My devoted worshipper, mudshrimp! was(Re: Formal Night Wear)

"Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:

>mudshrimp@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >Rosalie B. wrote:
>> > >
>> > > You are confusing the term "non-rev" with actual revenue. Whether the
>> > > airline gets any revenue is irrelevant. It is a term with a specific
>> > > meaning used by the airline. It doesn't apply to upgrades, vouchers
>> > > or frequent flier miles.
>>
>> > "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > It certainly did when I talked to the special Platinum agent of CO!
>> > Those are NON-REV tickets -- to Continental. When they don't
>> > receive a penny for the tickets I get from my FFMs.
>> >
>>
>> You are considered a "leech" - A self important person who lands a
>> "free" first class seat, and then crows about how special you are.
>
>Ladieeeeeees and Gentlemen <I use those terms very loosely <G>>.
>
>Here's the my most devoted worshipper in USENET, mudshrimp!
>
>He has made a total of FIVE posts in his bottom-dwelling life time,
>and all FIVE of them were his act of WORSHIP of the Reef Fish, in
>FOUR different newsgroups, none of which he participates, except for
>the posts below!
>
>His acts of devout worship were:
>
That may all be true, but he's right and you are wrong, and all your
rhetoric doesn't prove otherwise.

>December 17, 2004: in rec.scuba.locations
>January 27, 2005: in rec.scuba.locations
>February 23, 2005: in rec.scuba
>May 31, 2005: in sci.stat.edu
>August 30, 2005: in rec.travel.cruises
>
>mudshrimp, inspite of your diligence and devoted worship of your
>God in USENET, you have missed AT LEAST 5 other newsgroups in
>which I posted regularly, in 2005, not to mention those in which
>I post irregularly.
>
>What kind of LIFE do you have, mudshrimp?
>
>And why are you such a poultry manure that you have to create a
>bottom-dwelling posting name just to worship your God? And yet
>you MISSED all those religious newsgroups in which your God, ME,
>has descended to update the gospels for the hypocrites and
>pharisees like yourself?

grandma Rosalie

Rosalie B. wrote:
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >mudshrimp@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > >Rosalie B. wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > You are confusing the term "non-rev" with actual revenue. Whether the
> >> > > airline gets any revenue is irrelevant. It is a term with a specific
> >> > > meaning used by the airline. It doesn't apply to upgrades, vouchers
> >> > > or frequent flier miles.
> >>
> >> > "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > It certainly did when I talked to the special Platinum agent of CO!
> >> > Those are NON-REV tickets -- to Continental. When they don't
> >> > receive a penny for the tickets I get from my FFMs.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You are considered a "leech" - A self important person who lands a
> >> "free" first class seat, and then crows about how special you are.
> >
> >Ladieeeeeees and Gentlemen <I use those terms very loosely <G>>.
> >
> >Here's the my most devoted worshipper in USENET, mudshrimp!

Grandma Rosalie, your age and senility is beginning to show now.
First you couldn't understand that there are more than one kind
of non rev tickets.

And now, you have to stoop so low as to side with MUDSHRIMPT?

That itself takes the cake, for anyone who has any sense left.
> >
> >He has made a total of FIVE posts in his bottom-dwelling life time,
> >and all FIVE of them were his act of WORSHIP of the Reef Fish, in
> >FOUR different newsgroups, none of which he participates, except for
> >the posts below!
> >
> >His acts of devout worship were:
> >
> That may all be true,

Of coures it's all true! Ever learn how to use google? Just look
for "mudshrimp" as author and you'll find all five of his posts as
I gave the exact dates.

> but he's right and you are wrong, and all your
> rhetoric doesn't prove otherwise.

He is right that I am a "leech" and I landed one "free" first class
seat?

Grandma, your sinility is much more severe than I had ever thought.
Did you try to ascertain what I said about Continue non rev seats
from Continental OFFICIALS or Continental ticket agents?

Of course not. Else you wouldn't be back here doing a duet mouth-
dance with MUDSHRIMP!!!

That's quite an act, Grandma.

-- Bob.


>
> >December 17, 2004: in rec.scuba.locations
> >January 27, 2005: in rec.scuba.locations
> >February 23, 2005: in rec.scuba
> >May 31, 2005: in sci.stat.edu
> >August 30, 2005: in rec.travel.cruises
> >
> >mudshrimp, inspite of your diligence and devoted worship of your
> >God in USENET, you have missed AT LEAST 5 other newsgroups in
> >which I posted regularly, in 2005, not to mention those in which
> >I post irregularly.
> >
> >What kind of LIFE do you have, mudshrimp?
> >
> >And why are you such a poultry manure that you have to create a
> >bottom-dwelling posting name just to worship your God? And yet
> >you MISSED all those religious newsgroups in which your God, ME,
> >has descended to update the gospels for the hypocrites and
> >pharisees like yourself?
>
> grandma Rosalie

"Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>Rosalie B. wrote:
>> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >mudshrimp@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > >Rosalie B. wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > You are confusing the term "non-rev" with actual revenue. Whether the
>> >> > > airline gets any revenue is irrelevant. It is a term with a specific
>> >> > > meaning used by the airline. It doesn't apply to upgrades, vouchers
>> >> > > or frequent flier miles.
>> >>
>> >> > "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > It certainly did when I talked to the special Platinum agent of CO!
>> >> > Those are NON-REV tickets -- to Continental. When they don't
>> >> > receive a penny for the tickets I get from my FFMs.
>> >> >
>> >> You are considered a "leech" - A self important person who lands a
>> >> "free" first class seat, and then crows about how special you are.
>> >
>> >Ladieeeeeees and Gentlemen <I use those terms very loosely <G>>.
>> >
>> >Here's the my most devoted worshipper in USENET, mudshrimp!
>
>Grandma Rosalie, your age and senility is beginning to show now.
>First you couldn't understand that there are more than one kind
>of non rev tickets.
>
I understood that you thought Continental has more than one kind of
non-rev tickets. You didn't understand that I wasn't talking about
that.

>And now, you have to stoop so low as to side with MUDSHRIMPT?
>
>That itself takes the cake, for anyone who has any sense left.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I have no prior knowledge
of mudshrimp. I was taking him at face value.
>> >
>> >He has made a total of FIVE posts in his bottom-dwelling life time,
>> >and all FIVE of them were his act of WORSHIP of the Reef Fish, in
>> >FOUR different newsgroups, none of which he participates, except for
>> >the posts below!
>> >
>> >His acts of devout worship were:
>> >
>> That may all be true,
>
>Of coures it's all true! Ever learn how to use google? Just look
>for "mudshrimp" as author and you'll find all five of his posts as
>I gave the exact dates.
>
When I say it may be true, that means I am agreeing with you, not the
opposite as you seem to think.

>> but he's right and you are wrong, and all your
>> rhetoric doesn't prove otherwise.
>
>He is right that I am a "leech" and I landed one "free" first class
>seat?
>
No, he's right that you don't understand anything about real non-rev.

>Grandma, your sinility is much more severe than I had ever thought.
>Did you try to ascertain what I said about Continue non rev seats
>from Continental OFFICIALS or Continental ticket agents?
>
I don't give a tinker's damn about Continental. Why should I care
what they think, except that they've lead you astray in regard to
non-rev.

And while we are at it - your spelling is deteriorating.

grandma Rosalie

Rosalie B. wrote:
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Rosalie B. wrote:
>>
>>>"Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>mudshrimp@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>Rosalie B. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You are confusing the term "non-rev" with actual revenue. Whether the
>>>>>>>airline gets any revenue is irrelevant. It is a term with a specific
>>>>>>>meaning used by the airline. It doesn't apply to upgrades, vouchers
>>>>>>>or frequent flier miles.
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>It certainly did when I talked to the special Platinum agent of CO!
>>>>>>Those are NON-REV tickets -- to Continental. When they don't
>>>>>>receive a penny for the tickets I get from my FFMs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You are considered a "leech" - A self important person who lands a
>>>>>"free" first class seat, and then crows about how special you are.
>>>>
>>>>Ladieeeeeees and Gentlemen <I use those terms very loosely <G>>.
>>>>
>>>>Here's the my most devoted worshipper in USENET, mudshrimp!
>>
>>Grandma Rosalie, your age and senility is beginning to show now.
>>First you couldn't understand that there are more than one kind
>>of non rev tickets.
>>
>
> I understood that you thought Continental has more than one kind of
> non-rev tickets. You didn't understand that I wasn't talking about
> that.
>
>
>>And now, you have to stoop so low as to side with MUDSHRIMPT?
>>
>>That itself takes the cake, for anyone who has any sense left.
>
>
> Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I have no prior knowledge
> of mudshrimp. I was taking him at face value.
>
>>>>He has made a total of FIVE posts in his bottom-dwelling life time,
>>>>and all FIVE of them were his act of WORSHIP of the Reef Fish, in
>>>>FOUR different newsgroups, none of which he participates, except for
>>>>the posts below!
>>>>
>>>>His acts of devout worship were:
>>>>
>>>
>>>That may all be true,
>>
>>Of coures it's all true! Ever learn how to use google? Just look
>>for "mudshrimp" as author and you'll find all five of his posts as
>>I gave the exact dates.
>>
>
> When I say it may be true, that means I am agreeing with you, not the
> opposite as you seem to think.
>
>
>>>but he's right and you are wrong, and all your
>>>rhetoric doesn't prove otherwise.
>>
>>He is right that I am a "leech" and I landed one "free" first class
>>seat?
>>
>
> No, he's right that you don't understand anything about real non-rev.
>
>
>>Grandma, your sinility is much more severe than I had ever thought.
>>Did you try to ascertain what I said about Continue non rev seats
>
>>from Continental OFFICIALS or Continental ticket agents?
>
> I don't give a tinker's damn about Continental. Why should I care
> what they think, except that they've lead you astray in regard to
> non-rev.
>
> And while we are at it - your spelling is deteriorating.
>
> grandma Rosalie

You go, Grandma!
(As I understand it, that's the current equivalent of "right on"... Am I
dating myself? LOL)

How B

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:14:24 -0700, How B wrote:

> You go, Grandma!
> (As I understand it, that's the current equivalent of "right on"... Am I
> dating myself? LOL)
>
> How B

Right arm you are.
--
http://www.sterilecowboys.org/archive1/Crutch.html

How B wrote:
> Rosalie B. wrote:
> > "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:

> >>Grandma Rosalie, your age and senility is beginning to show now.
> >
> >>And now, you have to stoop so low as to side with MUDSHRIMPT?
> >
> >>Grandma, your sinility is much more severe than I had ever thought.


> > And while we are at it - your spelling is deteriorating.
> >
> > grandma Rosalie

You mean your "senility" deteriorated within one post to "sinility"?

It was either the severity of your senility or my dyslexic "fat
finger". That happens often when I type so fast that the keyboard
cannot keep up with the speed of my typing. But in every case,
no one was ever fooled by the misspelling, and only those who
are either senile or lacking in logic in any discussion of argument
invariably resort to playing Spelling Cop because they run out
of substance.

Grandma, are you campaigning to take away Dickhead's RTC crown?

#> RTC Poster Who is Most Likely Senile - Dick Goldhaber


> You go, Grandma!

The correct grammar is to say, "You SHOULD go, Grandma". Take it
from this doctor. Grandma has been mentally constipated for days!


> (As I understand it, that's the current equivalent of "right on"... Am I
> dating myself? LOL)
>
> How B

Is the "B" for "Baaaaaad"? That's how they spell "bad" now.

Aren't you the same Howie who used to taunt me,

> Impress me with your CV, Bob?
>
> Howie

and I responded

RF> * Nah, Howie. How can I impress you with my CV? I can only make
RF> * admiring remarks on yours

and showed items on Howie's CV that would make a janitor of an
academic institution LOL!

http://tinyurl.com/ddo9v

Aren't you the same Howie who was voted

#> RTCs Closet Queen Of The Newsgroup
#> RTC's Biggest Snob

If so, why did you change your posting identity?

-- Bob.

Rosalie B. wrote:
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Rosalie B. wrote:
> >> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >mudshrimp@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> > >Rosalie B. wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > You are confusing the term "non-rev" with actual revenue.

> >Grandma Rosalie, your age and senility is beginning to show now.
> >First you couldn't understand that there are more than one kind
> >of non rev tickets.
>
> >And now, you have to stoop so low as to side with MUDSHRIMPT?
> >
> >That itself takes the cake, for anyone who has any sense left.
>
> Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I have no prior knowledge
> of mudshrimp. I was taking him at face value.

But mudshrimp is a very slow (as in single-digit IQ) moving clock
that is never right.


> >> but he's right and you are wrong, and all your
> >> rhetoric doesn't prove otherwise.
> >
> >He is right that I am a "leech" and I landed one "free" first class
> >seat?
> >
> No, he's right that you don't understand anything about real non-rev.

Now we have taken on the tangent subject of what's real "non-rev"
(Grandma's assumed definition of some airline, Delta I think), and
what "non-rev" has been used to refer to other kinds of ticket by
other airlines, with concrete examples shown for Continental.
>
> >Grandma, your sinility is much more severe than I had ever thought.
> >Did you try to ascertain what I said about Continue non rev seats
> >from Continental OFFICIALS or Continental ticket agents?
> >
> I don't give a tinker's damn about Continental. Why should I care
> what they think, except that they've lead you astray in regard to
> non-rev.

Now we are finally getting to the crux of Grandma's senility.

Tell us, Grandma, exactly WHICH airline made and dictated the
meaning of "non-rev" tickets for all airlines?

DELTA?

You sure know how to pick a loser! About TWO weeks ago, Delta
stocks traded at its 43-year low, at $1.97 per share, because every
indication pointed to its expected home in Chapter 11.

DAL is traded at $1.18 now (which means it lost ANOTHER 40%+ since
the 43-year old news. It's not even in the news anymore -- just
keep heading straight down to tubes. The current bid is $1.17,
meaning it's continuing its down hill slalom.

You think that's the airline that sets standards for all airlines?

> grandma Rosalie

Congratulations, grandma! When the next RTC voting comes, as much as
think Dickhead deserved his honor, I'll vote for you to be our next

#> RTC Poster Who is Most Likely Senile - Dick Goldhaber

-- Bob.

"Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>Rosalie B. wrote:
>Now we are finally getting to the crux of Grandma's senility.
>
>Tell us, Grandma, exactly WHICH airline made and dictated the
>meaning of "non-rev" tickets for all airlines?
>
>DELTA?
>
Not Delta.

It has really gotten to a low point when the only thing you can do is
disparage the airline for their non-rev rules in order to hide your
complete ignorance of what I was talking about.

>You sure know how to pick a loser! About TWO weeks ago, Delta
>stocks traded at its 43-year low, at $1.97 per share, because every
>indication pointed to its expected home in Chapter 11.
>
>DAL is traded at $1.18 now (which means it lost ANOTHER 40%+ since
>the 43-year old news. It's not even in the news anymore -- just
>keep heading straight down to tubes. The current bid is $1.17,
>meaning it's continuing its down hill slalom.
>
>You think that's the airline that sets standards for all airlines?
>
>> grandma Rosalie
>
>Congratulations, grandma! When the next RTC voting comes, as much as
>think Dickhead deserved his honor, I'll vote for you to be our next
>
>#> RTC Poster Who is Most Likely Senile - Dick Goldhaber
>
And it's even lower when the only thing you can think of to say is a
personal attack.

Which proves nothing - I hope it makes you feel better. It certainly
gave me a laugh.

grandma Rosalie

Rosalie B. wrote:
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Rosalie B. wrote:
> >Now we are finally getting to the crux of Grandma's senility.
> >
> >Tell us, Grandma, exactly WHICH airline made and dictated the
> >meaning of "non-rev" tickets for all airlines?
> >
> >DELTA?
> >
> Not Delta.

I get it. It's the OTHER airline going down the Chapter 11 route.
I did find this from one of your old posts:

GB> My daughter is a pilot on AA. We've stopped flying non-rev and
GB> just have her purchase the discounted tickets. ...

In THIS thread, several years later, you're now confusing your non rev
and calling what you daughter had to pay (from deducting from her
paycheck) non-rev.

Were those tickets given by your daughter (she had to pay) rev or
non rev? LOL.

>
> It has really gotten to a low point when the only thing you can do is
> disparage the airline for their non-rev rules in order to hide your
> complete ignorance of what I was talking about.

Your false claim about SUIT and TIE for flying First Class had been
debunked LONG AGO. You kept coming back with irrelevant tangents
such as "rev" vs "non rev", which you were ALSO wrong.

>
> >You sure know how to pick a loser! About TWO weeks ago, Delta
> >stocks traded at its 43-year low, at $1.97 per share, because every
> >indication pointed to its expected home in Chapter 11.
> >
> >DAL is traded at $1.18 now (which means it lost ANOTHER 40%+ since
> >the 43-year old news. It's not even in the news anymore -- just
> >keep heading straight down to tubes. The current bid is $1.17,
> >meaning it's continuing its down hill slalom.

DAL closed at $1.16 today.
> >
> >You think that's the airline that sets standards for all airlines?

So, are you saying AA is the airline that sets standards for all
airlines?

AA is in the same boat (pardon the mixed metaphor) as Delta ...
following
Delta on the path down the tubes.

> >
> >> grandma Rosalie
> >
> >Congratulations, grandma! When the next RTC voting comes, as much as
> >think Dickhead deserved his honor, I'll vote for you to be our next
> >
> >#> RTC Poster Who is Most Likely Senile - Dick Goldhaber
> >
> And it's even lower when the only thing you can think of to say is a
> personal attack.

Well, I was REASONING with you on your false claim of DRESS CODES in
First Class; then all your false claims about "rev" and "non-rev",
you kept bringing into the dress code; and FINALLY the ultimate
tangent that somehow YOUR airline AA is the one that sets standards
and definitions on what's "non rev".

Those were the ISSUES I attacked, in which you erred, one after
another.

The "senility" is a characterization of your reasoning and logic (or
the lack thereof). Furthermore, it's a recognized HONOR in RTC.


> Which proves nothing - I hope it makes you feel better. It certainly
> gave me a laugh.

That was the whole idea, a LAUGH.

But the laugh was on all the ISSUES in which you were proven to have
erred. From the "dress code" of suit/coat and tie (which YOU
asserted initially) that NEVER existed; to your graduate retreat
into "no athletic wear and no denim" in Business/First that was 100%
false also; to the rest your "rev" vs "non rev" claims that
apparently applied only to AA; and even within that, you old post
seemed to indicate you changed your tune THERE too.

In short, you have not said one single thing about dress code or
non rev passengers that applies to most airlines.

That's the bottom line, grandma!
>
> grandma Rosalie

-- Bob.

"Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>Rosalie B. wrote:
>> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Rosalie B. wrote:
>> >Now we are finally getting to the crux of Grandma's senility.
>> >
>> >Tell us, Grandma, exactly WHICH airline made and dictated the
>> >meaning of "non-rev" tickets for all airlines?
>> >
>> >DELTA?
>> >
>> Not Delta.
>
>I get it. It's the OTHER airline going down the Chapter 11 route.
>I did find this from one of your old posts:
>
>GB> My daughter is a pilot on AA. We've stopped flying non-rev and
>GB> just have her purchase the discounted tickets. ...
>
>In THIS thread, several years later, you're now confusing your non rev
>and calling what you daughter had to pay (from deducting from her
>paycheck) non-rev.
>
>Were those tickets given by your daughter (she had to pay) rev or
>non rev? LOL.
>
Sometimes we buy tickets through her at a discount and sometimes we
fly non-rev. We don't have to do the same thing all the time. We
reimburse her for what she pays in either case. I'm not confused, nor
have I been confused about what was going on. I was talking only
about one case and that was non-rev flight. You are the one who keeps
dragging red herrings into it by talking about Continental and FFM and
vouchers for bumps.
>>
>> It has really gotten to a low point when the only thing you can do is
>> disparage the airline for their non-rev rules in order to hide your
>> complete ignorance of what I was talking about.
>
>Your false claim about SUIT and TIE for flying First Class had been
>debunked LONG AGO. You kept coming back with irrelevant tangents
>such as "rev" vs "non rev", which you were ALSO wrong.
>
No I'm not wrong. I didn't say that anyone had to wear a jacket and
tie for First Class flight. I said

>{The only thing he really needs to wear a coat and tie for these days
>{is for flying first class on a pass when 'business attire' is
>{required.

Business attire may include a coat and tie and that's how he chooses
to comply with the dress code when he flies on a pass.

<snip>

>> >Congratulations, grandma! When the next RTC voting comes, as much as
>> >think Dickhead deserved his honor, I'll vote for you to be our next
>> >
>> >#> RTC Poster Who is Most Likely Senile - Dick Goldhaber
>> >
>> And it's even lower when the only thing you can think of to say is a
>> personal attack.
>
>Well, I was REASONING with you on your false claim of DRESS CODES in
>First Class; then all your false claims about "rev" and "non-rev",
>you kept bringing into the dress code; and FINALLY the ultimate
>tangent that somehow YOUR airline AA is the one that sets standards
>and definitions on what's "non rev".
>
You brought AA into it - I didn't.

And calling people a dickhead and senile IS a personal attack and that
is the polar opposite of reasoning.

>Those were the ISSUES I attacked, in which you erred, one after
>another.
>
>The "senility" is a characterization of your reasoning and logic (or
>the lack thereof). Furthermore, it's a recognized HONOR in RTC.
>
>> Which proves nothing - I hope it makes you feel better. It certainly
>> gave me a laugh.
>
>That was the whole idea, a LAUGH.
>
>But the laugh was on all the ISSUES in which you were proven to have
>erred. From the "dress code" of suit/coat and tie (which YOU
>asserted initially) that NEVER existed; to your graduate retreat

What is a graduate retreat?

>into "no athletic wear and no denim" in Business/First that was 100%
>false also; to the rest your "rev" vs "non rev" claims that
>apparently applied only to AA; and even within that, you old post
>seemed to indicate you changed your tune THERE too.
>
>In short, you have not said one single thing about dress code or
>non rev passengers that applies to most airlines.
>
>That's the bottom line, grandma!

All I have proved is that you can't admit that you don't know
everything. I was perfectly correct about what I said. My husband
prefers to wear a coat and tie for travel on a pass because he thinks
that is appropriate. Not required, and possibly old fashioned, but
not wrong. And there is a dress code for non-rev travel. Not wrong
about that. I don't know what it is on all airlines because I haven't
flown non-rev on other airlines but you haven't shown that they don't
have such a dress code either.

..

grandma Rosalie