Grow a disgusting mustache Swayne.

We had...
 

We had one guy get into “Cecil’s” office to ask his advice and he got hired at mainline. I think after that one there was a stampede of Eagle drivers over to Cecil’s office. But they couldn’t get in to see him.

Got to have a gimmick bros.

On a side note. There’s NO WAY Eagle would have allowed videos to be made by a pilot back in the bad old days. That companies behavior couldn’t stand the light of day. So we wouldn’t have had that gimmick available to us.

I couldn't agree more and posted such on, I think, the first page of this thread (or maybe it was the other similar thread). Can't believe threads like this are allowed by the mods.

Moderator input: If you see a post which clearly violates forum rules, use the “report post” icon (a triangle at the lower left). Don’t expect someone else to do it for you. We already banned someone for making such a post.
Keep in mind that when someone chooses to become a public figure on Youtube, they give up much of their expectation of privacy.

Looks like I'm going to need to pop some more popcorn.

Usually on board with much of what you have to say, but why in the world would a thread like this not be allowed? There are some "posts" in it that are inflammatory or libel but there is no rule about discussing someone that posts on YouTube.

There also is no rule that just because someone is "nice guy" or "good pilot" makes them immune to people not liking what they may or may not be doing.

I for one appreciate that they don’t crack down on stuff like this. Is it totally professional to do a thread like this? No, but this also isn’t an aa.com email chain. Anyway, the people demand a disgusting mustache.

You asked so I'll answer, because it's allowing shaming and bullying tactics by his peers. Yes, he's one of us.

Now, that's all I'll say on this matter, in this thread or anywhere else, because my comments seem to have me teetering on being banned.

We need it.

"Allowing?" You sound as if there somehow would be no "shaming" and "bullying" were it NOT "allowed" that a discussion take place.

That's a rather extraordinary claim.

An open avenue for discussion/criticism of a PUBLIC figure must NECESSARILY enable "shaming" and "bullying," along with legitimate scrutiny. You can regard it as an unfortunate "side effect" if you wish, but don't allow yourself to operate under the illusion that all the resentment, unfair criticism, and nasty thoughts will suddenly evaporate from the minds of "haters" once you forcefully muzzle all discussion of someone's publicly-distributed product.