I give up, after many, many years!

[Maxwell[_2_]]

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

You're a forger, a liar and a cross posting ass hole.

If I'm lying, prove it. You are already a known liar.

[Steve Foley]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
news:c47ef4b0-754f-42b8-bdb5-
>
> Mr. Potato Head, we don't put a big blob of flammable
> material in a cock-pit, your sci-phy-math-chem education
> is a functional Gr.10.

Whew, that's good to know. I always thought that dripping form the primer
was gasoline.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Bummer.
> It would be fun to fail damn near everything (flight and nav instruments) and
> try getting down with marginal instrumentation and ATC vectors.

ATC will be happy to do that if they aren't too busy. Both pilots and
controllers enjoy the practice. Unfortunately, most pilots declaring an
emergency just want attention and priority, not help.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> What happens if you do not follow their instructions?

You can be disciplined, which can include a suspension or ban from the network
for serious offenses.

> Do they have a virtual destruct button to remove you from their airspace?

No, although that has been discussed.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> MSFS does not even "simulate" an updraft. And, as far as I can tell, the simulated
> "turbulence" is nothing more than a random number generator that rolls the
> wings a little bit left or right.

Try ActiveSky, which does these things. It also simulates wake turbulence.

> You have to because your game gives you nothing else to work with.

Under IFR, I'm not supposed to work with anything else.

> That's also the reason it lets you do a "successful landing" that
> would trash a real plane.

Not if you are using the right aircraft and you have crashes enabled. I once
damaged my flaps simply by making a somewhat firm landing, and I've damaged
gear on several occasions.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> You wouldn't know. You haven't done it.

It is rather exhaustively documented.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> I quoted you chapter and verse directly from the FAA, and you
> contradicted it, liar.

The FAA is not saying what you claim.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 20, 11:59 am, "Steve Foley" > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
> news:c47ef4b0-754f-42b8-bdb5-
>
>
>
> > Mr. Potato Head, we don't put a big blob of flammable
> > material in a cock-pit, your sci-phy-math-chem education
> > is a functional Gr.10.
>
> Whew, that's good to know. I always thought that dripping form the primer
> was gasoline.

You should fix you drip.
Ken

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message

> I once
> damaged my flaps simply by making a somewhat firm landing, and I've
damaged
> gear on several occasions.

I guess you're not very good at it.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> I guess you're not very good at it.

I get better all the time.

[B A R R Y]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 10:04:10 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

> Good grief. The compass has a diaphragm to take care of
>expansion and contraction, and its fluid is just a solvent that has a
>low freeze point. Even plain old gasoline has a low freeze point.

I've heard A&P's reference kerosene.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

on 5/17/2008 4:49 PM Bertie the Bunyip said the following:
> Helen Waite > wrote in
> :
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>> Again, you are talking to a pilot, who just experienced IMC and a
>>>> vacuum failure.
>>> You're a very lucky pilot, then, if you're here posting to this
>>> newsgroup.
>> Good grief! The poster is NOT the only pilot who has experienced
>> vacuum failure in IMC. It's one of the basic things we train for. I
>> had vacuum failure the very first time I was in the clouds after
>> passing my checkride. It was a non-event.
>>
>> Bertie was being charitable when he said you know less about aviation
>> than a cinder block.
>
> I'm kind of the mother Theresa of usenet.

Old, dead, and smelly???

[[email protected]]

On May 20, 12:16 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> > Good grief. The compass has a diaphragm to take care of
> > expansion and contraction, and its fluid is just a solvent that has a
> > low freeze point. Even plain old gasoline has a low freeze point.
>
> Mr. Potato Head, we don't put a big blob of flammable
> material in a cock-pit, your sci-phy-math-chem education
> is a functional Gr.10.


Compass fluid is a petroleum product and is flammable. Its MSDS
says it's odorless mineral spirits, which would make it similar to
household paint thinner: http://www.setonresourcecenter.com/msds/Docs/wcd00004/wcd00445.htm

>
> > Nothing "precision" about that. And as for lag while banking, you
> > haven't studied the Private Pilot groundschool stuff about Northerly
> > Turning Error or anything else. You CANNOT use it to roll out on a
> > heading like you claim.

> Duh, that's what your mag-field map is for,
> it provides the mag-heading relative to true
> north at the location you're at.
> I flew alot in ontario and lines are a mess,
> but that's not a big deal over ~ 50 miles.

Magnetic variation has nothing to do with Northerly Turning
Error or acceleration/deceleration errors. Nothing at all. You never
took groundschool, obviously. And in southern Ontario, where you
"flew," the variation is minimal, which you did not know. The lines
aren't a "mess." Out in western Canada it gets a little more complex:
http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/geology/a_geomag.html

> My required instruction was to use
> the mag-comp for IFR, including pitch level,
> yaw constant, and nulled roll, it's a semi skill.
> It has two spheres, one enclosing fixed to the
> aircraft that is transparent, but demarkated,
> and a internal floater also demarkated.
> The relative equators is what's important.
> Once the heading and throttle power is fixed,
> align the equators to maintain a constant
> pitch and altitude, and that will get you by in
> foggy night, if you have a flashlight.
> That's a 1 hour lesson, and I'd be happy to
> instruct you on that, if you're qualified to
> understand it.

No, it won't. Ever. No matter how many times you claim it will.

> I had a cool instructor and we'd play out worst
> case scenerios, such as in a dark and stormy
> foggy night with all normal instruments failed,
> how do we get back to a base.

What a bunch of nonsense. It would be funny if it didn't have the
potential to mislead normal students.

> > And you can't fly a 150 at 37 Kts indicated on approach. 150s
> > never had knotmeters. anyway. Had airspeed indicators calibrated in
> > MPH.
>
> LOL, Is that a MIAS instead of a KIAS?

MPH indicated. You should know that.

> > And what is an "indescent indicator?" Does it measure indecent
> > exposure, maybe?
>
> Depends on whether you're using the yoke or
> the stick, which do you prefer?
> Ken

How does that make any difference to an instrument that does
not exist?

Dan

[Tina]

> Not if you are using the right aircraft and you have crashes enabled. I once
> damaged my flaps simply by making a somewhat firm landing, and I've damaged
> gear on several occasions.

A blatant lie.

Again.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student gatt > wrote:
> Michael Ash wrote:
>> In rec.aviation.student gatt > wrote:
>
>> Congratulations, now you look like an arrogant asshole.
>>
>> Of course so does MX, but at least he's an *entertaining* arrogant
>> asshole.
>
> Sometimes you have to speak their language.

I've seen no evidence that "his language" consists of all-caps yelling
about piloting. Quite the opposite, actually.

> My purpose wasn't to
> entertain people. If you want, however, I'll tell you some knock-knock
> jokes.

I don't think your purpose *should* be to entertain people. Obviously
that's not why this group is here, at least not primarily. But at least
it's a redeeming feature of his posts, something that many of the
responses don't have.

> I'm sure everybody appreciates your encouragement of his
> behavior, by the way. Nice job, Ash.

Oh please. If he hasn't responded to years of strong, frequently abusive
*dis*couragement of his behavior, what makes you think he'll respond to
*en*couragement? It should be blindingly obvious that he'll do what he
wishes and will not change his habits just because of what someone says.

>> I find it to be tremendously ironic that these recent monster threads
>> revolving around MX have led me to killfile several people who respond to
>> him but not to killfile him.
>
> That's your choice. Different people come to the forum for different
> reasons. I'm here to share my experience and learn from the experience
> of others, and I read a whole lot more than I post.

Same here.

>> If you get to the point where you're typing in all caps, or having to wave
>> your certificates in his face, take a moment to step back and think about
>> whether your reply adds any value to the group.
>
> He came out here, asked the pilots a question then proceeded to refute
> every single thing they said. Not just me ASEL pilots like me, but just
> about everybody.
>
> I answered his question initially because the question had value to the
> student pilots in the student group. His utter nonsense that followed
> merely adds misinformation and, perhaps, satisfies your entertainment
> needs.
>
> As to whether "waving certificates" in people's faces adds value, it's
> not much different than sourcing an official or authoritative reference,
> is it? If we were talking about combat it would be relevant for the
> readers to understand that the people in the discussion are a video game
> geek versus a combat veteran.

It's relevant to the discussion, sure, when you present it as backing for
your opinion or for facts. But when you come straight out and shout
someone dow, saying that they're not allowed to disagree with you because
you have credentials and they don't, that's just bad taste.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying all this because I think you're
worse than MX. Quite the contrary. MX is beyond hope, and thus isn't worth
trying to correct. The rest of you, however, ought to be able to modify
your behavior to make things better.

MX is a troll. Whether he is this way because he intends to be or simply
because his personality causes him to be this way is irrelevant. Trolls
destroy groups by spawning massive threads that drown out all the useful
bits of the group. And of course it takes two to tango; a troll works by
getting people to reply to him. If nobody replied to MX he would merely be
obnoxious, not group-destroying.

It's tough, and annoying, but to stop a troll you *must* be willing to let
him have the last word.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 20, 6:26 pm, wrote:
> On May 20, 12:16 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > Good grief. The compass has a diaphragm to take care of
> > > expansion and contraction, and its fluid is just a solvent that has a
> > > low freeze point. Even plain old gasoline has a low freeze point.
>
> > Mr. Potato Head, we don't put a big blob of flammable
> > material in a cock-pit, your sci-phy-math-chem education
> > is a functional Gr.10.
>
> Compass fluid is a petroleum product and is flammable. Its MSDS
> says it's odorless mineral spirits, which would make it similar to
> household paint thinner: http://www.setonresourcecenter.com/msds/Docs/wcd00004/wcd00445.htm

Anti-freeze. (glycol)
Ken

[Maxwell[_2_]]

In article >, Bertie the
Bunyip says...

> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> > news:YwzYj.3273$Zy1.1619@trndny05...
> >>
> >> He/She/It has denied being Anthony Atkielski, so we really have no
> >> way to tell.
> >>
> >> 1) Anthony Atkielski published a blog (aprenta.blogspot.com)
> >>
> >> 2) MX denies having ever written a blog
> >>
> >> Therefore MX denies being Anthony Atlielski
> >>
> >
> > And with the proven desire both Bertie and his ilk (recruited by
> > constant cross posting), has shown in forging identities, Bertie's
> > influence on the noise level of this group is really the only thing we
> > can be sure of.
>
> As long as i have you anyway!

Y'know, if'n Maxine doesn't like the noise level in rap, mebbe he
should ask teh B8MBis for a moderated froup.

<snicker>

> >
> > I wouldn't be the least bit surprised of MX's recent postings were not
> > forgeries by Bertie & Co, since he has such a hard time getting
> > attention otherwise.
> >
>
> I don't forge, fjukkwit.
>
> Put up or shut up.
>
>
> If i've forged you and Databasix has ignored your protests, then
> news.admin.net-abuse.usenet is the place you should be shrieking about it.
> Databasix and/or Altopia would get a usenet death penalty and I'd be SOL
> for usenet access.
>
> So, if you're going to level forgery accusations you had better be prepared
> to back them up.
>
> Put up or shut up, asshole.



--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> He came out here, asked the pilots a question then proceeded to refute
> every single thing they said. Not just me ASEL pilots like me, but just
> about everybody.


--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"gatt" > wrote in message
. ..
> Michael Ash wrote:
>> In rec.aviation.student gatt > wrote:
>
>> Congratulations, now you look like an arrogant asshole.
>>
>> Of course so does MX, but at least he's an *entertaining* arrogant
>> asshole.
>
> Sometimes you have to speak their language. My purpose wasn't to entertain
> people. If you want, however, I'll tell you some knock-knock jokes. I'm
> sure everybody appreciates your encouragement of his behavior, by the way.
> Nice job, Ash.
>
>> I find it to be tremendously ironic that these recent monster threads
>> revolving around MX have led me to killfile several people who respond to
>> him but not to killfile him.
>
> That's your choice. Different people come to the forum for different
> reasons. I'm here to share my experience and learn from the experience of
> others, and I read a whole lot more than I post.
>
>> If you get to the point where you're typing in all caps, or having to
>> wave your certificates in his face, take a moment to step back and think
>> about whether your reply adds any value to the group.
>
> He came out here, asked the pilots a question then proceeded to refute
> every single thing they said. Not just me ASEL pilots like me, but just
> about everybody.
>
> I answered his question initially because the question had value to the
> student pilots in the student group. His utter nonsense that followed
> merely adds misinformation and, perhaps, satisfies your entertainment
> needs.
>
> As to whether "waving certificates" in people's faces adds value, it's not
> much different than sourcing an official or authoritative reference, is
> it? If we were talking about combat it would be relevant for the readers
> to understand that the people in the discussion are a video game geek
> versus a combat veteran.
>
> -c
> Arrogant Asshole

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> He came out here, asked the pilots a question then proceeded to refute
> every single thing they said. Not just me ASEL pilots like me, but just
> about everybody.

On the contrary, MX started by posting that pilots cannot rely on physical
sensations in instrument flight, and that the instruments must be your
primary source of flight information. Dudley, myself, the FAA, and pretty
much every source on the planet has agreed 100% with this statement, yet --
for reasons known only to y'all -- many posters here have now gone to
incredible lengths to prove MX wrong.

The argument has gone Clinton-esque, by nuancing the meaning of "sensation"
down to the subtlest level. Now, of course, MX has gone off on a zillion
tangents since then, and the signal/noise ratio here has gone back to
unintelligible levels.

I don't know what strange power MX wields over so many here, but it's
creepy.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

On May 20, 11:43 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On May 20, 6:26 pm, wrote:

> > Compass fluid is a petroleum product and is flammable. Its MSDS
> > says it's odorless mineral spirits, which would make it similar to
> > household paint thinner: http://www.setonresourcecenter.com/msds/Docs/wcd00004/wcd00445.htm
>
> Anti-freeze. (glycol)
> Ken

Glycol is a "slight to moderate fire hazard," unlike
petroleum products. It is not the same as paint thinner or compass
fluid or anywhere near the same. It's a form of alcohol.
http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/e5125.htm

Dan

[Maxwell[_2_]]

The retarded children continue to forge.

[Mxsmanic]

Tina writes:

> A blatant lie.
>
> Again.

Try it.

[Tina]

Try what? Damaging a real airplane?

Why would I do that? You certainly damaged nothing, but one reading
your post would conclude otherwise.

You simply lied.

Again.




On May 21, 1:45 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tina writes:
> > A blatant lie.
>
> > Again.
>
> Try it.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 21, 7:21 am, wrote:
> On May 20, 11:43 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > On May 20, 6:26 pm, wrote:
> > > Compass fluid is a petroleum product and is flammable. Its MSDS
> > > says it's odorless mineral spirits, which would make it similar to
> > > household paint thinner: http://www.setonresourcecenter.com/msds/Docs/wcd00004/wcd00445.htm
>
> > Anti-freeze. (glycol)
> > Ken
>
> Glycol is a "slight to moderate fire hazard," unlike
> petroleum products. It is not the same as paint thinner or compass
> fluid or anywhere near the same. It's a form of alcohol.http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/e5125.htm
> Dan

First, does your preflight check list require you ascertain
your mag-comp as functional, and if so, why?
Ken

[[email protected]]

On May 21, 5:02 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> First, does your preflight check list require you ascertain
> your mag-comp as functional, and if so, why?
> Ken

What does that have to do with compass fluid? Compass checks are
carried out during taxi, particularly for an IFR flight. Attitude
indicator erect and steady; heading indicator set and indicating
during turns; turn coordinator functioning and ball free; compass free
and floating, altimeter set and indicating proper elevation, radios
set. That's about as much as I can remember, since my Instrument
ticket lapsed eight years ago.
Compass is not part of the preflight.

Tell me: what does the compass do in a turn to or from North
versus a turn to or from South? Why does this make it useless for
rolling out on a heading unless we use a timer?

Dan

[clint]

aren't you Mr. Wunnerful give way to senoiurs asshole
Nomen Nescio submitted this idea :
> Many years ago, on a bet, I did a pretty fair 4 point roll.......BLINDFOLDED!
> I got lunch and a half dozen beers out of the deal.

[gatt[_3_]]

Michael Ash wrote:

>> As to whether "waving certificates" in people's faces adds value, it's
>> not much different than sourcing an official or authoritative reference,
>> is it? If we were talking about combat it would be relevant for the
>> readers to understand that the people in the discussion are a video game
>> geek versus a combat veteran.
>
> It's relevant to the discussion, sure, when you present it as backing for
> your opinion or for facts. But when you come straight out and shout
> someone dow, saying that they're not allowed to disagree with you because
> you have credentials and they don't, that's just bad taste.


Please tell me at what point I "came straight out and shouted somebody
down," and, more importantly, where I've EVER said they're "not allowed
to disagree" because I have credentials and they don't.

It's fine to disagree right up to the point where you're disagreeing
with virtually everybody from private pilots to airline pilots.

If this were rec.surgery.brain and some philosophy student was arguing
with brain surgeons all day, every day, and then admonishing them for
their answers, I wouldn't for a second expect the surgeons not to remind
the student they're they're doctors and that he's not qualified to
contradict literally ALL of them. (Not to mention ignoring their
authoritative references and dodging any challenge to cite sources for
him own information.)

But I never said anybody "wasn't allowed" to disagree with me simply
because of my credentials.

-c

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student gatt > wrote:
> Michael Ash wrote:
>
>>> As to whether "waving certificates" in people's faces adds value, it's
>>> not much different than sourcing an official or authoritative reference,
>>> is it? If we were talking about combat it would be relevant for the
>>> readers to understand that the people in the discussion are a video game
>>> geek versus a combat veteran.
>>
>> It's relevant to the discussion, sure, when you present it as backing for
>> your opinion or for facts. But when you come straight out and shout
>> someone dow, saying that they're not allowed to disagree with you because
>> you have credentials and they don't, that's just bad taste.
>
> Please tell me at what point I "came straight out and shouted somebody
> down," and, more importantly, where I've EVER said they're "not allowed
> to disagree" because I have credentials and they don't.

There was the bit which prompted my first message, where you said "DON'T
CONTRADICT ME. I FLY PLANES AND YOU PLAY VIDEO GAMES."

> It's fine to disagree right up to the point where you're disagreeing
> with virtually everybody from private pilots to airline pilots.
>
> If this were rec.surgery.brain and some philosophy student was arguing
> with brain surgeons all day, every day, and then admonishing them for
> their answers, I wouldn't for a second expect the surgeons not to remind
> the student they're they're doctors and that he's not qualified to
> contradict literally ALL of them. (Not to mention ignoring their
> authoritative references and dodging any challenge to cite sources for
> him own information.)

I have no problem with occasionally reminding people of their
qualifications. But on the other hand, novices can be right and experts
can be wrong, so it's much better to argue based on the facts. If this
doesn't work because the person you're talking to is a flaming moron,
telling him to shut up and listen because you have experience or
credentials isn't likely to help.

> But I never said anybody "wasn't allowed" to disagree with me simply
> because of my credentials.

Well, you told him not to, same effect in the end.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[gatt[_3_]]

Michael Ash wrote:

>
> There was the bit which prompted my first message, where you said "DON'T
> CONTRADICT ME. I FLY PLANES AND YOU PLAY VIDEO GAMES."

That's has to do with the fact that he asked a valid question, I and
several other people answered it somewhat uniformly, and then he
proceeded to refute that answer in a different thread. (I'm not going to
look it up.)


>> But I never said anybody "wasn't allowed" to disagree with me simply
>> because of my credentials.
>
> Well, you told him not to, same effect in the end.

Apparently not. He's still posting here, isn't he? I simply threw him
back into the killfile and will not answer any further questions he asks
unless he pays me for ground instruction.

If there's a problem with that, too bad, I guess. Choosing to ignore
all further questions he asks is entirely my decision. If he chooses to
spout bull**** in a student forum as if he was some sort of authority on
the matter, it's equally my right to illuminate the fact that he's a
fraud and that I'm not.

-c

[Gezellig]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 08:41:09 -0700, gatt wrote:

> I answered MX's question initially because the question had value to the
> student pilots in the student group. His utter nonsense that followed
> merely adds misinformation and, perhaps, satisfies <your> entertainment
> needs.

He's not worth it, my opinion.

OK, let me put it another way. In the movie Jurassic Park, there's a
scene where a researcher sticks her hand in a pile of dinosaur crap,
digs around, and pulls out an undigested berry. I'm sure if I read more
MX, I too might discover a berry, but to me, the price is too high.

[Gezellig]

On Wed, 21 May 2008 13:44:34 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

> The argument has gone Clinton-esque, by nuancing the meaning of "sensation"
> down to the subtlest level. Now, of course, MX has gone off on a zillion
> tangents since then, and the signal/noise ratio here has gone back to
> unintelligible levels.
>
> I don't know what strange power MX wields over so many here, but it's
> creepy.

He hasn't got any power, no more than a person pushing a perfectly round
rock down a completely flat 45 degree grade.

[Michael[_1_]]

On May 12, 11:29*am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> There are other groups, where the gap between what resident sages know
> and what newbies know is much larger, say in sci.crypt and comp.dsp,
> and the hostility is no where near what I have seen in this group.

I have the same experience with sci.engr.chem and a few others. In
fact, the climate there is so different that I have no need to post
anonymously. I also have a theory. It is precisely because the
difference between what the resident sages (sic!) and the newbies know
is so much smaller in this group that the hostility is so much
greater.

The truth of the matter is that in this forum, there is no opportunity
to demonstrate aviation skill - that requires an aircraft. There is
an opportunity to demonstrate aviation knowledge - but precious little
of that is required to earn any certificate or rating, be it private,
commercial, instrument, CFI, ATP, or A&P. Of course that's only my
opinion, but at least it's an informed one - since I've earned all of
the above and can compare that to the effort required to earn
corresponding credentials in some of the other groups, of which I
also . There is little comparison. Some have suggested that the ATP
and A&P combined might be considered the Ph.D. of aviation. As
someone who has also earned an actual Ph.D. I consider this
laughable. The associate degree seems more comparable - and that's at
the ATP/A&P level.

That's not to say there is not more to know - there is always more to
know, and it really does make a difference if you really want to get
the most out of your airplane - but the amount of knowledge required
to get the credentials is laughably small, something any bright person
might pick up in his spare time with relatively little effort.

This leads to an interesting disconnect. In this group, it is not
rare for a rank novice - a student pilot or even someone who has never
flown - to know more than the supposed experts. This makes the
'experts' uncomfortable - especially when the novice asks questions,
the experts answer, and then the novice proceeds to point out the
logical inconsistencies and factual errors in their answers and
refuses to accept them just because they have credentials and he does
not. In comp.dsp and sci.engr.chem, just to pick two examples I
happen to be familiar with, that doesn't happen much. The barrier to
entry is too high.

Michael

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On May 22, 10:16*am, gatt > wrote:
> If this were rec.surgery.brain and some philosophy student was arguing
> with brain surgeons all day, every day, and then admonishing them for
> their answers, I wouldn't for a second expect the surgeons not to remind
> the student they're they're doctors and that he's not qualified to
> contradict literally ALL of them. * (Not to mention ignoring their
> authoritative references and dodging any challenge to cite sources for
> him own information.)
>
> But I never said anybody "wasn't allowed" to disagree with me simply
> because of my credentials.

Hmm..point of view is valid except for one important fact:

Many of the pilots in this group have not spoken with the same
objectivity that one would expect from an expert who expects his
opinion to supersede that of a novice.

I am reading a parallel thread in which someone claims that the theory
of lift often exists incorrectly in the minds of those who think they
understand it.

When I, as a novice, made this same statement a few months ago when I
joined the group, most of the responding pilots said, "It is
understood. You are the one who does not understand." When I showed
examples of actual experts (university professors in aero/astro, books
by pilots with 20,000+ hours, respected educators in aviation, the
NASA link given by Jim Logajan, etc.", the pilots still said, "You are
still wrong."

Note that it was not a few obstinate pilots making these claims, but
most of them.

When pilots take this position, refuting people whom one would imagine
has even greater understanding of the subject, it becomes difficult to
lend credibility simply because they have a pilot's license.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[More_Flaps]

On May 23, 8:03*am, Michael > wrote:
> On May 12, 11:29*am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > There are other groups, where the gap between what resident sages know
> > and what newbies know is much larger, say in sci.crypt and comp.dsp,
> > and the hostility is no where near what I have seen in this group.
>
> I have the same experience with sci.engr.chem and a few others. *In
> fact, the climate there is so different that I have no need to post
> anonymously. *I also have a theory. *It is precisely because the
> difference between what the resident sages (sic!) and the newbies know
> is so much smaller in this group that the hostility is so much
> greater.
>
> The truth of the matter is that in this forum, there is no opportunity
> to demonstrate aviation skill - that requires an aircraft. *There is
> an opportunity to demonstrate aviation knowledge - but precious little
> of that is required to earn any certificate or rating, be it private,
> commercial, instrument, CFI, ATP, or A&P. *Of course that's only my
> opinion, but at least it's an informed one - since I've earned all of
> the above and can compare that to the effort required to earn
> corresponding credentials in some of the other groups, of which I
> also . *There is little comparison. *Some have suggested that the ATP
> and A&P combined might be considered the Ph.D. of aviation. *As
> someone who has also earned an actual Ph.D. I consider this
> laughable. *The associate degree seems more comparable - and that's at
> the ATP/A&P level.
>
> That's not to say there is not more to know - there is always more to
> know, and it really does make a difference if you really want to get
> the most out of your airplane - but the amount of knowledge required
> to get the credentials is laughably small, something any bright person
> might pick up in his spare time with relatively little effort.
>
> This leads to an interesting disconnect. *In this group, it is not
> rare for a rank novice - a student pilot or even someone who has never
> flown - to know more than the supposed experts. *This makes the
> 'experts' uncomfortable - especially when the novice asks questions,
> the experts answer, and then the novice proceeds to point out the
> logical inconsistencies and factual errors in their answers and
> refuses to accept them just because they have credentials and he does
> not. *In comp.dsp and sci.engr.chem, just to pick two examples I
> happen to be familiar with, that doesn't happen much. *The barrier to
> entry is too high.
>

I think you just gave a nail a headache!

Cheers

[Jim Logajan]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> When pilots take this position, refuting people whom one would imagine
> has even greater understanding of the subject, it becomes difficult to
> lend credibility simply because they have a pilot's license.

I do not know about you, but given a choice between riding in an airplane
piloted by a certificated pilot who has an incorrect grasp of aerodynamics
and an aerodynamics engineer who has no piloting experience, I'd go with
the certificated pilot. ;-)

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> This leads to an interesting disconnect. In this group, it is not
> rare for a rank novice - a student pilot or even someone who has never
> flown - to know more than the supposed experts. This makes the
> 'experts' uncomfortable - especially when the novice asks questions,
> the experts answer, and then the novice proceeds to point out the
> logical inconsistencies and factual errors in their answers and
> refuses to accept them just because they have credentials and he does
> not.

This is the most cogent explanation yet of MX's power over some of the
regulars here. It perfectly explains how he -- a known non-pilot -- is able
to throw many known pilots into apoplectic fits simply by posting a few
relatively innocuous comments.

Since you're on a roll, I'd love to hear your theories about Bertie. To me,
he is twice the mystery of MX, since he's obviously a real (or, at least,
former) pilot -- yet he has an apparently irresistable urge to troll the
group.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On May 22, 3:03*pm, Michael > wrote:
> The truth of the matter is that in this forum, there is no opportunity
> to demonstrate aviation skill - that requires an aircraft. *There is
> an opportunity to demonstrate aviation knowledge - but precious little
> of that is required to earn any certificate or rating, be it private,
> commercial, instrument, CFI, ATP, or A&P. *Of course that's only my
> opinion, but at least it's an informed one - since I've earned all of
> the above and can compare that to the effort required to earn
> corresponding credentials in some of the other groups, of which I
> also . *There is little comparison. *Some have suggested that the ATP
> and A&P combined might be considered the Ph.D. of aviation. *As
> someone who has also earned an actual Ph.D. I consider this
> laughable. *The associate degree seems more comparable - and that's at
> the ATP/A&P level.

Certainly a plausible explanation.

Ph.D.? Chemistry or?

Should be fun to bug you about wacky ideas I have from time to time to
see if they make sense. :)

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Tina]

I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. But it does
take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?






lOn May 22, 9:12 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On May 22, 3:03 pm, Michael > wrote:
>
> > The truth of the matter is that in this forum, there is no opportunity
> > to demonstrate aviation skill - that requires an aircraft. There is
> > an opportunity to demonstrate aviation knowledge - but precious little
> > of that is required to earn any certificate or rating, be it private,
> > commercial, instrument, CFI, ATP, or A&P. Of course that's only my
> > opinion, but at least it's an informed one - since I've earned all of
> > the above and can compare that to the effort required to earn
> > corresponding credentials in some of the other groups, of which I
> > also . There is little comparison. Some have suggested that the ATP
> > and A&P combined might be considered the Ph.D. of aviation. As
> > someone who has also earned an actual Ph.D. I consider this
> > laughable. The associate degree seems more comparable - and that's at
> > the ATP/A&P level.
>
> Certainly a plausible explanation.
>
> Ph.D.? Chemistry or?
>
> Should be fun to bug you about wacky ideas I have from time to time to
> see if they make sense. :)
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Tina" > wrote in message
...
>I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
> candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. But it does
> take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?
>

Maybe it's just me, but this seems like an interesting question. Anyone
would have to admit the written and practical exams for and ATP, are
certainly know match when compared to a doctorate. But how can you weight
the knowledge gained from 2000 or 3000 flight hours, especially in the
variety of aircraft and flight conditions required for and ATP, with 200 or
300 college hours?

[skym]

On May 21, 7:44*am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

... I don't know what strange power MX wields over so many here, but
it's
> creepy.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

He's an easy target for peope who only have the courage to post on the
BBS.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student gatt > wrote:
> Michael Ash wrote:
>
>> There was the bit which prompted my first message, where you said "DON'T
>> CONTRADICT ME. I FLY PLANES AND YOU PLAY VIDEO GAMES."
>
> That's has to do with the fact that he asked a valid question, I and
> several other people answered it somewhat uniformly, and then he
> proceeded to refute that answer in a different thread. (I'm not going to
> look it up.)

I understand the context (and the sentiment behind it; really!) but I just
think that when it gets to this level it ends up being counterproductive.

>>> But I never said anybody "wasn't allowed" to disagree with me simply
>>> because of my credentials.
>>
>> Well, you told him not to, same effect in the end.
>
> Apparently not. He's still posting here, isn't he? I simply threw him
> back into the killfile and will not answer any further questions he asks
> unless he pays me for ground instruction.
>
> If there's a problem with that, too bad, I guess. Choosing to ignore
> all further questions he asks is entirely my decision. If he chooses to
> spout bull**** in a student forum as if he was some sort of authority on
> the matter, it's equally my right to illuminate the fact that he's a
> fraud and that I'm not.

I think this is a good decision. Refuting him *can* be useful, but in my
opinion only until it reaches the point where he's obviously being
ridiculous, at which point you just have to let him be, because otherwise
you'll never reach the end of it. Killfiling him is a fine alternative,
though.

There's a great comic on this subject: http://xkcd.com/386/

Ultimately you have to just give up and let the troll be wrong.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Tina]

On May 22, 10:26 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> "Tina" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
> > candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. But it does
> > take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?
>
> Maybe it's just me, but this seems like an interesting question. Anyone
> would have to admit the written and practical exams for and ATP, are
> certainly know match when compared to a doctorate. But how can you weight
> the knowledge gained from 2000 or 3000 flight hours, especially in the
> variety of aircraft and flight conditions required for and ATP, with 200 or
> 300 college hours?

There are different skill sets for each. Also, I am sure there are
many more Ph.Ds granted in the US than are ATRs. Still, some of us are
far more demanding
of our candidates than instructors are for those in training for an
ATR, and remember our candidates are in training for four years, and
that excludes their primary degrees. Ah, those four grad school years
are pretty much full time work years in our institution. (Think what
you might like, but most students want to finish as soon as they can,
they are mostly very motivated, and it takes that long anyhow).

Never the less, I think in each case the best are aiming for the
highest credentials in their fields, and I would not care to have to
defend one class of 'best' as better than another.

I can assure you from personal experience the IFR written is far
easier to pass than our qualifying exams (a few weeks of study was
enough for that exam vs a complete test of one's knowledge of a field
of study for the PhD). I know nothing about the ATR writtens.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On May 22, 9:26*pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> "Tina" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
> > candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. *But it does
> > take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?
>
> Maybe it's just me, but this seems like an interesting question. Anyone
> would have to admit the written and practical exams for and ATP, are
> certainly know match when compared to a doctorate. But how can you weight
> the knowledge gained from 2000 or 3000 flight hours, especially in the
> variety of aircraft and flight conditions required for and ATP, with 200 or
> 300 college hours?

I think that, all things being equal, the academic will have an
advantage in the cockpit, because s/he will not only have a set of
rules to follow, but have fundamental understanding of why those rules
are applicable.

During my own ground school, there were several places during
instruction where knowledge of math and science was clearly
advantageous:

1. magnetos (induction)
2. carb ice (adiabatic cooling of condensate)
3. density/pressure altitude (ideal gas law)
4. course tracking in high crosswind (vectors)
5. balance and center of gravity (arms and moments)
6. compass error due to EMI (basic electrodynamics)
7. mixture enrichment and leaning (density of gases vs altitude)
8. VOR (electromagnetic radiation)
9. load factor (basic trigonometry, Newton's law for circular motion)
10. vestibular disorientation (physiology of inner ear)
11. gyroscopic precession (torque, Newton's Law)

An electrical engineer will, I think, have an easier time remembering
basic radio frequencies by virtue of the fact that s/he knows what a
frequency really is. Inn ground school, I tested hypothesis by asking
the class (and the instructor), if the frequency was in megahertz or
kilohertz. There was silence, as no one knew. This difference might
seem inconsequential and irrelevant until a pilot is asked to recite
all the standard frequencies. The EE, I think, might have an easier
time. The reason is context. When someone utters an RNAV frequency as
a number, the EE might think of many things, but often there is a
visualization. Maybe he thinks about the humps of sine waves. Maybe he
thinks about where it lies in spectrum, a few MHz beyond the FCC limit
on FM in the USA. Whatever he thinks, he will have something to think
about. To some others, the number is just a number, surround by a
black void that provides no crutch for recollection.

Then there is the E6-B. It makes a lot more sense to someone who
understands the fundamentals of what they are doing than following a
learned procedure, which is why I stopped following the "do this, then
do that" instructions, and examine the thing and thought about why it
works, what relationships exist between the scales etc.

So I regard my flight training as mostly a cerebral experience, with
the instructor filling in the parts that are not found in books.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Tina" > wrote in message
> news:797c5043-2d03-45ce-957d-f2ef609c7cf2
@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com.
> ..
>>I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
>> candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. But it does
>> take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?
>>
>
> Maybe it's just me, but this seems like an interesting question.
> Anyone would have to admit the written and practical exams for and
> ATP, are certainly know match when compared to a doctorate. But how
> can you weight the knowledge gained from 2000 or 3000 flight hours,
> especially in the variety of aircraft and flight conditions required
> for and ATP, with 200 or 300 college hours?
>
>
>

Oh brother. Like you'd know.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:SFEYj.122583$Ft5.13875
@newsfe15.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> You're a forger, a liar and a cross posting ass hole.
>
> If I'm lying, prove it. You are already a known liar.
>

No, i'm not, and if I'm forging you you can have both my altopia and
databasix accounts terminated in a new york minute.



But since you haven't, and I know why you haven't, btw, you are simply
full of ****.


That's my proof.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

The Watcher re> wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>I don't forge, fjukkwit.
>
> You forged your finger up your step daughter's snatch, didn't you?
>

No, but i do now know where your head is at there Jay.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
:

> In article >, Bertie the
> Bunyip says...
>
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >
>> > "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
>> > news:YwzYj.3273$Zy1.1619@trndny05...
>> >>
>> >> He/She/It has denied being Anthony Atkielski, so we really have no
>> >> way to tell.
>> >>
>> >> 1) Anthony Atkielski published a blog (aprenta.blogspot.com)
>> >>
>> >> 2) MX denies having ever written a blog
>> >>
>> >> Therefore MX denies being Anthony Atlielski
>> >>
>> >
>> > And with the proven desire both Bertie and his ilk (recruited by
>> > constant cross posting), has shown in forging identities, Bertie's
>> > influence on the noise level of this group is really the only thing
>> > we can be sure of.
>>
>> As long as i have you anyway!
>
> Y'know, if'n Maxine doesn't like the noise level in rap, mebbe he
> should ask teh B8MBis for a moderated froup.
>
>

Wel, he could always use afbtb if he likes.

Bertie
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:0BWYj.88769$y05.16755
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> The retarded children continue to forge.
>
>
>
>

Do they now?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:9_nZj.175573$yE1.84854@attbi_s21:

>> This leads to an interesting disconnect. In this group, it is not
>> rare for a rank novice - a student pilot or even someone who has
>> never flown - to know more than the supposed experts. This makes the
>> 'experts' uncomfortable - especially when the novice asks questions,
>> the experts answer, and then the novice proceeds to point out the
>> logical inconsistencies and factual errors in their answers and
>> refuses to accept them just because they have credentials and he does
>> not.
>
> This is the most cogent explanation yet of MX's power over some of the
> regulars here. It perfectly explains how he -- a known non-pilot --
> is able to throw many known pilots into apoplectic fits simply by
> posting a few relatively innocuous comments.
>
> Since you're on a roll, I'd love to hear your theories about Bertie.
> To me, he is twice the mystery of MX, since he's obviously a real (or,
> at least, former) pilot -- yet he has an apparently irresistable urge
> to troll the group.

Nope, I just post. When I meet an asshole,. I have an irrestable urge to
kick him in the nuts. Thus my attraction to you.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:4833709b$0$42292$804603d3
@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:

> on 5/17/2008 4:49 PM Bertie the Bunyip said the following:
>> Helen Waite > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>>> Again, you are talking to a pilot, who just experienced IMC and a
>>>>> vacuum failure.
>>>> You're a very lucky pilot, then, if you're here posting to this
>>>> newsgroup.
>>> Good grief! The poster is NOT the only pilot who has experienced
>>> vacuum failure in IMC. It's one of the basic things we train for.
I
>>> had vacuum failure the very first time I was in the clouds after
>>> passing my checkride. It was a non-event.
>>>
>>> Bertie was being charitable when he said you know less about
aviation
>>> than a cinder block.
>>
>> I'm kind of the mother Theresa of usenet.
>
> Old, dead, and smelly???
>

You're just mean.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On May 21, 7:21 am, wrote:
>> On May 20, 11:43 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> > On May 20, 6:26 pm, wrote:
>> > > Compass fluid is a petroleum product and is flammable. Its
>> > > MSDS
>> > > says it's odorless mineral spirits, which would make it similar
>> > > to household paint thinner:
>> > >
http://www.setonresourcecenter.com/msds/Docs/wcd00004/wcd00445.htm
>>
>> > Anti-freeze. (glycol)
>> > Ken
>>
>> Glycol is a "slight to moderate fire hazard," unlike
>> petroleum products. It is not the same as paint thinner or compass
>> fluid or anywhere near the same. It's a form of
>> alcohol.http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/e5125.htm
>> Dan
>
> First, does your preflight check list require you ascertain
> your mag-comp as functional, and if so, why?


Because if it wasn't he might accidentally end up in your neighborhood.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On May 20, 6:26 pm, wrote:
>> On May 20, 12:16 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> > > Good grief. The compass has a diaphragm to take care of
>> > > expansion and contraction, and its fluid is just a solvent that
>> > > has a low freeze point. Even plain old gasoline has a low freeze
>> > > point.
>>
>> > Mr. Potato Head, we don't put a big blob of flammable
>> > material in a cock-pit, your sci-phy-math-chem education
>> > is a functional Gr.10.
>>
>> Compass fluid is a petroleum product and is flammable. Its
>> MSDS
>> says it's odorless mineral spirits, which would make it similar to
>> household paint thinner:
>> http://www.setonresourcecenter.com/msds/Docs/wcd00004/wcd00445.htm
>
> Anti-freeze. (glycol)
> Ken
>

obviously your favorite tipple.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:c47ef4b0-754f-
:

> On May 20, 10:04 am, wrote:
>> On May 20, 10:27 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> > When thought through, the Mag-Comp is quite the
>> > precision instrument. That fluid needs be able to
>> > not freeze down to what, maybe -40F. (Ron from
>> > Alaska might know). It also sits in an Arizona sun
>> > and can't expand to burst, though yours (John)
>> > may have.
>> > It also has a viscosity that keeps the thing from
>> > gyrating all over the place, the one we used had
>> > a slow lag while banking, so if you wanted to come
>> > to 180 level the wings for 178 and the thing creeps
>> > to 180.
>> > Ken
>>
>> Good grief. The compass has a diaphragm to take care of
>> expansion and contraction, and its fluid is just a solvent that has a
>> low freeze point. Even plain old gasoline has a low freeze point.
>
> Mr. Potato Head, we don't put a big blob of flammable
> material in a cock-pit, your sci-phy-math-chem education
> is a functional Gr.10.
>
>> Nothing "precision" about that. And as for lag while banking, you
>> haven't studied the Private Pilot groundschool stuff about Northerly
>> Turning Error or anything else. You CANNOT use it to roll out on a
>> heading like you claim.
>
> Duh, that's what your mag-field map is for,
> it provides the mag-heading relative to true
> north at the location you're at.
> I flew alot in ontario and lines are a mess,
> but that's not a big deal over ~ 50 miles.
>
> My required instruction was to use
> the mag-comp for IFR, including pitch level,
> yaw constant, and nulled roll,

You are a liar or your instructor is trying to kill you.

I empathise with him.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:6HVYj.173519$yE1.33357@attbi_s21:

>> He came out here, asked the pilots a question then proceeded to
>> refute every single thing they said. Not just me ASEL pilots like
>> me, but just about everybody.
>
> On the contrary, MX started by posting that pilots cannot rely on
> physical sensations in instrument flight, and that the instruments
> must be your primary source of flight information. Dudley, myself,
> the FAA, and pretty much every source on the planet has agreed 100%
> with this statement, yet -- for reasons known only to y'all -- many
> posters here have now gone to incredible lengths to prove MX wrong.
>
> The argument has gone Clinton-esque, by nuancing the meaning of
> "sensation" down to the subtlest level. Now, of course, MX has gone
> off on a zillion tangents since then, and the signal/noise ratio here
> has gone back to unintelligible levels.
>
> I don't know what strange power MX wields over so many here, but it's
> creepy.

Well, you should know since most of your posts are about him, fjukkkwit.



Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
> news:9_nZj.175573$yE1.84854@attbi_s21:
>
>>> This leads to an interesting disconnect. In this group, it is not
>>> rare for a rank novice - a student pilot or even someone who has
>>> never flown - to know more than the supposed experts. This makes the
>>> 'experts' uncomfortable - especially when the novice asks questions,
>>> the experts answer, and then the novice proceeds to point out the
>>> logical inconsistencies and factual errors in their answers and
>>> refuses to accept them just because they have credentials and he does
>>> not.
>>
>> This is the most cogent explanation yet of MX's power over some of the
>> regulars here. It perfectly explains how he -- a known non-pilot --
>> is able to throw many known pilots into apoplectic fits simply by
>> posting a few relatively innocuous comments.
>>
>> Since you're on a roll, I'd love to hear your theories about Bertie.
>> To me, he is twice the mystery of MX, since he's obviously a real (or,
>> at least, former) pilot -- yet he has an apparently irresistable urge
>> to troll the group.
>
> Nope, I just post. When I meet an asshole,. I have an irrestable urge to
> kick him in the nuts. Thus my attraction to you.
>
>
> Bertie

Kick him in the nuts???? Hell, you'd have to get a bucket to stand on, long
enough to kiss his ass, midget.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Tina > wrote in
:

> On May 22, 10:26 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>> "Tina" > wrote in message
>>
>> news:797c5043-2d03-45ce-957d-f2ef609c7cf2
@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
>> ...
>>
>> >I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
>> > candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. But it
>> > does take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?
>>
>> Maybe it's just me, but this seems like an interesting question.
>> Anyone would have to admit the written and practical exams for and
>> ATP, are certainly know match when compared to a doctorate. But how
>> can you weight the knowledge gained from 2000 or 3000 flight hours,
>> especially in the variety of aircraft and flight conditions required
>> for and ATP, with 200 or 300 college hours?
>
> There are different skill sets for each. Also, I am sure there are
> many more Ph.Ds granted in the US than are ATRs. Still, some of us are
> far more demanding
> of our candidates than instructors are for those in training for an
> ATR, and remember our candidates are in training for four years, and
> that excludes their primary degrees. Ah, those four grad school years
> are pretty much full time work years in our institution. (Think what
> you might like, but most students want to finish as soon as they can,
> they are mostly very motivated, and it takes that long anyhow).
>
> Never the less, I think in each case the best are aiming for the
> highest credentials in their fields, and I would not care to have to
> defend one class of 'best' as better than another.
>
> I can assure you from personal experience the IFR written is far
> easier to pass than our qualifying exams (a few weeks of study was
> enough for that exam vs a complete test of one's knowledge of a field
> of study for the PhD). I know nothing about the ATR writtens.
>
>


Depends on the country..

here's what you would have to know to answer just one question on a JAA
nav plotting test.....http://williams.best.vwh.net/avform.htm

The next question might be a celestial nav question and another on
instruments might be how to navigate using only a free gyro from
australia to alaska.


And no preview in the form of a thousand sample multiple guess quesions
either. All done longhand.



Bertie



bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
:

> On May 22, 9:26*pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>> "Tina" > wrote in message
>>
>> news:797c5043-2d03-45ce-957d-f2ef609c7cf2
@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
>> ...
>>
>> >I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
>> > candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. *But it
>> > does take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?
>>
>> Maybe it's just me, but this seems like an interesting question.
>> Anyone would have to admit the written and practical exams for and
>> ATP, are certainly know match when compared to a doctorate. But how
>> can you weight the knowledge gained from 2000 or 3000 flight hours,
>> especially in the variety of aircraft and flight conditions required
>> for and ATP, with 200 o
> r
>> 300 college hours?
>
> I think that, all things being equal, the academic will have an
> advantage in the cockpit, because s/he will not only have a set of
> rules to follow, but have fundamental understanding of why those rules
> are applicable.
>
> During my own ground school, there were several places during
> instruction where knowledge of math and science was clearly
> advantageous:
>
> 1. magnetos (induction)
> 2. carb ice (adiabatic cooling of condensate)
> 3. density/pressure altitude (ideal gas law)
> 4. course tracking in high crosswind (vectors)
> 5. balance and center of gravity (arms and moments)
> 6. compass error due to EMI (basic electrodynamics)
> 7. mixture enrichment and leaning (density of gases vs altitude)
> 8. VOR (electromagnetic radiation)
> 9. load factor (basic trigonometry, Newton's law for circular motion)
> 10. vestibular disorientation (physiology of inner ear)
> 11. gyroscopic precession (torque, Newton's Law)
>
> An electrical engineer will, I think, have an easier time remembering
> basic radio frequencies by virtue of the fact that s/he knows what a
> frequency really is. Inn ground school, I tested hypothesis by asking
> the class (and the instructor), if the frequency was in megahertz or
> kilohertz. There was silence, as no one knew. This difference might
> seem inconsequential and irrelevant until a pilot is asked to recite
> all the standard frequencies. The EE, I think, might have an easier
> time. The reason is context. When someone utters an RNAV frequency as
> a number, the EE might think of many things, but often there is a
> visualization. Maybe he thinks about the humps of sine waves. Maybe he
> thinks about where it lies in spectrum, a few MHz beyond the FCC limit
> on FM in the USA. Whatever he thinks, he will have something to think
> about. To some others, the number is just a number, surround by a
> black void that provides no crutch for recollection.
>
> Then there is the E6-B. It makes a lot more sense to someone who
> understands the fundamentals of what they are doing than following a
> learned procedure, which is why I stopped following the "do this, then
> do that" instructions, and examine the thing and thought about why it
> works, what relationships exist between the scales etc.
>
> So I regard my flight training as mostly a cerebral experience, with
> the instructor filling in the parts that are not found in books.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>

All of shich explains why you are not a pilot.


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

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

All ya needs a link to look like you're as smart as Mx. Good job lamer.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>> news:9_nZj.175573$yE1.84854@attbi_s21:
>>
>>>> This leads to an interesting disconnect. In this group, it is not
>>>> rare for a rank novice - a student pilot or even someone who has
>>>> never flown - to know more than the supposed experts. This makes
>>>> the 'experts' uncomfortable - especially when the novice asks
>>>> questions, the experts answer, and then the novice proceeds to
>>>> point out the logical inconsistencies and factual errors in their
>>>> answers and refuses to accept them just because they have
>>>> credentials and he does not.
>>>
>>> This is the most cogent explanation yet of MX's power over some of
>>> the regulars here. It perfectly explains how he -- a known
>>> non-pilot -- is able to throw many known pilots into apoplectic fits
>>> simply by posting a few relatively innocuous comments.
>>>
>>> Since you're on a roll, I'd love to hear your theories about Bertie.
>>> To me, he is twice the mystery of MX, since he's obviously a real
>>> (or, at least, former) pilot -- yet he has an apparently
>>> irresistable urge to troll the group.
>>
>> Nope, I just post. When I meet an asshole,. I have an irrestable urge
>> to kick him in the nuts. Thus my attraction to you.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Kick him in the nuts???? Hell, you'd have to get a bucket to stand on,
> long enough to kiss his ass, midget.
>
>
>

Oh ouch. You a meanie.


Snort!


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> No, i'm not, and if I'm forging you you can have both my altopia and
> databasix accounts terminated in a new york minute.
>
>
>
> But since you haven't, and I know why you haven't, btw, you are simply
> full of ****.
>
>
> That's my proof.
>
>
> Bertie

Skip the words Useless, we know you're just a common liar.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:VmsZj.1937$J75.170
@newsfe20.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> All ya needs a link to look like you're as smart as Mx. Good job
lamer.
>
>

I don;t have to look like anything..


Haven;t figured that out yet?


It's all about showcasing, the k00k, k00k....




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:TnsZj.1938$J75.1273
@newsfe20.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> No, i'm not, and if I'm forging you you can have both my altopia and
>> databasix accounts terminated in a new york minute.
>>
>>
>>
>> But since you haven't, and I know why you haven't, btw, you are
simply
>> full of ****.
>>
>>
>> That's my proof.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Skip the words Useless, we know you're just a common liar.
>

Snort..

QED


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> It's all about showcasing, the k00k, k00k....
>
>
>
>
> Bertie

Yep, problem is you're too stupid to realize your the kook.

That's what the squirty ****drip routine is all about. Your OCD.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

:)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:fysZj.1942$J75.1432
@newsfe20.lga:

>
>
>:)
>
>
>

Oh obviously,. Anyone can see that. I've been such a fool


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:HxsZj.1941$J75.500
@newsfe20.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> It's all about showcasing, the k00k, k00k....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Yep, problem is you're too stupid to realize your the kook.
>
> That's what the squirty ****drip routine is all about. Your OCD.
>
>
>



Snort!


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> That's what the squirty ****drip routine is all about. Your OCD.
>>
>
> Snort!
>
>
> Bertie

I thought Riddlin was in table form. Do you crush it so you can snort it?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>> That's what the squirty ****drip routine is all about. Your OCD.
>>>
>>
>> Snort!
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I thought Riddlin was in table form. Do you crush it so you can snort
> it?
>
>
>

Meds lames.

I would say that I expected more form you, but in fact, I didn't,.


Bertie

[More_Flaps]

On May 23, 2:26*pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> "Tina" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
> > candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. *But it does
> > take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?
>
> Maybe it's just me, but this seems like an interesting question. Anyone
> would have to admit the written and practical exams for and ATP, are
> certainly know match when compared to a doctorate. But how can you weight
> the knowledge gained from 2000 or 3000 flight hours, especially in the
> variety of aircraft and flight conditions required for and ATP, with 200 or
> 300 college hours?

The flight hours are mostly repetitive and the training is hardly
condusive to original thought.

Cheers

[More_Flaps]

On May 23, 5:52*pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in .com...
>
>
>
> >> That's what the squirty ****drip routine is all about. Your OCD.
>
> > Snort!
>
> > Bertie
>
> I thought Riddlin was in table form. Do you crush it so you can snort it?

Riddlin? Table form? Are you trying to raise a tricky question here or
just free associating with the english language?

Cheers

[Tina]

It was that white powder on the table that muddied his keyboard.


On May 23, 6:18 am, More_Flaps > wrote:
> On May 23, 5:52 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>
> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in .com...
>
> > >> That's what the squirty ****drip routine is all about. Your OCD.
>
> > > Snort!
>
> > > Bertie
>
> > I thought Riddlin was in table form. Do you crush it so you can snort it?
>
> Riddlin? Table form? Are you trying to raise a tricky question here or
> just free associating with the english language?
>
> Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Tina > wrote in
:

> It was that white powder on the table that muddied his keyboard.
>

ooohkay..

Bertie
>
> On May 23, 6:18 am, More_Flaps > wrote:
>> On May 23, 5:52 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>>
>> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in
>> > .com...
>>
>> > >> That's what the squirty ****drip routine is all about. Your OCD.
>>
>> > > Snort!
>>
>> > > Bertie
>>
>> > I thought Riddlin was in table form. Do you crush it so you can
>> > snort it?
>>
>> Riddlin? Table form? Are you trying to raise a tricky question here
>> or just free associating with the english language?
>>
>> Cheers
>
>

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Maxwell wrote:
>>> That's what the squirty ****drip routine is all about. Your OCD.
>
>I thought Riddlin was in table form. Do you crush it so you can snort it?

Ritalin

(Methylphenidate)

HTH ; )

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200805/1

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> I do not know about you, but given a choice between riding in an airplane
> piloted by a certificated pilot who has an incorrect grasp of aerodynamics
> and an aerodynamics engineer who has no piloting experience, I'd go with
> the certificated pilot. ;-)

When choosing an aircraft, however, I'd go with the aircraft designed by an
engineer, rather than one designed by a pilot.

[Mxsmanic]

Tina writes:

> I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
> candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. But it does
> take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?

The important point is that the knowledge gap between an average ATP and an
average non-pilot is far smaller than the gap between someone with a PhD in
chemistry and someone with no special knowledge of chemistry.

[Mxsmanic]

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

> Then there is the E6-B. It makes a lot more sense to someone who
> understands the fundamentals of what they are doing than following a
> learned procedure, which is why I stopped following the "do this, then
> do that" instructions, and examine the thing and thought about why it
> works, what relationships exist between the scales etc.
>
> So I regard my flight training as mostly a cerebral experience, with
> the instructor filling in the parts that are not found in books.

Rote learning has the advantage of being accessible to almost anyone of
reasonably normal intelligence. Learning theory requires a higher level of
intelligence, and in some domains (quite a few, in fact), the theory is
complex enough that one must be of above-average intelligence in order to
grasp it.

Rote learning works well for dealing with situations that are covered by the
rote-learning curriculum. It can even work better than theory for certain
specific situations (for which learning all the necessary theory would be
impractical). However, knowing theory is vastly more useful when dealing with
situations that are not covered by the rote-learning curriculum.

In summary, rote learning covers most situations well and is accessible to
all, while theory covers all situations but is too difficult for some and
involves higher overhead when it comes to dealing with simple, common
situations.

Just about all practical learning (piloting, driving, cooking, etc.) is by
rote, whereas abstract subjects often involve mostly theory.

[BDS[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote ...
> Tina writes:
>
> > I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
> > candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. But it does
> > take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?
>
> The important point is that the knowledge gap between an average ATP and
an
> average non-pilot is far smaller than the gap between someone with a PhD
in
> chemistry and someone with no special knowledge of chemistry.

How can you possibly quantify something like this?

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> I do not know about you, but given a choice between riding in an airplane
>> piloted by a certificated pilot who has an incorrect grasp of
>> aerodynamics
>> and an aerodynamics engineer who has no piloting experience, I'd go with
>> the certificated pilot. ;-)
>
> When choosing an aircraft, however, I'd go with the aircraft designed by
> an
> engineer, rather than one designed by a pilot.

Based on no experience at all. What a dumb ****.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Tina writes:
>
>> I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
>> candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. But it does
>> take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?
>
> The important point is that the knowledge gap between an average ATP
> and an average non-pilot is far smaller than the gap between someone
> with a PhD in chemistry and someone with no special knowledge of
> chemistry.

Just like the knowledge gap between a cockroach and you, Anthony.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Rote learning has the advantage of being accessible to almost anyone of
> reasonably normal intelligence.

It failed in your case Anthony.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Tina writes:
>
>> I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
>> candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. But it does
>> take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?
>
> The important point is that the knowledge gap between an average ATP and
> an
> average non-pilot is far smaller than the gap between someone with a PhD
> in
> chemistry and someone with no special knowledge of chemistry.

How would you know dumb ass, you're neither.

[Tina]

On May 23, 2:10 pm, "BDS" > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote ...
>
> > Tina writes:
>
> > > I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
> > > candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. But it does
> > > take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?
>
> > The important point is that the knowledge gap between an average ATP and
> an
> > average non-pilot is far smaller than the gap between someone with a PhD
> in
> > chemistry and someone with no special knowledge of chemistry.
>
> How can you possibly quantify something like this?
I would agree that the average person knows less about a given subject
than a newly minted PhD with that major than an average person knows
about flying than someone holding an ATR, but to call that the
important point is stupid.

I think the important point is people operating at close to the top of
any profession have a lot more in common with each other than they do
with "average" people. I wrote 'profession' but think that can be
extended to 'trade' or in every skill area. They are uniquely
motivated and skilled, and that separates them from those who are only
just intelligent and who choose not to exploit that advantage.

I have spoken, so it must be so :). Oh wait, that's a different
poster's attitude.

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> How can you possibly quantify something like this?

With ease.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in message
news:84972b9f97145@uwe...
> Maxwell wrote:
>>>> That's what the squirty ****drip routine is all about. Your OCD.
>>
>>I thought Riddlin was in table form. Do you crush it so you can snort it?
>
> Ritalin
>
> (Methylphenidate)
>
> HTH ; )
>
> --
> Message posted via AviationKB.com
> http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200805/1
>

You're right, Riddlin is the band.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> I do not know about you, but given a choice between riding in an
>> airplane piloted by a certificated pilot who has an incorrect grasp
>> of aerodynamics and an aerodynamics engineer who has no piloting
>> experience, I'd go with the certificated pilot. ;-)
>
> When choosing an aircraft, however, I'd go with the aircraft designed
> by an engineer, rather than one designed by a pilot.
>

You don't fly fjukktard



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jim Logajan writes:
>>
>>> I do not know about you, but given a choice between riding in an
>>> airplane piloted by a certificated pilot who has an incorrect grasp
>>> of aerodynamics
>>> and an aerodynamics engineer who has no piloting experience, I'd go
>>> with the certificated pilot. ;-)
>>
>> When choosing an aircraft, however, I'd go with the aircraft designed
>> by an
>> engineer, rather than one designed by a pilot.
>
> Based on no experience at all. What a dumb ****.

Snort!

Dumm and dummer.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Tina writes:
>>
>>> I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
>>> candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. But it
>>> does take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?
>>
>> The important point is that the knowledge gap between an average ATP
>> and an
>> average non-pilot is far smaller than the gap between someone with a
>> PhD in
>> chemistry and someone with no special knowledge of chemistry.
>
> How would you know dumb ass, you're neither.
>


Lost your riddlin perskerpshun?



Bertie
>
>

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Buster Hymen" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Rote learning has the advantage of being accessible to almost anyone of
>> reasonably normal intelligence.
>
> It failed in your case Anthony.

He not of reasonable normal intelligence.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Tina writes:
>>>
>>>> I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
>>>> candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. But it
>>>> does take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?
>>>
>>> The important point is that the knowledge gap between an average ATP
>>> and an
>>> average non-pilot is far smaller than the gap between someone with a
>>> PhD in
>>> chemistry and someone with no special knowledge of chemistry.
>>
>> How would you know dumb ass, you're neither.
>>
>
>
> Lost your riddlin perskerpshun?
>
>
>
> Bertie

Going to front me some, Snortie the nosehit.

[Buster Hymen]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Buster Hymen" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Rote learning has the advantage of being accessible to almost anyone of
>>> reasonably normal intelligence.
>>
>> It failed in your case Anthony.
>
> He not of reasonable normal intelligence.
>
>

Which is why it failed.

Anthony still hasn't figured out how one can legally and safely fly 50'
from a cloud. And he's been told the answer several times.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

In article >, Bertie the
Bunyip says...

> Tina > wrote in
> :
>
> > It was that white powder on the table that muddied his keyboard.
> >
>
> ooohkay..

Hey, Bogart! Share teh booty!


> Bertie
> >
> > On May 23, 6:18 am, More_Flaps > wrote:
> >> On May 23, 5:52 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in
> >> > .com...
> >>
> >> > >> That's what the squirty ****drip routine is all about. Your OCD.
> >>
> >> > > Snort!
> >>
> >> > > Bertie
> >>
> >> > I thought Riddlin was in table form. Do you crush it so you can
> >> > snort it?
> >>
> >> Riddlin? Table form? Are you trying to raise a tricky question here
> >> or just free associating with the english language?
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >
> >
>
>

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[Maxwell[_2_]]

In article >, Bertie the
Bunyip says...

> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
> :
>
> > In article >, Bertie the
> > Bunyip says...
> >
> >> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> >> > news:YwzYj.3273$Zy1.1619@trndny05...
> >> >>
> >> >> He/She/It has denied being Anthony Atkielski, so we really have no
> >> >> way to tell.
> >> >>
> >> >> 1) Anthony Atkielski published a blog (aprenta.blogspot.com)
> >> >>
> >> >> 2) MX denies having ever written a blog
> >> >>
> >> >> Therefore MX denies being Anthony Atlielski
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > And with the proven desire both Bertie and his ilk (recruited by
> >> > constant cross posting), has shown in forging identities, Bertie's
> >> > influence on the noise level of this group is really the only thing
> >> > we can be sure of.
> >>
> >> As long as i have you anyway!
> >
> > Y'know, if'n Maxine doesn't like the noise level in rap, mebbe he
> > should ask teh B8MBis for a moderated froup.
> >
> >
>
> Wel, he could always use afbtb if he likes.

Subscribe!!!!1!

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[Maxwell[_2_]]

In article >, Bertie the
Bunyip says...

> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Jim Logajan writes:
> >>
> >>> I do not know about you, but given a choice between riding in an
> >>> airplane piloted by a certificated pilot who has an incorrect grasp
> >>> of aerodynamics
> >>> and an aerodynamics engineer who has no piloting experience, I'd go
> >>> with the certificated pilot. ;-)
> >>
> >> When choosing an aircraft, however, I'd go with the aircraft designed
> >> by an
> >> engineer, rather than one designed by a pilot.
> >
> > Based on no experience at all. What a dumb ****.
>
> Snort!
>
> Dumm and dummer.

Is he making it his lifes work to Feed the Trolls?

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Fri, 23 May 2008 19:46:53 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> I do not know about you, but given a choice between riding in an airplane
>> piloted by a certificated pilot who has an incorrect grasp of aerodynamics
>> and an aerodynamics engineer who has no piloting experience, I'd go with
>> the certificated pilot. ;-)
>
>When choosing an aircraft, however, I'd go with the aircraft designed by an
>engineer, rather than one designed by a pilot.

I thought you were limited to aeroplanes folded from sheets of paper.

Stealth Pilot

[terry]

On May 24, 3:50*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tina writes:
> > I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
> > candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. *But it does
> > take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?
>
> The important point is that the knowledge gap between an average ATP and an
> average non-pilot is far smaller than the gap between someone with a PhD in
> chemistry and someone with no special knowledge of chemistry.

Interesting. As a PhD in chemistry myself I would estimate the
knowledge gap with someone with no special knowledge of chemistry to
be about 1000 feet. As a pilot , PPL only, I estimate the knowledge
gap between me and an average non pilot to be about 5000 feet. Now ,
I am not an ATP but I do know a couple, and one of them even talks to
me, as long there are no other ATPs around, and I estimate a gap of
at least 35000 feet between them and me. That would put the gap
between an ATP and an average non pilot at 40000 feet, so looks like
you are wrong again Maxie.
Terry
PPL , PhD Downunder

[Tina]

Now come on, the gap between a chemist and a non chemist would not be
1000 feet, not down under. It might be 300 meters
On May 24, 8:38 am, terry > wrote:
> On May 24, 3:50 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Tina writes:
> > > I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
> > > candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. But it does
> > > take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?
>
> > The important point is that the knowledge gap between an average ATP and an
> > average non-pilot is far smaller than the gap between someone with a PhD in
> > chemistry and someone with no special knowledge of chemistry.
>
> Interesting. As a PhD in chemistry myself I would estimate the
> knowledge gap with someone with no special knowledge of chemistry to
> be about 1000 feet. As a pilot , PPL only, I estimate the knowledge
> gap between me and an average non pilot to be about 5000 feet. Now ,
> I am not an ATP but I do know a couple, and one of them even talks to
> me, as long there are no other ATPs around, and I estimate a gap of
> at least 35000 feet between them and me. That would put the gap
> between an ATP and an average non pilot at 40000 feet, so looks like
> you are wrong again Maxie.
> Terry
> PPL , PhD Downunder

[terry]

On May 24, 10:47*pm, Tina > wrote:
> Now come on, the gap between a chemist and a non chemist would not be
> 1000 feet, not down under. It might be 300 meters
> On May 24, 8:38 am, terry > wrote:
>
We are mulitunital down here Tina, in aviation we measure ht in feet
and horizontal distance in m. So our VFR rules are to remain clear of
cloud by 1000 feet vertically and 1500m horizontally. I kid you not.

Terry

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> Interesting. As a PhD in chemistry myself I would estimate the
> knowledge gap with someone with no special knowledge of chemistry to
> be about 1000 feet. As a pilot , PPL only, I estimate the knowledge
> gap between me and an average non pilot to be about 5000 feet. Now ,
> I am not an ATP but I do know a couple, and one of them even talks to
> me, as long there are no other ATPs around, and I estimate a gap of
> at least 35000 feet between them and me. That would put the gap
> between an ATP and an average non pilot at 40000 feet, so looks like
> you are wrong again Maxie.

Your logic is flawed. You've expressed an obvious opinion, and then
misconstrued it as fact.

[terry]

On May 24, 11:31*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > Interesting. *As a PhD in chemistry myself I would estimate the
> > knowledge gap with someone with no special knowledge of chemistry to
> > be about 1000 *feet. *As a pilot , PPL only, *I estimate the knowledge
> > gap between me and an average non pilot to be about 5000 feet. *Now ,
> > I am not an ATP but I do know a couple, and one of them even talks to
> > me, as long there are no other ATPs around, *and I estimate a gap of
> > at least 35000 feet between them and me. *That would put the gap
> > between an ATP and an average non pilot at 40000 feet, so looks like
> > you are wrong again Maxie.
>
> Your logic is flawed. *You've expressed an obvious opinion, and then
> misconstrued it as fact.

Nah ,it was fact, I got the tape measure out and all, really I did,
Terry

[Maxwell[_2_]]

You guys aren't trolls. You're too stupid to be anything more than a common
nusance.

Hell, Mx has both of you beat hands down.

[terry]

On May 24, 4:27*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> BDS writes:
> > How can you possibly quantify something like this?
>
> With ease.

you used the tape measure too didnt you Maxie?

[terry]

On May 24, 3:46*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
> > I do not know about you, but given a choice between riding in an airplane
> > piloted by a certificated pilot who has an incorrect grasp of aerodynamics
> > and an aerodynamics engineer who has no piloting experience, I'd go with
> > the certificated pilot. ;-)
>
> When choosing an aircraft, however, I'd go with the aircraft designed by an
> engineer, rather than one designed by a pilot.

When choosing a pizza I go for the one with the most cheese.

[Tina]

What part of the word 'estimate' do you not understand?


On May 24, 9:31 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > Interesting. As a PhD in chemistry myself I would estimate the
> > knowledge gap with someone with no special knowledge of chemistry to
> > be about 1000 feet. As a pilot , PPL only, I estimate the knowledge
> > gap between me and an average non pilot to be about 5000 feet. Now ,
> > I am not an ATP but I do know a couple, and one of them even talks to
> > me, as long there are no other ATPs around, and I estimate a gap of
> > at least 35000 feet between them and me. That would put the gap
> > between an ATP and an average non pilot at 40000 feet, so looks like
> > you are wrong again Maxie.
>
> Your logic is flawed. You've expressed an obvious opinion, and then
> misconstrued it as fact.

[Tina]

Terry, I was thinking more of your chemistry background. Even here we
tend to measure, the the chemisty world, distances in meters. Well,
nanometers.

I really did not know aviation down under used English units, thanks
for the education. Are altimeters set in inches of Hg?




May 24, 9:14 am, terry > wrote:
> On May 24, 10:47 pm, Tina > wrote:> Now come on, the gap between a chemist and a non chemist would not be
> > 1000 feet, not down under. It might be 300 meters
> > On May 24, 8:38 am, terry > wrote:
>
> We are mulitunital down here Tina, in aviation we measure ht in feet
> and horizontal distance in m. So our VFR rules are to remain clear of
> cloud by 1000 feet vertically and 1500m horizontally. I kid you not.
>
> Terry

[Maxwell[_2_]]

Forged post

[Maxwell[_2_]]

Forged post

[terry]

On May 24, 11:58*pm, Tina > wrote:
> Terry, I was thinking more of your chemistry background. Even here we
> tend to measure, the the chemisty world, distances in meters. Well,
> nanometers.
>
> I really did not know aviation down under used English units, thanks
> for the education. Are altimeters set in inches of Hg?
>
Tina, we are basically metric in Australia but as I understand it
feet are used worldwide for altitude in aviation. Our altimeter
subscales are in HPa ( although I still call them mbars). 1013.2 HPa
=29.92 in Hg. In the petrochemical industry where I work we use a
real mish mash of units. For pressure I am forever having to
interchange between KPa, mmHg (torr), psi and bars.
Terry

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>> It was that white powder on the table that muddied his keyboard.
>>
>
> ooohkay..
>
> Bertie

Posted by a forger.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>
> You don't fly fjukktard
>
>
>
> Bertie

Posted by a forger.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> Snort!
>
> Dumm and dummer.
>
>
>
> Bertie

Posted by a forger.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>>
>
>
> Lost your riddlin perskerpshun?
>
>
>
> Bertie
>>
>>
>

Posted by a forger.

[terry]

On May 23, 2:32*pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
snip
> An electrical engineer will, I think, have an easier time remembering
> basic radio frequencies by virtue of the fact that s/he knows what a
> frequency really is. Inn ground school, I tested hypothesis *by asking
> the class (and the instructor), if the frequency was in megahertz or
> kilohertz. *There was silence, as no one knew. This difference might
> seem inconsequential and irrelevant until a pilot is asked to recite
> all the standard frequencies. The EE, I think, might have an easier
> time. The reason is context. When someone utters an RNAV frequency as
> a number, the EE might think of many things, but often there is a
> visualization. Maybe he thinks about the humps of sine waves. Maybe he
> thinks about where it lies in spectrum, a few MHz beyond the FCC limit
> on FM in the USA. Whatever he thinks, he will have something to think
> about. *To some others, the number is just a number, surround by a
> black void that provides no crutch for recollection.
>


Reciting frequencies? I dont know of any pilots who even try to
remember frequencies, other than 121.5 , you get your frequencies
off charts or out of ERSA and write them on your flight plan if
needed. Do you really visualise sine waves when you hear a radio
frequency? and think about them humping? Thats kind of kinky Le
Chaud, guess I just lack imagination.
But seriously this is rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud, so why dont you
tell us about your flying training progress?. I would love to hear
about it, I assume from your name you are doing it in France? It
would be interesting to hear about how it differs from training
elsewhere. Its great that you know lots about physics, I bet you
would be able to tell a baseball player exactly why a ball can curve
in the air? but I suspect if you went over to rec.baseball they
prolly wouldnt be all that interested. but I reckon they would be on
sci.physics.

[More_Flaps]

On May 25, 12:38*am, terry > wrote:
> On May 24, 3:50*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Tina writes:
> > > I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
> > > candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. *But it does
> > > take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?
>
> > The important point is that the knowledge gap between an average ATP and an
> > average non-pilot is far smaller than the gap between someone with a PhD in
> > chemistry and someone with no special knowledge of chemistry.
>
> Interesting. *As a PhD in chemistry myself I would estimate the
> knowledge gap with someone with no special knowledge of chemistry to
> be about 1000 *feet. *As a pilot , PPL only, *I estimate the knowledge
> gap between me and an average non pilot to be about 5000 feet. *Now ,
> I am not an ATP but I do know a couple, and one of them even talks to
> me, as long there are no other ATPs around, *and I estimate a gap of
> at least 35000 feet between them and me. *That would put the gap
> between an ATP and an average non pilot at 40000 feet, so looks like
> you are wrong again Maxie.


Do you really think Jo average knows some chemistry? Try asking a few
people what dihydrogenoxide or calcium carbonate is...

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:OpVZj.1169$v94.236
@newsfe14.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>
>>
>> Lost your riddlin perskerpshun?
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> Posted by a forger.


Apparently, you have...



Bertie
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:kyEZj.766$v94.533
@newsfe14.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Tina writes:
>>>>
>>>>> I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
>>>>> candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. But it
>>>>> does take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?
>>>>
>>>> The important point is that the knowledge gap between an average
ATP
>>>> and an
>>>> average non-pilot is far smaller than the gap between someone with
a
>>>> PhD in
>>>> chemistry and someone with no special knowledge of chemistry.
>>>
>>> How would you know dumb ass, you're neither.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Lost your riddlin perskerpshun?
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Going to front me some, Snortie the nosehit.


Where does one get riddlin? (that just has to be a good straight line
for someone! )




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:kpVZj.1167$v94.949
@newsfe14.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>
>> You don't fly fjukktard
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Posted by a forger.
>
>
>




Snort!



Bertie

[Bertie the Forgger]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:ApVZj.1168$v94.955
@newsfe14.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Snort!
>>
>> Dumm and dummer.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Posted by a forger.
>
>
>

And dummer again.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in news:MPG.22a13f489d3d65f398b066
@notbxpats.edu:

> In article >, Bertie the
> Bunyip says...
>
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >
>> > "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> Jim Logajan writes:
>> >>
>> >>> I do not know about you, but given a choice between riding in an
>> >>> airplane piloted by a certificated pilot who has an incorrect
grasp
>> >>> of aerodynamics
>> >>> and an aerodynamics engineer who has no piloting experience, I'd
go
>> >>> with the certificated pilot. ;-)
>> >>
>> >> When choosing an aircraft, however, I'd go with the aircraft
designed
>> >> by an
>> >> engineer, rather than one designed by a pilot.
>> >
>> > Based on no experience at all. What a dumb ****.
>>
>> Snort!
>>
>> Dumm and dummer.
>
> Is he making it his lifes work to Feed the Trolls?
>

Apparently. He's showing us a thing or two, i suppose.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:YoVZj.1166$v94.338
@newsfe14.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> It was that white powder on the table that muddied his keyboard.
>>>
>>
>> ooohkay..
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Posted by a forger.
>


Really?

Got proof?

No?

Didna thin sooo.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in news:MPG.22a13be4f0408bc198b061
@notbxpats.edu:

> In article >, Bertie the
> Bunyip says...
>
>> Tina > wrote in
>> news:b59fd500-842a-47d0-b7f0-
:
>>
>> > It was that white powder on the table that muddied his keyboard.
>> >
>>
>> ooohkay..
>
> Hey, Bogart! Share teh booty!


You got it!


Bertie
>
>
>> Bertie
>> >
>> > On May 23, 6:18 am, More_Flaps > wrote:
>> >> On May 23, 5:52 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in
>> >> > .com...
>> >>
>> >> > >> That's what the squirty ****drip routine is all about. Your
OCD.
>> >>
>> >> > > Snort!
>> >>
>> >> > > Bertie
>> >>
>> >> > I thought Riddlin was in table form. Do you crush it so you can
>> >> > snort it?
>> >>
>> >> Riddlin? Table form? Are you trying to raise a tricky question
here
>> >> or just free associating with the english language?
>> >>
>> >> Cheers
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:wdVZj.1159$v94.886
@newsfe14.lga:

> Forged post
>
>
>

Snort!


Bertie

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
More_Flaps > wrote:

> Do you really think Jo average knows some chemistry? Try asking a few
> people what dihydrogenoxide

It's a poison.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> Tina, we are basically metric in Australia but as I understand it
> feet are used worldwide for altitude in aviation.

Except Russia and China, IIRC.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> terry writes:
>
>> Interesting. As a PhD in chemistry myself I would estimate the
>> knowledge gap with someone with no special knowledge of chemistry to
>> be about 1000 feet. As a pilot , PPL only, I estimate the
knowledge
>> gap between me and an average non pilot to be about 5000 feet. Now ,
>> I am not an ATP but I do know a couple, and one of them even talks to
>> me, as long there are no other ATPs around, and I estimate a gap of
>> at least 35000 feet between them and me. That would put the gap
>> between an ATP and an average non pilot at 40000 feet, so looks like
>> you are wrong again Maxie.
>
> Your logic is flawed. You've expressed an obvious opinion, and then
> misconstrued it as fact.
>

No he didn't fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:c47ef4b0-754f-42b8-
:

> On May 20, 10:04 am, Dan_Thomas_nos...@yaho

>
> Depends on whether you're using the yoke or
> the stick, which do you prefer?


To beat you over the head with?

Stick, but anything that falls to hand will do.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> terry writes:
>
>> Tina, we are basically metric in Australia but as I understand it
>> feet are used worldwide for altitude in aviation.
>
> Except Russia and China, IIRC.
>

You couldn't recall anthing since you've never flown there.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

More_Flaps > wrote in
:

> On May 23, 5:52*pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in
>> messagenews:g15l5m$kje$3@blackhe
> licopter.databasix.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> That's what the squirty ****drip routine is all about. Your OCD.
>>
>> > Snort!
>>
>> > Bertie
>>
>> I thought Riddlin was in table form. Do you crush it so you can snort
>> it?
>
> Riddlin? Table form? Are you trying to raise a tricky question here or
> just free associating with the english language?
>
> Cheers
>

He's left this curiously unanswered?


Wonder why?


Bertie

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> terry writes:
>
>> Interesting. As a PhD in chemistry myself I would estimate the
>> knowledge gap with someone with no special knowledge of chemistry to
>> be about 1000 feet. As a pilot , PPL only, I estimate the knowledge
>> gap between me and an average non pilot to be about 5000 feet. Now ,
>> I am not an ATP but I do know a couple, and one of them even talks to
>> me, as long there are no other ATPs around, and I estimate a gap of
>> at least 35000 feet between them and me. That would put the gap
>> between an ATP and an average non pilot at 40000 feet, so looks like
>> you are wrong again Maxie.
>
> Your logic is flawed. You've expressed an obvious opinion, and then
> misconstrued it as fact.
>

You're the one that's flawed, Anthony. You lack the mental capacity to
understand what the OP said and, like a moron, assume it's flawed.

Anthony, you don't know **** from shinola.

[Buster Hymen]

terry > wrote in news:a9a6a59c-c780-4633-8c38-
:

> On May 24, 4:27*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> BDS writes:
>> > How can you possibly quantify something like this?
>>
>> With ease.
>
> you used the tape measure too didnt you Maxie?
>
>

Anthony doesn't know how to use a tape measure. MSFS doesn't have one.

[terry]

On May 25, 1:01*am, More_Flaps > wrote:
> On May 25, 12:38*am, terry > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 24, 3:50*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > > Tina writes:
> > > > I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
> > > > candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. *But it does
> > > > take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?
>
> > > The important point is that the knowledge gap between an average ATP and an
> > > average non-pilot is far smaller than the gap between someone with a PhD in
> > > chemistry and someone with no special knowledge of chemistry.
>
> > Interesting. *As a PhD in chemistry myself I would estimate the
> > knowledge gap with someone with no special knowledge of chemistry to
> > be about 1000 *feet. *As a pilot , PPL only, *I estimate the knowledge
> > gap between me and an average non pilot to be about 5000 feet. *Now ,
> > I am not an ATP but I do know a couple, and one of them even talks to
> > me, as long there are no other ATPs around, *and I estimate a gap of
> > at least 35000 feet between them and me. *That would put the gap
> > between an ATP and an average non pilot at 40000 feet, so looks like
> > you are wrong again Maxie.
>
> Do you really think Jo average knows some chemistry? Try asking a few
> people what dihydrogenoxide or calcium carbonate is...
>
well down here almost everyone goes to high school for at least 4
years and chemisty is compulsory for the first 3 years. Aviation is
not taught at all, except as an elective in the senior high years at a
few select schools. Far more people could tell you the chemical
formula for calcium carbonate and dihydrogen oxide than could tell you
what is meant by an aircraft "stalling".
Terry

[terry]

On May 25, 1:24*am, Bob Noel >
wrote:
> In article >,
>
> *More_Flaps > wrote:
> > Do you really think Jo average knows some chemistry? Try asking a few
> > people what dihydrogenoxide
>
> It's a poison.

yep, it killed one of our prime ministers ( Harold Holt in 1967 )
Terry
PPL Downunder

[Scrooge McDuck]

Boy, this NG sure has gone quiet. Guess you woke people up ...
finally.

On Tue, 20 May 2008 10:52:11 -0700 (PDT), Tina >
wrote:

>This is worth noting. Jay Somerset, who started this thread, said he
>would no longer take part in this newsgroup.
>
>Jay, thus far, is a man of his word. This 5/11 post was the last one
>by that username. to the group. There is honor among posters!
>Paraphrasing something often said, it's a superior poster who uses
>superior judgment to avoid circumstances where his superior posting
>skills are needed.
>
>There may be a lesson here somewhere.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On May 11, 11:33 am, Jay Somerset > wrote:
>> I give up -- not flying -- but subscribing to this NG. It is just too
>> riddled with crap and backbiting, to the point that it carries little
>> if any useful exchange of interest to active pilots. It isn't worth
>> the effort any more, even with multiple kill files.
>>
>> So good riddance to 90+% of the posts, and the few idiots who have,
>> managed to spoil the NG over the past couple of years, and farewell to
>> those few remaining sensible contributors. I admire your patience and
>> tolerance. Mine have given out!
>> --
>> Jay (remove dashes for legal email address)

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Boy, this NG sure has gone quiet. Guess you woke people up ...
> finally.

Everyone but the trolls have been out flying!

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

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:m8T_j.127893
$TT4.127065@attbi_s22:

>> Boy, this NG sure has gone quiet. Guess you woke people up ...
>> finally.
>
> Everyone but the trolls have been out flying!
>
>:-)

Yeh, right.



Bertie

[Michael[_1_]]

On May 22, 9:12*pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> Ph.D.?

Yes.

> Chemistry or?

Chemical Engineering.

Michael

[Michael[_1_]]

On May 22, 8:12*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> This is the most cogent explanation yet of MX's power over some of the
> regulars here. *It perfectly explains how he -- a known non-pilot -- is able
> to throw many known pilots into apoplectic fits simply by posting a few
> relatively innocuous comments.

You know, MX is simply the far end of the curve. I've seen lots of
students/potential students here asking questions. It was far from
rare that they got incomplete, internally inconsistent, and otherwise
problematic replies - almost invariably from certificated pilots.
Those that had the temerity to question the reply caught ****. I
guess they decided it wasn't worthwhile sticking around - they would
find out what they needed from their instructors and other pilots at
the airport. The sad thing is, these days that's likely not a bad
bet. The average quality of the discussion here has degenerated to
the point that it isn't any better than it is at the airport lounge -
and the airport lounge is a good deal more civil.

MX doesn't have that option, so he deals with usenet as it is. Here's
how I see it. He asks questions that are, for the most part, entirely
reasonable and on-topic. He gets a variety of replies, and the
majority are incomplete, internally inconsistent, and/or contradict
other sources. He points out the incompleteness, internal
inconsistency, and contradiction. He argues that the reply must be
wrong (often correctly). (Some of) the people who responded to him in
the first place take umbrage at this - how dare he, a non-pilot,
question their 'superior' knowledge. They become abusive, and he
becomes abusive in return - though I must say he generally gives just
a little less than he gets.

It's pretty sad - handled correctly, these could be discussions that
would be educational for many. It's always useful to examine what you
think you know from a different perspective, and MX provides an
interesting one. But what I've found is that as usenet became
progressively less academic, the number of people interested in having
their views challenged and examined, and of looking at what they think
they know from a different perspective has shrunk to where they are a
very small minority. Too bad - that's the only way you ever get to
really understand anything.

> Since you're on a roll, I'd love to hear your theories about Bertie. *To me,
> he is twice the mystery of MX, since he's obviously a real (or, at least,
> former) pilot -- yet he has an apparently irresistable urge to troll the
> group.

That's a tougher one. MX has a somewhat rational motivation - to
learn more about aviation without subjecting himself to the risk and
expense of actually flying an aircraft. That makes him unusual here.
Most of us have much fuzzier motivations. For example, what's my
motivation? In a sense, I'm a troll too. I tell people things
(usually about aviation, but in this thread about the aviation groups)
that they don't particularly want to hear. I used to think I was
actually teaching some people things they might need to know to get
some utility out of their flying and survive the experience by
dispelling some dangerous myths, but it gets harder and harder to
believe that with every year. So why do I bother? I used to get
intelligent and thoughtful people who would intelligently and
thoughtfully argue with my positions, thus helping me clarify,
correct, and solidify them, or occasionally discard some, but I don't
really get that anymore either. It's a lot of effort to argue that
way, and the people who were interested in making the effort are
mostly gone from here. So what do I get out of being here? I think
I'm mostly still here out of inertia - the way you will keep going
someplace you've been going for many years, even though it has changed
and the things that drew you there in the first place are all gone. I
think Bertie is sort of in the same boat, but there is an interesting
difference.

You see, despite all my certificates and ratings, I am fundamentally a
private pilot. I don't fly for a living, and though I do occasionally
make a few bucks doing aviation odd jobs (instructing, ferrying
airplanes, etc.) that's mostly because I think it's fun, and the
pocket money is just a bonus. I suspect that Bertie, like most
airline pilots, has a fundamental contempt for most private pilots.
Thus he's not terribly interested in making the intellectual effort to
argue with one to show him where his misconceptions lie and thus teach
him something. It's easier to just be rude. I've seen that before
too.

To give you a glimpse into airline pilot thinking, let me tell you how
I wound up getting my ATP. One day I caught up on totalling up the
columns in my logbook and realized that I was over 1600 hours, so I
started joking that I should start working on my ATP. Everyone got
the joke - except my friend the airline captain. He thought I was
serious, and even after I told him I was joking he said I should do it
anyway, because it would be a good credential. He coudn't really
explain what it would be a good credential for. Now this was a guy
who hadn't given dual in years (I think he burned out on it when he
was doing type ratings in DC-9's) and was never available no matter
who asked (not even for his best friend), and here he was offering to
train me. This was a guy who had hours well into five digits - and
lots of them in GA light twins. When a guy like that offers to teach
you something in your light twin, you're a moron if you turn him down,
so while I had no need for an ATP, I got one anyway. And I did learn
some things.

So why did he do it? Simple. It made me somewhat acceptable to his
other friends - the other airline pilots. In that crowd it's sort of
the minimum standard - it means they might actually listen to your
opinion and not reject it out of hand. That's what he really meant
about it being a good credential. To an airline pilot, pilots fall
into three categories. Either you are an ATP, or you just don't have
the hours to be one yet but you're working on it, or you're not really
serious about being a pilot - and should not be taken seriously as
one. That seems harsh - but I bounced this thought off some of those
airline pilot friends of my friend, and they told me I basically had
it right. It's not that hard to get, and the fact that you don't have
one is telling. That you might have no use for one and thus no
interest in getting one never seems to cross their minds. Some people
drive fast, drink, or smoke because of peer pressure - I got my ATP.
I tell you this to give you some insight into the way Bertie probably
thinks of those who populate this group, and to somewhat explain why
he feels his rudeness is acceptable.

Michael

[george]

On May 25, 9:10 am, terry > wrote:

> yep, it killed one of our prime ministers ( Harold Holt in 1967 )
> Terry
> PPL Downunder

He should have gone swimming in gin :-)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Michael > wrote in
:

> On May 22, 8:12*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>> This is the most cogent explanation yet of MX's power over some of
>> the regulars here. *It perfectly explains how he -- a known non-pilot
>> -- is
> able
>> to throw many known pilots into apoplectic fits simply by posting a
>> few relatively innocuous comments.
>
> You know, MX is simply the far end of the curve. I've seen lots of
> students/potential students here asking questions. It was far from
> rare that they got incomplete, internally inconsistent, and otherwise
> problematic replies - almost invariably from certificated pilots.
> Those that had the temerity to question the reply caught ****. I
> guess they decided it wasn't worthwhile sticking around - they would
> find out what they needed from their instructors and other pilots at
> the airport. The sad thing is, these days that's likely not a bad
> bet. The average quality of the discussion here has degenerated to
> the point that it isn't any better than it is at the airport lounge -
> and the airport lounge is a good deal more civil.
>
> MX doesn't have that option, so he deals with usenet as it is. Here's
> how I see it. He asks questions that are, for the most part, entirely
> reasonable and on-topic. He gets a variety of replies, and the
> majority are incomplete, internally inconsistent, and/or contradict
> other sources. He points out the incompleteness, internal
> inconsistency, and contradiction. He argues that the reply must be
> wrong (often correctly). (Some of) the people who responded to him in
> the first place take umbrage at this - how dare he, a non-pilot,
> question their 'superior' knowledge. They become abusive, and he
> becomes abusive in return - though I must say he generally gives just
> a little less than he gets.
>
> It's pretty sad - handled correctly, these could be discussions that
> would be educational for many. It's always useful to examine what you
> think you know from a different perspective, and MX provides an
> interesting one. But what I've found is that as usenet became
> progressively less academic, the number of people interested in having
> their views challenged and examined, and of looking at what they think
> they know from a different perspective has shrunk to where they are a
> very small minority. Too bad - that's the only way you ever get to
> really understand anything.
>
>> Since you're on a roll, I'd love to hear your theories about Bertie.
>> *To
> me,
>> he is twice the mystery of MX, since he's obviously a real (or, at
>> least, former) pilot -- yet he has an apparently irresistable urge to
>> troll the group.
>
> That's a tougher one. MX has a somewhat rational motivation - to
> learn more about aviation without subjecting himself to the risk and
> expense of actually flying an aircraft. That makes him unusual here.
> Most of us have much fuzzier motivations. For example, what's my
> motivation? In a sense, I'm a troll too. I tell people things
> (usually about aviation, but in this thread about the aviation groups)
> that they don't particularly want to hear. I used to think I was
> actually teaching some people things they might need to know to get
> some utility out of their flying and survive the experience by
> dispelling some dangerous myths, but it gets harder and harder to
> believe that with every year. So why do I bother? I used to get
> intelligent and thoughtful people who would intelligently and
> thoughtfully argue with my positions, thus helping me clarify,
> correct, and solidify them, or occasionally discard some, but I don't
> really get that anymore either. It's a lot of effort to argue that
> way, and the people who were interested in making the effort are
> mostly gone from here. So what do I get out of being here? I think
> I'm mostly still here out of inertia - the way you will keep going
> someplace you've been going for many years, even though it has changed
> and the things that drew you there in the first place are all gone. I
> think Bertie is sort of in the same boat, but there is an interesting
> difference.
>
> You see, despite all my certificates and ratings, I am fundamentally a
> private pilot. I don't fly for a living, and though I do occasionally
> make a few bucks doing aviation odd jobs (instructing, ferrying
> airplanes, etc.) that's mostly because I think it's fun, and the
> pocket money is just a bonus. I suspect that Bertie, like most
> airline pilots, has a fundamental contempt for most private pilots.



Moi? Nope. I don;'t have contempt for private pilots at all. I am,
primarily, an amateur who hapens to make his living doing it too. i have
contempt for the ignorant, though. And by the ignorant, I mean that in
the truest sense of the word. Those who do not want to know...

I got my ATP.
> I tell you this to give you some insight into the way Bertie probably
> thinks of those who populate this group, and to somewhat explain why
> he feels his rudeness is acceptable.
>

You might notice I;m not rude to more than a select few and they, quite
literally, ask for it.


Bertie

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Michael wrote:

> You know, MX is simply the far end of the curve. I've seen lots of
> students/potential students here asking questions. It was far from
> rare that they got incomplete, internally inconsistent, and otherwise
> problematic replies - almost invariably from certificated pilots.
> Those that had the temerity to question the reply caught ****.

I can not remember once where a true student or a potential student that
caught **** in this forum.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On May 27, 4:49*pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > You know, MX is simply the far end of the curve. *I've seen lots of
> > students/potential students here asking questions. *It was far from
> > rare that they got incomplete, internally inconsistent, and otherwise
> > problematic replies - almost invariably from certificated pilots.
> > Those that had the temerity to question the reply caught ****. *
>
> I can not remember once where a true student or a potential student that
> caught **** in this forum.

I can:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/browse_frm/thread/b85a49e900a0c791

I am a student pilot who took ground school last year, and while
reading Jeppensen's Private Pilot textbook, found some minor
untruths. I went to the web to do more study, and was skeptical of
the backwash-causes-lift theory.

While I do not have any licenses in aviation, or formal training in
aerodynamics, I do know calculus, Newtonian physics, and theory of
gases, ...and the explanation simply did not make sense to me, not
even as a shallow-but-still-theoretically-truthful answer. You can
read the thread to see the type of responses I got. Many of the rude
responses were one-liners from people whom I'd never met, presumably
pilots. Others came from pilots who vacillated between being
thoughtful and being rude, and the remaining came from those
interrupted the thoughtful responses because they felt that being rude
was most prudent for all.

In the end, we never got very far in a real discussion.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

More_Flaps wrote:
> what dihydrogenoxide or calcium carbonate is...
>
>Cheers

Commonly known as:

Peanut Butter

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
:

> On May 27, 4:49*pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>> > You know, MX is simply the far end of the curve. *I've seen lots of
>> > students/potential students here asking questions. *It was far from
>> > rare that they got incomplete, internally inconsistent, and
>> > otherwise problematic replies - almost invariably from certificated
>> > pilots. Those that had the temerity to question the reply caught
>> > ****. *
>>
>> I can not remember once where a true student or a potential student
>> that caught **** in this forum.
>
> I can:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/browse_frm/thread
/
> b85a49e900a0c791
>
> I am a student pilot who took ground school last year, and while
> reading Jeppensen's Private Pilot textbook, found some minor
> untruths. I went to the web to do more study, and was skeptical of
> the backwash-causes-lift theory.
>
> While I do not have any licenses in aviation, or formal training in
> aerodynamics, I do know calculus, Newtonian physics, and theory of
> gases, ...and the explanation simply did not make sense to me, not
> even as a shallow-but-still-theoretically-truthful answer. You can
> read the thread to see the type of responses I got. Many of the rude
> responses were one-liners from people whom I'd never met, presumably
> pilots. Others came from pilots who vacillated between being
> thoughtful and being rude, and the remaining came from those
> interrupted the thoughtful responses because they felt that being rude
> was most prudent for all.
>
> In the end, we never got very far in a real discussion.
>


Because you don't discuss, fjukkwit.


Bertie
>

[gatt[_4_]]

Michael wrote:
> On May 22, 8:12 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>>It's always useful to examine what you
> think you know from a different perspective, and MX provides an
> interesting one.

No he doesn't. He's obtuse and clueless and when you answer his
questions for him civilly, he contradicts you.

Here is the mother of all MXisms;

"Traditionally the advantage of pornography is that it makes it
unnecessary to have sex with anybody." April 11, 2008


> For example, what's my motivation? In a sense, I'm a troll too. I
tell people things
> (usually about aviation, but in this thread about the aviation groups)
> that they don't particularly want to hear.

My motivation is to learn from others' experiences and to share mine
with those who might find it useful. I have tried repeatedly to answer
MX evenly an accurately, only to have him tell me that I'm wrong or I'm
dangerous, and then continue spouting nonsense to the student forum and
dodging any challenge for hard sources for his BS even when I site mine.

The difference between he and I, though, is that I've invested thousands
of dollars and countless hours learning the art and science of aviation,
proving myself to instructors and examiners, and earning the experience
in my logbook. His reply to me is "I've spent thousands of hours on
MSFS. How many hours do you have in IMC?" (Answer: Infinitely more
than he has, and yet he still tries to correct me and everybody else on
virtually ever point we make or question we answer.)

One significant difference between MX and Bertie is that, like him or
not, Bertie knows WTF he's talking about.

-c

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

gregvk > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g1hutc$354$1
> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>
>> You might notice I;m not rude to more than a select few and they,
>> quite literally, ask for it.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> If they're gonna call you rude when you're not, then pull out all the
> stops and become the rudest ******* ever.
>
> Might as well.
>

What, and sink to their level?!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

gregvk > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g1i2n3$cob$1
> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>
>> gregvk > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g1hutc$354$1
>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>>
>>>> You might notice I;m not rude to more than a select few and they,
>>>> quite literally, ask for it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> If they're gonna call you rude when you're not, then pull out all
>>> the stops and become the rudest ******* ever.
>>>
>>> Might as well.
>>>
>>
>> What, and sink to their level?!
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> To sink to their level, you'd need to have somebody beat you over the
> head with a brick until your IQ drops by about 50%.
>

I'm sure maxwell would love to try! He keeps throwing bubble wrap at me
though.


Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

Thanks for the insight into the ATP inner circle.


On Tue, 27 May 2008 14:23:35 -0700 (PDT), Michael
> wrote in
>:

>I tell you this to give you some insight into the way Bertie probably
>thinks of those who populate this group, and to somewhat explain why
>he feels his rudeness is acceptable.

There may be an element of intolerant sagacity, but you overlook one
very significant fact, in my opinion.

BTB, and the rest of his sociopathic band of nefarious Usenet kooks
are a gang of thugs engaged in a long standing evil war against decent
people; they mask their identity much the same as a bandit does, and
have the scruples of satanic pirates. Their prime objective is
destruction.

Their adolescent mission is to kill Usenet to validate their
cyber-power, and brag that they were powerful enough to overcome the
constructive efforts of thousands of selfless, dedicated Usenet
administrators throughout the world who philanthropically offer their
computer resources and time so that this most egalitarian forum may
exist. These are a group of destructive, arrogant hackers (not the
constructive type) who condone spamming, and HipCrime sporge floods.
These hoodlums defend their evil deeds with the noble shield of free
speech, all the while snickering and conniving. Make no mistake.

Consider this signature:

alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk

Member of:
Usenet Ruiner List
Top Assholes on the Net List
Most hated usenetizens of all time List
Cog in the AUK Hate Machine List


Don't be naive. Educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meow_Wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipcrime_%28Usenet%29

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

>
> Thanks for the insight into the ATP inner circle.

ATP inner circle? Snort!



>
>
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 14:23:35 -0700 (PDT), Michael
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>I tell you this to give you some insight into the way Bertie probably
>>thinks of those who populate this group, and to somewhat explain why
>>he feels his rudeness is acceptable.
>
> There may be an element of intolerant sagacity, but you overlook one
> very significant fact, in my opinion.
>
> BTB, and the rest of his sociopathic band of nefarious Usenet kooks
> are a gang of thugs engaged in a long standing evil war against decent
> people; they mask their identity much the same as a bandit does, and
> have the scruples of satanic pirates. Their prime objective is
> destruction.

Nope, Guess agian netkkkop.

>
> Their adolescent mission is to kill Usenet to validate their
> cyber-power,


Actually, that's your's.



and brag that they were powerful enough to overcome the
> constructive efforts of thousands of selfless, dedicated Usenet
> administrators throughout the world who philanthropically offer their
> computer resources and time so that this most egalitarian forum may
> exist. These are a group of destructive, arrogant hackers (not the
> constructive type) who condone spamming, and HipCrime sporge floods.
> These hoodlums defend their evil deeds with the noble shield of free
> speech, all the while snickering and conniving. Make no mistake.


Actually, i know more admins than meowers..
>
> Consider this signature:
>
> alt.usenet.kooks
> "We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
> Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]
>
> Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
> Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
> Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
> Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk
>
> Member of:
> Usenet Ruiner List
> Top Assholes on the Net List
> Most hated usenetizens of all time List
> Cog in the AUK Hate Machine List
>
>
> Don't be naive. Educate yourself:


Yeh, right. The only naive one is you halfwit.

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meow_Wars
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipcrime_%28Usenet%29
>


You have no idea of whence you speak Lar....

And to date all of your bul**** has only increased the heat...Just like
your moron friend Maxie...

Of course, if you are insisting, i could always provide a demo....




Waht say ye, Larry?

Wanna up the stakes?


The ball is firmly in your court.....



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

>
> Thanks for the insight into the ATP inner circle.
>
>
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 14:23:35 -0700 (PDT), Michael
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>I tell you this to give you some insight into the way Bertie probably
>>thinks of those who populate this group, and to somewhat explain why
>>he feels his rudeness is acceptable.
>
> There may be an element of intolerant sagacity, but you overlook one
> very significant fact, in my opinion.
>
> BTB, and the rest of his sociopathic band of nefarious Usenet kooks
> are a gang of thugs engaged in a long standing evil war against decent
> people; they mask their identity much the same as a bandit does, and
> have the scruples of satanic pirates. Their prime objective is
> destruction.
>
> Their adolescent mission is to kill Usenet to validate their
> cyber-power, and brag that they were powerful enough to overcome the
> constructive efforts of thousands of selfless, dedicated Usenet
> administrators throughout the world who philanthropically offer their
> computer resources and time so that this most egalitarian forum may
> exist. These are a group of destructive, arrogant hackers (not the
> constructive type) who condone spamming, and HipCrime sporge floods.
> These hoodlums defend their evil deeds with the noble shield of free
> speech, all the while snickering and conniving. Make no mistake.
>
> Consider this signature:
>
> alt.usenet.kooks
> "We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
> Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]
>
> Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
> Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
> Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
> Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk
>
> Member of:
> Usenet Ruiner List
> Top Assholes on the Net List
> Most hated usenetizens of all time List
> Cog in the AUK Hate Machine List
>
>
> Don't be naive. Educate yourself:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meow_Wars
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipcrime_%28Usenet%29
>

Oh, and BTW, up until now nobody i know uses any hipcrime software..


Up until now Lar.....




Bertie

[Jim Logajan]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> i have
> contempt for the ignorant, though. And by the ignorant, I mean that in
> the truest sense of the word. Those who do not want to know...
....
> You might notice I;m not rude to more than a select few and they, quite
> literally, ask for it.

Find a dictionary. Look up the definition of "literally". It doesn't mean
what you think it means.

You don't strike me as the sort of person who engages in self-contempt,
though. You are probably just confused by your own motivations and
rationalizations.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

gregvk > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g1i7bh$od5$1
> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>
>>> There may be an element of intolerant sagacity, but you overlook one
>>> very significant fact, in my opinion.
>>>
>>> BTB, and the rest of his sociopathic band of nefarious Usenet kooks
>>> are a gang of thugs engaged in a long standing evil war against
>>> decent people; they mask their identity much the same as a bandit
>>> does, and have the scruples of satanic pirates. Their prime
>>> objective is destruction.
>>
>> Nope, Guess agian netkkkop.
>
> Does Larry not realize that Agent (the newsreader he's using, if the
> "4ax" in his message ID is any indication) can make you and anyone
> else disappear from his screen with just a few mouse clicks?


Larry's a mindless, scaremongering netkkkop.
>
>> and brag that they were powerful enough to overcome the
>>> constructive efforts of thousands of selfless, dedicated Usenet
>>> administrators throughout the world who philanthropically offer
>>> their computer resources and time so that this most egalitarian
>>> forum may exist. These are a group of destructive, arrogant hackers
>>> (not the constructive type) who condone spamming, and HipCrime
>>> sporge floods. These hoodlums defend their evil deeds with the noble
>>> shield of free speech, all the while snickering and conniving. Make
>>> no mistake.
>>
>>
>> Actually, i know more admins than meowers..
>
> Spam seems to relatively rare on Usenet, these days. I mean *real*
> spam; i.e., the same message getting posted over and over again.
> (Larry seems like the sort of tool who defines "spam" as anything he
> doesn't like to see. Which is, as you know, quite incorrect.)


Yeah, I have seen it somewhere recently, but can;t remember where. In
any case. I've certainly never taken part in anythign remotely like a
denial of service attack.
>
> And when was the last time anyone saw a HipCrime flood? Seriously.
> Last time I can remember that being a big problem was like 8 or 9
> years ago.

I've seen one somewhere recently. Pretty lame one, but funny all the
same. I think the guy was leaving binaries down. Ones pretty mjuch
everyone would hate....
>
>>> Consider this signature:
>>>
>>> alt.usenet.kooks
>>> "We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
>>> Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]
>>>
>>> Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
>>> Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
>>> Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
>>> Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk
>>>
>>> Member of:
>>> Usenet Ruiner List
>>> Top Assholes on the Net List
>>> Most hated usenetizens of all time List
>>> Cog in the AUK Hate Machine List
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't be naive. Educate yourself:
>>
>>
>> Yeh, right. The only naive one is you halfwit.
>>
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meow_Wars
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipcrime_%28Usenet%29
>>>
>>
>>
>> You have no idea of whence you speak Lar....
>
> The ****in "Meow Wars" have been dead for like a decade.
>
> HipCrime is rarely, if ever, seen anywhere. It's probably only used
> when some lame troll gets spanked by whatever group he's trying to
> **** with and so decides to work out his butthurt by flooding it for
> revenge. But if/when it is used I guess it's either extremely
> localized or terminated so fast that hardly anyone notices.
>

Doesn't stop clueless Lar from whining about it, though, obviously. he's
very fond of straw man hype in order to underscore his non-points..
I doubt he's even seen a DOS attack.




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> i have
>> contempt for the ignorant, though. And by the ignorant, I mean that
>> in the truest sense of the word. Those who do not want to know...
> ...
>> You might notice I;m not rude to more than a select few and they,
>> quite literally, ask for it.
>
> Find a dictionary. Look up the definition of "literally". It doesn't
> mean what you think it means.
>

Oh it means exactly what I think it means. And I meant exactly what I
said.

> You don't strike me as the sort of person who engages in
> self-contempt, though. You are probably just confused by your own
> motivations and rationalizations.


Mebbe, but I doubt it. In any case, I'm not rationalising.



Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 28 May 2008 00:00:51 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote in >:

>Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks

[Jim Logajan]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> i have
>>> contempt for the ignorant, though. And by the ignorant, I mean that
>>> in the truest sense of the word. Those who do not want to know...
>> ...
>>> You might notice I;m not rude to more than a select few and they,
>>> quite literally, ask for it.
>>
>> Find a dictionary. Look up the definition of "literally". It doesn't
>> mean what you think it means.
>>
>
> Oh it means exactly what I think it means. And I meant exactly what I
> said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ilvy7Ob6fZ0

I think you made the common mistake of using "literally" when you meant
"figuratively". But maybe you didn't just totally futz that up and can show
me to be pathetically wrong. All you have to do is provide, say, a Google
Groups archive link to a message where some ignoramous posted to
rec.aviation.piloting and literally asked you to be rude to them. Of course
I'll be kind and not ask for proof that you got "literal" requests from
everyone you've been rude to (e.g. "Mxsmanic", Jay Honeck, "Maxwell", and
whoever else you rag on.)

[Jim Logajan]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> I don;t have to show anything.

Is there some sort of prize awarded when one gets a person to respond with
that sentence? Anybody know?

> Oh, yeah, the lame attempt at froup snipping...
>
> I wouldn't.

You give yourself good advice. Eliding groups from the Newsgroups header
isn't right for everyone - ask your doctor if it's right for you.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

gregvk > wrote in news:Xns9AABC96B422ADC169A47EE56072@
127.0.0.1:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g1icla$8o3$1
> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>
>> Jim Logajan > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> I don;t have to show anything.
>>>
>>> Is there some sort of prize awarded when one gets a person to
respond
>>> with that sentence? Anybody know?
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>>>
>>>> Oh, yeah, the lame attempt at froup snipping...
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't.
>>>
>>> You give yourself good advice. Eliding groups from the Newsgroups
>>> header isn't right for everyone - ask your doctor if it's right for
>>> you.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Moi? I never snip froups.
>>
>>
>> As to the "literal" thing. someone who jumps into a shark's mouth is
> not
>> wht you might call a figurative fjukkwit.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> "Jim Logjam" is a funny name.
>
> That's what I'd name my kid if I wanted to make sure he got teased by
> other kids to the point of turning into a word class loser with severe
> psychological problems.
>

hmm, it wouldn't help, would it?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

gregvk > wrote in news:Xns9AABCFF9AD6A6C169A47EE56072@
127.0.0.1:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g1idoe$bfd$1
> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>
>> gregvk > wrote in
news:Xns9AABC96B422ADC169A47EE56072
> @
>> 127.0.0.1:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g1icla$8o3$1
>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>
>>>> Jim Logajan > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>> I don;t have to show anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there some sort of prize awarded when one gets a person to
>> respond
>>>>> with that sentence? Anybody know?
>>>>
>>>> Of course.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, yeah, the lame attempt at froup snipping...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wouldn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> You give yourself good advice. Eliding groups from the Newsgroups
>>>>> header isn't right for everyone - ask your doctor if it's right
for
>>>>> you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Moi? I never snip froups.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As to the "literal" thing. someone who jumps into a shark's mouth
is
>>> not
>>>> wht you might call a figurative fjukkwit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> "Jim Logjam" is a funny name.
>>>
>>> That's what I'd name my kid if I wanted to make sure he got teased
by
>>> other kids to the point of turning into a word class loser with
severe
>>> psychological problems.
>>>
>>
>> hmm, it wouldn't help, would it?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> "Maxwell" would be another name that would guarantee nonstop ridicule.
>
>

kinda redundant in his case


Bertie

[Gezellig]

On Tue, 27 May 2008 16:49:40 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

> Michael wrote:
>
>> You know, MX is simply the far end of the curve. I've seen lots of
>> students/potential students here asking questions. It was far from
>> rare that they got incomplete, internally inconsistent, and otherwise
>> problematic replies - almost invariably from certificated pilots.
>> Those that had the temerity to question the reply caught ****.
>
> I can not remember once where a true student or a potential student that
> caught **** in this forum.

That's pathetically funny.

[Gezellig]

On Tue, 27 May 2008 22:49:51 -0500, Kevin Horner wrote:

>> While I do not have any licenses in aviation, or formal training in
>> aerodynamics, I do know calculus, Newtonian physics, and theory of
>> gases, ...and the explanation simply did not make sense to me, not
>> even as a shallow-but-still-theoretically-truthful answer.
>
> So is that supposed to make you especially qualified to know what the
> truth is? Are you the only person on the planet who knows calculus,
> Newtonian physics and the theory of gases?

Yeah, that's what he said, right?

[Gezellig]

On Tue, 27 May 2008 22:49:51 -0500, Kevin Horner wrote:

> Welcome to the Internet. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the
> kitchen.

Is that copyrighted? Can I use it? Will you sue, Sue?

[terry]

On May 27, 11:42*pm, Michael >
wrote:
> On May 22, 9:12*pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > Ph.D.?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Chemistry or?
>
> Chemical Engineering.

My boss is a chem eng. he said he would make an engineer out of me
one day.
I told him to **** off , I aint having no labotomy.
Terry
PhD Chemistry
( he's still the boss :<) )

[[email protected]]

On May 27, 8:31 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote :
>
> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> I don;t have to show anything.
>
> > Is there some sort of prize awarded when one gets a person to respond
> > with that sentence? Anybody know?
>
> Of course.
>
>
>
> >> Oh, yeah, the lame attempt at froup snipping...
>
> >> I wouldn't.
>
> > You give yourself good advice. Eliding groups from the Newsgroups
> > header isn't right for everyone - ask your doctor if it's right for
> > you.
>
> Moi? I never snip froups.
>
> As to the "literal" thing. someone who jumps into a shark's mouth is not
> wht you might call a figurative fjukkwit.
>
> Bertie

But he is dead meat, speaking metaphorically and ex cathedra from my
bellybutton.

[[email protected]]

On May 28, 6:10 am, Gezellig > wrote:
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 22:49:51 -0500, Kevin Horner wrote:
> >> While I do not have any licenses in aviation, or formal training in
> >> aerodynamics, I do know calculus, Newtonian physics, and theory of
> >> gases, ...and the explanation simply did not make sense to me, not
> >> even as a shallow-but-still-theoretically-truthful answer.
>
> > So is that supposed to make you especially qualified to know what the
> > truth is? Are you the only person on the planet who knows calculus,
> > Newtonian physics and the theory of gases?
>
> Yeah, that's what he said, right?

Figuratively perhaps, but not literally, virtually speaking.

[[email protected]]

On May 24, 2:46 pm, Buster Hymen > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > terry writes:
>
> >> Interesting. As a PhD in chemistry myself I would estimate the
> >> knowledge gap with someone with no special knowledge of chemistry to
> >> be about 1000 feet. As a pilot , PPL only, I estimate the knowledge
> >> gap between me and an average non pilot to be about 5000 feet. Now ,
> >> I am not an ATP but I do know a couple, and one of them even talks to
> >> me, as long there are no other ATPs around, and I estimate a gap of
> >> at least 35000 feet between them and me. That would put the gap
> >> between an ATP and an average non pilot at 40000 feet, so looks like
> >> you are wrong again Maxie.
>
> > Your logic is flawed. You've expressed an obvious opinion, and then
> > misconstrued it as fact.
>
> You're the one that's flawed, Anthony. You lack the mental capacity to
> understand what the OP said and, like a moron, assume it's flawed.
>
> Anthony, you don't know **** from shinola.

Is that literal or figurative ****?

And what is shinola? And why would anyone know this anymore anyway?

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On May 27, 10:49*pm, Kevin Horner > wrote:
> On May 27, 5:16 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > I am a student pilot who took ground school last year, and while
> > reading Jeppensen's Private Pilot textbook, found some minor
> > untruths. *I went to the web to do more study, and was skeptical of
> > the backwash-causes-lift theory.
>
> And what did you finally conclude?

No conclusion was made. We never got deep into a discussion.

> > While I do not have any licenses in aviation, or formal training in
> > aerodynamics, I do know calculus, Newtonian physics, and theory of
> > gases, ...and the explanation simply did not make sense to me, not
> > even as a shallow-but-still-theoretically-truthful answer.
>
> So is that supposed to make you especially qualified to know what the
> truth is? Are you the only person on the planet who knows calculus,
> Newtonian physics and the theory of gases?

No.

But as I stated, while I was not sure that I was right, the others
were sure that I was wrong.

> > You can
> > read the thread to see the type of responses I got. *Many of the rude
> > responses were one-liners from people whom I'd never met, presumably
> > pilots. Others came from pilots who vacillated between being
> > thoughtful and being rude, and the remaining came from those
> > interrupted the thoughtful responses because they felt that being rude
> > was most prudent for all.
>
> Welcome to the Internet. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the
> kitchen.

Sorry cannot. :)

I believe that, eventually, this group could be a forum for genuine
discussion about thinks like backwash and lift.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

terry wrote:

>I told him to **** off , I aint having no labotomy.
>Terry
>PhD Chemistry
>( he's still the boss :<) )

heeh hee thats kinds cute.

Chemist...

LABotomy...

thats kinda like a neurosurgeon "ain't havin' no lobotomy"

subtle, nice.

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Mxsmanic]

Kevin Horner writes:

> Are you the only person on the planet who knows calculus,
> Newtonian physics and the theory of gases?

No, but that's far more than most private pilots know.

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Horner writes:
>
> > Are you the only person on the planet who knows calculus,
> > Newtonian physics and the theory of gases?
>
> No, but that's far more than most private pilots know.

I'm curious to know how you have determined what 'most private pilots know'.

I suspect you don't even know a significant sample.

[Steve Foley]

"terry" > wrote in message
...

> I told him to **** off , I aint having no labotomy.

"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal labotomy."
-- Tom Waits

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> I have tried repeatedly to answer
> MX evenly an accurately, only to have him tell me that I'm wrong ...

If someone is indeed wrong, why is it a bad thing to tell him that?

> The difference between he and I, though, is that I've invested thousands
> of dollars and countless hours learning the art and science of aviation,
> proving myself to instructors and examiners, and earning the experience
> in my logbook.

No matter what a person has invested, that does not guarantee that he is
right, and he must still be willing to accept it when he is wrong.

For me, aviation is a discussion, not a struggle amongst egos.

[Jon]

On May 28, 12:44 pm, "Steve Foley" > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Kevin Horner writes:
>
> > > Are you the only person on the planet who knows calculus,
> > > Newtonian physics and the theory of gases?
>
> > No, but that's far more than most private pilots know.
>
> I'm curious to know how you have determined what 'most private pilots know'.

His only goal was to demonstrate that 'most' private pilots don't
know. That allows the chasm to be reduced to a mere 'gap' ;)

I'd guess the method used was to employ the theory of gases. After
all, everyone's got one, but his doesn't stink :P

> I suspect you don't even know a significant sample.

It's only significant when he posts it... from upon high...

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:
>
>> I have tried repeatedly to answer
>> MX evenly an accurately, only to have him tell me that I'm wrong ...
>
> If someone is indeed wrong, why is it a bad thing to tell him that?
>

Well if you knew the answer why did you ask the question, Anthony?


>> The difference between he and I, though, is that I've invested thousands
>> of dollars and countless hours learning the art and science of aviation,
>> proving myself to instructors and examiners, and earning the experience
>> in my logbook.
>
> No matter what a person has invested, that does not guarantee that he is
> right, and he must still be willing to accept it when he is wrong.
>
> For me, aviation is a discussion, not a struggle amongst egos.

There's your problem right there. Aviation is NOT a discussion. It is
the are and science of flying and by flying I mean using tools to
overcome gravity in a controlled and managed way.

[Bertie the Bunyip's more handsome brother via AviationKB.com]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
>For me, aviation is a discussion, not a struggle amongst egos.

for you aviation is sitting in front of a pc looking at pretty pictures,
fjukkwit.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200805/1

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip's more handsome brother via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe>
wrote in news:84d6d1b116658@uwe:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>>
>>For me, aviation is a discussion, not a struggle amongst egos.
>
> for you aviation is sitting in front of a pc looking at pretty pictures,
> fjukkwit.
>

Imitation is, after all...


But lay off my socks.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> I have tried repeatedly to answer
>> MX evenly an accurately, only to have him tell me that I'm wrong ...
>
> If someone is indeed wrong, why is it a bad thing to tell him that?
>
>> The difference between he and I, though, is that I've invested
>> thousands of dollars and countless hours learning the art and science
>> of aviation, proving myself to instructors and examiners, and earning
>> the experience in my logbook.
>
> No matter what a person has invested, that does not guarantee that he
> is right, and he must still be willing to accept it when he is wrong.
>
> For me, aviation is a discussion, not a struggle amongst egos.
>

No, for you aviaiton does not exist..

You don['t fly.



Bertie

[Buster Hymen]

wrote in
:

> On May 24, 2:46 pm, Buster Hymen > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > terry writes:
>>
>> >> Interesting. As a PhD in chemistry myself I would estimate the
>> >> knowledge gap with someone with no special knowledge of chemistry
>> >> to be about 1000 feet. As a pilot , PPL only, I estimate the
>> >> knowledge gap between me and an average non pilot to be about 5000
>> >> feet. Now , I am not an ATP but I do know a couple, and one of
>> >> them even talks to me, as long there are no other ATPs around,
>> >> and I estimate a gap of at least 35000 feet between them and me.
>> >> That would put the gap between an ATP and an average non pilot at
>> >> 40000 feet, so looks like you are wrong again Maxie.
>>
>> > Your logic is flawed. You've expressed an obvious opinion, and
>> > then misconstrued it as fact.
>>
>> You're the one that's flawed, Anthony. You lack the mental capacity
>> to understand what the OP said and, like a moron, assume it's flawed.
>>
>> Anthony, you don't know **** from shinola.
>
> Is that literal or figurative ****?
>
> And what is shinola? And why would anyone know this anymore anyway?
>

Literal or figurative, it doesn't matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinola

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Kevin Horner writes:
>
>> Are you the only person on the planet who knows calculus,
>> Newtonian physics and the theory of gases?
>
> No, but that's far more than most private pilots know.
>

They can fly a real airplane. You can't.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> I have tried repeatedly to answer
>> MX evenly an accurately, only to have him tell me that I'm wrong ...
>
> If someone is indeed wrong, why is it a bad thing to tell him that?
>
>> The difference between he and I, though, is that I've invested
>> thousands of dollars and countless hours learning the art and science
>> of aviation, proving myself to instructors and examiners, and earning
>> the experience in my logbook.
>
> No matter what a person has invested, that does not guarantee that he
> is right, and he must still be willing to accept it when he is wrong.
>
> For me, aviation is a discussion, not a struggle amongst egos.
>

For pilots aviation is about flying. Something your ego won't let you
begin to understand.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> I have tried repeatedly to answer
>> MX evenly an accurately, only to have him tell me that I'm wrong ...
>
> If someone is indeed wrong, why is it a bad thing to tell him that?
>
>> The difference between he and I, though, is that I've invested
>> thousands of dollars and countless hours learning the art and science
>> of aviation, proving myself to instructors and examiners, and earning
>> the experience in my logbook.
>
> No matter what a person has invested, that does not guarantee that he
> is right, and he must still be willing to accept it when he is wrong.
>
> For me, aviation is a discussion, not a struggle amongst egos.

For you, Anthony, aviation is about playing games on PC and yanking your
joy stick.

[terry]

On May 29, 2:46*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> gatt writes:
> > I have tried repeatedly to answer
> > MX evenly an accurately, only to have him tell me that I'm wrong ...
>
> If someone is indeed wrong, why is it a bad thing to tell him that?

Its not a bad thing at all, as long as you are sure the other person
is indeed wrong. But where you have gone wrong on this group is too
many times you have told people incorrectly that they were wrong, that
will really **** a lot of people off. And then to make it worse,
there have been people who would still take the time to explain to you
why you were wrong, and you would refuse to accept it or acknowledge
you were wrong. Come to think of it I cant recall a single time you
admitted you were wrong. You invariably try to weasel your way out of
it by changing the argument, or saying your reasoning applied to some
other situation that is out of context with the original discussion.
In other words, intellectual dishonesty. Example? would you like
to tell us again why we cant apply the ideal gas law to calculate the
air density of a parcel of air we want to fly in. And if you want to
make a total idiot of yourself why not crosspost it to sci.chem?
Terry
PPL Downunder

[terry]

On May 29, 2:41*am, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote:
> terry wrote:
> >I told him to **** off , I aint having no labotomy.
> >Terry
> >PhD Chemistry
> >( he's still the boss *:<) * *)
>
> heeh hee thats kinds cute.
>
> Chemist...
>
> LABotomy...
>
Nice pick up Cloudy. I cant take any credit for that one, my
spelling is terrable
Terry

[terry]

On May 29, 2:44*am, "Steve Foley" > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Kevin Horner writes:
>
> > > Are you the only person on the planet who knows calculus,
> > > Newtonian physics and the theory of gases?
>
> > No, but that's far more than most private pilots know.

So whats your point then? if you want to discuss Newtonian physics,
calculus and theory of gases there are more appropriate groups,

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:m8T_j.127893
> $TT4.127065@attbi_s22:
>
>>> Boy, this NG sure has gone quiet. Guess you woke people up ...
>>> finally.
>>
>> Everyone but the trolls have been out flying!
>>
>>:-)
>
> Yeh, right.
>
>
>
> Bertie

Oh that's right, you can't fly.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>>
>
> You might notice I;m not rude to more than a select few and they, quite
> literally, ask for it.
>
>
> Bertie

And you lie as fast as you can type.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:10l%j.23$U_5.13
@newsfe15.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:m8T_j.127893
>> $TT4.127065@attbi_s22:
>>
>>>> Boy, this NG sure has gone quiet. Guess you woke people up ...
>>>> finally.
>>>
>>> Everyone but the trolls have been out flying!
>>>
>>>:-)
>>
>> Yeh, right.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Oh that's right, you can't fly.
>

Oh no! He's insulting me by saying I don't fly!

:(


Me so hurt!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:X0l%j.24$U_5.15
@newsfe15.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>
>> You might notice I;m not rude to more than a select few and they,
quite
>> literally, ask for it.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> And you lie as fast as you can type.
>
>
>

Ask and you shall receive...



Bertie

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

terry wrote:
>>
>> LABotomy...
>
>Nice pick up Cloudy. I cant take any credit for that one, my
>spelling is terrable
>Terry

in your case, Terryble.

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> Oh no! He's insulting me by saying I don't fly!
>
> :(
>
>
> Me so hurt!
>
>
> Bertie

Oh cool, some more of that 3rd grade stuff you're world famous for. How
cool!! not.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

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

>>
>> And you lie as fast as you can type.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Ask and you shall receive...
>
>
>
> Bertie

I didn't ask for anything dumbass. Are you stoned again?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:_Rl%j.35$U_5.9
@newsfe15.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Oh no! He's insulting me by saying I don't fly!
>>
>> :(
>>
>>
>> Me so hurt!
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Oh cool, some more of that 3rd grade stuff you're world famous for.
How
> cool!! not.
>

Matters not. it's all about keeping th ek00k on the boil, k00kie boi....


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:NSl%j.36$U_5.8
@newsfe15.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>
>>> And you lie as fast as you can type.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Ask and you shall receive...
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I didn't ask for anything dumbass.


Oh yes you did! Don't worry about it though. You're incapable of seeing
that so don't let it bother your pointy head.

Are you stoned again?
>
>
>

Nope.

Oh, and BTW, everyone can see it but you. Therein lies the beauty...


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in news:84d93dd6a5c60@uwe:

> terry wrote:
>>>
>>> LABotomy...
>>
>>Nice pick up Cloudy. I cant take any credit for that one, my
>>spelling is terrable
>>Terry
>
> in your case, Terryble.
>

Go to your room.


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>>
>
> Matters not. it's all about keeping th ek00k on the boil, k00kie boi....
>
>
> Bertie

Lame and incorrect, D-.

Don't quit your day job.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Nope.
>
> Oh, and BTW, everyone can see it but you. Therein lies the beauty...
>
>
> Bertie

Lame and incorrect again, F.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in news:84d93dd6a5c60@uwe:
>
>> terry wrote:
>>>>
>>>> LABotomy...
>>>
>>>Nice pick up Cloudy. I cant take any credit for that one, my
>>>spelling is terrable
>>>Terry
>>
>> in your case, Terryble.
>>
>
> Go to your room.
>
>
> Bertie

You wish.,

[terry]

On May 29, 9:22*am, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote:
> terry wrote:
>
> >> LABotomy...
>
> >Nice pick up Cloudy. I *cant take any credit for that one, *my
> >spelling is terrable
> >Terry
>
> in your case, Terryble.

boom , boom
with the crap I go through at the airport you would think I was a
terryrist

[terry]

On May 29, 9:13*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:10l%j.23$U_5.13
> @newsfe15.lga:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:m8T_j.127893
> >> $TT4.127065@attbi_s22:
>
> >>>> Boy, this NG sure has gone quiet. *Guess you woke people up ...
> >>>> finally.
>
> >>> Everyone but the trolls have been out flying!
>
> >>>:-)
>
> >> Yeh, right.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Oh that's right, you can't fly.
>
> Oh no! He's insulting me by saying I don't fly!

He might be right, I have never heard of a flying bunyip.

Bunyip ( http://stason.org/TULARC/travel/australia/12-3-12-What-is-a-bunyip-BT.html)
Originally an Aboriginal legend. A bunyip is a creature which lives
in fresh or brackish waterways (rivers, billabongs, swamps, but not
the ocean). I believe that like most legendary creatures, it eats
humans........

Yep thats Bertie..

Also, there is a mechanical bunyip in the Murray Bridge caravan park.
If you insert 20 cents, (s)he will rise from the depths of his/her
caged pond, let rip with some terrifying roars, and subside. The
whole performance takes about a minute, and used to be a lot more
frightening when I was very young...

I can relate to that , you were very mean to me when I was only 44.
Terry

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

terry > wrote in
:

> On May 29, 9:13*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:10l%j.23$U_5.13
>> @newsfe15.lga:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:m8T_j.127893
>> >> $TT4.127065@attbi_s22:
>>
>> >>>> Boy, this NG sure has gone quiet. *Guess you woke people up ...
>> >>>> finally.
>>
>> >>> Everyone but the trolls have been out flying!
>>
>> >>>:-)
>>
>> >> Yeh, right.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Oh that's right, you can't fly.
>>
>> Oh no! He's insulting me by saying I don't fly!
>
> He might be right, I have never heard of a flying bunyip.
>
Ya have now.


> Bunyip (
> http://stason.org/TULARC/travel/australia/12-3-12-What-is-a-bunyip-
BT.h
> tml) Originally an Aboriginal legend. A bunyip is a creature which
> lives in fresh or brackish waterways (rivers, billabongs, swamps, but
> not the ocean). I believe that like most legendary creatures, it eats
> humans........
>
> Yep thats Bertie..
>
> Also, there is a mechanical bunyip in the Murray Bridge caravan park.
> If you insert 20 cents, (s)he will rise from the depths of his/her
> caged pond, let rip with some terrifying roars, and subside. The
> whole performance takes about a minute, and used to be a lot more
> frightening when I was very young...


Cool! If you insert 20 cents in me I'll just **** it away.
>
> I can relate to that , you were very mean to me when I was only 44.


Moi?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in
>> news:84d93dd6a5c60@uwe:
>>
>>> terry wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> LABotomy...
>>>>
>>>>Nice pick up Cloudy. I cant take any credit for that one, my
>>>>spelling is terrable
>>>>Terry
>>>
>>> in your case, Terryble.
>>>
>>
>> Go to your room.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You wish.,
>
>
>

Uh, yeh, sure k00kie boi.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:Fym%j.56$kR5.31
@newsfe24.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>>
>>
>> Matters not. it's all about keeping th ek00k on the boil, k00kie
boi....
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Lame and incorrect, D-.
>

Nope. Your smileys stink. BTW.



> Don't quit your day job.
>
>
>

I haven't.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:7zm%j.57$kR5.16
@newsfe24.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> Oh, and BTW, everyone can see it but you. Therein lies the beauty...
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Lame and incorrect again, F.
>
>
>

Nope. What is that someonw wiht boken glasses?


Bertie

[Michael[_1_]]

On May 28, 12:07*pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> I believe that, eventually, this group could be a forum for genuine
> discussion about thinks like backwash and lift.

You're just a few years late for that. That time came and went.

Michael

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> I believe that, eventually, this group could be a forum for genuine
> discussion about thinks like backwash and lift.

>You're just a few years late for that. That time came and went.

A few well-designed killfiles has returned this group to functionality, more
or less. Unfortunately the trolls have driven off so many of the real
pilots who once posted here that serious responses are still in short
supply.

I'd recommend starting a serious topic and seeing where it leads. The price
is certainly right...and you might be surprised.

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

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:IPy%j.185274$yE1.72669@attbi_s21:

>> I believe that, eventually, this group could be a forum for genuine
>> discussion about thinks like backwash and lift.
>
>>You're just a few years late for that. That time came and went.
>
> A few well-designed killfiles has returned this group to
> functionality, more or less. Unfortunately the trolls have driven off
> so many of the real pilots who once posted here that serious responses
> are still in short supply.
>
> I'd recommend starting a serious topic and seeing where it leads. The
> price is certainly right...and you might be surprised.
>

OK.


Bertie

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On May 29, 10:00*am, Kevin Horner > wrote:
> On May 28, 11:07 am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> > But as I stated, while I was not sure that I was right, the others
> > were sure that I was wrong.
>
> No, but are certain that the others are wrong when they say you are
> wrong. Your certainty about that implies that you (subconsciously) think
> you are right. I don't believe you when you say "I was not sure I was
> right" because you argue from a position of certainty, not uncertainty.
> If you were uncertain, you would be *much* more open-minded and willing
> to listen. This is the real reason you cannot get into a deep
> discussion: you won't listen to people who don't agree with your
> assertions.

I was more than willing to read explanations of how backwash causes
lift (and I still am). The problem is that most of the responses were
lacking in explanations based on scientific foundations. Saying "It's
true because it has always been true" does not count, IMO.

> You play the "I'm an electrical engineer and I know calculus" card well,
> but it is not enough to disprove the theory of lift.

Agreed, 100%. Many of the conflicting theories of lift were put forth
by people much skilled in these areas. I only say that to say that I
am readying and willing to hear details.

One person, I think Tina, gave a very vague explanation...too vague to
serve as an exposition. I was hoping for an explanation that would at
least past the standards of high school physics. Where are the forces
on the wing, and what elements generate those forces, in detail.

The explanation does not have to be complete, meaning, I do not expect
a full CFD exposition. A high school student who only knows basic
Newtonian physics and nothing about CFD, assuming s/he understands how
the lift is being generated, would be able to say where the particles
(air), the material (wing), and how the particles impart force on the
wing, and vice versa. Saying that there is lift because something
moves downward and therefore something must move upward is not an
example of Newton's theory of reciprocity. It's far too vague.

> Discussion about backwash and lift? To what end? Has anyone made you
> aware that flying machines have successfully been invented already?

Well, two reasons:

1. It is problably the centerpiece of any theory involving flight,
making it interesting in its own right.
2. If backwash does _not_ cause lift, then there might be something
else, and if there is something else (a bit if), there might be
opportunity for new types of aircraft, the kind that FAA has been
begging for for last 10 years.

> You want to discuss how the experts in lift theory must be wrong because
> lift is inconsistently explained by different sources. To get a
> discussion going, you will need to find a newsgroup filled with people
> who are also non-experts that want to talk about how the experts must be
> wrong. Good luck in finding it.

My suspicion derives from my own basic knowledge of physics. Again, if
someone decided to explain, I would be all ears.

As for the experts, if two experts conflict each other, who am I to
say which of them is wrong? And if there is conflict, they cannot both
be right.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> I'm curious to know how you have determined what 'most private pilots know'.

Private pilots are no different from the average person when it comes to
higher mathematics, physics, and gas theory, and the average person doesn't
know much of anything about these things. Therefore most pilots don't know
much of anything about these things, either. Simple logic.

> I suspect you don't even know a significant sample.

Not necessary. See above.

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> So whats your point then?

That someone who knows about these subjects is in a better position to discuss
them than someone who does not (the latter group including the average pilot).

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

> Well if you knew the answer why did you ask the question, Anthony?

I can exclude certain answers as obviously wrong without necessarily knowing
the correct answer.

For example, while I do not know the square root of ten to fifteen decimal
places off the top of my head, I do know that it is not four.

> There's your problem right there. Aviation is NOT a discussion.

You're entitled to your opinion. Perhaps you prefer a social club. I prefer
a science.

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> Its not a bad thing at all, as long as you are sure the other person
> is indeed wrong.

Why do I have to be sure? (Although I typically am.)

> But where you have gone wrong on this group is too
> many times you have told people incorrectly that they were wrong, that
> will really **** a lot of people off.

Why would I care about that? People who react in that way are reliably
stupid, and I'm not interested in talking to stupid people.

> And then to make it worse,
> there have been people who would still take the time to explain to you
> why you were wrong, and you would refuse to accept it or acknowledge
> you were wrong.

Examples?

> Come to think of it I cant recall a single time you admitted you
> were wrong.

That's because I'm not often wrong, but I admit it when it is the case.

> Example? would you like
> to tell us again why we cant apply the ideal gas law to calculate the
> air density of a parcel of air we want to fly in.

You cannot use the combined laws (note the nuance) because the volume of the
atmosphere is not constrained.

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> Therefore most pilots don't know
> much of anything about these things, either. Simple logic.

Sorry, that's faulty logic.

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

>
> That's because I'm not often wrong, but I admit it when it is the case.
>

I have seen quite a few examples where you were wrong. I have also pointed
these out.

You have NEVER admitted to being wrong in rec.aviation.piloting.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder writes:
>
>> There's your problem right there. Aviation is NOT a discussion.
>
> You're entitled to your opinion. Perhaps you prefer a social club. I prefer
> a science.

Interesting you snipped what I wrote after "Aviation is NOT a
discussion." I wrote "It is the art and science of flying and by flying
I mean using tools to overcome gravity in a controlled and managed way."

And yes there was a typo in the original but that matters not.

[terry]

On May 30, 5:34*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > Its not a bad thing at all, as long as you are sure the other person
> > is indeed wrong.
>
> Why do I have to be sure? *(Although I typically am.)

well if you are not sure, it would be polite to say so instead of
using your usual authorative tone, but that is an issue of normal
human interaction and ettiquette, I dont expect you would understand
that.

> > But where you have gone wrong on this group is too
> > many times you have told people incorrectly that they were wrong, that
> > will really **** a lot of people off.
>
> Why would I care about that? *People who react in that way are reliably
> stupid, and I'm not interested in talking to stupid people.

That pretty much says it all. You want people to help you but you
dont give a **** what they feel or how you treat them.
No wonder you live your life in front of a computer screeen, but I'm
guessing it wont be long before your computer even walks out on you.

> > And then to make it worse,
> > there have been people who would still take the time to explain to you
> > why you were wrong, and you would refuse to accept it or acknowledge
> > you were wrong.
>
> Examples?

I gave you an example, cacluculating the density of a parcel of
atmosphere from the gas laws. remember?
>
> > Come to think of it I cant recall a single time you admitted you
> > were wrong.
>
> That's because I'm not often wrong, but I admit it when it is the case.

I'd like to see that.

> > Example? * would you like
> > to tell us again why we cant apply the ideal gas law to calculate the
> > air density of a parcel of air we want to fly in.
>
> You cannot use the combined laws (note the nuance) because the volume of the
> atmosphere is not constrained.


PV=nRT
substitue n for m/M

gives m/V ( density ) = PM/RT

notice how volume is now removed from the equation?

so for any parcel of air where the pressure and temp are effectively
constant, ie like at an airport that might interest a pilot, you can
calculate density by simply knowing the pressure and temperature, this
can then be related to density height and performance of the
aircraft. Explain why the non constrainment effects that
relationship?

Of course most pilots dont get out the calcuator and do this
calculation, they use tables that do effectively the same thing. But
they use the measured pressure ( the altimeter is effectively a
pressure meter) and read outside temperature from the thermometer, and
then use tables to read off density altitude ( density) which would
give you the same result as if I measured the pressure with a
barometer, temperature with a thermometer and used the ideal gas
equation in the form as given above, to calculate density and then
refer this density to the ISA atmosphere.

I suggest you cross understanding of gas laws off your list of non
trivial knowldege

Terry
PPL Downunder

[Tina]

I doubt your statement regarding ptivate pilots.



€The average person does not know how to use a circular slide rule.
The average pilot does, The private pilot must solve wind triangles, a
form of vector analysis, must demonstrate some skill in navigation,
enough gas theory to understand the dynamics of weather systems,
enough physics to know about lapse rates, and so on. The average
person does not. You have not demonstrated that either to the extent a
student pilot must.

Poor Mx. Born with a silver foot in his mouth.


-- aOn May 29, 3:28 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Steve Foley writes:
> > I'm curious to know how you have determined what 'most private pilots know'.
>
> Private pilots are no different from the average person when it comes to
> higher mathematics, physics, and gas theory, and the average person doesn't
> know much of anything about these things. Therefore most pilots don't know
> much of anything about these things, either. Simple logic.
>
> > I suspect you don't even know a significant sample.
>
> Not necessary. See above.

[Onideus Mad Hatter]

On 28 May 2008 01:48:35 GMT, gregvk > wrote:

>Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g1icla$8o3$1
:
>
>> Jim Logajan > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> I don;t have to show anything.
>>>
>>> Is there some sort of prize awarded when one gets a person to respond
>>> with that sentence? Anybody know?
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>>>
>>>> Oh, yeah, the lame attempt at froup snipping...
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't.
>>>
>>> You give yourself good advice. Eliding groups from the Newsgroups
>>> header isn't right for everyone - ask your doctor if it's right for
>>> you.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Moi? I never snip froups.
>>
>>
>> As to the "literal" thing. someone who jumps into a shark's mouth is
>not
>> wht you might call a figurative fjukkwit.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>"Jim Logjam" is a funny name.
>
>That's what I'd name my kid if I wanted to make sure he got teased by
>other kids to the point of turning into a word class loser with severe
>psychological problems.

This from the retard whose parents named him "Greg". LOL, the only
"Greg" I ever knew was this portly, very pig liak (in looks) dip****
who sweat a lot and was always wheezing who hung out with this other
kid named "Frank" who smelled real bad and had runny snot leaking out
of his nose all the time.

Needless to say, both of them were relentlessly ridiculed for their
social disgraces, much in the same way you probably were. It of
course explains why you had to retard online looking to try and get
socially what you're too fumblingly ugly to get in the real world. On
teh Internet you can try and hide how pathetic you are (at least your
looks) which is just perfect for a "Greg" liak you. LOL

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog


Hatter Quotes
-------------
"Don't ever **** with someone who has more creativity than you do."

"You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the
best."

"I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you
with it."

"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."

"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."

"Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the **** up!"

"Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
bad."

"There are clingy things in the grass...burrs 'n such...mmmm..."

"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty ****ing high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."

"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."

"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you
don't get sent to me...I come for you."

"Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton
tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."

"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a
function?"

"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid.
Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast
indicates an increase in Webtv users."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )

[terry]

On May 30, 5:28*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Steve Foley writes:
> > I'm curious to know how you have determined what 'most private pilots know'.
>
> Private pilots are no different from the average person when it comes to
> higher mathematics, physics, and gas theory, and the average person doesn't
> know much of anything about these things. *Therefore most pilots don't know
> much of anything about these things, either. *Simple logic.

Thats a ridiculous statement and non logical at all. There are so
many barriers to gaining a pilots license ( as you would know) that it
would be self evident to any reasonable person that pilots ( even
private ones) must be skewed towards higher education , intelligence,
income and determination than the population as a whole ( ie your
average person). And by self evident ,I mean it should not require
any data to prove. One only has recognise several factors at play.
High intelligence , education , income and determination will will
not prevent a person from becoming a pilot, whereas a low rating in
any one of the above can certainly be a strong barrier to a person
becoming a pilot, thus the pilot population is naturally skewed and
your statement is incorrect.

Please cross statistics off your list of non trivial knowledge.
Terry

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> I'm curious to know how you have determined what 'most private pilots
>> know'.
>
> Private pilots are no different from the average person when it comes
> to higher mathematics, physics, and gas theory, and the average person
> doesn't know much of anything about these things. Therefore most
> pilots don't know much of anything about these things, either. Simple
> logic.
>
>> I suspect you don't even know a significant sample.
>
> Not necessary. See above.

And you, Anthony, don't know anything about everything. This puts you way,
way below the knowledge level of the average person. In fact, it puts you
way, way below the knowledge level of the average moron.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> terry writes:
>
>> So whats your point then?
>
> That someone who knows about these subjects is in a better position to
> discuss them than someone who does not (the latter group including the
> average pilot).
>

Since you don't know anything about everything, Anthony, why the hell are
you trying to discuss any subject?

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601Xl Builder writes:
>
>> Well if you knew the answer why did you ask the question, Anthony?
>
> I can exclude certain answers as obviously wrong without necessarily
> knowing the correct answer.
>
> For example, while I do not know the square root of ten to fifteen
> decimal places off the top of my head, I do know that it is not four.

Wrong again, Anthony. You missed a key requirement for that statement.
Lacking that requirement, the square root of 10 is 4. Easily provable to
anyone who isn't a moron. Ooops, that leaves you out.

>> There's your problem right there. Aviation is NOT a discussion.
>
> You're entitled to your opinion. Perhaps you prefer a social club. I
> prefer a science.
>

No, you prefer to see how green you can get the grass around your home by
spewing bull ****.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601Xl Builder writes:
>
>> Well if you knew the answer why did you ask the question, Anthony?
>
> I can exclude certain answers as obviously wrong without necessarily
> knowing the correct answer.
>
> For example, while I do not know the square root of ten to fifteen
> decimal places off the top of my head, I do know that it is not four.
>

Wrong answer. The square root of 10 to 15 exactly 4.

The simple proof is left as an exercise for MX.

[Benjamin Dover]

Benjamin Dover > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Gig 601Xl Builder writes:
>>
>>> Well if you knew the answer why did you ask the question, Anthony?
>>
>> I can exclude certain answers as obviously wrong without necessarily
>> knowing the correct answer.
>>
>> For example, while I do not know the square root of ten to fifteen
>> decimal places off the top of my head, I do know that it is not four.
>>
>
> Wrong answer. The square root of 10 to 15 exactly 4.
>
> The simple proof is left as an exercise for MX.
>
>
>

Ooops. Fixing a typo.

The square root of 10 is exactly 4.
The very simple proof is left to MX.

[Mxsmanic]

Tina writes:

> ¤The average person does not know how to use a circular slide rule.
> The average pilot does, The private pilot must solve wind triangles, a
> form of vector analysis, must demonstrate some skill in navigation,
> enough gas theory to understand the dynamics of weather systems,
> enough physics to know about lapse rates, and so on. The average
> person does not.

All of these skills are trivial and largely unrelated to those I mentioned.

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> Thats a ridiculous statement and non logical at all. There are so
> many barriers to gaining a pilots license ( as you would know) that it
> would be self evident to any reasonable person that pilots ( even
> private ones) must be skewed towards higher education , intelligence,
> income and determination than the population as a whole ( ie your
> average person).

That's wishful thinking. While there is surely some bias in favor of higher
intelligence, it's overly optimistic to assume that this bias is significant,
even in airline pilots.

Anyone can learn to fly an aircraft by rote.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> I have seen quite a few examples where you were wrong. I have also pointed
> these out.

You've disagreed with me, nothing more.

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> well if you are not sure, it would be polite to say so instead of
> using your usual authorative tone ...

There's nothing authoritative about my tone.

> That pretty much says it all. You want people to help you but you
> dont give a **** what they feel or how you treat them.

I care much more about them than they do about me.

> I gave you an example, cacluculating the density of a parcel of
> atmosphere from the gas laws.

You just plug in the numbers and do the arithmetic by rote for most
calculations. Nothing particularly advanced or difficult about that.

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> I have seen quite a few examples where you were wrong. I have also
>> pointed
>> these out.
>
> You've disagreed with me, nothing more.

The 'disagreement' that comes to mind was when you were applying the
incorrect trigonometric function to a vector analysis problem.

I guess you can simply re-define anything you choose. Unfortunately, the
civilized world will probably disagree with your definitions as well.

[terry]

On May 31, 1:02*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > well if you are not sure, it would be polite to say so instead of
> > using your usual authorative tone ...
>
> There's nothing authoritative about my tone.
>
> > That pretty much says it all. *You want people to help you but you
> > dont give a **** what they feel or how you treat them.
>
> I care much more about them than they do about me.
>
> > I gave you an example, cacluculating the density of a parcel of
> > atmosphere from the gas laws.
>
> You just plug in the numbers and do the arithmetic by rote for most
> calculations. *Nothing particularly advanced or difficult about that.

I neither said it was advanced or difficult, only that it was correct,
and obvious to anyone with a basic grasp of the gas laws. In fact it
was I who made the point in my original thread that it was nothing
more than high school science. But the point is you claimed ( again)
to know what you really didnt. My gut feel is that you probably do
understand you were wrong now, but as I said in my previous post and
others have noted ad nauseum, you will not admit to being wrong. You
have confirmed this once again. And yes Anthony , I do arithmetic by
rote. How do you do arithmetic, by first principles?
Terry
PPL Downunder





Terry

[Lorrill Buyens]

On Thu, 29 May 2008 15:36:35 -0800, Temporal Voyager Onideus Mad Hatter
>, in a desperate attempt to change the
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk timestream, said:

>On 28 May 2008 01:48:35 GMT, gregvk > wrote:
>
>>Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g1icla$8o3$1
:
>>
>>> Jim Logajan > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>> I don;t have to show anything.
>>>>
>>>> Is there some sort of prize awarded when one gets a person to respond
>>>> with that sentence? Anybody know?
>>>
>>> Of course.

>>>>> Oh, yeah, the lame attempt at froup snipping...
>>>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't.
>>>>
>>>> You give yourself good advice. Eliding groups from the Newsgroups
>>>> header isn't right for everyone - ask your doctor if it's right for you.

>>> Moi? I never snip froups.

>>> As to the "literal" thing. someone who jumps into a shark's mouth is not
>>> wht you might call a figurative fjukkwit.

>>"Jim Logjam" is a funny name.
>>
>>That's what I'd name my kid if I wanted to make sure he got teased by
>>other kids to the point of turning into a word class loser with severe
>>psychological problems.
>
>This from the retard whose parents named him "Greg".

Like a guy who named *himself* "Onideus" has any room to complain.

>On teh Internet you can try and hide how pathetic you are

And yet Matty fails completely at it, *every ****ing time*.


--
Lorrill Buyens
MHM: 9x1; Smeeter: #21; WSD: #3; Gutter Chix0r: #19
Alcatroll Labs; Sex, Drugs and Rock 'n' Roll Division

"dsysm, its sooooo smooth and clesr."
- Dave Hillstrom's ringing endorsement of mead, in
aav3f

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> The 'disagreement' that comes to mind was when you were applying the
> incorrect trigonometric function to a vector analysis problem.

Which problem was that?

I know that when people learn something by rote, they often will not recognize
equally valid statements of the theory behind what they've learned. I've seen
this happen even with extremely experienced pilots. They learn something by
rote, you give a theoretical explanation thereof that they've never heard, and
since they don't know any underlying theory themselves (remember, they learned
by rote), they think the theory is wrong. It would be amusing if it were not
so unfortunate.

> I guess you can simply re-define anything you choose. Unfortunately, the
> civilized world will probably disagree with your definitions as well.

There are lots of stupid people in the world, and lots of people who are
familiar with rote learning only. Rote learning is what allows the majority
of the population to survive in a technologically complex world.

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> And yes Anthony , I do arithmetic by
> rote. How do you do arithmetic, by first principles?

I've at least examined it theoretically.

Anyway, all the air pressure on our planet results from gravity, not
temperature or confinement or anything else.

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> I know that when people learn something by rote, they often will not
> recognize
> equally valid statements of the theory behind what they've learned.

I didn't learn math and physics by rote.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> I didn't learn math and physics by rote.

So?

[terry]

On May 31, 5:51*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > And yes Anthony , I do arithmetic by
> > rote. *How do you do arithmetic, by first principles?
>
> I've at least examined it theoretically.
>
> Anyway, all the air pressure on our planet results from gravity, not
> temperature or confinement or anything else.

I dont doubt you analysed it Anthony, but you still havent seen, or
aren't willing to admit , that you had it all wrong. Now what has the
SOURCE of the air pressure got to do with the discussion ? Change of
subject no 3.
Last chance Anthony. Why would the non containment of the atmosphere
prevent the ideal gas law in its form used by me not allow one to
calculate the air density in the vicinity of an airport? That is
what you have stated twice remember Anthony?

[terry]

On May 31, 5:50*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Steve Foley writes:
> > The 'disagreement' that comes to mind was when you were applying the
> > incorrect trigonometric function to a vector analysis problem.
>
> Which problem was that?
>
> I know that when people learn something by rote, they often will not recognize
> equally valid statements of the theory behind what they've learned. *I've seen
> this happen even with extremely experienced pilots. *They learn something by
> rote, you give a theoretical explanation thereof that they've never heard, and
> since they don't know any underlying theory themselves (remember, they learned
> by rote), they think the theory is wrong. *It would be amusing if it were not
> so unfortunate.
>
> > I guess you can simply re-define anything you choose. Unfortunately, the
> > civilized world will probably disagree with your definitions as well.
>
> There are lots of stupid people in the world, and lots of people who are
> familiar with rote learning only. *Rote learning is what allows the majority
> of the population to survive in a technologically complex world.

Yes Anthony there are lots of stupid people in the world, and people
who can understand complex theory are definately in the minority, and
as such they are highly respected people who will be in high demand
and found in well paying jobs or self employment. Stupid people are
mostly unemployed, or do low paid menial work or are just
unemployable, and fortunately they dont fly planes.

[Mike Isaksen]

"terry" wrote at the end of a useless discussion with MX...
>
> ... Stupid people are mostly unemployed, or do low
> paid menial work, or are just unemployable, and
> fortunately they don't fly planes.
>

See,... there you go. You got yourself mad and dizzy at the same time.
That's the MX dance. So sad to see so many victims.

Best advice:
Don't mud wrestle with a pig. You get all dirty,... and the pig really likes
it.

[terry]

On Jun 1, 2:16*pm, "Mike Isaksen" > wrote:
> "terry" wrote at the end of a useless discussion with MX...
>
>
>
> > *... Stupid people are mostly unemployed, or do low
> > *paid menial work, or are just unemployable, and
> > *fortunately they don't fly planes.
>
> See,... there you go. You got yourself mad and dizzy at the same time.
> That's the MX dance. So sad to see so many victims.
>
> Best advice:
> Don't mud wrestle with a pig. You get all dirty,... and the pig really likes
> it.
I am not mad at all Mike, nor do I consider myself a victim. Its
just a personal challenge I have set myself to see if it is possible
to get Mx to admit that he is wrong. A bit of an experiment if you
like. I find him an interesting character and have changed my mind
about him a couple of times. I was orignially one of those who
thought he was being hard done by on this group. For the record I
dont think Mxs is a troll at all, I think he has a genuine interest in
aviation, and I would be more than happy to assist him in his
endeavours to learn more, if only he wasnt , to use his own word,
refractory to reason, and would show at least a modicom of common
manners to those who try to help him. I stand by my comments about
stupid people , but notice I didnt actually call Mxs a stupid person,
I left that for him to ponder himself.
Terry
PPL

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> Yes Anthony there are lots of stupid people in the world, and people
> who can understand complex theory are definately in the minority, and
> as such they are highly respected people who will be in high demand
> and found in well paying jobs or self employment.

You're two-thirds correct. While intelligence or acquired skills do generally
correlate well with material success, they are hardly a guarantee. There are
many stupid and incompetent people occupying highly-paid jobs, and there are
many competent and intelligent people who cannot find jobs.

If the correlation were complete, someone like Stephen Hawking, a respected
and competent scientist, would be making far more than someone like Carly
Fiorina, who was paid $45 million as reward for being fired and nearly driving
HP into bankruptcy.

> Stupid people are
> mostly unemployed, or do low paid menial work or are just
> unemployable, and fortunately they dont fly planes.

There's a threshold of intelligence required to fly an airplane, but it's not
as high as many pilots like to believe.

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> I dont doubt you analysed it Anthony, but you still havent seen, or
> aren't willing to admit , that you had it all wrong. Now what has the
> SOURCE of the air pressure got to do with the discussion?

A great deal. Without gravity, air pressure would be zero, and volume would
be infinite.

[Tina]

On Jun 1, 5:37 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > I dont doubt you analysed it Anthony, but you still havent seen, or
> > aren't willing to admit , that you had it all wrong. Now what has the
> > SOURCE of the air pressure got to do with the discussion?
>
> A great deal. Without gravity, air pressure would be zero, and volume would
> be infinite.

Well, no. The gas 'laws' are approximations and fail to be predictive
except within certain ranges, just as Newtonian physics are valid only
in certain ranges..

[terry]

On Jun 1, 7:37*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > I dont doubt you analysed it Anthony, *but you still havent seen, or
> > aren't willing to admit , that you had it all wrong. *Now what has the
> > SOURCE of the air pressure got to do with the discussion?
>
> A great deal. *Without gravity, air pressure would be zero, and volume would
> be infinite.

Slithering away again Anthony, what was the real challenge put to
you?

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> terry writes:
>
>> Yes Anthony there are lots of stupid people in the world, and people
>> who can understand complex theory are definately in the minority, and
>> as such they are highly respected people who will be in high demand
>> and found in well paying jobs or self employment.
>
> You're two-thirds correct. While intelligence or acquired skills do
> generally correlate well with material success, they are hardly a
> guarantee. There are many stupid and incompetent people occupying
> highly-paid jobs, and there are many competent and intelligent people
> who cannot find jobs.
>
> If the correlation were complete, someone like Stephen Hawking, a
> respected and competent scientist, would be making far more than
> someone like Carly Fiorina, who was paid $45 million as reward for
> being fired and nearly driving HP into bankruptcy.
>
>> Stupid people are
>> mostly unemployed, or do low paid menial work or are just
>> unemployable, and fortunately they dont fly planes.
>
> There's a threshold of intelligence required to fly an airplane, but
> it's not as high as many pilots like to believe.
>

Anthony, you're just slithering to avoid explaining why you are such a
failure in life.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Jun 1, 3:04 am, Tina > wrote:
> On Jun 1, 5:37 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > terry writes:
> > > I dont doubt you analysed it Anthony, but you still havent seen, or
> > > aren't willing to admit , that you had it all wrong. Now what has the
> > > SOURCE of the air pressure got to do with the discussion?
>
> > A great deal. Without gravity, air pressure would be zero, and volume would
> > be infinite.

As a student pilot, if you have no gravity, you could
have smaller wings on your airplane, right?

> Well, no. The gas 'laws' are approximations and fail to be predictive
> except within certain ranges, just as Newtonian physics are valid only
> in certain ranges..

Doing wing sectional sims, I used the centrifugal
force of the displaced air over the wing surfaces.
It is a fairly simple algorithm, in accord with physics,
and works surprisingly well.
It also stalls well, since Energy=Force x distance,
and once the airstream kinetic energy is bled off,
the airstream reverses and follows the wing to
give turbulence. Good Stuff.
Ken

[Mxsmanic]

Ken S. Tucker writes:

> As a student pilot, if you have no gravity, you could
> have smaller wings on your airplane, right?

Without gravity, wings serve little purpose.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Jun 1, 12:07 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker writes:
> > As a student pilot, if you have no gravity, you could
> > have smaller wings on your airplane, right?
>
> Without gravity, wings serve little purpose.

But you'd still need to steer, right?

[Some Other Guy]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Carly Fiorina

Please don't use foul language in this newsgroup.

[More_Flaps]

On Jun 2, 3:07*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> Doing wing sectional sims, I used the centrifugal
> force of the displaced air over the wing surfaces.
> It is a fairly simple algorithm, in accord with physics,
> and works surprisingly well.

A fictional force for a fictional calcullation. Sounds about right.

LOL

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Jun 1, 3:04 am, Tina > wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 5:37 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>> > terry writes:
>> > > I dont doubt you analysed it Anthony, but you still havent seen,
>> > > or aren't willing to admit , that you had it all wrong. Now what
>> > > has the SOURCE of the air pressure got to do with the discussion?
>>
>> > A great deal. Without gravity, air pressure would be zero, and
>> > volume would be infinite.
>
> As a student pilot, if you have no gravity, you could
> have smaller wings on your airplane, right?
>
>> Well, no. The gas 'laws' are approximations and fail to be predictive
>> except within certain ranges, just as Newtonian physics are valid
>> only in certain ranges..
>
> Doing wing sectional sims, I used the centrifugal
> force of the displaced air over the wing surfaces.
> It is a fairly simple algorithm, in accord with physics,
> and works surprisingly well.
> It also stalls well, since Energy=Force x distance,
> and once the airstream kinetic energy is bled off,
> the airstream reverses and follows the wing to
> give turbulence. Good Stuff.


Good grief.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:bafc87a0-1671-4ee5-
:

> On Jun 1, 12:07 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker writes:
>> > As a student pilot, if you have no gravity, you could
>> > have smaller wings on your airplane, right?
>>
>> Without gravity, wings serve little purpose.
>
> But you'd still need to steer, right?
>

Where have you got to go?



Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:Fym%j.56$kR5.31
> @newsfe24.lga:
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>>>
>>>
>>> Matters not. it's all about keeping th ek00k on the boil, k00kie
> boi....
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Lame and incorrect, D-.
>>
>
> Nope. Your smileys stink. BTW.
>
>
>
>> Don't quit your day job.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I haven't.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in
>>> news:84d93dd6a5c60@uwe:
>>>
>>>> terry wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LABotomy...
>>>>>
>>>>>Nice pick up Cloudy. I cant take any credit for that one, my
>>>>>spelling is terrable
>>>>>Terry
>>>>
>>>> in your case, Terryble.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Go to your room.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> You wish.,
>>
>>
>>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>

Dumb ass.
>
>
>
>
>
>

>

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:7zm%j.57$kR5.16
> @newsfe24.lga:
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Oh, and BTW, everyone can see it but you. Therein lies the beauty...
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Lame and incorrect again, F.
>>
>>
>>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>