it personally and no, I'm not Bigelz. :)
It was just an observation with which people were free to agree, disagree or, as most have done, read it and not comment either way.

I think he was very unwise to choose the title he did, but I don't agree he deserved all that has been said. Perhaps that's because, as a member of the most unpopular and most criticised profession in the world, I've got used to reading far more offensive comments about lawyers. I admit I find some comments frustrating at times, but they're aimed at a 'group' not me personally so I'm not offended by them and have never tried to defend all lawyers - there are good and bad in all jobs.

I happen to disagree with every point Wholigan made, including those which began "you are, of course, fully aware" and "as I am sure you will agree." NB: That's not a criticism of him. It's a fairly standard debating tactic which I've used many times myself - and politicians use daily.
I saw no point in responding, partly because it was obvious we were never going to agree and partly because the discussion didn't seem to me to be important enough to pursue. I was, and am, content to agree to differ.


FL

Hahahahaha!! Thanks for that!! It is a brand new joke, I had never heard that before :rolleyes:

:E :E :E

What tickles my kinky sense of humour is that a troll makes one posting in one forum, is never heard from again, yet two threads in two fora seem to be flourishing from that seed.

I know several cabin crew, and wouldn't dare say a bad word about them ;)
I know lots of PPLs, and while a very few are plonqueurs, most are good friends and excellent people.

Which proves ... nobody's perfect.


That's my excuse when I screw up.

Good Point! :D

But dont forget the ever popular inter alia that tends to get a laugh at parties and who can forget the universally pleasing without prejudice.:E

Happy Xmas all
Xraf:ok:

Res ipsa loquitur!!

Merry christmas everyone.

Latin phrases tend to get a laugh in court too, and have for some years - accompanied by eyes rolled Heavenwards and barely muffled groans from judges and other counsel. :)