Clearance into inactive restricted areas

[Mxsmanic]

If a restricted area is inactive, do I still need a clearance into it?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> If a restricted area is inactive, do I still need a clearance into it?

Why don't you go read Part 73 and see what is says about you flying
the Microsoft Flight Simulator game through a restricted area?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Rick[_1_]]

Mxsmanic wrote in message ...
>If a restricted area is inactive, do I still need a clearance into it?

Don't do it. The FBI will be at your door knocking it down and asking you to
turn your computer off.

- Rick

[paul k. sanchez]

On Apr 20, 10:57 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> If a restricted area is inactive, do I still need a clearance into it?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

I'm quite sure that most instructors would be able to explain
appropriate sections of FAR 91 and FAR 73 to you. Simply make an
appointment with an authorized instructor for the day and think of all
the questions you can have answered. This of course would be billable
but I'm sure you would better remember the lesson than any previous
question you have posted here on this group.

[Mxsmanic]

paul k. sanchez writes:

> I'm quite sure that most instructors would be able to explain
> appropriate sections of FAR 91 and FAR 73 to you.

Perhaps so. Are you such an instructor? If so, can you explain? If not,
what is the purpose of your post?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[paul k. sanchez]

On Apr 21, 6:54 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> paul k. sanchez writes:
> > I'm quite sure that most instructors would be able to explain
> > appropriate sections of FAR 91 and FAR 73 to you.
>
> Perhaps so. Are you such an instructor? If so, can you explain? If not,
> what is the purpose of your post?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

I think I know a fair amount of airspace classification and limits. We
can arrange a 3 to 5 day appointment and you can get a wondrous amount
of questions answered. You might even find it more productive than
posting here on this usenet group.

[Bush]

Is this Paul former PAE and TWE?

Bush

On 21 Apr 2007 15:08:29 -0700, "paul k. sanchez"
> wrote:

>On Apr 20, 10:57 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> If a restricted area is inactive, do I still need a clearance into it?
>>
>> --
>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
>I'm quite sure that most instructors would be able to explain
>appropriate sections of FAR 91 and FAR 73 to you. Simply make an
>appointment with an authorized instructor for the day and think of all
>the questions you can have answered. This of course would be billable
>but I'm sure you would better remember the lesson than any previous
>question you have posted here on this group.

[Mxsmanic]

paul k. sanchez writes:

> I think I know a fair amount of airspace classification and limits. We
> can arrange a 3 to 5 day appointment and you can get a wondrous amount
> of questions answered. You might even find it more productive than
> posting here on this usenet group.

In other words, you don't have the answer. Oh well.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[flypaper]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> paul k. sanchez writes:
>
>> I think I know a fair amount of airspace classification and limits.
>> We can arrange a 3 to 5 day appointment and you can get a wondrous
>> amount of questions answered. You might even find it more productive
>> than posting here on this usenet group.
>
> In other words, you don't have the answer. Oh well.

What a PIOUS, WORTHLESS, PIECE OF ****E YOU ARE!!!!
And that about covers it.

[Mxsmanic]

flypaper writes:

> What a PIOUS, WORTHLESS, PIECE OF ****E YOU ARE!!!!
> And that about covers it.

That's two people who don't have the answer. Anyone else who doesn't know the
answer?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> flypaper writes:
>
>> What a PIOUS, WORTHLESS, PIECE OF ****E YOU ARE!!!!
>> And that about covers it.
>
> That's two people who don't have the answer. Anyone else who doesn't know
> the
> answer?
>

What a moron, you couldn't find your butt with both hands could you? At
least 90% of the people here know the answer to such a basic question, and
how off topic the question is in a form for certified pilots. Go take a
ground school class or go back to the breast feeding fourm.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> What a moron, you couldn't find your butt with both hands could you? At
> least 90% of the people here know the answer to such a basic question, and
> how off topic the question is in a form for certified pilots. Go take a
> ground school class or go back to the breast feeding fourm.

Sifting through your post, I couldn't find the answer to the question
anywhere.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> What a moron, you couldn't find your butt with both hands could you? At
>> least 90% of the people here know the answer to such a basic question,
>> and
>> how off topic the question is in a form for certified pilots. Go take a
>> ground school class or go back to the breast feeding fourm.
>
> Sifting through your post, I couldn't find the answer to the question
> anywhere.
>

Then let me help you out. Put your hands in your back pockets and grab!

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> If a restricted area is inactive, do I still need a clearance into it?
>

If it were me (restricted areas are easy to avoid) I would treat it as
if it were restricted. Treat a gun like it's loaded, treat restricted
airspace as if the FBI were watching you.

The "get an instructor and do the thing for a while" idea is teh bomb,
though. You've got alot of interest in this stuff, why don't you get
out and do a little. It is expensive, but you don't have to do it all
at once.

[[email protected]]

Erik > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:

> > If a restricted area is inactive, do I still need a clearance into it?
> >

> If it were me (restricted areas are easy to avoid) I would treat it as
> if it were restricted. Treat a gun like it's loaded, treat restricted
> airspace as if the FBI were watching you.

> The "get an instructor and do the thing for a while" idea is teh bomb,
> though. You've got alot of interest in this stuff, why don't you get
> out and do a little. It is expensive, but you don't have to do it all
> at once.

Never going to happen; he's terrified of real airplanes.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

Erik writes:

> The "get an instructor and do the thing for a while" idea is teh bomb,
> though. You've got alot of interest in this stuff, why don't you get
> out and do a little. It is expensive, but you don't have to do it all
> at once.

There are multiple reasons why instruction is not an option. I don't
understand why it is so unacceptable to others to be satisfied with research,
study, and simulation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Erik writes:

> > The "get an instructor and do the thing for a while" idea is teh bomb,
> > though. You've got alot of interest in this stuff, why don't you get
> > out and do a little. It is expensive, but you don't have to do it all
> > at once.

> There are multiple reasons why instruction is not an option. I don't
> understand why it is so unacceptable to others to be satisfied with research,
> study, and simulation.

You don't understand the question, which actually is, why do some many
people find you obnoxious?

Could it be because you argue with people that have thousands of hours
flying real airplanes based on your preceptions of flying gained from
a Microsoft game?

Could it be because you refuse to believe that something that has
happened to every real pilot of real airplanes doesn't exist because
your research, study, and flying game doesn't explain it?

Could it be because you refuse to buy and read basic books about
piloting, such as Rod Machado's Private Pilot Handbook ($35), which
between that and the FAR/AIM ($9) would have answered just about
every question you have ever asked and then argued about the answers
given?

Could it be that you are constantly replying with retorts that are
true but have nothing to do with the discussion at hand?

Poor, picked on, baby.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Erik writes:
>
>
>>The "get an instructor and do the thing for a while" idea is teh bomb,
>>though. You've got alot of interest in this stuff, why don't you get
>>out and do a little. It is expensive, but you don't have to do it all
>>at once.
>
>
> There are multiple reasons why instruction is not an option. I don't
> understand why it is so unacceptable to others to be satisfied with research,
> study, and simulation.
>

Because the simulation is highly lacking. Compared to real flying,
it's like masturbation. It's meant as a hold-over, not a replacement.

If you do enough research and study based on experience gained from
masturbation, I'm certain that you'd wind up believing that every girl
out there is willing and has nipples no bigger than a silver dollar,
perched upon perfect C+ boobs.

Unfortunately, that's not the case. That's why MSFS costs less than
$50 and an airplane costs significantly more. You were asking how you
can tell if you're directly over a point. In MSFS, there is A LOT of
guesswork involved. In an airplane, you really can open the window
and look. Seems like a small difference, but it's huge. And don't
give me any of that alternate-view crap, you don't feel the wind in
your face, either.

You never addressed the accusation of being terrified of airplanes. I
can tell you, on my intro flight, I was nervous as hell. This tiny
little tin can won't hold us up! That lasted for about 5 minutes.

I swear. Go do it. You'll see. Pop that cherry, dammit!!

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You don't understand the question, which actually is, why do some many
> people find you obnoxious?

As a general rule, only stupid people find me obnoxious.

> Could it be because you argue with people that have thousands of hours
> flying real airplanes based on your preceptions of flying gained from
> a Microsoft game?
>
> Could it be because you refuse to believe that something that has
> happened to every real pilot of real airplanes doesn't exist because
> your research, study, and flying game doesn't explain it?
>
> Could it be because you refuse to buy and read basic books about
> piloting, such as Rod Machado's Private Pilot Handbook ($35), which
> between that and the FAR/AIM ($9) would have answered just about
> every question you have ever asked and then argued about the answers
> given?
>
> Could it be that you are constantly replying with retorts that are
> true but have nothing to do with the discussion at hand?

See above.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>
>>You don't understand the question, which actually is, why do some many
>>people find you obnoxious?
>
>
> As a general rule, only stupid people find me obnoxious.

So far, you're pretty obnoxious. Just because it annoys you that
people find you obnoxious does not make them stupid, those are
terms a child would use.

Get some experience.

[Mxsmanic]

Erik writes:

> Because the simulation is highly lacking.

It is lacking in some respects, but not in others. Depending on the parts of
flying that appeal to a person, the differences between simulation and real
life may or may not be important. If they are not important, simulation is
fine, and perhaps even better than the real thing.

> Compared to real flying, it's like masturbation. It's meant as a
> hold-over, not a replacement.

See above. The same principle applies.

> If you do enough research and study based on experience gained from
> masturbation, I'm certain that you'd wind up believing that every girl
> out there is willing and has nipples no bigger than a silver dollar,
> perched upon perfect C+ boobs.

I'm interested in aviation, not sex, so I'll take your word for this.

> Unfortunately, that's not the case. That's why MSFS costs less than
> $50 and an airplane costs significantly more.

An airplane has to do many things that MSFS does not. However, not all of the
things that a real airplane does are interesting to people who are interested
in aviation, so MSFS may be sufficient, and if it is, the cost is much lower.

> You were asking how you can tell if you're directly over a
> point. In MSFS, there is A LOT of guesswork involved.

Not really. In MSFS, you can look straight down and see a set of crosshairs
marking your position on the ground. That isn't possible in real life.

Simulation not only lacks some aspects of real life, it also provides things
that real life does not. I can watch and critique my flying from a chase
plane in MSFS; I cannot do that in real life. I can start a flight from any
airport in MSFS; in real life, I can only start a flight from the last airport
at which I landed. Many other examples could be given.

> In an airplane, you really can open the window
> and look. Seems like a small difference, but it's huge. And don't
> give me any of that alternate-view crap, you don't feel the wind in
> your face, either.

I don't need the wind in my face to look, and it would only interfere with
vision, anyway.

> You never addressed the accusation of being terrified of airplanes.

Why should I? People will believe what they wish to believe, irrespective of
anything I say. And the accusation is only intended to goad me, but since I'm
unconcerned by the accusation, it doesn't work.

> I can tell you, on my intro flight, I was nervous as hell. This tiny
> little tin can won't hold us up! That lasted for about 5 minutes.

That seems like an irrational fear.

I might be worried about the state of maintenance of the aircraft and the
competence of the pilot, though, which unfortunately do have a basis in
reality. I trust technologies, but I don't trust people.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Erik writes:

> Just because it annoys you that people find you obnoxious
> does not make them stupid, those are terms a child would use.

Well, (1) it doesn't annoy me; and (2) the correlation is very strong, based
on empirical data I've collected over the years.

Stupid people are driven by their emotions rather than their intellects,
because the former are much stronger than the latter. This leads them to
react emotionally and behave emotionally when stressed, as in defense
mechanisms. Intelligent people are driven mostly by intellect and don't
respond in emotional ways.

There are other reasons why stupid people find me obnoxious, but they are too
numerous to mention here.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Erik writes:
>
>>If you do enough research and study based on experience gained from
>>masturbation, I'm certain that you'd wind up believing that every girl
>>out there is willing and has nipples no bigger than a silver dollar,
>>perched upon perfect C+ boobs.
>
>
> I'm interested in aviation, not sex, so I'll take your word for this.

Heh. Yeah, right. So you've never done either, huh. That sucks. Do
one of them before you die. You'll really regret it if you don't. If
you're so interested in aviation, put your money where your mouth is,
not your foot where your mouth is. Get your out there and talk to a
CFI. Or a prostitute. The first time for either is a bit scary, but
at the end, you'll go back for more later on. If the prostitute will
let you.

>>Unfortunately, that's not the case. That's why MSFS costs less than
>>$50 and an airplane costs significantly more.
>
>
> An airplane has to do many things that MSFS does not. However, not all of the
> things that a real airplane does are interesting to people who are interested
> in aviation, so MSFS may be sufficient, and if it is, the cost is much lower.

I thought you were telling us about how accurate and realistic MSFS
is. If you aren't interested in actual aviation, there are TONS of
sim ngs around. You can find them right next to the AD&D ngs.

<meaningless drivel snipped>

>
>>I can tell you, on my intro flight, I was nervous as hell. This tiny
>>little tin can won't hold us up! That lasted for about 5 minutes.
>
>
> That seems like an irrational fear.

Nervous, not scared. (although you still didn't adress the accusation
posted to you).

> I might be worried about the state of maintenance of the aircraft and the
> competence of the pilot, though, which unfortunately do have a basis in
> reality. I trust technologies, but I don't trust people.
>

So what you're <italics>trying</italics> to say is that you're totally
not nervous about airplanes, you're highly interested in flying, you
totally don't care about sex, and you have no interest in anything
that doesn't have to do with reality, or just the bits that you want
and not the good with the bad, just simulation where you can take it
or leave it and nothing goes any way but your way. Sounds like you're
highly experienced with spankin the monkey to me.

A pre-pubescent kid posing as an internet loser. Or perhaps an
internet loser that's actually an adult virgin. Either one of those
suck.

Get off the computer, don't you have chores to do?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > You don't understand the question, which actually is, why do some many
> > people find you obnoxious?

> As a general rule, only stupid people find me obnoxious.

That appears to be contradicted by the responses you get in this
group.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Erik writes:
>
>
>>Just because it annoys you that people find you obnoxious
>>does not make them stupid, those are terms a child would use.
>
>
> Well, (1) it doesn't annoy me; and (2) the correlation is very strong, based
> on empirical data I've collected over the years.
>
> Stupid people are driven by their emotions rather than their intellects,
> because the former are much stronger than the latter. This leads them to
> react emotionally and behave emotionally when stressed, as in defense
> mechanisms. Intelligent people are driven mostly by intellect and don't
> respond in emotional ways.
>
> There are other reasons why stupid people find me obnoxious, but they are too
> numerous to mention here.
>

A while back I was actually feeling kind of bad for using the word
douchebag. Wow. I totally take my regret away.

So, everyone is stupid and you're not obnoxious. Ok, got it. Now, of
course, I have to completely rethink my observations on life and
rebuild my version of reality, but that'll be ok. As long as I CAN
STILL FLY AIRPLANES IN REAL LIFE AND NOT IN MY MOM'S BASEMENT.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> That appears to be contradicted by the responses you get in this
> group.

Not at all. The most abusive responses consistently come from the people who
appear to be the least intelligent. As I've said, this is a very consistent
principle of behavior that can be observed reliably in all sorts of venues.
It's like watching children argue on the playground.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> writes:
>
>
>>That appears to be contradicted by the responses you get in this
>>group.
>
>
> Not at all. The most abusive responses consistently come from the people who
> appear to be the least intelligent. As I've said, this is a very consistent
> principle of behavior that can be observed reliably in all sorts of venues.
> It's like watching children argue on the playground.
>

You watch children in the playgrounds much, do you?

[Mxsmanic]

Erik writes:

> Heh. Yeah, right. So you've never done either, huh. That sucks.

Only for those who are interested in such things.

I've never skied, either, but since I'm not interested in skiing, I don't
care.

> Do one of them before you die. You'll really regret it if you don't.

No, I won't.

> If you're so interested in aviation, put your money where your mouth is,
> not your foot where your mouth is.

I don't have any money.

> I thought you were telling us about how accurate and realistic MSFS
> is.

It is much more realistic and accurate than many self-proclaimed Real Pilots
here seem willing to admit. It's hardly a perfect simulation. Then again, it
doesn't have to be.

> If you aren't interested in actual aviation, there are TONS of
> sim ngs around. You can find them right next to the AD&D ngs.

Since it's a simulation of aviation, why can't I just participate in the
aviation newsgroups?

Simulation newsgroups tend to concentrate on the details of the simulation,
not on the details of the environment beind simulated. I'm not interested in
talking about paint schemes or scenery packs or the ideal characteristics of a
gaming machine.

> Nervous, not scared.

Same thing.

> So what you're <italics>trying</italics> to say is that you're totally
> not nervous about airplanes, you're highly interested in flying, you
> totally don't care about sex, and you have no interest in anything
> that doesn't have to do with reality, or just the bits that you want
> and not the good with the bad, just simulation where you can take it
> or leave it and nothing goes any way but your way.

Essentially, yes.

> Sounds like you're highly experienced with spankin the monkey to me.

I don't know what that means.

> A pre-pubescent kid posing as an internet loser. Or perhaps an
> internet loser that's actually an adult virgin. Either one of those
> suck.

Or just someone with whom you disagree, and whom you feel the need to
denigrate in order to create the impression that his opinions are objectively
less valid than yours.

> Get off the computer, don't you have chores to do?

No. Are you interested in discussing aviation?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Erik]

http://is3.okcupid.com/users/162/390/16239093302619644424/mt1107623537.jpg


Vrrrrrm Vrrrrm Boosh Boosh pow POW bang


Whoooooosh

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Since it's a simulation of aviation, why can't I just participate in the
> aviation newsgroups?

Because you keep talking out your ass.

[Mxsmanic]

Erik writes:

> So, everyone is stupid ...

No. People who are consistently abusive, relying on personal attacks as their
primary (or only) method of debate, are usually stupid. They are this way
online because their inhibitions are partially lost; in real life they are
more circumspect but this aspect of their personalities nevertheless remains
and will manifest under stress. Stupidity seems to engender mean behavior, or
perhaps stupidity deprives people of ways to overcome or evolve beyond such
behavior.

Mean people are vexations to the spirit. I try to avoid them. Stupid people
can be trying but are not in themselves obnoxious, unless they are also mean.

> As long as I CAN STILL FLY AIRPLANES IN REAL LIFE AND NOT IN MY MOM'S
> BASEMENT.

I hope your next medical goes well.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Erik writes:

> You watch children in the playgrounds much, do you?

Rarely. But when I have, it reminded me of USENET.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Erik writes:
>
>
>>So, everyone is stupid ...
>
>

<lots of big words>

>
>
>>As long as I CAN STILL FLY AIRPLANES IN REAL LIFE AND NOT IN MY MOM'S
>>BASEMENT.
>
>
> I hope your next medical goes well.
>

I hope you get one.

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Erik writes:
>
>
>>You watch children in the playgrounds much, do you?
>
>
> Rarely. But when I have, it reminded me of USENET.
>

Why, because you keep getting beat up? All you've got to do
is stop being so contradictory about crap you don't know about.

Stop thinking that your "research and study" has anything to do
with real life when compared to a simulator because you choose to
not deal with the real life situations.

If you've got some horrible condition that precludes you from getting
a medical, I feel totally bad for you. That would suck. Otherwise,
get the hell out there and do it. It'll cost you less than $70 to get
up with a CFI on an intro flight. From there, you can do once a month
lessons, you don't have to be out twice a week or whatever, whatever
your budget allows is better than nothing. It's certainly better than
a flight simulator, better than a Flight Training Device. In some
circumstances, it's better than sex (you'll have to take my word on
that).

[Mxsmanic]

Erik writes:

> Why, because you keep getting beat up?

No one has beat me up.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Erik writes:
>
>> So, everyone is stupid ...
>
> No. People who are consistently abusive, relying on personal attacks as
> their
> primary (or only) method of debate, are usually stupid. They are this way
> online because their inhibitions are partially lost; in real life they are
> more circumspect but this aspect of their personalities nevertheless
> remains
> and will manifest under stress. Stupidity seems to engender mean
> behavior, or
> perhaps stupidity deprives people of ways to overcome or evolve beyond
> such
> behavior.
>
> Mean people are vexations to the spirit. I try to avoid them. Stupid
> people
> can be trying but are not in themselves obnoxious, unless they are also
> mean.
>
>> As long as I CAN STILL FLY AIRPLANES IN REAL LIFE AND NOT IN MY MOM'S
>> BASEMENT.
>
> I hope your next medical goes well.
>

Well apparently your last one didn't!

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Erik writes:
>
>> Just because it annoys you that people find you obnoxious
>> does not make them stupid, those are terms a child would use.
>
> Well, (1) it doesn't annoy me; and (2) the correlation is very strong,
> based
> on empirical data I've collected over the years.
>
> Stupid people are driven by their emotions rather than their intellects,
> because the former are much stronger than the latter. This leads them to
> react emotionally and behave emotionally when stressed, as in defense
> mechanisms. Intelligent people are driven mostly by intellect and don't
> respond in emotional ways.
>
> There are other reasons why stupid people find me obnoxious, but they are
> too
> numerous to mention here.
>

Well if you are such a guru on human behavior, why can't you seem to cope?

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> That appears to be contradicted by the responses you get in this
>> group.
>
> Not at all. The most abusive responses consistently come from the people
> who
> appear to be the least intelligent. As I've said, this is a very
> consistent
> principle of behavior that can be observed reliably in all sorts of
> venues.
> It's like watching children argue on the playground.
>

So why do you try so desperately to intellectually attack those that
disagree with you? By your own statements, you just declare your own
stupidity.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Erik writes:
>
>> Why, because you keep getting beat up?
>
> No one has beat me up.
>

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa what a dope. You are the village idot, and can't even see
it.

[Erik]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Erik writes:
>>
>>
>>>So, everyone is stupid ...
>>
>>No. People who are consistently abusive, relying on personal attacks as
>>their
>>primary (or only) method of debate, are usually stupid. They are this way
>>online because their inhibitions are partially lost; in real life they are
>>more circumspect but this aspect of their personalities nevertheless
>>remains
>>and will manifest under stress. Stupidity seems to engender mean
>>behavior, or
>>perhaps stupidity deprives people of ways to overcome or evolve beyond
>>such
>>behavior.
>>
>>Mean people are vexations to the spirit. I try to avoid them. Stupid
>>people
>>can be trying but are not in themselves obnoxious, unless they are also
>>mean.
>>
>>
>>>As long as I CAN STILL FLY AIRPLANES IN REAL LIFE AND NOT IN MY MOM'S
>>>BASEMENT.
>>
>>I hope your next medical goes well.
>>
>
>
> Well apparently your last one didn't!
>
>

Actually, it went just fine, thanks.

[Erik]

Maxwell wrote:

....

Crap, I just saw the "MX" and jumped the gun, sorry
Max

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Well apparently your last one didn't!

I've never had an aviation medical.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Well if you are such a guru on human behavior, why can't you
> seem to cope?

I don't have any trouble coping. I'm not the one who gets angry and upset and
defensive.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> So why do you try so desperately to intellectually attack those that
> disagree with you?

I don't.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> So why do you try so desperately to intellectually attack those that
>> disagree with you?
>
> I don't.



this exchange reminds me of the Monty Python's "The Argument Sketch":
This isn't an argument! Yes it is. No it isn't. It's just contradiction!
No it isn't.

:-)

--Sylvain

ps: no, I don't memorize all of Python's sketches. Just a few. For the
rest, I just google the lines I remember :-)

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> this exchange reminds me of the Monty Python's "The Argument Sketch":
> This isn't an argument! Yes it is. No it isn't. It's just contradiction!
> No it isn't.

I've usually found almost all Monty Python work to be immensely boring. I
don't understand why it has such a following.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[flypaper]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sylvain writes:
>
>> this exchange reminds me of the Monty Python's "The Argument Sketch":
>> This isn't an argument! Yes it is. No it isn't. It's just
>> contradiction! No it isn't.
>
> I've usually found almost all Monty Python work to be immensely
> boring. I don't understand why it has such a following.


Damn, why does that not surprise me in the least....

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

> wrote in message
...
> Could it be because you argue with people that have thousands of hours
> flying real airplanes based on your preceptions of flying gained from
> a Microsoft game?

I wonder if Microsoft would in fact suggest that their flight simulator is
truly a fair representation of flying a real a/c. I'm betting they'd very
quickly decline to admit that.
Crash Lander

[flypaper]

Erik wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Since it's a simulation of aviation, why can't I just participate in
>> the aviation newsgroups?
>
> Because you keep talking out your ass.

This has to be one of the most revealing threads of this assholes perverted
excuse for existence!!

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
> As a general rule, only stupid people find me obnoxious.

Breaking my rule of not responding to you, as this is just too rediculous to
let go.
Let's follow your logic through a bit further.

"As a general rule, only stupid people find me obnoxious."

As a general rule, most pilots here find you obnoxious. Therefore, going by
your logic, pilots must be stupid. Therefore, even you should be able to
pass the training, as your dribble clearly identifies you as far more stupid
than any pilot. So put your money where your mouth is, and go learn how it's
really done. I guarantee you'll be surprised at how much you didn't know.
Crash Lander

[Mxsmanic]

Crash Lander writes:

> As a general rule, most pilots here find you obnoxious. Therefore, going by
> your logic, pilots must be stupid.

No. Those pilots who find me obnoxious may well be stupid. However, they are
not necessarily representative of all pilots; indeed, they are not necessarily
even representative of the majority in this newsgroup. They are very vocal,
however.

> Therefore, even you should be able to pass the training, as your dribble
> clearly identifies you as far more stupid than any pilot.

An analysis of my posts will reveal that they lack the abusive, insulting,
petulant personal attacks that comprise the majority of posts from the stupid
people.

I've already explained that real flight instruction is simply not an option
for me at this time.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Crash Lander writes:

> I wonder if Microsoft would in fact suggest that their flight simulator is
> truly a fair representation of flying a real a/c. I'm betting they'd very
> quickly decline to admit that.

I'd expect them to vigorously deny that it is, mainly for liability purposes,
irrespective of whether or not it is truly a useful simulator.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

Crash Lander > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Could it be because you argue with people that have thousands of hours
> > flying real airplanes based on your preceptions of flying gained from
> > a Microsoft game?

> I wonder if Microsoft would in fact suggest that their flight simulator is
> truly a fair representation of flying a real a/c. I'm betting they'd very
> quickly decline to admit that.
> Crash Lander

From the Microsoft Flight Simulator web site:

"Flight Simulator X immerses you in a beautifully rich and realistic
world with dozens of aircraft and interactive Missions for a completely
new and innovative gaming experience."


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

The following is posted with tongue firmly planted in one's cheek, and is my
impression of Mx's warped view on reality.

You know, I reakon the real life pilots have it backwards. Flying a real
plane is actually just simulating Microsoft Flight Simulator!
It's almost the same as flying the simulator, but differs in only a few
areas! A real plane creates the sense of flight without having to be
restrained to a desk all the time. It's too hard to do, due to the
rediculously large size of a real plane. I'd have nowhere to stick my
printer if I had a huge bloody plane in my lounge room! Why build such a big
thing to do what Microsoft Flight Simulator can do? Also, it's so damned
inconvenient to have to squint to protect our eyes from the sun, and quality
sunglasses are so expensive. This is where the sim really comes into it's
own. No way you can get damaged eyes if you never have to see the actual
sunlight!
It was way back in 1982, when Microsoft took those first timid steps into
the world of simulated flight! It was a poor replication, but who could
forget where they were on that fateul day? I was.........um.....well, I'm
sure I was somewhere, but anyway, the day real life pilots stop wasting time
with things like 'wind in the hair', and 'fresh air', and 'actual physical
beauty as created by nature' will be a true step forward in the progression
of man!

Crash Lander

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Well apparently your last one didn't!
>
> I've never had an aviation medical.
>

I wasn't talking about an aviation medical retard, I was referring to the
obvious conclusion of your last mental health check up.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Well if you are such a guru on human behavior, why can't you
>> seem to cope?
>
> I don't have any trouble coping. I'm not the one who gets angry and upset
> and
> defensive.
>


Yeah right!!!!!!! You call your relationship the the people on this group
coping??????????

Wake up and smell the prozac bozo, you need a lot more than just flying
lessons.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> So why do you try so desperately to intellectually attack those that
>> disagree with you?
>
> I don't.


Yeah you do butt breath, your just did. Can't you even follow your own
posts?


Quote-
Not at all. The most abusive responses consistently come from the people
who
appear to be the least intelligent. As I've said, this is a very consistent
principle of behavior that can be observed reliably in all sorts of venues.
It's like watching children argue on the playground.
End quote -

You're the QUEEN of denial.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> I've usually found almost all Monty Python work to be immensely boring. I
> don't understand why it has such a following.
>

There seems to be no limits to the material you don't understand.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> I've already explained that real flight instruction is simply not an
> option
> for me at this time.
>

No you haven't, you just keep making excuses, that's hardly and
explaination. Quit playing with MSFS do a home coarse on the private
written. Then take one or two hours of dual, and you will be WORLDS ahead of
where you are today.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Yeah right!!!!!!! You call your relationship the the people on this group
> coping??????????

A minority of people on this group have difficulty coping with me, but I don't
have difficulty coping with anyone.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> So you sit around and masturbate at the playgrounds, also.

I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion. Are playgrounds a place for
masturbation, in your view?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Quit playing with MSFS do a home coarse on the private
> written.

I have some books on the subject.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Yeah right!!!!!!! You call your relationship the the people on this group
>> coping??????????
>
> A minority of people on this group have difficulty coping with me, but I
> don't
> have difficulty coping with anyone.
>

Exactly, it's ALWAYS someone else's fault, isn't it?

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> So you sit around and masturbate at the playgrounds, also.
>
> I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion. Are playgrounds a place for
> masturbation, in your view?
>

No, we just can't imagine you stopping just because you find yourself at the
playground.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Quit playing with MSFS do a home coarse on the private
>> written.
>
> I have some books on the subject.
>

Then you are not spending enough time with them.

[d.g.s.]

On 4/23/2007 1:57 PM Mxsmanic jumped down, turned around, and wrote:

> Not at all. The most abusive responses consistently come from the people who
> appear to be the least intelligent. As I've said, this is a very consistent
> principle of behavior that can be observed reliably in all sorts of venues.
> It's like watching children argue on the playground.

You claim you come to this newsgroup to discuss aviation.

You're a liar. The above quote is sufficient proof. What does it have
to do with aviation?
--
dgs

[d.g.s.]

On 4/23/2007 2:03 PM Mxsmanic jumped down, turned around, and wrote:

> Are you interested in discussing aviation?

Who cares? It's obvious from this thread that you aren't.
--
dgs

[d.g.s.]

On 4/23/2007 2:58 PM Mxsmanic jumped down, turned around, and wrote:

> No. People who are consistently abusive, relying on personal attacks as their
> primary (or only) method of debate, are usually stupid. They are this way
> online because their inhibitions are partially lost; in real life they are
> more circumspect but this aspect of their personalities nevertheless remains
> and will manifest under stress. Stupidity seems to engender mean behavior, or
> perhaps stupidity deprives people of ways to overcome or evolve beyond such
> behavior.

You claim you come here to discuss aviation. Clearly you don't. Why do
you lie?
--
dgs

[d.g.s.]

On 4/23/2007 3:25 PM Mxsmanic jumped down, turned around, and wrote:

> No one has beat me up.

Who cares? What does this have to do with aviation?
--
dgs

[d.g.s.]

On 4/23/2007 1:52 PM Erik jumped down, turned around, and wrote:

> A pre-pubescent kid posing as an internet loser. Or perhaps an
> internet loser that's actually an adult virgin. Either one of those
> suck.

The latter is closer to it. Try ex-pat American loser living a pathetic
impoverished "life" in a tiny, stuffy apartment in Paris, France, with
"jobs" teaching English, leading privately guided tours, and attempting
to sell photographs. Oh, and begging people via his web site to send
him a dollar.
--
dgs

[d.g.s.]

On 4/23/2007 1:42 PM Mxsmanic jumped down, turned around, and wrote:

> There are other reasons why stupid people find me obnoxious, but they are too
> numerous to mention here.

So what? Who cares? What does this have to do with aviation?

You've repeatedly claimed that you come here to discuss aviation, but
you're posting plenty in this thread that discusses yourself. Why do
you lie so much?
--
dgs

[d.g.s.]

On 4/23/2007 6:55 PM Mxsmanic jumped down, turned around, and wrote:

> I've usually found almost all Monty Python work to be immensely boring. I
> don't understand why it has such a following.

Who cares what you think of Monty Python? What does this have to do
with aviation? Why do you claim that you come here to discuss
aviation, and then lie about it?
--
dgs

[d.g.s.]

On 4/21/2007 7:17 PM Mxsmanic jumped down, turned around, and wrote:

> paul k. sanchez writes:
>
>> I think I know a fair amount of airspace classification and limits. We
>> can arrange a 3 to 5 day appointment and you can get a wondrous amount
>> of questions answered. You might even find it more productive than
>> posting here on this usenet group.
>
> In other words, you don't have the answer. Oh well.

So what? Big deal. He didn't have the answer. Did you come here
to discuss aviation, or to point out that someone doesn't have the
answer to your tedious little question?
--
dgs

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Exactly, it's ALWAYS someone else's fault, isn't it?

I don't think in terms of fault. People are what they are. When it comes to
interactions with others, people still have control over their own sides of
each interaction.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> No, we just can't imagine you stopping just because you find yourself at the
> playground.

I have no reason to stop at playgrounds, as playgrounds do not interest me.
There are very few where I live, anyway.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[d.g.s.]

On 4/23/2007 10:28 PM Mxsmanic jumped down, turned around, and wrote:

> I have no reason to stop at playgrounds, as playgrounds do not interest me.
> There are very few where I live, anyway.

What does this have to do with aviation?

You claim to come here to discuss aviation. This thread is proof that
you are lying. Why do you lie?
--
dgs

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Exactly, it's ALWAYS someone else's fault, isn't it?
>
> I don't think in terms of fault. People are what they are. When it comes
> to
> interactions with others, people still have control over their own sides
> of
> each interaction.
>


There you go with that denial thing again. Of coarse you do moron, that's
exactly what you just did. Try to keep up, will ya.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> No, we just can't imagine you stopping just because you find yourself at
>> the
>> playground.
>
> I have no reason to stop at playgrounds, as playgrounds do not interest
> me.
> There are very few where I live, anyway.
>

What are you trying to say, you have to spend most of you time playing with
yourself somewhere else?

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> What are you trying to say, you have to spend most of you time playing with
> yourself somewhere else?

No. Never mind. Shall we return to discussion of aviation?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> I'm not the one who gets angry and upset and
> defensive.
>

Of course you do.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> An analysis of my posts will reveal that they lack the abusive, insulting,
> petulant personal attacks
>

No, it won't. BTDT. All of us.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> What are you trying to say, you have to spend most of you time playing
>> with
>> yourself somewhere else?
>
> No. Never mind. Shall we return to discussion of aviation?
>

Pretty hard to do until you learn to cope.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 20, 10:57 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> If a restricted area is inactive, do I still need a clearance into it?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Part 73 (I think) of the regulations says something like: you need
permission during the designated hours of use (these are published in
advanced on charts, or by NOTAM). The regulations do not, however,
seem to say anything about what to do outside those times. The usual
interpretation of FARs is that if something is not explicitly
prohibited, then it is legal. Therefore, you could conclude that
clearance is not needed, but I wouldn't count on it here. As a
practical matter, on those very rare occasions when I need to transit
R-space, I call the controlling agency listed on the chart.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Quit playing with MSFS do a home coarse on the private
>> written.
>
> I have some books on the subject.

BFD jerkoff.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Sylvain writes:
>
>> this exchange reminds me of the Monty Python's "The Argument Sketch":
>> This isn't an argument! Yes it is. No it isn't. It's just
>> contradiction! No it isn't.
>
> I've usually found almost all Monty Python work to be immensely
> boring. I don't understand why it has such a following.
>



Now there's a surprise.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> What are you trying to say, you have to spend most of you time
>> playing with yourself somewhere else?
>
> No. Never mind. Shall we return to discussion of aviation?

What, you're going to talk about flying for a change?


That'll be a first.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> So you sit around and masturbate at the playgrounds, also.
>
> I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion. Are playgrounds a place
> for masturbation, in your view?
>

Good grief.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> flypaper writes:
>
>> What a PIOUS, WORTHLESS, PIECE OF ****E YOU ARE!!!!
>> And that about covers it.
>
> That's two people who don't have the answer. Anyone else who doesn't
> know the answer?
>

I do, send $75 dollars and I'll tell you all about it.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> You don't understand the question, which actually is, why do some many
>> people find you obnoxious?
>
> As a general rule, only stupid people find me obnoxious.

Where does one begin?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Erik writes:
>
>> Just because it annoys you that people find you obnoxious
>> does not make them stupid, those are terms a child would use.
>
> Well, (1) it doesn't annoy me; and (2) the correlation is very strong,
> based on empirical data I've collected over the years.
>
> Stupid people are driven by their emotions rather than their
> intellects, because the former are much stronger than the latter.
> This leads them to react emotionally and behave emotionally when
> stressed, as in defense mechanisms. Intelligent people are driven
> mostly by intellect and don't respond in emotional ways.
>
> There are other reasons why stupid people find me obnoxious, but they
> are too numerous to mention here.
>

IOW you are too big a pussy to look at yourself in the mirror that is te
Bunyipp..

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Erik writes:
>
>> So, everyone is stupid ...
>
> No. People who are consistently abusive, relying on personal attacks
> as their primary (or only) method of debate, are usually stupid. They
> are this way online because their inhibitions are partially lost; in
> real life they are more circumspect but this aspect of their
> personalities nevertheless remains and will manifest under stress.
> Stupidity seems to engender mean behavior, or perhaps stupidity
> deprives people of ways to overcome or evolve beyond such behavior.
>
> Mean people are vexations to the spirit. I try to avoid them. Stupid
> people can be trying but are not in themselves obnoxious, unless they
> are also mean.
>
>> As long as I CAN STILL FLY AIRPLANES IN REAL LIFE AND NOT IN MY MOM'S
>> BASEMENT.
>
> I hope your next medical goes well.
>

Wow, I may use this as my sig line..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Well apparently your last one didn't!
>
> I've never had an aviation medical.
>

We know.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Crash Lander writes:
>
>> I wonder if Microsoft would in fact suggest that their flight
>> simulator is truly a fair representation of flying a real a/c. I'm
>> betting they'd very quickly decline to admit that.
>
> I'd expect them to vigorously deny that it is, mainly for liability
> purposes, irrespective of whether or not it is truly a useful
> simulator.

It isn't a simulaotr, it';s a game, fjukktard.


Bertie

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Crash Lander writes:
>
>> I wonder if Microsoft would in fact suggest that their flight simulator
>> is
>> truly a fair representation of flying a real a/c. I'm betting they'd very
>> quickly decline to admit that.
>
> I'd expect them to vigorously deny that it is, mainly for liability
> purposes,
> irrespective of whether or not it is truly a useful simulator.
>

I'm sure they will check with you before the make an official statement.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Erik writes:
>
>> Heh. Yeah, right. So you've never done either, huh. That sucks.
>
> Only for those who are interested in such things.
>
> I've never skied, either, but since I'm not interested in skiing, I
> don't care.
>
>> Do one of them before you die. You'll really regret it if you don't.
>
> No, I won't.
>
>> If you're so interested in aviation, put your money where your mouth
>> is, not your foot where your mouth is.
>
> I don't have any money.
>
>> I thought you were telling us about how accurate and realistic MSFS
>> is.
>
> It is much more realistic and accurate than many self-proclaimed Real
> Pilots here seem willing to admit. It's hardly a perfect simulation.
> Then again, it doesn't have to be.
>
>> If you aren't interested in actual aviation, there are TONS of
>> sim ngs around. You can find them right next to the AD&D ngs.
>
> Since it's a simulation of aviation, why can't I just participate in
> the aviation newsgroups?
>
> Simulation newsgroups tend to concentrate on the details of the
> simulation, not on the details of the environment beind simulated.
> I'm not interested in talking about paint schemes or scenery packs or
> the ideal characteristics of a gaming machine.
>
>> Nervous, not scared.
>
> Same thing.
>
>> So what you're <italics>trying</italics> to say is that you're
>> totally not nervous about airplanes, you're highly interested in
>> flying, you totally don't care about sex, and you have no interest in
>> anything that doesn't have to do with reality, or just the bits that
>> you want and not the good with the bad, just simulation where you can
>> take it or leave it and nothing goes any way but your way.
>
> Essentially, yes.
>
>> Sounds like you're highly experienced with spankin the monkey to me.
>
> I don't know what that means.
>
>> A pre-pubescent kid posing as an internet loser. Or perhaps an
>> internet loser that's actually an adult virgin. Either one of those
>> suck.
>
> Or just someone with whom you disagree, and whom you feel the need to
> denigrate in order to create the impression that his opinions are
> objectively less valid than yours.
>
>> Get off the computer, don't you have chores to do?
>
> No. Are you interested in discussing aviation?

You certainly aren';t, you fjukkwit.


Bertie