Piloting is the second most dangerous occupation

[Mxsmanic]

According to numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and CNN, being
a pilot is the second most dangerous occupation in the country (being a
fisherman is in first place).

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> According to numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and
> CNN, being a pilot is the second most dangerous occupation in the
> country (being a fisherman is in first place).
>

I would have thought being an idiot would be number one.


bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> I would have thought being an idiot would be number one.

Being a pilot and being an idiot are not mutually exclusive.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> I would have thought being an idiot would be number one.
>
> Being a pilot and being an idiot are not mutually exclusive.
>

No ****.


Wow, you really know how to wind me up don't you, fjukkktard?


I'm so angry right now I may go out and make another cup of tea.




Bertie

[Jon]

On Aug 11, 8:08 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
> >> I would have thought being an idiot would be number one.
>
> > Being a pilot and being an idiot are not mutually exclusive.
>
> No ****.
>
> Wow, you really know how to wind me up don't you, fjukkktard?
>
> I'm so angry right now I may go out and make another cup of tea.
>
> Bertie

He's just fishing... all part of the obsession with the number one.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> According to numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and CNN, being
> a pilot is the second most dangerous occupation in the country (being a
> fisherman is in first place).

Yep, if you slice and dice the data the right way, you do get those
results.

If you go by industry, construction is by far the most dangerous.

If you take out the few high risk piloting occupatations such as
crop dusting and fire fighting, aviation is hardly dangerous.

For real data instead of hype, go to http://www.bls.gov

One nice summary is at http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0219.pdf

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Matt Whiting]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> According to numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and
>> CNN, being a pilot is the second most dangerous occupation in the
>> country (being a fisherman is in first place).
>>
>
> I would have thought being an idiot would be number one.

It is. Only idiots fish in the ocean, fly airplanes, log and mine coal!

Matt (a former logger, but still a pilot)

[William Bruce]

> wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> According to numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and CNN,
>> being
>> a pilot is the second most dangerous occupation in the country (being a
>> fisherman is in first place).
>
> Yep, if you slice and dice the data the right way, you do get those
> results.
>
> If you go by industry, construction is by far the most dangerous.
>
> If you take out the few high risk piloting occupatations such as
> crop dusting and fire fighting, aviation is hardly dangerous.
>
> For real data instead of hype, go to http://www.bls.gov
>
> One nice summary is at http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0219.pdf
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>

Thanks. Good info.

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

Anthony will never be a pilot, but he certainly is an idiot. They may not be
mutually exclusive, but for him it is more than adequate just being an
idiot.

[Marty Shapiro]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
:

> Anthony will never be a pilot, but he certainly is an idiot. They may
> not be mutually exclusive, but for him it is more than adequate just
> being an idiot.
>
>
>
Viperdoc -

There is a picture of Anthony at http://tinyurl.com/58wun
I think the obvious medical condition depicted explains his assinine
statements in this forum. What is the correct medical term for this
condition?

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 11, 4:27 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> According to numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and CNN, being
> a pilot is the second most dangerous occupation in the country (being a
> fisherman is in first place).

Interesting that you elected not to include a link to the actual
findings.

-Robert

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> According to numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and CNN,
> being a pilot is the second most dangerous occupation in the country
> (being a fisherman is in first place).

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, on page 5 of the report here:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf

"Aircraft Pilots and Flight Engineers" appears second on a list of "Selected
Occupations with high fatality rates, 2006", having 87.8 fatalities per
100,000 employed, and 101 total fatalities in 2006.

The list does not specify that being a pilot is the second most dangerous
occupation in the country. That was editorialized by the CNN reporter.

[[email protected]]

Judah > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :

> > According to numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and CNN,
> > being a pilot is the second most dangerous occupation in the country
> > (being a fisherman is in first place).

> According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, on page 5 of the report here:

> http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf

> "Aircraft Pilots and Flight Engineers" appears second on a list of "Selected
> Occupations with high fatality rates, 2006", having 87.8 fatalities per
> 100,000 employed, and 101 total fatalities in 2006.

> The list does not specify that being a pilot is the second most dangerous
> occupation in the country. That was editorialized by the CNN reporter.

And if you go to http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0219.pdf on
page 14 you find a breakdown:

Airling pilots, copilots, and flight engineers 26
Commercial pilots 75

Guess which sub-part includes crop dusters and fire fighters.

On page 4 of the report you reference, the most dangerous occupation
by industry sector is agriculture in terms of fatalities per 100,000.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Doug Semler]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> According to numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and CNN,
>> being a pilot is the second most dangerous occupation in the country
>> (being a fisherman is in first place).
>
> According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, on page 5 of the report here:
>
> http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf
>
> "Aircraft Pilots and Flight Engineers" appears second on a list of
> "Selected
> Occupations with high fatality rates, 2006", having 87.8 fatalities per
> 100,000 employed, and 101 total fatalities in 2006.
>
> The list does not specify that being a pilot is the second most dangerous
> occupation in the country. That was editorialized by the CNN reporter.


Yet another case of a misinterpretation of statisitics...

If you look further in the document, you'll see that there are 101 deaths
listed under "air transportation worker." I have a feeling that "flight
engineer" includes such people as baggage handlers. If you look at the
definitions of the way they include people in this census, the person must
have been employed at the time of the fatality. I mean, come on, they have
3 of the 15 "computer specialists" dying on the highway. Must be geeksquad
guys getting in accidents. Not only that, but they include 13% of the
deaths as violent (homicide... and even suicides.) Are you telling me that
because a bunch of dimwits kill themselves on the job, the job itself is
dangerous?

Not going to state the obvious about the person initiating the thread....

--
Doug Semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
The answer is 42; DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, abbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?

[Jay Honeck]

> On page 4 of the report you reference, the most dangerous occupation
> by industry sector is agriculture in terms of fatalities per 100,000.

Damn. No wonder the Flying Farmers died out as an organization...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > On page 4 of the report you reference, the most dangerous occupation
> > by industry sector is agriculture in terms of fatalities per 100,000.

> Damn. No wonder the Flying Farmers died out as an organization...

Just imagine what the fatality rate must be for pilots at fish farms...

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jay Beckman[_2_]]

On Aug 11, 6:38 pm, Marty Shapiro >
wrote:
> "Viperdoc" > wrote :
>
> > Anthony will never be a pilot, but he certainly is an idiot. They may
> > not be mutually exclusive, but for him it is more than adequate just
> > being an idiot.
>
> Viperdoc -
>
> There is a picture of Anthony athttp://tinyurl.com/58wun
> I think the obvious medical condition depicted explains his assinine
> statements in this forum. What is the correct medical term for this
> condition?
>
> --
> Marty Shapiro
> Silicon Rallye Inc.

There are two of which I'm aware:

1) Optical Rectumitus
2) Cranal Anal Inversion

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ
www.pbase.com/flyingphotog

[Jay Beckman[_2_]]

On Aug 11, 10:15 pm, wrote:
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > > On page 4 of the report you reference, the most dangerous occupation
> > > by industry sector is agriculture in terms of fatalities per 100,000.
> > Damn. No wonder the Flying Farmers died out as an organization...
>
> Just imagine what the fatality rate must be for pilots at fish farms...
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Not to mention Pilots at Fish Farms that are burning...

Jay B

[Marty Shapiro]

Jay Beckman > wrote in
ps.com:

> On Aug 11, 6:38 pm, Marty Shapiro >
> wrote:
>> "Viperdoc" > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > Anthony will never be a pilot, but he certainly is an idiot. They
>> > may not be mutually exclusive, but for him it is more than adequate
>> > just being an idiot.
>>
>> Viperdoc -
>>
>> There is a picture of Anthony athttp://tinyurl.com/58wun
>> I think the obvious medical condition depicted explains his assinine
>> statements in this forum. What is the correct medical term for this
>> condition?
>>
>> --
>> Marty Shapiro
>> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>
> There are two of which I'm aware:
>
> 1) Optical Rectumitus
> 2) Cranal Anal Inversion
>
> Jay Beckman
> PP-ASEL
> Chandler, AZ
> www.pbase.com/flyingphotog
>
>

Thanks!

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> Interesting that you elected not to include a link to the actual
> findings.

The CNN article didn't provide one, as far as I could tell.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> And if you go to http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0219.pdf on
> page 14 you find a breakdown:
>
> Airling pilots, copilots, and flight engineers 26
> Commercial pilots 75
>
> Guess which sub-part includes crop dusters and fire fighters.

How do you know which subpart includes crop dusters and firefighters?

[Mxsmanic]

Doug Semler writes:

> If you look further in the document, you'll see that there are 101 deaths
> listed under "air transportation worker." I have a feeling that "flight
> engineer" includes such people as baggage handlers.

If you have a feeling, that implies that you don't actually know.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jon > wrote in
oups.com:

> On Aug 11, 8:08 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>
>> >> I would have thought being an idiot would be number one.
>>
>> > Being a pilot and being an idiot are not mutually exclusive.
>>
>> No ****.
>>
>> Wow, you really know how to wind me up don't you, fjukkktard?
>>
>> I'm so angry right now I may go out and make another cup of tea.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> He's just fishing... all part of the obsession with the number one.
>
>

Thanks for the promotion

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
>> Interesting that you elected not to include a link to the actual
>> findings.
>
> The CNN article didn't provide one, as far as I could tell.
>

Was this right after their article on lift?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> And if you go to http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0219.pdf on
>> page 14 you find a breakdown:
>>
>> Airling pilots, copilots, and flight engineers 26
>> Commercial pilots 75
>>
>> Guess which sub-part includes crop dusters and fire fighters.
>
> How do you know which subpart includes crop dusters and firefighters?
>

I do


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Doug Semler writes:
>
>> If you look further in the document, you'll see that there are 101
>> deaths listed under "air transportation worker." I have a feeling
>> that "flight engineer" includes such people as baggage handlers.
>
> If you have a feeling, that implies that you don't actually know.
>

I do. You're lying.


Bertie

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

It followed the news clip on breast feeding.

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

Where do fat unemployed expats fall into the list of dangerous professions?

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

At least he has feelings, and probably a job and a life.

[Jon]

On Aug 12, 6:35 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Jon > wrote groups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 11, 8:08 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Mxsmanic > wrote
> >> :
>
> >> > Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
> >> >> I would have thought being an idiot would be number one.
>
> >> > Being a pilot and being an idiot are not mutually exclusive.
>
> >> No ****.
>
> >> Wow, you really know how to wind me up don't you, fjukkktard?
>
> >> I'm so angry right now I may go out and make another cup of tea.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > He's just fishing... all part of the obsession with the number one.
>
> Thanks for the promotion
>
> Bertie

Wasn't it obvious to whom it referred?

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Beckman wrote:
> On Aug 11, 10:15 pm, wrote:
>> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>>> On page 4 of the report you reference, the most dangerous occupation
>>>> by industry sector is agriculture in terms of fatalities per 100,000.
>>> Damn. No wonder the Flying Farmers died out as an organization...
>> Just imagine what the fatality rate must be for pilots at fish farms...
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> Not to mention Pilots at Fish Farms that are burning...

.... coal! :-)

Matt

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > And if you go to http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0219.pdf on
> > page 14 you find a breakdown:
> >
> > Airling pilots, copilots, and flight engineers 26
> > Commercial pilots 75
> >
> > Guess which sub-part includes crop dusters and fire fighters.

> How do you know which subpart includes crop dusters and firefighters?

Because unlike you, I know what airline pilots, copilots, and flight
engineers means.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jon > wrote in
oups.com:

> On Aug 12, 6:35 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Jon > wrote
>> groups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 11, 8:08 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>
>> >> >> I would have thought being an idiot would be number one.
>>
>> >> > Being a pilot and being an idiot are not mutually exclusive.
>>
>> >> No ****.
>>
>> >> Wow, you really know how to wind me up don't you, fjukkktard?
>>
>> >> I'm so angry right now I may go out and make another cup of tea.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > He's just fishing... all part of the obsession with the number one.
>>
>> Thanks for the promotion
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Wasn't it obvious to whom it referred?
>

Well, first I thought you meant me, but now I think it might have been a
bit more freudian.


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in news:46beed7d$0$4686
:

> It followed the news clip on breast feeding.
>
>

Ahh, OK....

bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
:

> Where do fat unemployed expats fall into the list of dangerous
> professions?
>



Noone's sure becaue nobody cares if they live or die.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in news:46beedf1$0$28668
:

> At least he has feelings, and probably a job and a life.
>
>

Twoo


Bertie

[george]

On Aug 12, 11:27 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> According to numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and CNN, being
> a pilot is the second most dangerous occupation in the country (being a
> fisherman is in first place).

A soldier on active service in any hotspot around the world would be
so far up there that aviation would look like it is.
Safe !!!!!!!!!

[Doug Semler]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> At least he has feelings, and probably a job and a life.
>


Feelings, yes (but not as bad as some of those blubbering guys you see on
reality tv nowadays --- even my girlfriend calls them sissyboys hehe).

Job, check. Keep that money coming in...

Life? That's debatable, but at least I leave my house on a regular basis
<g>.

Seriously, back to the subject. The reason I am wondering about these
"workplace fatalities" was more like the cases I pointed out. 20% of the 15
fatalities for "computer specialists" were highway related. Like I said
before, it's enough just to be on the clock. Even if you are in an
accident, commit suicide, or are killed by a disgruntled coworker, you are
included in the statistic. Just because a few geeksquad kids get killed in
car wrecks doesn't mean that "computer specialist" is any more dangerous.

--
Doug Semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
The answer is 42; DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, abbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 16:28:58 -0700, Richard Riley >
wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 23:22:05 -0700, Jay Beckman >
>wrote:
>
>>On Aug 11, 10:15 pm, wrote:
>>> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>> > > On page 4 of the report you reference, the most dangerous occupation
>>> > > by industry sector is agriculture in terms of fatalities per 100,000.
>>> > Damn. No wonder the Flying Farmers died out as an organization...
>>>
>>> Just imagine what the fatality rate must be for pilots at fish farms...
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Pennino
>>>
>>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>>
>>Not to mention Pilots at Fish Farms that are burning...
>
>The flying fish fryer farm is on fire?

That was back on Friday, the fifth of February. Four miles from Fresno.

Ron Wanttaja

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
>> Interesting that you elected not to include a link to the actual
>> findings.
>
> The CNN article didn't provide one, as far as I could tell.

What I find interesting is this: You have expressed that you choose not to
believe anything published online by pilots unless it is already in line with
your existing preconceived notions - even in the face of supporting evidence.
Yet you believe (and even spread) information presented online as truth
because it was published by CNN, even though no supporting documentation was
provided.

[Doug Semler]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 16:28:58 -0700, Richard Riley >
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 23:22:05 -0700, Jay Beckman >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Aug 11, 10:15 pm, wrote:
>>>> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>>> > > On page 4 of the report you reference, the most dangerous
>>>> > > occupation
>>>> > > by industry sector is agriculture in terms of fatalities per
>>>> > > 100,000.
>>>> > Damn. No wonder the Flying Farmers died out as an organization...
>>>>
>>>> Just imagine what the fatality rate must be for pilots at fish farms...
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jim Pennino
>>>>
>>>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>>>
>>>Not to mention Pilots at Fish Farms that are burning...
>>
>>The flying fish fryer farm is on fire?
>
> That was back on Friday, the fifth of February. Four miles from Fresno.
>

Flippin' funny, fellas; flippin' funny.



--
Doug Semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
The answer is 42; DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, abbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> What I find interesting is this: You have expressed that you choose not to
> believe anything published online by pilots unless it is already in line with
> your existing preconceived notions - even in the face of supporting evidence.
> Yet you believe (and even spread) information presented online as truth
> because it was published by CNN, even though no supporting documentation was
> provided.

I never said anything about what I believed or didn't believe. I said
"according to." I thought the news item would be of interest to people here.

What I find interesting is that almost this entire thread is consumed by
dscussion of me and personal attacks against me, rather than discussion of the
news item that I posted. Whose fault is that?

[Jay Beckman[_2_]]

On Aug 12, 10:02 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Judah writes:
> > What I find interesting is this: You have expressed that you choose not to
> > believe anything published online by pilots unless it is already in line with
> > your existing preconceived notions - even in the face of supporting evidence.
> > Yet you believe (and even spread) information presented online as truth
> > because it was published by CNN, even though no supporting documentation was
> > provided.
>
> I never said anything about what I believed or didn't believe. I said
> "according to." I thought the news item would be of interest to people here.
>
> What I find interesting is that almost this entire thread is consumed by
> dscussion of me and personal attacks against me, rather than discussion of the
> news item that I posted. Whose fault is that?

Got Mirror?

[Jay Honeck]

> What I find interesting is that almost this entire thread is consumed by
> dscussion of me and personal attacks against me, rather than discussion of the
> news item that I posted. Whose fault is that?

That, I'm afraid, is an indication of how low your credibility here
has sank. Even when you post a legitimate topic, things go badly.

I personally think it's an interesting topic, but -- so far -- I have
seen no intelligent comments regarding the legitimacy of CNN's
research.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> What I find interesting is that almost this entire thread is consumed by
> dscussion of me and personal attacks against me, rather than discussion of the
> news item that I posted. Whose fault is that?
>

Yours. You have done everything to let your credibility and standing to this
level. Despite ample advice on how to save your sorry behind.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>> And if you go to http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0219.pdf on
>> page 14 you find a breakdown:
>>
>> Airling pilots, copilots, and flight engineers 26
>> Commercial pilots 75
>>
>> Guess which sub-part includes crop dusters and fire fighters.
>
> How do you know which subpart includes crop dusters and firefighters?

Because as a licenced pilot he has at least a basic understanding of the
FARs.

[Gattman[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...


> If you take out the few high risk piloting occupatations such as
> crop dusting and fire fighting, aviation is hardly dangerous.

The general public should continue to believe professional flying is
dangerous, and the danger should equate to better pay for professional
pilots.

-c

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

I guess we went to different marketing schools :-))
If the general public feels professional flying is dangerous, my
experience as a professional pilot would indicate to me that the gain in
professional pay will be more than offset by the loss in customer revenue.
Dudley Henriques

Gattman wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>> If you take out the few high risk piloting occupatations such as
>> crop dusting and fire fighting, aviation is hardly dangerous.
>
> The general public should continue to believe professional flying is
> dangerous, and the danger should equate to better pay for professional
> pilots.
>
> -c
>
>
>

--
Dudley Henriques
President Emeritus
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

[Gattman[_2_]]

>
>>> Guess which sub-part includes crop dusters and fire fighters.
>>
>> How do you know which subpart includes crop dusters and firefighters?

That's covered in the CFRs.

[Darkwing]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> According to numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and CNN,
> being
> a pilot is the second most dangerous occupation in the country (being a
> fisherman is in first place).


Good thing it is just a hobby for me then, guess I am completely safe.

----------------------------------------
DW

[[email protected]]

Gattman > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...


> > If you take out the few high risk piloting occupatations such as
> > crop dusting and fire fighting, aviation is hardly dangerous.

> The general public should continue to believe professional flying is
> dangerous, and the danger should equate to better pay for professional
> pilots.

While I can agree with the sentiment, there are two things wrong with
this.

First, pilots aren't payed by the general public so for that part
what they believe is irrelevant.

Second, if the general public believes flying is dangerous, flying
goes down the tubes along with the pilot jobs.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Hatunen]

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:20:58 +0200, Martin >
wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:02:02 +0200, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>>Judah writes:
>>
>>> What I find interesting is this: You have expressed that you choose not to
>>> believe anything published online by pilots unless it is already in line with
>>> your existing preconceived notions - even in the face of supporting evidence.
>>> Yet you believe (and even spread) information presented online as truth
>>> because it was published by CNN, even though no supporting documentation was
>>> provided.
>>
>>I never said anything about what I believed or didn't believe. I said
>>"according to." I thought the news item would be of interest to people here.
>>
>>What I find interesting is that almost this entire thread is consumed by
>>dscussion of me and personal attacks against me, rather than discussion of the
>>news item that I posted. Whose fault is that?
>
>It happens to you on every group you post to.


Hmmmmm.... (scratching head)

That's really strange. I mean, what are the odds??

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

[KAE]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 01:27:02 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>According to numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and CNN, being
>a pilot is the second most dangerous occupation in the country (being a
>fisherman is in first place).

Apparently "Flyers" moved up from third to second place since last
years CNN article.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/16/pf/2005_most_dangerous_jobs/index.htm

So CNN, which is it? Are we in second place or third place. Please
make up your mind.

[Mxsmanic]

Gattman writes:

> The general public should continue to believe professional flying is
> dangerous, and the danger should equate to better pay for professional
> pilots.

Unfortunately, since the general public is aboard the same aircraft as the
pilots, danger for pilots equates to danger for passengers, and that isn't
good for commercial aviation. And the public cares nothing about what pilots
are paid, nor does it have any influence on their salaries.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Because as a licenced pilot he has at least a basic understanding of the
> FARs.

How would that give him a basic understanding of the BLS?

[[email protected]]

KAE > wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 01:27:02 +0200, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:

> >According to numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and CNN, being
> >a pilot is the second most dangerous occupation in the country (being a
> >fisherman is in first place).

> Apparently "Flyers" moved up from third to second place since last
> years CNN article.

> http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/16/pf/2005_most_dangerous_jobs/index.htm

> So CNN, which is it? Are we in second place or third place. Please
> make up your mind.

The BLS numbers are updated every year about this time.

The CNN article is just the usual breathless media hype with no
analysis of the data and an eye catching conclusion.

By far the "most dangerous" occupation by industry is construction,
but if you break it down to specific occupations such as brick layer,
electrician, etc. you find the specific rates aren't that high.

It is the same for aviation.

When you lump all commercial pilots together, the rate is high.

The BLS just breaks pilots down to two sub-groups; airline pilots,
which has a low rate, and all other commercial pilots, which has
a rate about three times higher.

Of course, all other commercial pilots includes crop dusters, Alaska
bush pilots, aerial fire fighters and other such high risk stuff
as well as the commuter stuff, so one would expect the rate to be
higher.

You also have to keep in mind that the total number of work-related
fatalities for the year was 5,702, which is everyone not in the
military, while the number of traffic deaths was 42,642.

So, on the average, you are about 7.5 times more likely go get
killed driving to and from the airport as you are flying.

And, if you concider there are about 300,000,000 people in the US,
your chance of getting killed in traffic is about 1 in 7000.

When you get down to the detail, life is actually pretty safe no
matter what you do for a living, at least as a civilian.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Gattman[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...

>I guess we went to different marketing schools :-)
> If the general public feels professional flying is dangerous, my
> experience as a professional pilot would indicate to me that the gain in
> professional pay will be more than offset by the loss in customer revenue.

Yeah, you definately need to spin your statistics depending on the target.
(As virtually all businesses do.)

IE, firefighting, cropdusting, flight instruction, test piloting etc are
extremely dangerous but the airlines are safe. Similarly, cruise ships and
passenger ferryboat operations are statistically nowhere near as dangerous
as operating a fishing boat, but they all have a skipper.

I saw the report that this is about when it aired on TV. We paused report
(gotta love DVRs) and viewed it again just because I couldn't believe my
eyes. Let's see...it's more dangerous than firefighting, law enforcement,
kick boxing; naturally, though the statistic was backed by nothing
substantial.

-c

[Gattman[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...

> First, pilots aren't payed by the general public so for that part
> what they believe is irrelevant.
>
> Second, if the general public believes flying is dangerous, flying
> goes down the tubes along with the pilot jobs.

Well, those are valid points but to the latter I'd reiterate what I told
Dudley, which is that statistics can demonstrate that passenger airline
service is still the safest way to travel. Commercial aviation should be
separated from Air Transport Piloting, but of course I understand I'm asking
a hell of a lot of the media statisticians and anti-GA types.

-c

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> > Because as a licenced pilot he has at least a basic understanding of the
> > FARs.

> How would that give him a basic understanding of the BLS?

Proficiency in reading the English language.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gattman writes:
>
>> The general public should continue to believe professional flying is
>> dangerous, and the danger should equate to better pay for
>> professional pilots.
>
> Unfortunately, since the general public is aboard the same aircraft as
> the pilots, danger for pilots equates to danger for passengers,


Then they should **** off and take the bus



Bertie

[Doug Semler]

On Aug 13, 1:05 pm, wrote:
> KAE > wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 01:27:02 +0200, Mxsmanic >
> > wrote:
> > >According to numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and CNN, being
> > >a pilot is the second most dangerous occupation in the country (being a
> > >fisherman is in first place).
> > Apparently "Flyers" moved up from third to second place since last
> > years CNN article.
> >http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/16/pf/2005_most_dangerous_jobs/index.htm
> > So CNN, which is it? Are we in second place or third place. Please
> > make up your mind.
>
> The BLS numbers are updated every year about this time.
>
> The CNN article is just the usual breathless media hype with no
> analysis of the data and an eye catching conclusion.
>
> By far the "most dangerous" occupation by industry is construction,
> but if you break it down to specific occupations such as brick layer,
> electrician, etc. you find the specific rates aren't that high.
>
> It is the same for aviation.
>
> When you lump all commercial pilots together, the rate is high.
>
> The BLS just breaks pilots down to two sub-groups; airline pilots,
> which has a low rate, and all other commercial pilots, which has
> a rate about three times higher.
>
> Of course, all other commercial pilots includes crop dusters, Alaska
> bush pilots, aerial fire fighters and other such high risk stuff
> as well as the commuter stuff, so one would expect the rate to be
> higher.
>
> You also have to keep in mind that the total number of work-related
> fatalities for the year was 5,702, which is everyone not in the
> military, while the number of traffic deaths was 42,642.
>
> So, on the average, you are about 7.5 times more likely go get
> killed driving to and from the airport as you are flying.
>
> And, if you concider there are about 300,000,000 people in the US,
> your chance of getting killed in traffic is about 1 in 7000.
>
> When you get down to the detail, life is actually pretty safe no
> matter what you do for a living, at least as a civilian.

There's one other thing that the whole thing glosses over; that is the
definition of "dangerous". Fishermen and pilots may have a higher
incidence of fatality when becoming involved in an "accident," but
that in itself is only a (IMO) partial component of the measurement of
"danger" of an occupation. Other professions are less prone to
fatatlity either by proximity to medical facilities (such as in the
case of deep sea fishermen - being so far out from shore) or by the
less severe nature of an accident (sudden deceleration syndrome in the
case of pilots). Highway construction workers, police officers, and
firefighters, to me, are in much more "dangerous" professions than
pilots, mainly due to the risk exposure inherent to the professions.
In other words, to me, the only thing these statistics really help to
indicate is degree of survivability when involved in an injury
generating situation. (Caveat: I don't have any OSHA data on hand
which includes work related injuries; and even then, I believe that it
would be "lost work time" type data, including "taking the day off
because I sprained my foot stepping on the gas pedal of the hi-lo").

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Sometimes I wonder how these stats are derived. I've been reading stats
all my life for this and for that. If there's one thing I've learned
about statistics it's that they can be skewed in just about any
direction desired by the manipulation of the micros involved to produce
the macros desired.
Another thing about statistics; take gambling as a perfect example.
There is an extremely high possibility that someone will win the
lottery. This is what motivates those who play the lottery.
On the other hand, the odds that the someone who wins will be you is
quite another matter.
It always amazes me that people insist on using the first analogy
instead of the second when considering a play on the lottery.
My wife and I have been playing the lottery game in abstentia for many
years. Each day we IMAGINE we have played our house and phone number to
the tune of a 2 dollar lottery ticket. We started doing this in 1965. It
is now 2007. We have played this "game" for 42 years based on the second
analogy of us NOT being the number that comes up.
As of today, we have placed 42 years worth of ticket bets at 365x2= 730
dollars a year x 42 years= 30,660 dollars worth of lottery tickets.
We haven't won naturally, but by using an unskewed statistic, we have
SAVED $30,660 dollars by NOT buying lottery tickets!
Not bad really. I enjoy playing the lottery :-))
Dudley Henriques

Gattman wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I guess we went to different marketing schools :-)
>> If the general public feels professional flying is dangerous, my
>> experience as a professional pilot would indicate to me that the gain in
>> professional pay will be more than offset by the loss in customer revenue.
>
> Yeah, you definately need to spin your statistics depending on the target.
> (As virtually all businesses do.)
>
> IE, firefighting, cropdusting, flight instruction, test piloting etc are
> extremely dangerous but the airlines are safe. Similarly, cruise ships and
> passenger ferryboat operations are statistically nowhere near as dangerous
> as operating a fishing boat, but they all have a skipper.
>
> I saw the report that this is about when it aired on TV. We paused report
> (gotta love DVRs) and viewed it again just because I couldn't believe my
> eyes. Let's see...it's more dangerous than firefighting, law enforcement,
> kick boxing; naturally, though the statistic was backed by nothing
> substantial.
>
> -c
>
>
>

--
Dudley Henriques
President Emeritus
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

[Peter Dohm]

"Gattman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >I guess we went to different marketing schools :-)
> > If the general public feels professional flying is dangerous, my
> > experience as a professional pilot would indicate to me that the gain in
> > professional pay will be more than offset by the loss in customer
revenue.
>
> Yeah, you definately need to spin your statistics depending on the target.
> (As virtually all businesses do.)
>
> IE, firefighting, cropdusting, flight instruction, test piloting etc are
> extremely dangerous but the airlines are safe. Similarly, cruise ships
and
> passenger ferryboat operations are statistically nowhere near as dangerous
> as operating a fishing boat, but they all have a skipper.
>
> I saw the report that this is about when it aired on TV. We paused report
> (gotta love DVRs) and viewed it again just because I couldn't believe my
> eyes. Let's see...it's more dangerous than firefighting, law enforcement,
> kick boxing; naturally, though the statistic was backed by nothing
> substantial.
>
> -c
>
>
>
IIRC, whatever happened to Tower Rigging--which I heard was a long term
shoo-in for win, place, or show in the dangerous occupation derby. Or was
this such a generalized report that dangerous specilties were omitted?

Peter

[Doug Semler]

On Aug 13, 1:48 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Sometimes I wonder how these stats are derived. I've been reading stats
> all my life for this and for that. If there's one thing I've learned
> about statistics it's that they can be skewed in just about any
> direction desired by the manipulation of the micros involved to produce
> the macros desired.
> Another thing about statistics; take gambling as a perfect example.
> There is an extremely high possibility that someone will win the
> lottery. This is what motivates those who play the lottery.
> On the other hand, the odds that the someone who wins will be you is
> quite another matter.
> It always amazes me that people insist on using the first analogy
> instead of the second when considering a play on the lottery.
> My wife and I have been playing the lottery game in abstentia for many
> years. Each day we IMAGINE we have played our house and phone number to
> the tune of a 2 dollar lottery ticket. We started doing this in 1965. It
> is now 2007. We have played this "game" for 42 years based on the second
> analogy of us NOT being the number that comes up.
> As of today, we have placed 42 years worth of ticket bets at 365x2= 730
> dollars a year x 42 years= 30,660 dollars worth of lottery tickets.
> We haven't won naturally, but by using an unskewed statistic, we have
> SAVED $30,660 dollars by NOT buying lottery tickets!
> Not bad really. I enjoy playing the lottery :-))
> Dudley Henriques
>
>

One point I would make, Dudley, and that is that your statistic is
still slightly "skewed." Although that I agree that you have "saved"
30,000-some-odd dollars, you have placed an inherint assumption in
your "statisitic" that you will NEVER win. Unfortunately (or
fortunately, depending on how you look at it), the lottery is not a
zero sum game. Your statisitic has not taken into consideration any
winnings that your 42 years of "ticket buying" would have produced.
However, because of the fact that the ODDS are sufficiently low, I
guess you could consider the skew close enough to zero to not consider
it.

Either way, it is just another example of how statistical data is
subject to interpretation, and further explains why statisticians have
jobs <g>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Doug Semler wrote:
> On Aug 13, 1:48 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Sometimes I wonder how these stats are derived. I've been reading stats
>> all my life for this and for that. If there's one thing I've learned
>> about statistics it's that they can be skewed in just about any
>> direction desired by the manipulation of the micros involved to produce
>> the macros desired.
>> Another thing about statistics; take gambling as a perfect example.
>> There is an extremely high possibility that someone will win the
>> lottery. This is what motivates those who play the lottery.
>> On the other hand, the odds that the someone who wins will be you is
>> quite another matter.
>> It always amazes me that people insist on using the first analogy
>> instead of the second when considering a play on the lottery.
>> My wife and I have been playing the lottery game in abstentia for many
>> years. Each day we IMAGINE we have played our house and phone number to
>> the tune of a 2 dollar lottery ticket. We started doing this in 1965. It
>> is now 2007. We have played this "game" for 42 years based on the second
>> analogy of us NOT being the number that comes up.
>> As of today, we have placed 42 years worth of ticket bets at 365x2= 730
>> dollars a year x 42 years= 30,660 dollars worth of lottery tickets.
>> We haven't won naturally, but by using an unskewed statistic, we have
>> SAVED $30,660 dollars by NOT buying lottery tickets!
>> Not bad really. I enjoy playing the lottery :-))
>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>>
>
> One point I would make, Dudley, and that is that your statistic is
> still slightly "skewed." Although that I agree that you have "saved"
> 30,000-some-odd dollars, you have placed an inherint assumption in
> your "statisitic" that you will NEVER win. Unfortunately (or
> fortunately, depending on how you look at it), the lottery is not a
> zero sum game. Your statisitic has not taken into consideration any
> winnings that your 42 years of "ticket buying" would have produced.
> However, because of the fact that the ODDS are sufficiently low, I
> guess you could consider the skew close enough to zero to not consider
> it.
>
> Either way, it is just another example of how statistical data is
> subject to interpretation, and further explains why statisticians have
> jobs <g>
>

I agree with you. There is always the chance of a win. What we have done
is just as you have said; play the potential gain of money saved against
the possibility of money won. The "stats" were deemed so slim that
playing was never an option.
I should add that so far, this logic model has proven to have been correct.
Naturally, I assume I will be royally ****ed off if I die next Tuesday
and the numbers come up on Wednesday :-))
DH

[[email protected]]

Doug Semler > wrote:

<snip>

> There's one other thing that the whole thing glosses over; that is the
> definition of "dangerous". Fishermen and pilots may have a higher
> incidence of fatality when becoming involved in an "accident," but
> that in itself is only a (IMO) partial component of the measurement of
> "danger" of an occupation. Other professions are less prone to
> fatatlity either by proximity to medical facilities (such as in the
> case of deep sea fishermen - being so far out from shore) or by the
> less severe nature of an accident (sudden deceleration syndrome in the
> case of pilots). Highway construction workers, police officers, and
> firefighters, to me, are in much more "dangerous" professions than
> pilots, mainly due to the risk exposure inherent to the professions.
> In other words, to me, the only thing these statistics really help to
> indicate is degree of survivability when involved in an injury
> generating situation. (Caveat: I don't have any OSHA data on hand
> which includes work related injuries; and even then, I believe that it
> would be "lost work time" type data, including "taking the day off
> because I sprained my foot stepping on the gas pedal of the hi-lo").

There is also the issue that the BLS dosn't keep much data on
nonfatal injuries.

A death usually gets reported to the world, while injury may or may
not be reported to anybody and the reporting of such things depends
on a whole slew of factors.

If you go to:

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/ostb1607.txt

You will find what the BLS has for nonfatal injury and illness.

In it you find the "worst" rate is Beet sugar manufacturing.

Now, is this because of some "problem" in that industry, or is it
just highly regulated and has to report every time someone stubs
their toe?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Doug Semler wrote:
>
> One point I would make, Dudley, and that is that your statistic is
> still slightly "skewed." Although that I agree that you have "saved"
> 30,000-some-odd dollars, you have placed an inherint assumption in
> your "statisitic" that you will NEVER win. Unfortunately (or
> fortunately, depending on how you look at it), the lottery is not a
> zero sum game. Your statisitic has not taken into consideration any
> winnings that your 42 years of "ticket buying" would have produced.
> However, because of the fact that the ODDS are sufficiently low, I
> guess you could consider the skew close enough to zero to not consider
> it.
>
> Either way, it is just another example of how statistical data is
> subject to interpretation, and further explains why statisticians have
> jobs <g>

"Statistically" buying a lottery ticket doesn't increase you chance of
winning. i.e. The chance of winning isn't increased enough to be relevant
"Statistically".

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> I should add that so far, this logic model has proven to have been
> correct. Naturally, I assume I will be royally ****ed off if I die
> next Tuesday and the numbers come up on Wednesday :-))
> DH


No you will be royally ****ed off if the numbers come up next Wednesday and
you didn't die on Tuesday. Assuming you plan to keep your plan to not buy a
ticket going.

[Gattman[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .

>>> The general public should continue to believe professional flying is
>>> dangerous, and the danger should equate to better pay for
>>> professional pilots.
>>
>> Unfortunately, since the general public is aboard the same aircraft as
>> the pilots, danger for pilots equates to danger for passengers,

MX reflects the subset of public ignorance that thinks that all pilots carry
passengers.

"Since the general public is aboard the same aircraft as the pilots."
That's funny...I wonder how much of the "general public" rode along in the
last civilian test flight, aerobatic performance or crop-dusting operation.

-c

[Peter Dohm]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
> > According to numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and CNN,
> > being
> > a pilot is the second most dangerous occupation in the country (being a
> > fisherman is in first place).
>
>
> Good thing it is just a hobby for me then, guess I am completely safe.
>
> ----------------------------------------
> DW
>
It just means that, if "something unfortunate was to happen to you", then
the statistic would be counted against your day job.

Peter

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> I should add that so far, this logic model has proven to have been
>> correct. Naturally, I assume I will be royally ****ed off if I die
>> next Tuesday and the numbers come up on Wednesday :-))
>> DH
>
>
> No you will be royally ****ed off if the numbers come up next Wednesday and
> you didn't die on Tuesday. Assuming you plan to keep your plan to not buy a
> ticket going.
>
>

I won't have to worry about that. If the number comes up next Wednesday
and we didn't play it on Tuesday based on what I told my wife 42 years
ago about statistics, I'll be dead by Thursday anyway :-)
DH

[Newps]

Gattman wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>
>>If you take out the few high risk piloting occupatations such as
>>crop dusting and fire fighting, aviation is hardly dangerous.
>
>
> The general public should continue to believe professional flying is
> dangerous, and the danger should equate to better pay for professional
> pilots.



Pilots are not worth that anymore. Todays airliners are nothing more
complicated than a bus with wings.

[[email protected]]

Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> Doug Semler wrote:
> >
> > One point I would make, Dudley, and that is that your statistic is
> > still slightly "skewed." Although that I agree that you have "saved"
> > 30,000-some-odd dollars, you have placed an inherint assumption in
> > your "statisitic" that you will NEVER win. Unfortunately (or
> > fortunately, depending on how you look at it), the lottery is not a
> > zero sum game. Your statisitic has not taken into consideration any
> > winnings that your 42 years of "ticket buying" would have produced.
> > However, because of the fact that the ODDS are sufficiently low, I
> > guess you could consider the skew close enough to zero to not consider
> > it.
> >
> > Either way, it is just another example of how statistical data is
> > subject to interpretation, and further explains why statisticians have
> > jobs <g>

> "Statistically" buying a lottery ticket doesn't increase you chance of
> winning. i.e. The chance of winning isn't increased enough to be relevant
> "Statistically".

Depends on how you look at it "statistically".

If you don't buy, the chance of winning is zero.

If you do buy, the chance of winning is a non-zero number.

So you've essentially increased the odds by an infinite amount...

Aren't statistics fun?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

>> "Statistically" buying a lottery ticket doesn't increase you chance
>> of winning. i.e. The chance of winning isn't increased enough to be
>> relevant "Statistically".
>
> Depends on how you look at it "statistically".
>
> If you don't buy, the chance of winning is zero.
>
> If you do buy, the chance of winning is a non-zero number.
>
> So you've essentially increased the odds by an infinite amount...
>
> Aren't statistics fun?
>
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Not buying the ticket does not reduce your chance of winning to ZERO. There
is also a chance that will find the winning ticket on the ground outside of
a C-store.

It all boils down to the fact that the chance for any individual of winning
the lottery is so small that coming up with fun little statically silly
nuggets about it and the thoughts of what you'd do with the winnings are
really the only thing one can hope to gain from them.

It all boils down to the fact that they are a tax on people who are really
bad a math.

[[email protected]]

Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> wrote:
> > Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

> >> "Statistically" buying a lottery ticket doesn't increase you chance
> >> of winning. i.e. The chance of winning isn't increased enough to be
> >> relevant "Statistically".
> >
> > Depends on how you look at it "statistically".
> >
> > If you don't buy, the chance of winning is zero.
> >
> > If you do buy, the chance of winning is a non-zero number.
> >
> > So you've essentially increased the odds by an infinite amount...
> >
> > Aren't statistics fun?
> >
> >
> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.

> Not buying the ticket does not reduce your chance of winning to ZERO. There
> is also a chance that will find the winning ticket on the ground outside of
> a C-store.

The probablility that you will find a ticket AND that the ticket is
a winner is so small that by buying a ticket you've increased your
odds by slightly less than infinity.

> It all boils down to the fact that the chance for any individual of winning
> the lottery is so small that coming up with fun little statically silly
> nuggets about it and the thoughts of what you'd do with the winnings are
> really the only thing one can hope to gain from them.

A movie costs $12 and lasts about 90 minutes.

A lotto ticket costs $1 and I can daydream about the planes I'd buy
with $30,000.000 for days.

It's cheap entertainment.

> It all boils down to the fact that they are a tax on people who are really
> bad a math.

Well, I didn't get much beyond partial differential equations, so you
may have a point.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Newps wrote:

> Pilots are not worth that anymore. Todays airliners are nothing more
> complicated than a bus with wings.

Well.......I'll tell ya; those "buses with wings" require a wee bit of
talent to fly on occasion.
In fact, the survivors of United 232 send a Christmas card to Al Haynes
every year just to tell him that :-))
Dudley Henriques

[Ken Finney]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>>> "Statistically" buying a lottery ticket doesn't increase you chance
>>> of winning. i.e. The chance of winning isn't increased enough to be
>>> relevant "Statistically".
>>
>> Depends on how you look at it "statistically".
>>
>> If you don't buy, the chance of winning is zero.
>>
>> If you do buy, the chance of winning is a non-zero number.
>>
>> So you've essentially increased the odds by an infinite amount...
>>
>> Aren't statistics fun?
>>
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> Not buying the ticket does not reduce your chance of winning to ZERO.
> There is also a chance that will find the winning ticket on the ground
> outside of a C-store.
>
> It all boils down to the fact that the chance for any individual of
> winning the lottery is so small that coming up with fun little statically
> silly nuggets about it and the thoughts of what you'd do with the winnings
> are really the only thing one can hope to gain from them.
>
> It all boils down to the fact that they are a tax on people who are really
> bad a math.

Gee, I'm the only one in my circle of friends that HASN'T won the lottery.
None of them minded paying the tax!

[Mxsmanic]

Gattman writes:

> MX reflects the subset of public ignorance that thinks that all pilots carry
> passengers.
>
> "Since the general public is aboard the same aircraft as the pilots."
> That's funny...I wonder how much of the "general public" rode along in the
> last civilian test flight, aerobatic performance or crop-dusting operation.

The public that you ridicule might just pull your license to fly any day, if
it doesn't like the numbers that it sees.

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Well.......I'll tell ya; those "buses with wings" require a wee bit of
> talent to fly on occasion.

On increasingly rare occasions. Commercial pilots in the U.S. train a great
deal for events that are more and more unlikely to happen. I'm not saying
that's a bad idea, but from an economic standpoint it means that, to an ever
increasing extent, the bulk of their skills aren't really required to do the
job. On a typical, normal, flight, it would be possible for pilots with far
less training to do the work--which in turn means that the job is worth less
money.

Even if the U.S. has not compromised on the standards it imposes for
commercial pilots, other nations are not so strict.

> In fact, the survivors of United 232 send a Christmas card to Al Haynes
> every year just to tell him that :-))

The exception does not invalidate the rule.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The BLS numbers are updated every year about this time.
>
> The CNN article is just the usual breathless media hype with no
> analysis of the data and an eye catching conclusion.

I didn't really see much in the way of hype in the article.

> You also have to keep in mind that the total number of work-related
> fatalities for the year was 5,702, which is everyone not in the
> military, while the number of traffic deaths was 42,642.
>
> So, on the average, you are about 7.5 times more likely go get
> killed driving to and from the airport as you are flying.

You've completely overlooked the number of flights versus the number of car
trips. You can't really criticize CNN when you are so much more careless
yourself.

> And, if you concider there are about 300,000,000 people in the US,
> your chance of getting killed in traffic is about 1 in 7000.

See above. You're essentially pulling numbers out of a hat, even as you
criticize the news media for citing statistics.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:

> > Well.......I'll tell ya; those "buses with wings" require a wee bit of
> > talent to fly on occasion.

> On increasingly rare occasions. Commercial pilots in the U.S. train a great
> deal for events that are more and more unlikely to happen. I'm not saying
> that's a bad idea, but from an economic standpoint it means that, to an ever
> increasing extent, the bulk of their skills aren't really required to do the
> job. On a typical, normal, flight, it would be possible for pilots with far
> less training to do the work--which in turn means that the job is worth less
> money.

> Even if the U.S. has not compromised on the standards it imposes for
> commercial pilots, other nations are not so strict.

> > In fact, the survivors of United 232 send a Christmas card to Al Haynes
> > every year just to tell him that :-))

> The exception does not invalidate the rule.

And firemen on a typical, normal day spend most of their time cooking
chile and washing their trucks.

And police on a typical, normal day spend most of their time cruising
around doing nothing in particular.

And life guards on a typical, normal day spend most of their time working
on their tan.

So what?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > The BLS numbers are updated every year about this time.
> >
> > The CNN article is just the usual breathless media hype with no
> > analysis of the data and an eye catching conclusion.

> I didn't really see much in the way of hype in the article.

You don't "see" much of anything that I can tell.

> > You also have to keep in mind that the total number of work-related
> > fatalities for the year was 5,702, which is everyone not in the
> > military, while the number of traffic deaths was 42,642.
> >
> > So, on the average, you are about 7.5 times more likely go get
> > killed driving to and from the airport as you are flying.

> You've completely overlooked the number of flights versus the number of car
> trips. You can't really criticize CNN when you are so much more careless
> yourself.

Ignorant slut, read it again, this time for comprehension.

5,702 is the total number of people that died on the job in the US
in a year. All jobs. All occupations.

The last word of the sentence was a typo, it should have "on the job".

If you were able to comprehend English, you would have noticed that.

> > And, if you concider there are about 300,000,000 people in the US,
> > your chance of getting killed in traffic is about 1 in 7000.

> See above. You're essentially pulling numbers out of a hat, even as you
> criticize the news media for citing statistics.

Yeah, a hat called the US Census Bureau, the Bueau of Labor Statistics,
and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

And you are twisting words again.

I have no problem with media for citing statistics, though the statistics
are seldom in context, I have a problem with media editorializing on
statistics with no analysis.

But since you have reading comprehension problems with English, it is
no surprise you came to that conclusion.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Peter Dohm]

> A movie costs $12 and lasts about 90 minutes.
>
> A lotto ticket costs $1 and I can daydream about the planes I'd buy
> with $30,000.000 for days.
>
> It's cheap entertainment.
>
Add the fact that it is better for your health than drinking, and it pretty
much sums up my feelings about the issue as well.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> And firemen on a typical, normal day spend most of their time cooking
> chile and washing their trucks.
>
> And police on a typical, normal day spend most of their time cruising
> around doing nothing in particular.
>
> And life guards on a typical, normal day spend most of their time working
> on their tan.
>
> So what?

All of these train and are paid specifically for the exception. Pilots are
paid to handle the normal aspects of flight, but these aspects are
increasingly automated. Eventually, pilots may work like firefighters, being
there only for the exceptions, but then they will probably be paid like
firefighters as well.

The key point is that a high level of skill is less and less necessary when
flying under normal conditions, and this encourages employers to pay less and
less for pilots.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > And firemen on a typical, normal day spend most of their time cooking
> > chile and washing their trucks.
> >
> > And police on a typical, normal day spend most of their time cruising
> > around doing nothing in particular.
> >
> > And life guards on a typical, normal day spend most of their time working
> > on their tan.
> >
> > So what?

> All of these train and are paid specifically for the exception. Pilots are
> paid to handle the normal aspects of flight, but these aspects are
> increasingly automated. Eventually, pilots may work like firefighters, being
> there only for the exceptions, but then they will probably be paid like
> firefighters as well.

You haven't a clue what pilots are trained for.

> The key point is that a high level of skill is less and less necessary when
> flying under normal conditions, and this encourages employers to pay less and
> less for pilots.

No, the key point is you are a babbling ass.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 11, 6:55 pm, Judah > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > According to numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and CNN,
> > being a pilot is the second most dangerous occupation in the country
> > (being a fisherman is in first place).
>
> According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, on page 5 of the report here:
>
> http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf
>
> "Aircraft Pilots and Flight Engineers" appears second on a list of "Selected
> Occupations with high fatality rates, 2006", having 87.8 fatalities per
> 100,000 employed, and 101 total fatalities in 2006.
>

What do they mean by "Selected"?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Gattman" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>>> The general public should continue to believe professional flying
>>>> is dangerous, and the danger should equate to better pay for
>>>> professional pilots.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, since the general public is aboard the same aircraft
>>> as the pilots, danger for pilots equates to danger for passengers,
>
> MX reflects the subset of public ignorance that thinks that all pilots
> carry passengers.

Lessee, I'm prediciting a response that relegates those who don't to second
string airlines and cropdusting.

Wonder if he knows that Fedex and UPS are the most sought after jobs in the
biz.


>
> "Since the general public is aboard the same aircraft as the pilots."
> That's funny...I wonder how much of the "general public" rode along in
> the last civilian test flight, aerobatic performance or crop-dusting
> operation.
>
> -c
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gattman writes:
>
>> MX reflects the subset of public ignorance that thinks that all
>> pilots carry passengers.
>>
>> "Since the general public is aboard the same aircraft as the pilots."
>> That's funny...I wonder how much of the "general public" rode along
>> in the last civilian test flight, aerobatic performance or
>> crop-dusting operation.
>
> The public that you ridicule might just pull your license to fly any
> day, if it doesn't like the numbers that it sees.


Bwawhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahhwhahwhah whahwhahhwhahwha!


God you're an idiot.

Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> And firemen on a typical, normal day spend most of their time cooking
>> chile and washing their trucks.
>>
>> And police on a typical, normal day spend most of their time cruising
>> around doing nothing in particular.
>>
>> And life guards on a typical, normal day spend most of their time
>> working on their tan.
>>
>> So what?
>
> All of these train and are paid specifically for the exception.
> Pilots are paid to handle the normal aspects of flight,


no, we're not.

but these
> aspects are increasingly automated. Eventually, pilots may work like
> firefighters, being there only for the exceptions, but then they will
> probably be paid like firefighters as well.
>
> The key point is that a high level of skill is less and less necessary
> when flying under normal conditions, and this encourages employers to
> pay less and less for pilots.
>


Actually, I've nevr been paid more..

So, wrong again.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Nomen Nescio > wrote in
:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Bertie the Bunyip >
>
>>Mxsmanic > wrote in
:
>
>>> Unfortunately, since the general public is aboard the same aircraft as
>>> the pilots, danger for pilots equates to danger for passengers,
>>
>>
>>Then they should **** off and take the bus
>
> Gawd, I wish half of them would.
> And while they're doing a "weapons and explosives" check, I wish
> they'd add a "Did you take a shower this week?" check.


Eww,

That god for the door.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Well.......I'll tell ya; those "buses with wings" require a wee bit
>> of talent to fly on occasion.
>
> On increasingly rare occasions. Commercial pilots in the U.S. train a
> great deal for events that are more and more unlikely to happen.


shows what you know.

Last week I had two serious tech probs on an otherwise quite decent
airplane all in one flight. Added to absolutely crap Wx at destination with
holds, alternates going otu.

all part of the fun in CB season.

IOW you have no idea what you're talking about.




Bertie>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> The BLS numbers are updated every year about this time.
>>
>> The CNN article is just the usual breathless media hype with no
>> analysis of the data and an eye catching conclusion.
>
> I didn't really see much in the way of hype in the article.
>
>> You also have to keep in mind that the total number of work-related
>> fatalities for the year was 5,702, which is everyone not in the
>> military, while the number of traffic deaths was 42,642.
>>
>> So, on the average, you are about 7.5 times more likely go get
>> killed driving to and from the airport as you are flying.
>
> You've completely overlooked the number of flights versus the number
> of car trips. You can't really criticize CNN when you are so much
> more careless yourself.
>
>> And, if you concider there are about 300,000,000 people in the US,
>> your chance of getting killed in traffic is about 1 in 7000.
>
> See above. You're essentially pulling numbers out of a hat, even as
> you criticize the news media for citing statistics.
>



Bwawhawhahwhhahwhahwhahhwha!

You pull everythign out of your ass, bankruptcy boi

Bertie

[Gattman[_2_]]

>> Pilots are paid to handle the normal aspects of flight, but these aspects
>> are
>> increasingly automated.

I wonder how it is that presumes to tell pilots about what pilots are paid
to handle when he's not a pilot himself.

>> The key point is that a high level of skill is less and less necessary
>> when
>> flying under normal conditions, and this encourages employers to pay less
>> and
>> less for pilots.

LOL! I'd ask him to support this with something, but he wouldn't if he
could.

-c

[Doug Semler]

On Aug 14, 2:15 pm, "Gattman" > wrote:
> >> Pilots are paid to handle the normal aspects of flight, but these aspects
> >> are
> >> increasingly automated.
>
> I wonder how it is that presumes to tell pilots about what pilots are paid
> to handle when he's not a pilot himself.
>
> >> The key point is that a high level of skill is less and less necessary
> >> when
> >> flying under normal conditions, and this encourages employers to pay less
> >> and
> >> less for pilots.
>
> LOL! I'd ask him to support this with something, but he wouldn't if he
> could.
>

Of course, that all assumes that all pilots are paid, and all planes
have all the latest cool gadgets. What about planes that don't have
all this "automation?" Just because a Cessna is equipped with a three
axis autopilot, 2 nav radios, 2 com radios, adf, dme, gps, glass
cockpit etc etc in flight simulator does make that the norm (if only!
<g>)

[Doug Semler]

On Aug 14, 2:58 pm, Doug Semler > wrote:

> axis autopilot, 2 nav radios, 2 com radios, adf, dme, gps, glass
> cockpit etc etc in flight simulator does make that the norm (if only!


Oopps, does NOT make that the norm, of course <g>

[Mxsmanic]

Gattman writes:

> I wonder how it is that presumes to tell pilots about what pilots are paid
> to handle when he's not a pilot himself.

Unfortunately, I've discovered that some pilots are clueless.

[george]

On Aug 15, 8:03 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Gattman writes:
> > I wonder how it is that presumes to tell pilots about what pilots are paid
> > to handle when he's not a pilot himself.
>
> Unfortunately, I've discovered that some pilots are clueless.

Irony isn't your strongest point is it

[Gattman[_2_]]

"Doug Semler" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Aug 14, 2:15 pm, "Gattman" > wrote:

>> LOL! I'd ask him to support this with something, but he wouldn't if he
>> could.
>>
>
> Of course, that all assumes that all pilots are paid, and all planes
> have all the latest cool gadgets. What about planes that don't have
> all this "automation?"

Clearly somebody needs to download the simulator mod (before their camber
fails and they fly into a hillside.)

-c

[Tina]

MX wrote

"Unfortunately, I've discovered that some pilots are clueless."

which characterization, I have to say, includes those of us, pilots
and non pilots (including me), who have tried to reason with you.

Tina


On Aug 14, 1:03 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Gattman writes:
> > I wonder how it is that presumes to tell pilots about what pilots are paid
> > to handle when he's not a pilot himself.
>
Quote of the Day - Jules Renard - "It is not how old you are, but how
you are old."

[Gattman[_2_]]

"george" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Aug 15, 8:03 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Gattman writes:
>> > I wonder how it is that presumes to tell pilots about what pilots are
>> > paid
>> > to handle when he's not a pilot himself.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I've discovered that some pilots are clueless.
>
> Irony isn't your strongest point is it

Well, it's good to know there are armchair experts like MX out here, who've
never actually flown or built a plane, to decide who's clueless and who
isn't. In spite of the fact that literally anybody who even bothers to
respond to him tells him he's totally clueless.

But what do we all know? We're just pilots.

-c

[Doug Semler]

"Gattman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "george" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>> On Aug 15, 8:03 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> Gattman writes:
>>> > I wonder how it is that presumes to tell pilots about what pilots are
>>> > paid
>>> > to handle when he's not a pilot himself.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, I've discovered that some pilots are clueless.
>>
>> Irony isn't your strongest point is it
>
> Well, it's good to know there are armchair experts like MX out here,
> who've never actually flown or built a plane, to decide who's clueless and
> who isn't. In spite of the fact that literally anybody who even bothers
> to respond to him tells him he's totally clueless.
>
> But what do we all know? We're just pilots.


Well, I could pull out my Mensa card, but of course that doesn't show
anything, does it?

--
Doug Semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
The answer is 42; DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, abbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?

[george]

On Aug 15, 11:34 am, "Doug Semler" > wrote:
> "Gattman" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "george" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> >> On Aug 15, 8:03 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >>> Gattman writes:
> >>> > I wonder how it is that presumes to tell pilots about what pilots are
> >>> > paid
> >>> > to handle when he's not a pilot himself.
>
> >>> Unfortunately, I've discovered that some pilots are clueless.
>
> >> Irony isn't your strongest point is it
>
> > Well, it's good to know there are armchair experts like MX out here,
> > who've never actually flown or built a plane, to decide who's clueless and
> > who isn't. In spite of the fact that literally anybody who even bothers
> > to respond to him tells him he's totally clueless.
>
> > But what do we all know? We're just pilots.
>
> Well, I could pull out my Mensa card, but of course that doesn't show
> anything, does it?

Mxsmanic has a Densa card.
He's densa than any other poster.
Or, as one person might have put it.
He hasn't an IQ more a viscosity rating

[Gattman[_2_]]

>> > But what do we all know? We're just pilots.
>>
>> Well, I could pull out my Mensa card, but of course that doesn't show
>> anything, does it?


Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth
And danced the pixelated skies on digitally-rendered wings;
Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
Of sun-split digits and simulated a hundred things
You have not dreamed of - installed and booted and simmed
High in the bedroom silence, sitting there
I've chased the shouting frame-rates along, and flung
my eager floppy disks from my Frito-covered chair
download, download the long delirous hacks and mods
I've programmed Function Keys with easy grace
What no real pilots ever do
And, while with unsilent addled mind I've trod
the high untresspassed similuated sanctity of MSFSX
Released my joystick and touched the display on my monitor.

[Viperdoc]

You'll never have any basis of comparison, since you don't fly and never
will.

[Doug Semler]

"Gattman" > wrote in message
...
>
>>> > But what do we all know? We're just pilots.
>>>
>>> Well, I could pull out my Mensa card, but of course that doesn't show
>>> anything, does it?
>
>
> Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth
> And danced the pixelated skies on digitally-rendered wings;
> Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
> Of sun-split digits and simulated a hundred things
> You have not dreamed of - installed and booted and simmed
> High in the bedroom silence, sitting there
> I've chased the shouting frame-rates along, and flung
> my eager floppy disks from my Frito-covered chair
> download, download the long delirous hacks and mods
> I've programmed Function Keys with easy grace
> What no real pilots ever do
> And, while with unsilent addled mind I've trod
> the high untresspassed similuated sanctity of MSFSX
> Released my joystick and touched the display on my monitor.


<sniff> That was beautiful...in an really creepy way....

Ya know, there's this South Park episode that it reminds me of....the one
where they get all fat and disgusting because of a computer game......

--
Doug Semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
The answer is 42; DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, abbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?

[Mxsmanic]

Doug Semler writes:

> Well, I could pull out my Mensa card, but of course that doesn't show
> anything, does it?

Given what many Mensa members are like, it is perhaps best not to show the
card. The organization is famous for attracting intelligent but socially
dysfunctional individuals. About 120 million people worldwide qualify for
Mensa, but only 70,000 have joined, and they are a self-selected group that is
not representative of intelligent people as a whole.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Doug Semler writes:

> > Well, I could pull out my Mensa card, but of course that doesn't show
> > anything, does it?

> Given what many Mensa members are like, it is perhaps best not to show the
> card. The organization is famous for attracting intelligent but socially
> dysfunctional individuals. About 120 million people worldwide qualify for
> Mensa, but only 70,000 have joined, and they are a self-selected group that is
> not representative of intelligent people as a whole.

Do I detect the aroma of sour grapes?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Do I detect the aroma of sour grapes?

No, you read the post of someone who knows a lot of people in Mensa. While
there are some well-adjusted people in the club, many of them are exceedingly
strange, much more so than other people with similar levels of intelligence.
The club attracts people who have nothing else going for them besides a high
IQ. Unfortunately, as a group they create the impression that intelligent
people are social misfits and eccentrics, when nothing could be further from
the case.

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Doug Semler writes:
>
>> > Well, I could pull out my Mensa card, but of course that doesn't show
>> > anything, does it?
>
>> Given what many Mensa members are like, it is perhaps best not to show
>> the
>> card. The organization is famous for attracting intelligent but socially
>> dysfunctional individuals. About 120 million people worldwide qualify
>> for
>> Mensa, but only 70,000 have joined, and they are a self-selected group
>> that is
>> not representative of intelligent people as a whole.
>
> Do I detect the aroma of sour grapes?

At least he speaks as an expert on this one, being as HE IS a socially
dysfunctional individual.
--
Jim in NC

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> Given what many Mensa members are like, it is perhaps best not to show the
> card. The organization is famous for attracting intelligent but socially
> dysfunctional individuals. About 120 million people worldwide qualify for
> Mensa, but only 70,000 have joined, and they are a self-selected group
> that is
> not representative of intelligent people as a whole.

Sounds just like your description of pilots as a population.

Things that make you go hmmm........

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:48:55 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Sometimes I wonder how these stats are derived. I've been reading stats
>all my life for this and for that. If there's one thing I've learned
>about statistics it's that they can be skewed in just about any
>direction desired by the manipulation of the micros involved to produce
>the macros desired.
>Another thing about statistics; take gambling as a perfect example.
>There is an extremely high possibility that someone will win the
>lottery. This is what motivates those who play the lottery.
>On the other hand, the odds that the someone who wins will be you is
>quite another matter.
>It always amazes me that people insist on using the first analogy
>instead of the second when considering a play on the lottery.
>My wife and I have been playing the lottery game in abstentia for many
>years. Each day we IMAGINE we have played our house and phone number to
>the tune of a 2 dollar lottery ticket. We started doing this in 1965. It
>is now 2007. We have played this "game" for 42 years based on the second
>analogy of us NOT being the number that comes up.
>As of today, we have placed 42 years worth of ticket bets at 365x2= 730
>dollars a year x 42 years= 30,660 dollars worth of lottery tickets.
>We haven't won naturally, but by using an unskewed statistic, we have
>SAVED $30,660 dollars by NOT buying lottery tickets!
>Not bad really. I enjoy playing the lottery :-))
>Dudley Henriques

I wish I had been such a visionary in the 70's when I hit the legal
age to buy beer. I could be very well off by now IF I had just
IMAGINED drinking each of those beers for the last 33 years. :-))

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Do I detect the aroma of sour grapes?
>
> No, you read the post of someone who knows a lot of people in Mensa.
> While there are some well-adjusted people in the club, many of them
> are exceedingly strange,


Strange being a relative term, the mind boggles.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Doug Semler writes:
>
>> Well, I could pull out my Mensa card, but of course that doesn't show
>> anything, does it?
>
> Given what many Mensa members are like, it is perhaps best not to show
> the card. The organization is famous for attracting intelligent but
> socially dysfunctional individuals. About 120 million people
> worldwide qualify for Mensa, but only 70,000 have joined, and they are
> a self-selected group that is not representative of intelligent people
> as a whole.
>

Whatm and you are?


Bwahwahwahwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahw hahhwhahwhahwhahwhahwhhah
whahwhahwhhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahhwhahwhahhwhahwhahwh ahhwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahh
whahwhhahwhahwhahwhhahwhhwh!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Doug Semler writes:
>
>> Well, I could pull out my Mensa card, but of course that doesn't show
>> anything, does it?
>
> Given what many Mensa members are like, it is perhaps best not to show
> the card. The organization is famous for attracting intelligent but
> socially dysfunctional individuals. About 120 million people
> worldwide qualify for Mensa, but only 70,000 have joined, and they are
> a self-selected group that is not representative of intelligent people
> as a whole.
>

Whatm and you are?


Bwahwahwahwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahw hahhwhahwhahwhahwhahwhhah
whahwhahwhhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahhwhahwhahhwhahwhahwh ahhwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahh
whahwhhahwhahwhahwhhahwhhwh!

Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> Given what many Mensa members are like, it is perhaps best not to
> show the card. The organization is famous for attracting intelligent
> but socially dysfunctional individuals.

Well you are half way there.

[Doug Semler]

On Aug 15, 5:49 am, "El Maximo" > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Given what many Mensa members are like, it is perhaps best not to show the
> > card. The organization is famous for attracting intelligent but socially
> > dysfunctional individuals. About 120 million people worldwide qualify for
> > Mensa, but only 70,000 have joined, and they are a self-selected group
> > that is
> > not representative of intelligent people as a whole.
>
> Sounds just like your description of pilots as a population.
>
> Things that make you go hmmm........

It's a very common response to exclusion from a group based on an
ability. You notice that there's a tinge of jealousy in his reaction,
which he has towards both pilots and mensa members (and probably
women; see also re: breast feeding). Next thing he'll say is "just
because you're smart doesn't mean you have commmon sense" (which is
true in a way but I digress). Besides, he complains about the
intelligence of people posting, and the point wasn't whether I am
socially dysfunctional or not (my pshrink seems to think i'll be over
THAT very soon now <g>), the point is that I can demonstrate
concretely my intelligence level by virtue of the fact that I have the
card at all. Take that into consideration along with what I do, and
what I studied in school. A sane person may conclude that I actually
might know about that which I am speaking. Mx demonstrates the
psychological compulsion of an excluded individual who just NEEDS to
be a member of the club at all costs (whether it be Mensa, APOA, or
breast feeders), because he feels left out of the group. Children
exhibit this behaviour (basically "jump up and down while yelling
'look at me...look at me'"), but they normally outgrow this by the
time they reach puberty.

Aside:
*All* groupings based on a demonstrable ability are "self-selected,"
from Mensans to pilots to NFL players. If he actually QUALIFIED for
Mensa, he would know that the only thing he would have to do to obtain
membership would be to 1) demonstrate the ability (via submission of
proof of test score) and 2) pay the membership dues. Aside from the
IQ test portion (demonstration of ability), there's nothing more to
do. No interview, NOTHING. In other words, it isn't because those
other 119,930,000 people haven't joined because they were denied, it
was because they CHOSE not to join. AFAIK, there are no secret
meetings where Mensans get together and have orgies or discuss social
dysfunctions. In fact, my only contact with them since I've joined was
to pay my dues every couple of years and read the magazine that gets
sent to my house every month. I do not know of any study that
examined the psychological makeups of the people that qualify that
join versus that who don't join. Hmm, that may be interesting, and I
wonder how that would compare to the psychological makeup of those
that become pilots (which is not quite the same, because piloting is a
learned skill, while intelligence is not, but they both involve
joining a "group" based on an ability).

[Doug Semler]

On Aug 15, 6:56 am, wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:48:55 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >Sometimes I wonder how these stats are derived. I've been reading stats
> >all my life for this and for that. If there's one thing I've learned
> >about statistics it's that they can be skewed in just about any
> >direction desired by the manipulation of the micros involved to produce
> >the macros desired.
> >Another thing about statistics; take gambling as a perfect example.
> >There is an extremely high possibility that someone will win the
> >lottery. This is what motivates those who play the lottery.
> >On the other hand, the odds that the someone who wins will be you is
> >quite another matter.
> >It always amazes me that people insist on using the first analogy
> >instead of the second when considering a play on the lottery.
> >My wife and I have been playing the lottery game in abstentia for many
> >years. Each day we IMAGINE we have played our house and phone number to
> >the tune of a 2 dollar lottery ticket. We started doing this in 1965. It
> >is now 2007. We have played this "game" for 42 years based on the second
> >analogy of us NOT being the number that comes up.
> >As of today, we have placed 42 years worth of ticket bets at 365x2= 730
> >dollars a year x 42 years= 30,660 dollars worth of lottery tickets.
> >We haven't won naturally, but by using an unskewed statistic, we have
> >SAVED $30,660 dollars by NOT buying lottery tickets!
> >Not bad really. I enjoy playing the lottery :-))
> >Dudley Henriques
>
> I wish I had been such a visionary in the 70's when I hit the legal
> age to buy beer. I could be very well off by now IF I had just
> IMAGINED drinking each of those beers for the last 33 years.

Actually, I wish I had been that visionary 20 years ago when I started
smoking...<sigh>

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Do I detect the aroma of sour grapes?

> No, you read the post of someone who knows a lot of people in Mensa. While
> there are some well-adjusted people in the club, many of them are exceedingly
> strange, much more so than other people with similar levels of intelligence.
> The club attracts people who have nothing else going for them besides a high
> IQ. Unfortunately, as a group they create the impression that intelligent
> people are social misfits and eccentrics, when nothing could be further from
> the case.

No, of course not, says the poster boy for social misfits and eccentrics.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[El Maximo]

"Doug Semler" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> It's a very common response to exclusion from a group based on an
> ability. You notice that there's a tinge of jealousy in his reaction,
> which he has towards both pilots and mensa members (and probably
> women; see also re: breast feeding).

He's mentioned not being invited into a treehouse on several occations. You
wanna bet that's where it all started? Probably couldn't climb the ladder.

[Mxsmanic]

Doug Semler writes:

> Next thing he'll say is "just
> because you're smart doesn't mean you have commmon sense" ...

No. First, there's no such thing as "common sense." Second, intelligent
people have reasoning ability superior to that of unintelligent people, since
this ability is one of the hallmarks of intelligence.

> *All* groupings based on a demonstrable ability are "self-selected,"
> from Mensans to pilots to NFL players.

No. People choose to join Mensa, but they do not choose to be subject to,
say, military conscription.

> In other words, it isn't because those
> other 119,930,000 people haven't joined because they were denied, it
> was because they CHOSE not to join.

Essentially, yes, although it's not a matter of actively choosing not to join
so much as it is a matter of not actively choosing to join.

Most intelligent people don't need the trivial validation that Mensa
membership provides. The ones who do are that way because they've
accomplished so little else in life, in most cases.

> AFAIK, there are no secret
> meetings where Mensans get together and have orgies or discuss social
> dysfunctions. In fact, my only contact with them since I've joined was
> to pay my dues every couple of years and read the magazine that gets
> sent to my house every month.

Then you need to attend the AGs, where you'll learn about the "orgies."

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Doug Semler writes:

> > Next thing he'll say is "just
> > because you're smart doesn't mean you have commmon sense" ...

> No. First, there's no such thing as "common sense." Second, intelligent
> people have reasoning ability superior to that of unintelligent people, since
> this ability is one of the hallmarks of intelligence.

> > *All* groupings based on a demonstrable ability are "self-selected,"
> > from Mensans to pilots to NFL players.

> No. People choose to join Mensa, but they do not choose to be subject to,
> say, military conscription.

Still having reading comprehension problems I see.

What "demonstrable ability" makes one subject to military conscription
other than being of "normal" health?

> > In other words, it isn't because those
> > other 119,930,000 people haven't joined because they were denied, it
> > was because they CHOSE not to join.

> Essentially, yes, although it's not a matter of actively choosing not to join
> so much as it is a matter of not actively choosing to join.

> Most intelligent people don't need the trivial validation that Mensa
> membership provides. The ones who do are that way because they've
> accomplished so little else in life, in most cases.

Yeah, right, straight from the mouth of the poster boy for those that
have "accomplished so little else in life".

It still smells like sour grapes.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Doug Semler writes:
>
>> Next thing he'll say is "just
>> because you're smart doesn't mean you have commmon sense" ...
>
> No. First, there's no such thing as "common sense."


Not in your world, anyway

Bertie

[Doug Semler]

> wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Doug Semler writes:

<piggybacking, I broke down and plonked MX>

>> > Next thing he'll say is "just
>> > because you're smart doesn't mean you have commmon sense" ...
>
>> No. First, there's no such thing as "common sense."

Whatever. MX knows exactly what I meant by the statement. Total strawman.
Like I said, a child in the corner jumping up and down yelling "look at
me...look at me...."

>> Second, intelligent
>> people have reasoning ability superior to that of unintelligent people,
>> since
>> this ability is one of the hallmarks of intelligence.

So you admit that I have a superior reasoning ability since I can prove my
intelligence. Duh. What's the point of argument with me then? Masochism?

>
>> > *All* groupings based on a demonstrable ability are "self-selected,"
>> > from Mensans to pilots to NFL players.
>
>> No. People choose to join Mensa, but they do not choose to be subject
>> to,
>> say, military conscription.
>
> Still having reading comprehension problems I see.
>
> What "demonstrable ability" makes one subject to military conscription
> other than being of "normal" health?

I don't care if you are an "English teacher" or an "English as a second
language teacher." Both require basic comprehension skills. Which MX
obviously lacks.

>
>> > In other words, it isn't because those
>> > other 119,930,000 people haven't joined because they were denied, it
>> > was because they CHOSE not to join.
>
>> Essentially, yes, although it's not a matter of actively choosing not to
>> join
>> so much as it is a matter of not actively choosing to join.
>
>> Most intelligent people don't need the trivial validation that Mensa
>> membership provides. The ones who do are that way because they've
>> accomplished so little else in life, in most cases.
>
> Yeah, right, straight from the mouth of the poster boy for those that
> have "accomplished so little else in life".
>
> It still smells like sour grapes.

I notice the context was snipped again. But I agree on the sour grapes
comment. MX has a habit of gross overgeneralization. I joined not for any
"trivial validation" such as has been claimed. *I* know I'm smart. I don't
need any validation for that. I joined as a resume booster for the area in
which I live. It's amazing how those little words (Member, American Mensa)
put your resume on the top of the pile. I'm published. Google "Unisys
Federal Reserve." The high speed image processing software is mine (ok,ok,
with the help of a few others <g>, but you get the point) . I helped to
write alot of the software that is used by the US military (and foreign
governments, for that matter) for weather forecasting (never mention the
words "MM5," "GRIB," or "SeaWifs" to me <g>). Hell, the same algorithms are
used to flag the winds aloft on weather.gov..It's pretty cool how you can
uses satellite microwave sensor data to detect the wind speed and direction
at various altitudes. The forcasting algorithms, on the other hand.....But
I digress.

No. I don't need validation. My accomplishments have been recognized by
those that matter. MX is *not* one of those that matter. The US government
is a differnt story <g>. Besides, I don't know that I would consider
"thousands of hours of flight time" in a flight simulator, no matter HOW
good, as any sort of accomplishment.

Oh, I don't mean to sound like I'm tooting my own horn (which I am, of
course <big grin>, but <sigh> whatever. I'm now going to go back to
analyzing my results on why people become pilots.

--
Doug Semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
The answer is 42; DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, abbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?

[[email protected]]

Doug Semler > wrote:
> > wrote in message


> Oh, I don't mean to sound like I'm tooting my own horn (which I am, of
> course <big grin>, but <sigh> whatever. I'm now going to go back to
> analyzing my results on why people become pilots.

The point that people often join organizations and particpate in
activities because of their positive value on a resume is probably
totaly lost on MX.

Tastefully done, tooting one's own horn is perfectly acceptable (unless
you do it so much you need glasses).

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Runge3]

If it is, then it isn't from you.

"Martin" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:29:59 -0700, "Gattman" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>>> > But what do we all know? We're just pilots.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I could pull out my Mensa card, but of course that doesn't show
>>>> anything, does it?
>>
>>
>>Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth
>>And danced the pixelated skies on digitally-rendered wings;
>>Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
>>Of sun-split digits and simulated a hundred things
>>You have not dreamed of - installed and booted and simmed
>>High in the bedroom silence, sitting there
>>I've chased the shouting frame-rates along, and flung
>>my eager floppy disks from my Frito-covered chair
>>download, download the long delirous hacks and mods
>>I've programmed Function Keys with easy grace
>>What no real pilots ever do
>>And, while with unsilent addled mind I've trod
>>the high untresspassed similuated sanctity of MSFSX
>>Released my joystick and touched the display on my monitor.
>
> Brilliant!
> --
>
> Martin
>

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> What "demonstrable ability" makes one subject to military conscription
> other than being of "normal" health?

You've answered your own question.

Actually, there are many conditions that exclude a person from military
conscription in most cases, since there are minimum standards for mental and
physical fitness.

[Mxsmanic]

Doug Semler writes:

> So you admit that I have a superior reasoning ability since I can prove my
> intelligence.

A superior reasoning ability is inherent in intelligence, not in the proof of
intelligence. Thus, an intelligent person can reason well with or without an
arbitrary credential to "prove" that he is intelligent.

> What's the point of argument with me then?

Why would your nominally better-than-average reasoning ability be an obstacle
to debate with you?

> I joined as a resume booster for the area in which I live.

You shouldn't put Mensa membership on a resume; it can do as much harm as
good, especially if the person reading the resume knows the organization well.

> It's amazing how those little words (Member, American Mensa) put your
> resume on the top of the pile.

How are you able to determine where your resume goes in the top of the pile?
And if it is so effective in this context, why are you sending out resumes?

> I'm published.

That's much better on a resume than Mensa membership. A lot of Mensa members
seem to be living with their parents.

> No. I don't need validation. My accomplishments have been recognized by
> those that matter.

But you just said that Mensa membership puts you on the top of the pile. If
the rest of the resume is so impressive, why would the mention of Mensa make
so much difference?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The point that people often join organizations and particpate in
> activities because of their positive value on a resume is probably
> totaly lost on MX.

I understand the principle of credentialism. I question whether Mensa
membership is a suitable credential for a resume, however.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> I joined to meet women who didn't think that a square root grew at
> the base of a square tree.

If you like horny women who weigh 300 pounds, membership might be useful.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> The point that people often join organizations and particpate in
>> activities because of their positive value on a resume is probably
>> totaly lost on MX.
>
> I understand the principle of credentialism. I question whether Mensa
> membership is a suitable credential for a resume, however.
>

Why, don't they accept the bankrupt?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> I joined to meet women who didn't think that a square root grew at
>> the base of a square tree.
>
> If you like horny women who weigh 300 pounds, membership might be useful.
>

Aw, you're not very nice, are you?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Doug Semler writes:
>
>> So you admit that I have a superior reasoning ability since I can
>> prove my intelligence.
>
> A superior reasoning ability is inherent in intelligence,



Which would exlain why you can't understand Bernoulli


bertie
>

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> Why, don't they accept the bankrupt?

Because (1) people who know the organization well know how dysfunctional some
of its members are, and that they might not make good team players; and (2)
people who aren't Mensa-qualified themselves might resent the mention on a
resume.

This is why many of the club's members do _not_ mention it on a resume,
although it's quite a topic of debate.

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> Aw, you're not very nice, are you?

Unfortunately, I know too much.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Why, don't they accept the bankrupt?
>
> Because (1) people who know the organization well know how
> dysfunctional some of its members are, and that they might not make
> good team players; and (2) people who aren't Mensa-qualified
> themselves might resent the mention on a resume.
>
> This is why many of the club's members do _not_ mention it on a
> resume, although it's quite a topic of debate.

You didn't answer the question, fjukkwit



Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Aw, you're not very nice, are you?
>
> Unfortunately, I know too much.
>

I have yet to see any evidence of that.

You don't even know how an airplane flies

Bertie

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > The point that people often join organizations and particpate in
> > activities because of their positive value on a resume is probably
> > totaly lost on MX.

> I understand the principle of credentialism. I question whether Mensa
> membership is a suitable credential for a resume, however.

And how many hundreds of resumes from applicants have you read?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> > Why, don't they accept the bankrupt?

Doesn't answer the question asked.

> Because (1) people who know the organization well know how dysfunctional some
> of its members are, and that they might not make good team players; and (2)
> people who aren't Mensa-qualified themselves might resent the mention on a
> resume.

1) In some jobs the ability to be autonomous is of great value, in
most jobs intelligence is of great value.

2) An employer that only hires people lesser qualified than himself is
an idiot.

> This is why many of the club's members do _not_ mention it on a resume,
> although it's quite a topic of debate.

Sour grapes.

A Mensa member who's a student might not want to mention it on a resume
for a summer job flipping burgers.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> > Aw, you're not very nice, are you?

> Unfortunately, I know too much.

You seem to have a typo dropping some words; let me fix it for you.

"Unfortunately, I don't too much about anything real."

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> 1) In some jobs the ability to be autonomous is of great value, in
> most jobs intelligence is of great value.

Intelligence is useful in almost any job and is a valuable predictor of
success in most jobs. However, joining a social club based on IQ says other
things about a person that are not necessarily positive. And as I've said,
anyone who has a good knowledge of Mensa might think twice about hiring
someone in the club.

> Sour grapes.

Nope, just the distillation of discussions I've had with club members on the
topic. Mentioning Mensa membership is like mentioning IQ on a resume, only
worse, because it speaks not merely of intelligence but also of socialization
(or lack thereof). Someone who thinks enough about his IQ score to join a
club based on that is likely to be pretty preoccupied with it, which may not
be a good thing.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> "Fat" is much more closely tied to stupid, lazy, and unproductive. Just look at
> any welfare supported section of any city.

A lot of smart people are fat because they are more interested in intellectual
pursuits than in physical pursuits, and they also may not take much of an
interest in eating for any purpose other than eliminating hunger or boredom.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> 1) In some jobs the ability to be autonomous is of great value, in
>> most jobs intelligence is of great value.
>
> Intelligence is useful in almost any job and is a valuable predictor
> of success in most jobs. However, joining a social club based on IQ
> says other things about a person that are not necessarily positive.
> And as I've said, anyone who has a good knowledge of Mensa might think
> twice about hiring someone in the club.
>
>> Sour grapes.
>
> Nope, just the distillation of discussions I've had with club members
> on the topic. Mentioning Mensa membership is like mentioning IQ on a
> resume, only worse, because it speaks not merely of intelligence but
> also of socialization (or lack thereof). Someone who thinks enough
> about his IQ score to join a club based on that is likely to be pretty
> preoccupied with it, which may not be a good thing.
>



You still haven't answered the question, bankruptcy boi



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> "Fat" is much more closely tied to stupid, lazy, and unproductive.
>> Just look at any welfare supported section of any city.
>
> A lot of smart people are fat because they are more interested in
> intellectual pursuits than in physical pursuits, and they also may not
> take much of an interest in eating for any purpose other than
> eliminating hunger or boredom.
>



You still ha ven't answered the question, bankruptcy boi.


Is your bankruptcy the reason mensa wouldn't take you?

bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder]

wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>>> Aw, you're not very nice, are you?
>
>> Unfortunately, I know too much.
>
> You seem to have a typo dropping some words; let me fix it for you.
>
> "Unfortunately, I don't too much about anything real."
>

Damn it Jim, don't you hate it when that happens.

"Unfortunately, I don't KNOW too much about anything real."

[El Maximo]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .


> Is your bankruptcy the reason mensa wouldn't take you?
>
> bertie

Nope. You've quoted effect and effect.

Cause of both is lack of intelligence.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"El Maximo" > wrote in news:Oh1xi.38855$ax1.31840
@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>
>> Is your bankruptcy the reason mensa wouldn't take you?
>>
>> bertie
>
> Nope. You've quoted effect and effect.
>
> Cause of both is lack of intelligence.


Ahh, that would explain why he won't answer

Bertie
>
>

[Doug Semler]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> writes:

<yes, yet another piggyback>

>>> 1) In some jobs the ability to be autonomous is of great value, in
>>> most jobs intelligence is of great value.
>>
>> Intelligence is useful in almost any job and is a valuable predictor
>> of success in most jobs. However, joining a social club based on IQ
>> says other things about a person that are not necessarily positive.
>> And as I've said, anyone who has a good knowledge of Mensa might think
>> twice about hiring someone in the club.
>>

How the **** would you demonstrate that you have the "valuable predictor" of
intelligence without a group, such as Mensa, that filters applicants based
on intelligence, dip****? And don't tell me "standardized tests." I've
interviewed too many dumb****s that couldn't tell me the difference between
a pointer and a reference even though they had a "computer science' degree.

Like I said. The *ONLY* qualifier of membership in Mensa is a demonstration
of the upper 2 percentile. Nothing more, nothing less. (well, that and the
ability to pay dues <g>). Your statement is just a giant non sequitor,
obviously caused by "sour grapes".

--
Doug Semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
The answer is 42; DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, abbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?

[Doug Semler]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> "Fat" is much more closely tied to stupid, lazy, and unproductive. Just
>> look at
>> any welfare supported section of any city.
>
> A lot of smart people are fat because they are more interested in
> intellectual
> pursuits than in physical pursuits, and they also may not take much of an
> interest in eating for any purpose other than eliminating hunger or
> boredom.


Explain, to me, why I am 6'3, 190 lbs? (hint: there's this sport, with 15
players on each side. They try to tackle each other and score "tries".)

Yet one other gross generalization based on limited experience. Do you get
out at ALL?

--
Doug Semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
The answer is 42; DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, abbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?

[Mxsmanic]

Doug Semler writes:

> How the **** would you demonstrate that you have the "valuable predictor" of
> intelligence without a group, such as Mensa, that filters applicants based
> on intelligence, dip****?

An IQ test would suffice. However, intelligence is usually fairly obvious.

> And don't tell me "standardized tests." I've
> interviewed too many dumb****s that couldn't tell me the difference between
> a pointer and a reference even though they had a "computer science' degree.

Given that Mensa requires results from a standardized test to qualify for
membership, I find your comment rather odd.

> Like I said. The *ONLY* qualifier of membership in Mensa is a demonstration
> of the upper 2 percentile. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, and Mensa has a list of standardized tests, just like the ones you
disdain, that it will accept as proof of being in the upper two percent.

[Mxsmanic]

Doug Semler writes:

> Explain, to me, why I am 6'3, 190 lbs?

Perhaps you don't eat much.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Doug Semler writes:
>
>> How the **** would you demonstrate that you have the "valuable
>> predictor" of intelligence without a group, such as Mensa, that
>> filters applicants based on intelligence, dip****?
>
> An IQ test would suffice. However, intelligence is usually fairly
> obvious.
>

And yet, even people of moderate intelligence can understand bernoulli



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Doug Semler writes:
>
>> Explain, to me, why I am 6'3, 190 lbs?
>
> Perhaps you don't eat much.
>

Wow, maybe you are a genius after all.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Martin > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:58:02 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Mxsmanic > wrote in
:
>>
>>> Doug Semler writes:
>>>
>>>> How the **** would you demonstrate that you have the "valuable
>>>> predictor" of intelligence without a group, such as Mensa, that
>>>> filters applicants based on intelligence, dip****?
>>>
>>> An IQ test would suffice. However, intelligence is usually fairly
>>> obvious.
>>>
>>
>>And yet, even people of moderate intelligence can understand bernoulli
>
> The average IQ of US enlisted men tested during WW1 was that of a12
> year old.

IQ isn't really age related. though it is true that capacity increases with
age, the measurement is usually like/like otherwise it's kind of pointless.
So it would be fairer to say that they had a sub-normal IQ of say ,less
than 85 than to say they had the IQ of a 12 year old.
It'd be a bit like comparing the horsepower of a modern airplane to the
horsepower of a airplane from 75 years ago. In general, airplanes of 75
years ago had smaller engines, but you could b talking about a mustang.
IOW, you're not neccesarily comparing like with like.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Martin > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:26:41 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Martin > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:58:02 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mxsmanic > wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>> Doug Semler writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> How the **** would you demonstrate that you have the "valuable
>>>>>> predictor" of intelligence without a group, such as Mensa, that
>>>>>> filters applicants based on intelligence, dip****?
>>>>>
>>>>> An IQ test would suffice. However, intelligence is usually fairly
>>>>> obvious.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And yet, even people of moderate intelligence can understand
>>>>bernoulli
>>>
>>> The average IQ of US enlisted men tested during WW1 was that of a12
>>> year old.
>>
>>IQ isn't really age related. though it is true that capacity increases
>>with age, the measurement is usually like/like otherwise it's kind of
>>pointless. So it would be fairer to say that they had a sub-normal IQ
>>of say ,less than 85 than to say they had the IQ of a 12 year old.
>>It'd be a bit like comparing the horsepower of a modern airplane to
>>the horsepower of a airplane from 75 years ago. In general, airplanes
>>of 75 years ago had smaller engines, but you could b talking about a
>>mustang. IOW, you're not neccesarily comparing like with like.
>
> I quoted a recent book by an expert ( MX/Mixi incognito?) on IQ tests.
> It didn't make much sense to me either. It went on to say that ever
> since WW1 US advertising has been aimed at 12 year olds.


That I an believe. But it would be pitched towards a 12 year old
education/maturity level, not IQ, I would imagine.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Martin > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:26:41 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Martin > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:58:02 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mxsmanic > wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>> Doug Semler writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> How the **** would you demonstrate that you have the "valuable
>>>>>> predictor" of intelligence without a group, such as Mensa, that
>>>>>> filters applicants based on intelligence, dip****?
>>>>>
>>>>> An IQ test would suffice. However, intelligence is usually fairly
>>>>> obvious.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And yet, even people of moderate intelligence can understand
>>>>bernoulli
>>>
>>> The average IQ of US enlisted men tested during WW1 was that of a12
>>> year old.
>>
>>IQ isn't really age related. though it is true that capacity increases
>>with age, the measurement is usually like/like otherwise it's kind of
>>pointless. So it would be fairer to say that they had a sub-normal IQ
>>of say ,less than 85 than to say they had the IQ of a 12 year old.
>>It'd be a bit like comparing the horsepower of a modern airplane to
>>the horsepower of a airplane from 75 years ago. In general, airplanes
>>of 75 years ago had smaller engines, but you could b talking about a
>>mustang. IOW, you're not neccesarily comparing like with like.
>
> OK I dug around and Alfred Binet’s intelligence, or IQ, test used on
> enlisted men also included an assessment of mental age. I guess it
> should have been "The average mental age of US enlisted men tested
> during WW1 was that of a 12 year old".
>
> That doesn't make a lot of sense either but ...


Well, it makes sense to me. Pretty much what I was trying to say
earlier.

[Mxsmanic]

Martin writes:

> The average IQ of US enlisted men tested during WW1 was that of a12 year old.

IQ does not vary with age, so "the IQ of a twelve-year-old" has no meaning.

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> IQ isn't really age related. though it is true that capacity increases with
> age, the measurement is usually like/like otherwise it's kind of pointless.

Capacity does not increase or decrease significantly with age. Someone who is
smart in childhood will be smart in old age as well. Someone who is stupid as
an adult was also stupid as a child (excluding pathology).

Extremely poor living conditions very early in life can prevent a person from
coming close to his genetically-determined IQ limit. Likewise, some types of
illness (especially CVAs) can diminish IQ scores temporarily or permanently.
But healthy people in normal environments tend to reach IQs close to their
genetic programming and these tend to remain fairly constant over their
lifetimes.

[Mxsmanic]

Martin writes:

> I quoted a recent book by an expert ( MX/Mixi incognito?) on IQ tests. It didn't
> make much sense to me either. It went on to say that ever since WW1 US
> advertising has been aimed at 12 year olds.

IQ tests are widely misunderstood, and many "experts" misrepresent them in
order to further their own personal agendas.

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> That I an believe. But it would be pitched towards a 12 year old
> education/maturity level, not IQ, I would imagine.

Actually, there are good reasons for developing materials for lower IQs.

The average IQ is 100. Half the population is above that ... and half of it
is below. If you develop material that requires an average IQ to understand,
half of the population will not understand it. For this reason, it makes more
sense to develop material for a lower target IQ, so that a much larger
percentage of the population can handle it. If you target an IQ of 70, for
example, about 98% of the population will be able to understand it. This is
the reason for "dumbing down" materials to the lowest common denominator
(within reason).

In commercial endeavors, you dumb down your advertising and other materials
until everyone with the money to buy your product or service can understand
it. In politics, you dumb down your rhetoric and policy until everyone with
the ability to vote can understand it.

[Mxsmanic]

Martin writes:

> OK I dug around and Alfred Binet’s intelligence, or IQ, test used on enlisted
> men also included an assessment of mental age. I guess it should have been "The
> average mental age of US enlisted men tested during WW1 was that of a 12 year
> old".
>
> That doesn't make a lot of sense either but ...

It doesn't, and modern tests are usually normed differently, although the
concept of "mental age" is still used sometimes for scoring.

In reality, a 25-year-old is no more intelligent than a 12-year-old. The only
differences are in experience and acquired knowledge, although both obviously
have quite an influence on overall competency in life.

[Mxsmanic]

Martin writes:

> How was the average mental age of the US population computed?

The average IQ is computed by administering a test to a large and
representative sample of the population on which the test will ultimately be
used, and then assigning 100 (an average IQ score, by definition) to the
average raw score obtained by the sample cohort on the test. The scoring is
then further normalized to ensure that a constant deviation in IQ score
represents a constant percentile. Usually 15 is the width of an SD in IQ
points, such that 130 represents two standard deviations above the mean in
scoring, or the 98th percentile.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Martin > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:37:03 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Martin > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:26:41 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Martin > wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:58:02 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Mxsmanic > wrote in
:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doug Semler writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How the **** would you demonstrate that you have the "valuable
>>>>>>>> predictor" of intelligence without a group, such as Mensa, that
>>>>>>>> filters applicants based on intelligence, dip****?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An IQ test would suffice. However, intelligence is usually
>>>>>>> fairly obvious.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And yet, even people of moderate intelligence can understand
>>>>>>bernoulli
>>>>>
>>>>> The average IQ of US enlisted men tested during WW1 was that of
>>>>> a12 year old.
>>>>
>>>>IQ isn't really age related. though it is true that capacity
>>>>increases with age, the measurement is usually like/like otherwise
>>>>it's kind of pointless. So it would be fairer to say that they had a
>>>>sub-normal IQ of say ,less than 85 than to say they had the IQ of a
>>>>12 year old. It'd be a bit like comparing the horsepower of a modern
>>>>airplane to the horsepower of a airplane from 75 years ago. In
>>>>general, airplanes of 75 years ago had smaller engines, but you
>>>>could b talking about a mustang. IOW, you're not neccesarily
>>>>comparing like with like.
>>>
>>> OK I dug around and Alfred Binet’s intelligence, or IQ, test
>>> used on enlisted men also included an assessment of mental age. I
>>> guess it should have been "The average mental age of US enlisted men
>>> tested during WW1 was that of a 12 year old".
>>>
>>> That doesn't make a lot of sense either but ...
>>
>>
>>Well, it makes sense to me. Pretty much what I was trying to say
>>earlier.
>
> How was the average mental age of the US population computed? The
> biggest sample ever measured at that time was of US enlisted men. Was
> the mental age that of a 12 year old French child?

All pretty much the same, actually. Leaving aside minor abberations in
race and culture (and we don't want to start one of those arguments
here, believe me) The difference in 12 year olds who have had similar
levels of stimulation is negligable.
No doubt they had some sort of idea of what a 12 year old was capable of
at the time and used that as a yardstick.
Most likely the way the mental age was measured back then was some sort
of simple literacy/numeracy test.
Even today's SATs aren't a lot different from that kind of measurement.
SATs aren't an IQ measurement, though they would reflect an IQ, they'd
be heavily influenced by the education of the person taking the test,
wheras an IQ test should pretty much eliminate hat factor.
IOW IQ is a measuement of potential. An analogy might be that IQ is like
the cubic inches


To this day, most newspapers use an eight grade reading level as a
standard in order to make their papers accessible to as many as
possible.

Most tabloids use a fourth grade reading level as a standard for obvious
reasons.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Martin writes:
>
>> OK I dug around and Alfred Binet’s intelligence, or IQ, test used
>> on enlisted men also included an assessment of mental age. I guess it
>> should have been "The average mental age of US enlisted men tested
>> during WW1 was that of a 12 year old".
>>
>> That doesn't make a lot of sense either but ...
>
> It doesn't, and modern tests are usually normed differently, although
> the concept of "mental age" is still used sometimes for scoring.
>
> In reality, a 25-year-old is no more intelligent than a 12-year-old.
> The only differences are in experience and acquired knowledge,
> although both obviously have quite an influence on overall competency
> in life.
>

Which goes a long way towards explaining your bankruptcy and genral failur
at, well, everything


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> IQ isn't really age related. though it is true that capacity
>> increases with age, the measurement is usually like/like otherwise
>> it's kind of pointless.
>
> Capacity does not increase or decrease significantly with age.


IOW you were as big an idiot then as now.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Martin writes:
>
>> The average IQ of US enlisted men tested during WW1 was that of a12
>> year old.
>
> IQ does not vary with age,


Actually it does, nitwit

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> That I an believe. But it would be pitched towards a 12 year old
>> education/maturity level, not IQ, I would imagine.
>
> Actually, there are good reasons for developing materials for lower
> IQs.
>
> The average IQ is 100. Half the population is above that ... and half
> of it is below. If you develop material that requires an average IQ
> to understand, half of the population will not understand it. For
> this reason, it makes more sense to develop material for a lower
> target IQ, so that a much larger percentage of the population can
> handle it. If you target an IQ of 70, for example, about 98% of the
> population will be able to understand it. This is the reason for
> "dumbing down" materials to the lowest common denominator (within
> reason).
>
> In commercial endeavors, you dumb down your advertising and other
> materials until everyone with the money to buy your product or service
> can understand it. In politics, you dumb down your rhetoric and
> policy until everyone with the ability to vote can understand it.
>


Wow, you really are a geniius. I have a six month old puppy who could
figure that out. And he's house broken! More than we could say for you.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Martin writes:
>
>> I quoted a recent book by an expert ( MX/Mixi incognito?) on IQ
>> tests. It didn't make much sense to me either. It went on to say that
>> ever since WW1 US advertising has been aimed at 12 year olds.
>
> IQ tests are widely misunderstood, and many "experts" misrepresent
> them in order to further their own personal agendas.
>


Like you do her, you mean.

Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Martin writes:
>
>> The average IQ of US enlisted men tested during WW1 was that of a12
>> year old.
>
> IQ does not vary with age, so "the IQ of a twelve-year-old" has no
> meaning.

Sure it has meaning. It just isn't very persice terminology. IQs take age
into account. If I say, "MX has the IQ of a rat's ass" what I am really
saying is, "MX has the IQ of an average rat's ass."

The same goes for saying someone has the IQ of a 12 year old.

[Doug Semler]

On Aug 17, 6:59 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > Doug Semler writes:
>
> >> Explain, to me, why I am 6'3, 190 lbs?
>
> > Perhaps you don't eat much.
>
> Wow, maybe you are a genius after all.

Nope, he's wrong. My average daily caloric intake is 4500. He
snipped out the part that gave him quite a hint...

(p.s. my girlfriend HATES me for not gaining weight <g>)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Doug Semler > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Aug 17, 6:59 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > Doug Semler writes:
>>
>> >> Explain, to me, why I am 6'3, 190 lbs?
>>
>> > Perhaps you don't eat much.
>>
>> Wow, maybe you are a genius after all.
>
> Nope, he's wrong. My average daily caloric intake is 4500. He
> snipped out the part that gave him quite a hint...
>
> (p.s. my girlfriend HATES me for not gaining weight <g>)
>
>

So do I


Bertie

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Marty Shapiro wrote:
> There is a picture of Anthony at http://tinyurl.com/58wun
> What is the correct medical term for this
>condition?
>
Cepahlorectal Intussusception.

Cerebrosigmoid anastomosis.

Perianal cerebellar adhesion.

I could go on... but I won't

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200708/1

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

>
> I never said anything about what I believed or didn't believe. I said
> "according to." I thought the news item would be of interest to people
> here.

Generally speaking, when people quote a source, it is to support their own
opinions, or an opinion which they are representing.