I give up, after many, many years!

[Jay Somerset]

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)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
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!

Sorry to see you go.

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

[Lou]

On May 11, 11:50 am, Bob Noel >
wrote:
> In article >,
> Jay Somerset > wrote:
farewell to
> > those few remaining sensible contributors. I admire your patience and
> > tolerance. Mine have given out!
>

Sorry to see you go Jay, It's not our patience that keeps us here,
it's the lack of life and the cost of fuel.
Lou

[Shirl]

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!

I agree with your sentiments. I haven't posted often and am, in the big
picture, a relatively "new" pilot (licensed in 2003). I have been
appreciative over the years -- the group has offered some
thought-provoking topics that resulted in RL discussions, exchange of
opinions/experiences, and ultimately some very useful knowledge.

It had been easy to spot and ignore the "crap and backbiting". On my
newsreader, I see the number of posts first, and I always think,
"great...lots of new, interesting material" ... until the actual *list*
of topics comes up, and of late it's easy to see that 95% are a couple
of people exchanging insults ad nauseam. A few who actually have some
useful info won't quit unless they have the last word, so there are 50
exchanges of one-line name-calling insults. After the first one, what's
the point?

So now the useful stuff to people who are still interested in coming
here to learn something or to share something is BURIED. I agree with
you about feeling that it's not worth the effort sometimes.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Shirl > wrote in news:Xmnushal8y-
:

> 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!
>
> I agree with your sentiments. I haven't posted often and am, in the
big
> picture, a relatively "new" pilot (licensed in 2003). I have been
> appreciative over the years -- the group has offered some
> thought-provoking topics that resulted in RL discussions, exchange of
> opinions/experiences, and ultimately some very useful knowledge.
>
> It had been easy to spot and ignore the "crap and backbiting". On my
> newsreader, I see the number of posts first, and I always think,
> "great...lots of new, interesting material" ... until the actual
*list*
> of topics comes up, and of late it's easy to see that 95% are a couple
> of people exchanging insults ad nauseam. A few who actually have some
> useful info won't quit unless they have the last word, so there are 50
> exchanges of one-line name-calling insults. After the first one,
what's
> the point?
>

It's a zen thing.

Kinda like the story where the master whacks the student's finger off?

I reckon that Maxie banging his head endlessly against the wall will
eventually enlighten him to something, if not the ultimate truth.

And if not, he's just plain funny.


> So now the useful stuff to people who are still interested in coming
> here to learn something or to share something is BURIED. I agree with
> you about feeling that it's not worth the effort sometimes.
>
Well, i;m not posting much of interest these days anyway, unless you
enjoy Maxie fjukking hissef over as much as I do., so just killfile me
for th etime being and most everything else should fall into place.

I don't think you'd miss too much killfiling Maxie either. Even when
he's on topic he's pretty useless IMO>


Bertie

[Blakesy]

On Sun, 11 May 2008 11:21:57 -0700, Shirl wrote in
>:

> of late it's easy to see that 95% are a couple
> of people exchanging insults ad nauseam.

What makes you think they are not the same person?

[Shirl]

Shirl wrote:
> > of late it's easy to see that 95% are a couple
> > of people exchanging insults ad nauseam.

Blakesy:
> What makes you think they are not the same person?

LOL ... I just can't imagine having the kind of time (or energy!) to be
the insulter AND the insultee in some of these exchanges that go on
*forever* with nothing but one-line insults. But ... you're right, takes
all kinds, and that's a possibility.
;-)

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>I give up -- not flying -- but subscribing to this NG.

Sorry to see you go, Jay. I've enjoyed your posts, and hope you can make it
to OSH this year.

I still find some utility in this group, but no longer recommend it to new
or aspiring pilots. I find myself spending more and more time on moderated
groups that don't tolerate anonymous trolls.

Check back from time to time. This, too, shall pass.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Andrew Sarangan]

On May 11, 6:18 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >I give up -- not flying -- but subscribing to this NG.
>
> Sorry to see you go, Jay. I've enjoyed your posts, and hope you can make it
> to OSH this year.
>
> I still find some utility in this group, but no longer recommend it to new
> or aspiring pilots. I find myself spending more and more time on moderated
> groups that don't tolerate anonymous trolls.
>
> Check back from time to time. This, too, shall pass.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Same here. I don't take seriously any posters who use handles instead
of their real names.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

On Sun, 11 May 2008 15:53:27 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Sarangan
> wrote:

>Same here. I don't take seriously any posters who use handles instead
>of their real names.


Or a handle that sounds like a real name?

Like "Barry Sarangan" or "Barry Dighera"? ;^)

Maybe with a free, throwaway email address that matches?

Think about it... Anybody can have a "real" name online. Once upon a
time, I used my whole real name.

I still post with my real first name, and there are plenty of folks
here who have met me in person. Some are from my home base, tied down
a few spots away. I'll gladly provide my real name in private
conversation where circumstances warrant, and when meeting other
"real" folks.

However, there are now enough nut jobs out there where it's often not
a good idea to use a real name, tail number, etc... on the open 'net.
I'm in the phone book, etc... as I LIKE being accessible to lost
friends, etc... But it isn't worth dealing with a nut case over a
USENET debate.

I base my treatment of posters on posting history as it lodges in my
memory.

---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------

[Shirl]

Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> I don't take seriously any posters who use handles instead
> of their real names.

That's a little extreme, IMO ... I don't think a person should have to
use their real name to be taken seriously. Some people aren't
comfortable using their real names, and in many instances, with just
cause. I think it's more important how people conduct themselves than
whether or not they use their real names ... but ... to each, his own.

[Tina]

Character, it's been said, is what you do when no one is watching.
These days on the 'net it's demonstrated in other ways. Oh well.

[Tina]

Character, it's been said, is what you do when no one is watching.
These days on the 'net it's demonstrated in other ways. Oh well.




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)

[Lou]

On May 11, 6:16 pm, Shirl > wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> > I don't take seriously any posters who use handles instead
> > of their real names.
>
> That's a little extreme, IMO ... I don't think a person should have to
> use their real name to be taken seriously. Some people aren't
> comfortable using their real names, and in many instances, with just
> cause. I think it's more important how people conduct themselves than
> whether or not they use their real names ... but ... to each, his own.

Case in point? The people that got sued by Zoom for posting
on Usenet.
Lou

[Andrew Sarangan]

On May 11, 7:16 pm, Shirl > wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> > I don't take seriously any posters who use handles instead
> > of their real names.
>
> That's a little extreme, IMO ... I don't think a person should have to
> use their real name to be taken seriously. Some people aren't
> comfortable using their real names, and in many instances, with just
> cause. I think it's more important how people conduct themselves than
> whether or not they use their real names ... but ... to each, his own.

You do have a point because legitimate posts also come from anonymous
posters. But if you browse the topics, nearly all inflammatory posts
come from people whose names are fake, and people with real names have
rarely made such posts, although there are exceptions. Anonymity is
critical in some newsgroups, such as abuse, drugs etc.. In aviation
there might be an occasional need for anonymity, to discuss accidents
or similar things. But for just plain shooting the breeze, as we often
do in this group, I don't see anonymity as a basic requirement.

[Shirl]

Shirl:
> > That's a little extreme, IMO ... I don't think a person should have to
> > use their real name to be taken seriously. Some people aren't
> > comfortable using their real names, and in many instances, with just
> > cause. I think it's more important how people conduct themselves than
> > whether or not they use their real names ... but ... to each, his own.

Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> You do have a point because legitimate posts also come from anonymous
> posters. But if you browse the topics, nearly all inflammatory posts
> come from people whose names are fake, and people with real names have
> rarely made such posts, although there are exceptions.

I agree with that.

> Anonymity is
> critical in some newsgroups, such as abuse, drugs etc.. In aviation
> there might be an occasional need for anonymity, to discuss accidents
> or similar things. But for just plain shooting the breeze, as we often
> do in this group, I don't see anonymity as a basic requirement.

I don't see either as a "requirement", I just don't judge anyone's
credibility *or lack of credibility* solely on whether or not they use
their real name to post ,,, whether it's to shoot the breeze or to
discuss something substantial. But again, that's JMO.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Shirl wrote:
> Shirl:
>>> That's a little extreme, IMO ... I don't think a person should have to
>>> use their real name to be taken seriously. Some people aren't
>>> comfortable using their real names, and in many instances, with just
>>> cause. I think it's more important how people conduct themselves than
>>> whether or not they use their real names ... but ... to each, his own.
>
> Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>> You do have a point because legitimate posts also come from anonymous
>> posters. But if you browse the topics, nearly all inflammatory posts
>> come from people whose names are fake, and people with real names have
>> rarely made such posts, although there are exceptions.
>
> I agree with that.
>
>> Anonymity is
>> critical in some newsgroups, such as abuse, drugs etc.. In aviation
>> there might be an occasional need for anonymity, to discuss accidents
>> or similar things. But for just plain shooting the breeze, as we often
>> do in this group, I don't see anonymity as a basic requirement.
>
> I don't see either as a "requirement", I just don't judge anyone's
> credibility *or lack of credibility* solely on whether or not they use
> their real name to post ,,, whether it's to shoot the breeze or to
> discuss something substantial. But again, that's JMO.

I've been posting on the pilot forums using my own name for about 10
years. Two things immediately come to mind;

The first was when someone made a HUGE deal about the fact that it
didn't matter a hoot whether or not I used my own name or not since
neither I or anyone else could prove I was in fact Dudley Henriques.

The second incident involved someone who claimed I couldn't be Dudley
Henriques because he knew Dudley Henriques and I wasn't him.
On this incident, my wife answered him asking him to PLEASE send the
real Dudley Henriques home at once because the one she had been living
with for 42 years hated to do yard work.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Marc CYBW[_2_]]

Best laugh I've had on this forum in years!

Thanks,
Marc


p.s. still a shame on what this NG has turned into. :-( I'm with Jay and
about to throw in the towel.

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Shirl wrote:
>> Shirl:
>>>> That's a little extreme, IMO ... I don't think a person should have to
>>>> use their real name to be taken seriously. Some people aren't
>>>> comfortable using their real names, and in many instances, with just
>>>> cause. I think it's more important how people conduct themselves than
>>>> whether or not they use their real names ... but ... to each, his own.
>>
>> Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>>> You do have a point because legitimate posts also come from anonymous
>>> posters. But if you browse the topics, nearly all inflammatory posts
>>> come from people whose names are fake, and people with real names have
>>> rarely made such posts, although there are exceptions.
>>
>> I agree with that.
>>
>>> Anonymity is
>>> critical in some newsgroups, such as abuse, drugs etc.. In aviation
>>> there might be an occasional need for anonymity, to discuss accidents
>>> or similar things. But for just plain shooting the breeze, as we often
>>> do in this group, I don't see anonymity as a basic requirement.
>>
>> I don't see either as a "requirement", I just don't judge anyone's
>> credibility *or lack of credibility* solely on whether or not they use
>> their real name to post ,,, whether it's to shoot the breeze or to
>> discuss something substantial. But again, that's JMO.
>
> I've been posting on the pilot forums using my own name for about 10
> years. Two things immediately come to mind;
>
> The first was when someone made a HUGE deal about the fact that it didn't
> matter a hoot whether or not I used my own name or not since neither I or
> anyone else could prove I was in fact Dudley Henriques.
>
> The second incident involved someone who claimed I couldn't be Dudley
> Henriques because he knew Dudley Henriques and I wasn't him.
> On this incident, my wife answered him asking him to PLEASE send the real
> Dudley Henriques home at once because the one she had been living with for
> 42 years hated to do yard work.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Marc CYBW wrote:
> Best laugh I've had on this forum in years!
>
> Thanks,
> Marc
>
>
> p.s. still a shame on what this NG has turned into. :-( I'm with Jay and
> about to throw in the towel.
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Shirl wrote:
>>> Shirl:
>>>>> That's a little extreme, IMO ... I don't think a person should have to
>>>>> use their real name to be taken seriously. Some people aren't
>>>>> comfortable using their real names, and in many instances, with just
>>>>> cause. I think it's more important how people conduct themselves than
>>>>> whether or not they use their real names ... but ... to each, his own.
>>> Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>>>> You do have a point because legitimate posts also come from anonymous
>>>> posters. But if you browse the topics, nearly all inflammatory posts
>>>> come from people whose names are fake, and people with real names have
>>>> rarely made such posts, although there are exceptions.
>>> I agree with that.
>>>
>>>> Anonymity is
>>>> critical in some newsgroups, such as abuse, drugs etc.. In aviation
>>>> there might be an occasional need for anonymity, to discuss accidents
>>>> or similar things. But for just plain shooting the breeze, as we often
>>>> do in this group, I don't see anonymity as a basic requirement.
>>> I don't see either as a "requirement", I just don't judge anyone's
>>> credibility *or lack of credibility* solely on whether or not they use
>>> their real name to post ,,, whether it's to shoot the breeze or to
>>> discuss something substantial. But again, that's JMO.
>> I've been posting on the pilot forums using my own name for about 10
>> years. Two things immediately come to mind;
>>
>> The first was when someone made a HUGE deal about the fact that it didn't
>> matter a hoot whether or not I used my own name or not since neither I or
>> anyone else could prove I was in fact Dudley Henriques.
>>
>> The second incident involved someone who claimed I couldn't be Dudley
>> Henriques because he knew Dudley Henriques and I wasn't him.
>> On this incident, my wife answered him asking him to PLEASE send the real
>> Dudley Henriques home at once because the one she had been living with for
>> 42 years hated to do yard work.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>

I'd hate to see that happen to anyone.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Shirl]

Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> I've been posting on the pilot forums using my own name for about 10
> years. Two things immediately come to mind;
>
> The first was when someone made a HUGE deal about the fact that it
> didn't matter a hoot whether or not I used my own name or not since
> neither I or anyone else could prove I was in fact Dudley Henriques.
>
> The second incident involved someone who claimed I couldn't be Dudley
> Henriques because he knew Dudley Henriques and I wasn't him.
> On this incident, my wife answered him asking him to PLEASE send the
> real Dudley Henriques home at once because the one she had been living
> with for 42 years hated to do yard work.

LOL.
I also have a friend who posted using his own name ... just so happens
he is in the television industry and of course, nobody believed it was
really him, they told him he was full of _ _ _ _, etc. It was both
humorous and frustrating for him. Really, it doesn't matter WHAT name
you use ... there can be problems either way.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

on 5/11/2008 6:58 PM Lou said the following:
> On May 11, 6:16 pm, Shirl > wrote:
>> Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>>> I don't take seriously any posters who use handles instead
>>> of their real names.
>> That's a little extreme, IMO ... I don't think a person should have to
>> use their real name to be taken seriously. Some people aren't
>> comfortable using their real names, and in many instances, with just
>> cause. I think it's more important how people conduct themselves than
>> whether or not they use their real names ... but ... to each, his own.
>
> Case in point? The people that got sued by Zoom for posting
> on Usenet.

Or had our local police turned loose on us in the middle of the night by
him. Or were threatened with violence in our workplace by a different
psycho poster living nearby.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Shirl wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> I've been posting on the pilot forums using my own name for about 10
>> years. Two things immediately come to mind;
>>
>> The first was when someone made a HUGE deal about the fact that it
>> didn't matter a hoot whether or not I used my own name or not since
>> neither I or anyone else could prove I was in fact Dudley Henriques.
>>
>> The second incident involved someone who claimed I couldn't be Dudley
>> Henriques because he knew Dudley Henriques and I wasn't him.
>> On this incident, my wife answered him asking him to PLEASE send the
>> real Dudley Henriques home at once because the one she had been living
>> with for 42 years hated to do yard work.
>
> LOL.
> I also have a friend who posted using his own name ... just so happens
> he is in the television industry and of course, nobody believed it was
> really him, they told him he was full of _ _ _ _, etc. It was both
> humorous and frustrating for him. Really, it doesn't matter WHAT name
> you use ... there can be problems either way.

So true; an unfortunate fact of Usenet.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Blakesy > wrote in :

> On Sun, 11 May 2008 11:21:57 -0700, Shirl wrote in
> >:
>
>> of late it's easy to see that 95% are a couple
>> of people exchanging insults ad nauseam.
>
> What makes you think they are not the same person?
>

You got me, I'm Maxwell. First I poast as Bertie, then I stick my inger in
a socket and post again as Maxie.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Andrew Sarangan > wrote in news:29a0740a-9fc5-43e7-
:

> On May 11, 7:16 pm, Shirl > wrote:
>> Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>> > I don't take seriously any posters who use handles instead
>> > of their real names.
>>
>> That's a little extreme, IMO ... I don't think a person should have to
>> use their real name to be taken seriously. Some people aren't
>> comfortable using their real names, and in many instances, with just
>> cause. I think it's more important how people conduct themselves than
>> whether or not they use their real names ... but ... to each, his own.
>
> You do have a point because legitimate posts also come from anonymous
> posters. But if you browse the topics, nearly all inflammatory posts
> come from people whose names are fake, and people with real names have
> rarely made such posts, although there are exceptions. Anonymity is
> critical in some newsgroups, such as abuse, drugs etc.. In aviation
> there might be an occasional need for anonymity, to discuss accidents
> or similar things. But for just plain shooting the breeze, as we often
> do in this group, I don't see anonymity as a basic requirement.
>
>
>

It is if you **** off as many people as I do!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Tina > wrote in news:2cf9b37f-fa47-4e08-add7-
:

> Character, it's been said, is what you do when no one is watching.
> These days on the 'net it's demonstrated in other ways. Oh well.
>

I'm considered a bit of a character rl as well.....

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:ihKVj.159873$yE1.40277@attbi_s21:

>>I give up -- not flying -- but subscribing to this NG.
>
> Sorry to see you go, Jay. I've enjoyed your posts, and hope you can
> make it to OSH this year.
>
> I still find some utility in this group, but no longer recommend it to
> new or aspiring pilots. I find myself spending more and more time on
> moderated groups that don't tolerate anonymous trolls.
>

That's ecause you're intolerant. I can't stand that.


> Check back from time to time. This, too, shall pass.


good one.


Bertie

[Andrew Sarangan]

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)


I would encourage you to not give up. I don't find the extraneous
posts particularly distracting. It is easy to see which threads are
legit. Example: if you expand the recent thread on "Cessna 172R from
Telluride to Aspen" it is entirely dominated by MX and his groupies. I
don't even read past the titles and the poster names.

[Bob Fry]

Hey, you just need a better newsreader. I use GNUS, part of GNU
Emacs. After screening out Jay Honeck and his homies, Bertie, and a
few others, 90% of the posts are gone and 95% of the junk.
--
If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, forget
em', cause, man, they're gone.
- Jack Handey

[Scott Skylane]

Bob Fry wrote:
> Hey, you just need a better newsreader. I use GNUS, part of GNU
> Emacs. After screening out Jay Honeck and his homies, Bertie, and a
> few others, 90% of the posts are gone and 95% of the junk.

And you're left with exactly, what?

[Mxsmanic]

Andrew Sarangan writes:

> You do have a point because legitimate posts also come from anonymous
> posters. But if you browse the topics, nearly all inflammatory posts
> come from people whose names are fake, and people with real names have
> rarely made such posts, although there are exceptions.

However, the converse is not true: not all anonymous posters make inflammatory
posts.

Anonymity is an unpleasant necessity in cyberspace today.

> But for just plain shooting the breeze, as we often
> do in this group, I don't see anonymity as a basic requirement.

No matter what you say, and no matter what your opinion, and no matter how
nicely you say it, there will be someone who doesn't like it, so beware.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Scott Skylane wrote:
> Bob Fry wrote:
>> Hey, you just need a better newsreader. I use GNUS, part of GNU
>> Emacs. After screening out Jay Honeck and his homies, Bertie, and a
>> few others, 90% of the posts are gone and 95% of the junk.
>
> And you're left with exactly, what?



The good stuff.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[F. Baum]

On May 11, 7:29*pm, Shirl > wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> > You do have a point because legitimate posts also come from anonymous
> > posters. But if you browse the topics, nearly all inflammatory posts
> > come from people whose names are fake, and people with real names have
> > rarely made *such posts, although there are exceptions.
>
> I agree with that.

I agree too.
>
> > Anonymity is
> > critical in some newsgroups, such as abuse, drugs etc.. In aviation
> > there might be an occasional need for anonymity, to discuss accidents
> > or similar things. But for just plain shooting the breeze, as we often
> > do in this group, I don't see anonymity as a basic requirement.
>
> I don't see either as a "requirement", I just don't judge anyone's
> credibility *or lack of credibility* solely on whether or not they use
> their real name to post ,,, whether it's to shoot the breeze or to
> discuss something substantial. But again, that's JMO.

I have a real email but not my real name just because I dont want
anyone to know who I work for. I love flying light planes (Which is
why I participate on this list) but If one of my posts rubs someone
the wrong way I dont want it to reflect on my company.
The thing I dont get about this list is how everything turns
argumentitive after about a dozen posts on a thread. I dont get
individual emails (Big waste of time IMHO) and I know which threads to
read by how many posts there are. You dont see this in other groups (I
am on a car racing group for example where everyone is anonimous and
perfectly civil). After 31 years in the hobby/Biz, I think some of
this just has to do with aviation. I think it is the type of
personaliy that is attracted to flying.
My appoligies if I have posted anything to **** anybody off.
F Baum

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 12 May 2008 05:53:30 -0700 (PDT), "F. Baum" >
wrote in
>:

>I think some of this just has to do with aviation. I think it is the
>type of personaliy that is attracted to flying.

The argumentative personal attacks of which you speak are known as
'flames': http://www.eps.mcgill.ca/jargon/jargon.html#flame
They've been a phenomenon since the '60s. I doubt that flames are
unique to airmen.

Is the "car racing group" you mentioned a Usenet newsgroup?

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On May 12, 7:53*am, "F. Baum" > wrote:
> On May 11, 7:29*pm, Shirl > wrote:
> I have a real email but not my real name just because I dont want
> anyone to know who I work for. I love flying light planes (Which is
> why I participate on this list) but If one of my posts rubs someone
> the wrong way I dont want it to reflect on my company.
> The thing I dont get about this list is how everything turns
> argumentitive after about a dozen posts on a thread. I dont get
> individual emails (Big waste of time IMHO) and I know which threads to
> read by how many posts there are. You dont see this in other groups (I
> am on a car racing group for example where everyone is anonimous and
> perfectly civil). After 31 years in the hobby/Biz, I think some of
> this just has to do with aviation. I think it is the type of
> personaliy that is attracted to flying.
> My appoligies if I have posted anything to **** anybody off.

Hmm...this was precisely what I was thinking, but decided not to say
anything until I read your post.

I am a member of a few groups where a large percentage of the names
are real, but that cannot not be discerned from someone who is not
thoroughly fluent in, say, Serbo-Croatian. So it does not matter if
those individuals user their real name or something else, like, "the
hot bunny", which is my alias, though admittedly, it is easier for
some native English speakers to see what my name means than say
"Ferenczi". [Oddly, my real name is more anonymous than my alias.]

In any case, I think the most important point you have made is written
in your last paragraph. There is something about the character of
some pilots in this group that makes them noticeably different from
any other newsgroup that I have encountered. It is hard not to use
perjorative terms without saying what this difference is, but if I had
to choose two, I would say that _some_ pilots here are not "entirely
receptive to new ideas", and a few feel that "their status as a
licensed aviators gives them the right to be rude" toward those who
are not licensed.

In fairness, I saw a very small bit of this at my pilot school.

A few of us, the students, were sitting around in the lobby, talking
about experimental aircraft (Moller and possibility of flying cars),
and the licensed pilots were attacking us, not in a healthy way, but
in, "You have no idea what you are talking about." way. We were
discussing strength of materials, flight dynamics, and control theory,
and there were two people present who just happened to have experience
in strength of materials and control theory, at university level, but
the pilots did not know.

The owner of the flight school was present, watching from across the
room quietly until, two of the pilots started refuting vigorously
something that was clearly true. The owner interrupted in favor of
the students.

But it was not the details of the subject that mattered. It was the
sensitivity exhibited by the pilots. It was apparent that they simply
did not like the idea of someone who was not a pilot discussing the
dynamics of flight or control theory or anything that questioned dogma
in their presence. They found it offenssive. This is the only group in
USENET where I have encountered this type of sensitivity.

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.

Of course, this does not apply to all people in this group. I have
seen the opposite, where some pilots who say very little will pop in
from time to time to defend those who have not yet earned the right to
speak.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On May 12, 7:53 am, "F. Baum" > wrote:
>> On May 11, 7:29 pm, Shirl > wrote:
>> I have a real email but not my real name just because I dont want
>> anyone to know who I work for. I love flying light planes (Which is
>> why I participate on this list) but If one of my posts rubs someone
>> the wrong way I dont want it to reflect on my company.
>> The thing I dont get about this list is how everything turns
>> argumentitive after about a dozen posts on a thread. I dont get
>> individual emails (Big waste of time IMHO) and I know which threads to
>> read by how many posts there are. You dont see this in other groups (I
>> am on a car racing group for example where everyone is anonimous and
>> perfectly civil). After 31 years in the hobby/Biz, I think some of
>> this just has to do with aviation. I think it is the type of
>> personaliy that is attracted to flying.
>> My appoligies if I have posted anything to **** anybody off.
>
> Hmm...this was precisely what I was thinking, but decided not to say
> anything until I read your post.
>
> I am a member of a few groups where a large percentage of the names
> are real, but that cannot not be discerned from someone who is not
> thoroughly fluent in, say, Serbo-Croatian. So it does not matter if
> those individuals user their real name or something else, like, "the
> hot bunny", which is my alias, though admittedly, it is easier for
> some native English speakers to see what my name means than say
> "Ferenczi". [Oddly, my real name is more anonymous than my alias.]
>
> In any case, I think the most important point you have made is written
> in your last paragraph. There is something about the character of
> some pilots in this group that makes them noticeably different from
> any other newsgroup that I have encountered. It is hard not to use
> perjorative terms without saying what this difference is, but if I had
> to choose two, I would say that _some_ pilots here are not "entirely
> receptive to new ideas", and a few feel that "their status as a
> licensed aviators gives them the right to be rude" toward those who
> are not licensed.
>
> In fairness, I saw a very small bit of this at my pilot school.
>
> A few of us, the students, were sitting around in the lobby, talking
> about experimental aircraft (Moller and possibility of flying cars),
> and the licensed pilots were attacking us, not in a healthy way, but
> in, "You have no idea what you are talking about." way. We were
> discussing strength of materials, flight dynamics, and control theory,
> and there were two people present who just happened to have experience
> in strength of materials and control theory, at university level, but
> the pilots did not know.
>
> The owner of the flight school was present, watching from across the
> room quietly until, two of the pilots started refuting vigorously
> something that was clearly true. The owner interrupted in favor of
> the students.
>
> But it was not the details of the subject that mattered. It was the
> sensitivity exhibited by the pilots. It was apparent that they simply
> did not like the idea of someone who was not a pilot discussing the
> dynamics of flight or control theory or anything that questioned dogma
> in their presence. They found it offenssive. This is the only group in
> USENET where I have encountered this type of sensitivity.
>
> 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.
>
> Of course, this does not apply to all people in this group. I have
> seen the opposite, where some pilots who say very little will pop in
> from time to time to defend those who have not yet earned the right to
> speak.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

You seem to be generalizing where specifics are indicated. There are
good and bad in all groups of people. Usenet by it's very definition
will have every personality type you can imagine present at any given
moment.
An argument can be made pro or con, but any attempt at categorizing a
group to a single personality trait can easily reflect on one's OWN
personal view rather than reflect the collective view of a group.
Pilots come in all shapes and forms just as any other group. On any
given day you will find helpful people and complete idiots present in
that same group.
The bottom line as far as I can determine is that one pilot will be a
saint, the next will be an asshole. Where it gets complicated is the
fact that on the same day, the saint can become the asshole and the
asshole the saint.
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On May 12, 11:15*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>You seem to be generalizing where specifics are indicated. There are
> good and bad in all groups of people. Usenet by it's very definition
> will have every personality type you can imagine present at any given
> moment.
> An argument can be made pro or con, but any attempt at categorizing a
> group to a single personality trait can easily reflect on one's OWN

That's just it. I am not making my assessment from a single
personality. I am making it based upon ratios. I look at the number
of people who behave a certain way, versus the number who do not, and
make my determination. For example, I mentioned sci.crypt as a group
where people are more or less civil. But in that group, there is an
individual widely regarded as a kook, an ocassionally, people there
attack him. But overall, the group is far more civil, IMO.

Comparatively, the ratio of ad-hominem attacks to genuine debate here
is several times larger, IMO.

> personal view rather than reflect the collective view of a group.
> Pilots come in all shapes and forms just as any other group. On any
> given day you will find helpful people and complete idiots present in
> that same group.
> The bottom line as far as I can determine is that one pilot will be a
> saint, the next will be an asshole. Where it gets complicated is the
> fact that on the same day, the saint can become the asshole and the
> asshole the saint.

I guess that's true. I have noticed that few ambivalent individuals
will vacillate between genuine debate and ad-hominem attacks, as if
they cannot decide which attitude is most appropriate for the
particular conversation. I feel that person's disposition toward the
conversation should be a reflection of what is being said, not of who
is saying it.

And if what is being said is go against dogma, that is not a
justification for personal attacks, IMO.

Vigorous refutation, yes. Personal attacks, no.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Blanche]

And I've found that a kill file solves about 60% of the problems on
this list (as well as others). I've also noticed that once a thread
gets past 10-12 responses, it's either off-target (and usually
irrelevant) or nothing but absurbist posts.

[Mxsmanic]

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

> There is something about the character of
> some pilots in this group that makes them noticeably different from
> any other newsgroup that I have encountered. It is hard not to use
> perjorative terms without saying what this difference is, but if I had
> to choose two, I would say that _some_ pilots here are not "entirely
> receptive to new ideas", and a few feel that "their status as a
> licensed aviators gives them the right to be rude" toward those who
> are not licensed.

I should hope that most pilots were not this bad, and it seems that they are
not. I'm not sure why so many pilots in this newsgroup fit the description;
perhaps it is a combination of personality characteristics that produces it.

> A few of us, the students, were sitting around in the lobby, talking
> about experimental aircraft (Moller and possibility of flying cars),
> and the licensed pilots were attacking us, not in a healthy way, but
> in, "You have no idea what you are talking about." way. We were
> discussing strength of materials, flight dynamics, and control theory,
> and there were two people present who just happened to have experience
> in strength of materials and control theory, at university level, but
> the pilots did not know.
>
> The owner of the flight school was present, watching from across the
> room quietly until, two of the pilots started refuting vigorously
> something that was clearly true. The owner interrupted in favor of
> the students.
>
> But it was not the details of the subject that mattered. It was the
> sensitivity exhibited by the pilots. It was apparent that they simply
> did not like the idea of someone who was not a pilot discussing the
> dynamics of flight or control theory or anything that questioned dogma
> in their presence. They found it offenssive. This is the only group in
> USENET where I have encountered this type of sensitivity.

I think it is linked to insecurity. Some pilots probably use their licenses
as a basis for building up a large but fragile ego; subsequently, whenever
anything threatens that house of cards, they lash out defensively. It makes
them look overemotional and stupid, but they do not realize this. Smart
pilots are unlikely to be insecure and do not need a pilot's license for
self-validation, so I wouldn't expect them to behave in this way.

> 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.

Perhaps the status is less illusory among the knowledgeable people in those
groups.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On May 12, 11:15 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> You seem to be generalizing where specifics are indicated. There are
>> good and bad in all groups of people. Usenet by it's very definition
>> will have every personality type you can imagine present at any given
>> moment.
>> An argument can be made pro or con, but any attempt at categorizing a
>> group to a single personality trait can easily reflect on one's OWN
>
> That's just it. I am not making my assessment from a single
> personality. I am making it based upon ratios. I look at the number
> of people who behave a certain way, versus the number who do not, and
> make my determination. For example, I mentioned sci.crypt as a group
> where people are more or less civil. But in that group, there is an
> individual widely regarded as a kook, an ocassionally, people there
> attack him. But overall, the group is far more civil, IMO.

You can of course make a generalization this way using pure ratios based
on cold research. This will of course generate a "number", but this
approach might not reveal what is really desired; that being how a group
and a specific individual interact together and more importantly, WHY
any two individuals interact in a specific manner.
It's all in what you hope to produce in defining your answer. If the
purpose is to paint a general picture of a group personality, I feel the
raw data might not be complete, as the actual reason for a dispute or
negative interface between two individuals is highly subjective to
individual interpretation. My experience is that this "interpretation"
can be seriously flawed.

>
> Comparatively, the ratio of ad-hominem attacks to genuine debate here
> is several times larger, IMO.
A perfect example of individual interpretation. For example, I've been
posting on his forum for 10 years. Although I have been the recipient
and the initiator of personal attacks on occasion, my personal
experience would indicate that the reverse is true. The overall ratio of
my posting experience would indicate a high degree of positive result vs
a fairly low amount of negative interaction with other posters.
>
>> personal view rather than reflect the collective view of a group.
>> Pilots come in all shapes and forms just as any other group. On any
>> given day you will find helpful people and complete idiots present in
>> that same group.
>> The bottom line as far as I can determine is that one pilot will be a
>> saint, the next will be an asshole. Where it gets complicated is the
>> fact that on the same day, the saint can become the asshole and the
>> asshole the saint.
>
> I guess that's true. I have noticed that few ambivalent individuals
> will vacillate between genuine debate and ad-hominem attacks, as if
> they cannot decide which attitude is most appropriate for the
> particular conversation. I feel that person's disposition toward the
> conversation should be a reflection of what is being said, not of who
> is saying it.

This is true enough, although again the negative responses could very
well be prevoked rather than self initiated.
>
> And if what is being said is go against dogma, that is not a
> justification for personal attacks, IMO.

Personal attack must be clearly defined as a cold, unsolicited post
attacking an individual with totally 0 provocation. Other than that, you
have an interaction that is subject to interpretation.
In other words, what one poster calls personal attack, the next will
call defensive response. It's a never ending cycle where we always come
back to the term "individual interpretation".
>
> Vigorous refutation, yes. Personal attacks, no.

I like that approach. Personally, I have come to think of Usenet
response as answering a post in the manner I am approached.
Some here view me as helpful. Some view me as an ego driven idiot.
Neither know me at all. All are simply posters on a screen to be dealt
with as they deal.
Usenet is Usenet. That's all it is and that's all it ever will be. To
take it seriously instead of just accepting it as it is and dealing with
it might be time better spent doing things more constructive :-)
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-


--
Dudley Henriques

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

on 5/12/2008 11:36 AM Blanche said the following:
> And I've found that a kill file solves about 60% of the problems on
> this list (as well as others). I've also noticed that once a thread
> gets past 10-12 responses, it's either off-target (and usually
> irrelevant) or nothing but absurbist posts.

Like this one?

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Personal attack must be clearly defined as a cold, unsolicited post
> attacking an individual with totally 0 provocation.

That's not a standard definition. A personal attack is an attack against the
person (the poster), rather than his or her arguments. It is a fallacy in
debate, a last resort of the incompetent, and a first resort of the bully.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Personal attack must be clearly defined as a cold, unsolicited post
>> attacking an individual with totally 0 provocation.
>
> That's not a standard definition. A personal attack is an attack against the
> person (the poster), rather than his or her arguments. It is a fallacy in
> debate, a last resort of the incompetent, and a first resort of the bully.
Again, the individual interpretation that is the very essense of Usenet.
This definition might not be the "standard" (and just who defines
standard anyway :-) but it's my definition as it applies to my personal
Usenet experience.......again and as always....Usenet defies "standard
definitions".

--
Dudley Henriques

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On May 12, 12:55*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Dudley Henriques writes:
>
> >> Personal attack must be clearly defined as a cold, unsolicited post
> >> attacking an individual with totally 0 provocation.
>
> > That's not a standard definition. *A personal attack is an attack against the
> > person (the poster), rather than his or her arguments. *It is a fallacy in
> > debate, a last resort of the incompetent, and a first resort of the bully.
>
> Again, the individual interpretation that is the very essense of Usenet.
> This definition might not be the "standard" (and just who defines
> standard anyway :-) but it's my definition as it applies to my personal
> Usenet experience.......again and as always....Usenet defies "standard
> definitions".

It is always possible to take something not-provable, but widly
regarded as fact, and claim that it is not a fact do to its subjective
nature.

True or False:

* Britney Spears is famous.
* Water is wet.
* Computerized-control is better at stabilizing aircraft than manual,
human-control.
* Some pilots in rec.aviation.piloting make personal attacks.

Any of these statements can be said to be true or false, depending on
the personal, subjective whims of the assessor.

What is important, IMO, is that the assessor asks himself on a case-by-
case basis whether he is being consistently objective or momentarily
subjective as a matter of rhetorical convenience.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On May 12, 12:55 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>> Personal attack must be clearly defined as a cold, unsolicited post
>>>> attacking an individual with totally 0 provocation.
>>> That's not a standard definition. A personal attack is an attack against the
>>> person (the poster), rather than his or her arguments. It is a fallacy in
>>> debate, a last resort of the incompetent, and a first resort of the bully.
>> Again, the individual interpretation that is the very essense of Usenet.
>> This definition might not be the "standard" (and just who defines
>> standard anyway :-) but it's my definition as it applies to my personal
>> Usenet experience.......again and as always....Usenet defies "standard
>> definitions".
>
> It is always possible to take something not-provable, but widly
> regarded as fact, and claim that it is not a fact do to its subjective
> nature.
>
> True or False:
>
> * Britney Spears is famous.
> * Water is wet.
> * Computerized-control is better at stabilizing aircraft than manual,
> human-control.
> * Some pilots in rec.aviation.piloting make personal attacks.
>
> Any of these statements can be said to be true or false, depending on
> the personal, subjective whims of the assessor.
>
> What is important, IMO, is that the assessor asks himself on a case-by-
> case basis whether he is being consistently objective or momentarily
> subjective as a matter of rhetorical convenience.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
All can be said to be true at any given moment in time.
The bottom line on Usenet as I see it anyway, is in how the individual
sees his/her own interaction with the venue.
When it's all said and done, it will be only this interpretation that
defines the Usenet experience for a specific user.
I agree that it's confusing, and difficult to define; hence this
exchange as an example.
The main thing is that individuals be allowed to express opinion without
attack, but as I'm sure each of us is aware, difficult to achieve on a
consistent basis.
Anyone posting to Usenet for any length of time will eventually be
attacked and most likely assume an online posture more aggressive than
that experienced in everyday life.
The exact placing of the blame for this phenomenon remains for me
anyway, extremely difficult to define clearly and to an exact answer.

--
Dudley Henriques

[F. Baum]

On May 12, 11:08*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> I should hope that most pilots were not this bad, and it seems that they are
> not. *I'm not sure why so many pilots in this newsgroup fit the description;
> perhaps it is a combination of personality characteristics that produces it.

[F. Baum]

On May 12, 11:10*am, HARRY POTTER > wrote:
>
> Don't think I'm just ragging on old people. There are plenty older pilots I
> know who are very well mannered. One pilot who comes to mind is that guy
> who landed the airliner using nothing but the throttles after a complete
> control system failure. I saw a documentary about him, as was really
> impressed by his humility. I once saw Bob Hoover give a talk and he came
> off the same way. I find that the ones who really have had great fulfilling
> careers are the ones who are able to rise above all the cockyness. The ones
> who have really had their hero moments. Why would you need to put down
> others when you've already got it made? It's the ones who I guess have been
> let down by the promise of being a hero of some sort who feel the need to
> be bitter towards others. I don't know, just my two cents.

I like the Bob Hoover comments. I have heard the guy speak at aviation
functions, meet him personally, and read his book and I dont think you
will find anyone as gracious and unasuming. Yeager on the other hand
was an hour and a half of listening to him tell everyone how great he
is :(. I think some of these heros start to believe all the hype and
let it get to their heads.

[dee#gee#ess]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> A personal attack is an attack against the
> person (the poster)

Well, that's a good thing to know. In your case, then, it's impossible
to make a personal attack. You're not a person. You're just a name on
a screen. Thus, you've never been personally attacked.
--
dgs

[Mxsmanic]

F. Baum writes:

> Partially agree here. At work I see the types who have to make sure
> evryone at a party knows they are a pilot. They drive around town
> running errands 3 hours before sign in IN their uniforms, they have
> mailboxes shaped like an F16, they have a jet engine for a ringtone on
> the cellphone etc. Most of these guys are a pain to have to fly with.
> Their entire persona is wraped up with being a pilot. Mebbie they just
> need something better to do on their days off.

There are really such pilots? It sounds like some sort of Hollywood parody.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

F. Baum wrote:
> On May 12, 11:10 am, HARRY POTTER > wrote:
>> Don't think I'm just ragging on old people. There are plenty older pilots I
>> know who are very well mannered. One pilot who comes to mind is that guy
>> who landed the airliner using nothing but the throttles after a complete
>> control system failure. I saw a documentary about him, as was really
>> impressed by his humility. I once saw Bob Hoover give a talk and he came
>> off the same way. I find that the ones who really have had great fulfilling
>> careers are the ones who are able to rise above all the cockyness. The ones
>> who have really had their hero moments. Why would you need to put down
>> others when you've already got it made? It's the ones who I guess have been
>> let down by the promise of being a hero of some sort who feel the need to
>> be bitter towards others. I don't know, just my two cents.
>
> I like the Bob Hoover comments. I have heard the guy speak at aviation
> functions, meet him personally, and read his book and I dont think you
> will find anyone as gracious and unasuming. Yeager on the other hand
> was an hour and a half of listening to him tell everyone how great he
> is :(. I think some of these heros start to believe all the hype and
> let it get to their heads.
>
My exact opinion on both these individuals.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> F. Baum writes:
>
>> Partially agree here. At work I see the types who have to make sure
>> evryone at a party knows they are a pilot. They drive around town
>> running errands 3 hours before sign in IN their uniforms, they have
>> mailboxes shaped like an F16, they have a jet engine for a ringtone on
>> the cellphone etc. Most of these guys are a pain to have to fly with.
>> Their entire persona is wraped up with being a pilot. Mebbie they just
>> need something better to do on their days off.
>
> There are really such pilots? It sounds like some sort of Hollywood parody.
There are, just as there are pilots with good solid personalities. There
is also a third scenario to envision; that being a pilot with a good
solid personality who is visualized as being other than this by someone
or others with personality problems of their own.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On May 12, 5:11*pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
> On May 13, 9:51*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > More_Flaps writes:
> > > I think you are MXing up an ad hominem with simple personal attack.
>
> > Same thing.
>
> Nope.

Not to nit-pick, but:

"Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting
personal attacks, as in "Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich
insists that he and Panetta can work together" (Washington Post)"

Reference: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[F. Baum]

On May 12, 8:19*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> The argumentative personal attacks of which you speak are known as
> 'flames':http://www.eps.mcgill.ca/jargon/jargon.html#flame
> They've been a phenomenon since the '60s. *I doubt that flames are
> unique to airmen.
Are you an English Teacher ;). I take breaks for months at a time from
this list, and its not just because of the flames. *
>
> Is the "car racing group" you mentioned a Usenet newsgroup?

Yup, its just like this one (Without the flames of course).

[Tman]

F. Baum wrote:
> On May 11, 7:29 pm, Shirl > wrote:

> The thing I dont get about this list is how everything turns
> argumentitive after about a dozen posts on a thread. I dont get

Totally disagree with that one FB. You are way off base here. Let me
start by saying that not _everything_ turns arg after about a dozen
posts -- if only there was one that did not.

[B A R R Y]

On Mon, 12 May 2008 12:14:45 -0700 (PDT), "F. Baum" >
wrote:
>>
>Partially agree here. At work I see the types who have to make sure
>evryone at a party knows they are a pilot. They drive around town
>running errands 3 hours before sign in IN their uniforms

FWIW, I know firefighters, mail carriers, a UPS driver, a FedEx driver
and a riverboat pilot that do the same.

In fact I know firefighters that wear something related to
firefighting, like a "DC Collapse Unit" t-shirt, EVERY day.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

tman <inv@lid> wrote in :

> F. Baum wrote:
>> On May 11, 7:29 pm, Shirl > wrote:
>
>> The thing I dont get about this list is how everything turns
>> argumentitive after about a dozen posts on a thread. I dont get
>
> Totally disagree with that one FB. You are way off base here. Let me
> start by saying that not _everything_ turns arg after about a dozen
> posts -- if only there was one that did not.
>

You're just trying to start an argument now.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 12 May 2008 05:53:30 -0700 (PDT), "F. Baum" >
> wrote in
> >:
>
>>I think some of this just has to do with aviation. I think it is the
>>type of personaliy that is attracted to flying.
>
> The argumentative personal attacks of which you speak are known as
> 'flames': http://www.eps.mcgill.ca/jargon/jargon.html#flame
> They've been a phenomenon since the '60s. I doubt that flames are
> unique to airmen.
>
> Is the "car racing group" you mentioned a Usenet newsgroup?
>
>

Why, trying to figure out if it comes under your jurisdction?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

B A R R Y > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 12 May 2008 12:14:45 -0700 (PDT), "F. Baum" >
> wrote:
>>>
>>Partially agree here. At work I see the types who have to make sure
>>evryone at a party knows they are a pilot. They drive around town
>>running errands 3 hours before sign in IN their uniforms
>
> FWIW, I know firefighters, mail carriers, a UPS driver, a FedEx driver
> and a riverboat pilot that do the same.
>

True. Some would be just too lazy to change, of course!

> In fact I know firefighters that wear something related to
> firefighting, like a "DC Collapse Unit" t-shirt, EVERY day.
>

That's a bit creepy, alright. If you've ever had the opportunity to have
to be consoled for some really major trauma, the feeling that comes from
having someone show you some genuine sympathy is intense, to say the
least. It's a physical reaction, obviously designed to encourage the
person to seek out the assistance of the tribe in hard times and it
feels as good as an orgasm, or what I might imagine a shot of an opiate
might feel like. I'm sure lots here have felt it. It's not hard to see
how it might become addictive, in fact. I've got a notion that it's
probably the reason that people with Munchausen and it's related
ailments do what they do.

Bertie

[More_Flaps]

On May 13, 10:37*am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On May 12, 5:11*pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
>
> > On May 13, 9:51*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > > More_Flaps writes:
> > > > I think you are MXing up an ad hominem with simple personal attack.
>
> > > Same thing.
>
> > Nope.
>
> Not to nit-pick, but:
>
> "Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting
> personal attacks, as in "Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich
> insists that he and Panetta can work together" (Washington Post)"
>
> Reference:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem
>

Nope, still not the same -as supported by the reference you gave. Ad
hominem is an abbreviation for Argumentum ad hominem and is the
antithesis of argumentum ad verecundium. That, my little bunny, is the
difference.

Cheers

[More_Flaps]

On May 13, 10:37*am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On May 12, 5:11*pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
>
> > On May 13, 9:51*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > > More_Flaps writes:
> > > > I think you are MXing up an ad hominem with simple personal attack.
>
> > > Same thing.
>
> > Nope.
>
> Not to nit-pick, but:
>
> "Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting
> personal attacks, as in "Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich
> insists that he and Panetta can work together" (Washington Post)"
>

Here you go, a better definition than the washington pist:

"Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since
the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a
logical inference is independent of the person making the inference.
However, ad hominem arguments are rarely presented as formal
syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the domain of informal logic
and the theory of evidence.[1] The theory of evidence depends to a
large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including
eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a
purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that
a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a
major role in making judgements from evidence.
Argumentum ad hominem is the inverse of argumentum ad verecundiam, in
which the arguer bases the truth value of an assertion on the
authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. Hence,
while an ad hominem argument may make an assertion less compelling, by
showing that the person making the assertion does not have the
authority, knowledge or position they claim, or has made mistaken
assertions on similar topics in the past, it cannot provide an
infallible counterargument."

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

More_Flaps > wrote in
:

> On May 13, 10:37*am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>> On May 12, 5:11*pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
>>
>> > On May 13, 9:51*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>> > > More_Flaps writes:
>> > > > I think you are MXing up an ad hominem with simple personal
>> > > > attack.
>>
>> > > Same thing.
>>
>> > Nope.
>>
>> Not to nit-pick, but:
>>
>> "Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting
>> personal attacks, as in "Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich
>> insists that he and Panetta can work together" (Washington Post)"
>>
>
> Here you go, a better definition than the washington pist:
>
> "Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since
> the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a
> logical inference is independent of the person making the inference.
> However, ad hominem arguments are rarely presented as formal
> syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the domain of informal logic
> and the theory of evidence.[1] The theory of evidence depends to a
> large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including
> eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a
> purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that
> a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a
> major role in making judgements from evidence.
> Argumentum ad hominem is the inverse of argumentum ad verecundiam, in
> which the arguer bases the truth value of an assertion on the
> authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. Hence,
> while an ad hominem argument may make an assertion less compelling, by
> showing that the person making the assertion does not have the
> authority, knowledge or position they claim, or has made mistaken
> assertions on similar topics in the past, it cannot provide an
> infallible counterargument."
>
> Cheers
>

The guy who wrote that is an asshole.

Bertie

[More_Flaps]

On May 13, 6:16*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> More_Flaps > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On May 13, 10:37*am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> >> On May 12, 5:11*pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
>
> >> > On May 13, 9:51*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> >> > > More_Flaps writes:
> >> > > > I think you are MXing up an ad hominem with simple personal
> >> > > > attack.
>
> >> > > Same thing.
>
> >> > Nope.
>
> >> Not to nit-pick, but:
>
> >> "Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting
> >> personal attacks, as in "Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich
> >> insists that he and Panetta can work together" (Washington Post)"
>
> > Here you go, a better definition than the washington pist:
>
> > "Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since
> > the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a
> > logical inference is independent of the person making the inference.
> > However, ad hominem arguments are rarely presented as formal
> > syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the domain of informal logic
> > and the theory of evidence.[1] The theory of evidence depends to a
> > large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including
> > eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a
> > purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that
> > a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a
> > major role in making judgements from evidence.
> > Argumentum ad hominem is the inverse of argumentum ad verecundiam, in
> > which the arguer bases the truth value of an assertion on the
> > authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. Hence,
> > while an ad hominem argument may make an assertion less compelling, by
> > showing that the person making the assertion does not have the
> > authority, knowledge or position they claim, or has made mistaken
> > assertions on similar topics in the past, it cannot provide an
> > infallible counterargument."
>
> > Cheers
>
> The guy who wrote that is an asshole.
>
You know him/her?

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

More_Flaps > wrote in
:

> On May 13, 6:16*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> More_Flaps > wrote
>> innews:1d5a7be3-2bc1-461d-ac47-c4e9
> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 13, 10:37*am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>> >> On May 12, 5:11*pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
>>
>> >> > On May 13, 9:51*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > More_Flaps writes:
>> >> > > > I think you are MXing up an ad hominem with simple personal
>> >> > > > attack.
>>
>> >> > > Same thing.
>>
>> >> > Nope.
>>
>> >> Not to nit-pick, but:
>>
>> >> "Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting
>> >> personal attacks, as in "Notwithstanding all the ad hominem,
>> >> Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together"
>> >> (Washington Post)"
>>
>> > Here you go, a better definition than the washington pist:
>>
>> > "Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic,
>> > since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the
>> > validity of a logical inference is independent of the person making
>> > the inference. However, ad hominem arguments are rarely presented
>> > as formal syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the domain of
>> > informal logic and the theory of evidence.[1] The theory of
>> > evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the
>> > credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert
>> > witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is
>> > unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert
>> > witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making
>> > judgements from evidence. Argumentum ad hominem is the inverse of
>> > argumentum ad verecundiam, in which the arguer bases the truth
>> > value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of
>> > the person asserting it. Hence, while an ad hominem argument may
>> > make an assertion less compelling, by showing that the person
>> > making the assertion does not have the authority, knowledge or
>> > position they claim, or has made mistaken assertions on similar
>> > topics in the past, it cannot provide an infallible
>> > counterargument."
>>
>> > Cheers
>>
>> The guy who wrote that is an asshole.
>>
> You know him/her?
>
> Cheers
>
>

I'm a pearl before swine..


Bertie

[More_Flaps]

On May 13, 7:17*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> More_Flaps > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 13, 6:16*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> More_Flaps > wrote
> >> innews:1d5a7be3-2bc1-461d-ac47-c4e9
> > :
>
> >> > On May 13, 10:37*am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> >> >> On May 12, 5:11*pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
>
> >> >> > On May 13, 9:51*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> >> >> > > More_Flaps writes:
> >> >> > > > I think you are MXing up an ad hominem with simple personal
> >> >> > > > attack.
>
> >> >> > > Same thing.
>
> >> >> > Nope.
>
> >> >> Not to nit-pick, but:
>
> >> >> "Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting
> >> >> personal attacks, as in "Notwithstanding all the ad hominem,
> >> >> Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together"
> >> >> (Washington Post)"
>
> >> > Here you go, a better definition than the washington pist:
>
> >> > "Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic,
> >> > since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the
> >> > validity of a logical inference is independent of the person making
> >> > the inference. However, ad hominem arguments are rarely presented
> >> > as formal syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the domain of
> >> > informal logic and the theory of evidence.[1] The theory of
> >> > evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the
> >> > credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert
> >> > witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is
> >> > unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert
> >> > witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making
> >> > judgements from evidence. Argumentum ad hominem is the inverse of
> >> > argumentum ad verecundiam, in which the arguer bases the truth
> >> > value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of
> >> > the person asserting it. Hence, while an ad hominem argument may
> >> > make an assertion less compelling, by showing that the person
> >> > making the assertion does not have the authority, knowledge or
> >> > position they claim, or has made mistaken assertions on similar
> >> > topics in the past, it cannot provide an infallible
> >> > counterargument."
>
> >> > Cheers
>
> >> The guy who wrote that is an asshole.
>
> > You know him/her?
>
> > Cheers
>
> I'm a pearl before swine..
>

Sorry, I thought you were being a "master troll". In any case, that
should be an opal before bunyi.

Cheers

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Mon, 12 May 2008 22:09:10 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:


>>
>>
>
>One of my favorite quotations of all time is this. Gregory Peck, when he
>had just hit the big time in the early fifties, and his gang showed up
>at a fancy restaurant. The Maitre'd informed them it would be some time
>before they could be seated. One of his entourage stepped up to the
>Maitre'd and said, excuse me, but do you know who this is?" Peck pulled
>him aside and said to him "If ya gotta tell 'em who you are, you ain't"
>I think of this every time I see a guy with watch with 47 functions on
>it.
>
>Bertie

my criteria for a flying watch was borne of absolute necessity. it is
that the face is plain enough that I can reliably read the time in no
more than a glance. ...because that is as long a period as you get.

my 3 watches are in the seconds per week accuracy range, quartz
movements, all three cost under $75 and in fact two of them together
cost under $60.

they are actual flying watches.

I've never been able to ever get anyone to believe me that that is
actually what you need in a flying watch.
two were made by loris and one by swatch.

how the hell could you ever read a 47 function watch in teeth shaking
turbulence?
zulu time in the little window???? that's what the watch on the odd
side wrist is set to!

Stealth Pilot

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 12 May 2008 22:09:10 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>One of my favorite quotations of all time is this. Gregory Peck, when
he
>>had just hit the big time in the early fifties, and his gang showed up
>>at a fancy restaurant. The Maitre'd informed them it would be some
time
>>before they could be seated. One of his entourage stepped up to the
>>Maitre'd and said, excuse me, but do you know who this is?" Peck
pulled
>>him aside and said to him "If ya gotta tell 'em who you are, you
ain't"
>>I think of this every time I see a guy with watch with 47 functions on
>>it.
>>
>>Bertie
>
> my criteria for a flying watch was borne of absolute necessity. it is
> that the face is plain enough that I can reliably read the time in no
> more than a glance. ...because that is as long a period as you get.
>
> my 3 watches are in the seconds per week accuracy range, quartz
> movements, all three cost under $75 and in fact two of them together
> cost under $60.
>
> they are actual flying watches.
>
> I've never been able to ever get anyone to believe me that that is
> actually what you need in a flying watch.
> two were made by loris and one by swatch.
>
> how the hell could you ever read a 47 function watch in teeth shaking
> turbulence?
> zulu time in the little window???? that's what the watch on the odd
> side wrist is set to!

Well, I only use the airplane's clock in flight, and there's precious
little need for that these days ( I was recently asked why I punch the
stopwatch passing the marker by a training captain not too long ago) The
wris****ch is only as a backup in flight. It doesn't have a stop watch
function at all, though I probably would have one if the airplane didn't
have one for flying instruments.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

More_Flaps > wrote in
:

> On May 13, 7:17*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> More_Flaps > wrote
>> innews:33a93fff-3e7f-4e94-b273-8e7e
> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 13, 6:16*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> More_Flaps > wrote
>> >> innews:1d5a7be3-2bc1-461d-ac47-c4e9
>> > :
>>
>> >> > On May 13, 10:37*am, Le Chaud Lapin >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> On May 12, 5:11*pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On May 13, 9:51*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > More_Flaps writes:
>> >> >> > > > I think you are MXing up an ad hominem with simple
>> >> >> > > > personal attack.
>>
>> >> >> > > Same thing.
>>
>> >> >> > Nope.
>>
>> >> >> Not to nit-pick, but:
>>
>> >> >> "Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting
>> >> >> personal attacks, as in "Notwithstanding all the ad hominem,
>> >> >> Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together"
>> >> >> (Washington Post)"
>>
>> >> > Here you go, a better definition than the washington pist:
>>
>> >> > "Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic,
>> >> > since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the
>> >> > validity of a logical inference is independent of the person
>> >> > making the inference. However, ad hominem arguments are rarely
>> >> > presented as formal syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the
>> >> > domain of informal logic and the theory of evidence.[1] The
>> >> > theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of
>> >> > the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and
>> >> > expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is
>> >> > unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported
>> >> > expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role
>> >> > in making judgements from evidence. Argumentum ad hominem is the
>> >> > inverse of argumentum ad verecundiam, in which the arguer bases
>> >> > the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or
>> >> > position of the person asserting it. Hence, while an ad hominem
>> >> > argument may make an assertion less compelling, by showing that
>> >> > the person making the assertion does not have the authority,
>> >> > knowledge or position they claim, or has made mistaken
>> >> > assertions on similar topics in the past, it cannot provide an
>> >> > infallible counterargument."
>>
>> >> > Cheers
>>
>> >> The guy who wrote that is an asshole.
>>
>> > You know him/her?
>>
>> > Cheers
>>
>> I'm a pearl before swine..
>>
>
> Sorry, I thought you were being a "master troll". In any case, that
> should be an opal before bunyi.

I was! It's a fukkin joke!


Bertie

[F. Baum]

On May 13, 6:01*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Well, I only use the airplane's clock in flight, and there's precious
> little need for that these days ( I was recently asked why I punch the
> stopwatch passing the marker by a training captain not too long ago) The
> wris****ch is only as a backup in flight. It doesn't have a stop watch
> function at all, though I probably would have one if the airplane didn't
> have one for flying instruments.

The Boeings have nice clocks although like you said, they dont get
used much. All the holds are DME based and I cant remember the last
time anyone here timed an approach. I do wear a $30 timex, but thats
just to make sure I show up on time. It is actually a whatch someone
on this list recomended (I knew I wasnt just waisting my time on this
list).
F Baum

[Mxsmanic]

More_Flaps writes:

> Nope, still not the same -as supported by the reference you gave. Ad
> hominem is an abbreviation for Argumentum ad hominem ...

= argument against the man (personal attack)

[Mxsmanic]

Stealth Pilot writes:

> my criteria for a flying watch was borne of absolute necessity. it is
> that the face is plain enough that I can reliably read the time in no
> more than a glance. ...because that is as long a period as you get.

Interesting ... that'll make a good topic for discussion; I'll try it.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Stealth Pilot wrote:

> how the hell could you ever read a 47 function watch in teeth shaking
> turbulence?
> zulu time in the little window???? that's what the watch on the odd
> side wrist is set to!
>
> Stealth Pilot

My wife got me a Citizen this Christmas nice BIG numbers with for hands
on it. The three obvious plus a fourth smaller that points at the
imbeded zulu scale. I like it a lot. Very easy to read (except the
date)under all conditions short of long term total darkness.

[[email protected]]

On May 13, 7:36 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:

> My wife got me a Citizen this Christmas nice BIG numbers with for hands
> on it. The three obvious plus a fourth smaller that points at the
> imbeded zulu scale. I like it a lot. Very easy to read (except the
> date)under all conditions short of long term total darkness.

I had one like that, wore it out, and can't find another. Who
makes it?

Dan

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> On May 13, 7:36 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>
>> My wife got me a Citizen this Christmas nice BIG numbers with for hands
>> on it. The three obvious plus a fourth smaller that points at the
>> imbeded zulu scale. I like it a lot. Very easy to read (except the
>> date)under all conditions short of long term total darkness.
>>
>
> I had one like that, wore it out, and can't find another. Who
> makes it?
>
> Dan
>

My guess would be Citizen.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"F. Baum" > wrote in news:b28d93a6-5f7f-4a7c-94ee-
:

> On May 13, 6:01*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Well, I only use the airplane's clock in flight, and there's precious
>> little need for that these days ( I was recently asked why I punch
the
>> stopwatch passing the marker by a training captain not too long ago)
The
>> wris****ch is only as a backup in flight. It doesn't have a stop
watch
>> function at all, though I probably would have one if the airplane
didn't
>> have one for flying instruments.
>
> The Boeings have nice clocks although like you said, they dont get
> used much. All the holds are DME based and I cant remember the last
> time anyone here timed an approach. I do wear a $30 timex, but thats
> just to make sure I show up on time. It is actually a whatch someone
> on this list recomended (I knew I wasnt just waisting my time on this
> list).
> F Baum
>

Yeh, I have a Seiko worth maybe 75 that i got as a gift. Mostly for
showing up on time as you say. I still hit the clock passing the marker
every time, though. It's more a spacial awareness type thing now. The
habit comes from giving yourself the ability to revert to a non-
precision if you lost the glide or the ILS altogether or to help you
find the MAP if there was a complete failre. Almost completely redundant
now, but I still do it because it helps my awareness.


Bertie

[Marco Leon[_5_]]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
...
> Scott Skylane wrote:
>> Bob Fry wrote:
>>> Hey, you just need a better newsreader. I use GNUS, part of GNU
>>> Emacs. After screening out Jay Honeck and his homies, Bertie, and a
>>> few others, 90% of the posts are gone and 95% of the junk.
>>
>> And you're left with exactly, what?

> The good stuff.

Wow, you guys really filter-out Jay?

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

wrote:
> On May 13, 7:36 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>
>> My wife got me a Citizen this Christmas nice BIG numbers with for hands
>> on it. The three obvious plus a fourth smaller that points at the
>> imbeded zulu scale. I like it a lot. Very easy to read (except the
>> date)under all conditions short of long term total darkness.
>
> I had one like that, wore it out, and can't find another. Who
> makes it?
>
> Dan

Citizen, I got it last Christmas so it may still be in the line, but I
can't find it on their website. They do come and go.

It's a lot like this one.

http://www.citizenwatch.com/COA/English/detail.asp?Country=COA&Language=English&ModelNumber=BM8180-03E&page=1

but mine has a grey band and the GMT function. The other one they have
like it (and there is a link from that URL) has the GMT on a small dial
and all the chrono functions.

[More_Flaps]

On May 14, 1:09*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> More_Flaps writes:
> > Nope, still not the same -as supported by the reference you gave. Ad
> > hominem is an abbreviation for Argumentum ad hominem ...
>
> = argument against the man (personal attack)

An argument = attack? You wouldn't last long as a scientist.

Cheers

[More_Flaps]

On May 14, 2:01*am, wrote:
> On May 13, 7:36 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>
> > My wife got me a Citizen this Christmas nice BIG numbers with for hands
> > on it. The three obvious plus a fourth smaller that points at the
> > imbeded zulu scale. I like it a lot. Very easy to read (except the
> > date)under all conditions short of long term total darkness.
>
> * * *I had one like that, wore it out, and can't find another. Who
> makes it?
>

Foriners. employed by Citizen

Cheers

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

More_Flaps wrote:
> On May 14, 1:09 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> More_Flaps writes:
>>> Nope, still not the same -as supported by the reference you gave. Ad
>>> hominem is an abbreviation for Argumentum ad hominem ...
>> = argument against the man (personal attack)
>
> An argument = attack? You wouldn't last long as a scientist.
>
> Cheers

Science is interesting in how it's approached on occasion. It's so much
what something is as what it isn't.
I believe it was Einstein who, when asked what an atom looked like, once
said,
"Well, I'm not really sure what an atom looks like, but I'm fairly
certain it doesn't look like a cat".
You have to respect a guy with a sense of humor like that :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> I was! It's a fukkin joke!
>
>
> Bertie

Nah, you're the ****ing joke.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> One of my favorite quotations of all time is this. Gregory Peck, when he
> had just hit the big time in the early fifties, and his gang showed up
> at a fancy restaurant. The Maitre'd informed them it would be some time
> before they could be seated. One of his entourage stepped up to the
> Maitre'd and said, excuse me, but do you know who this is?" Peck pulled
> him aside and said to him "If ya gotta tell 'em who you are, you ain't"
> I think of this every time I see a guy with watch with 47 functions on
> it.
>
> Bertie

I think of it every time you and Dudley get in to one of your stroking
sessions.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>B A R R Y > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Mon, 12 May 2008 12:14:45 -0700 (PDT), "F. Baum" >
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>Partially agree here. At work I see the types who have to make sure
>>>evryone at a party knows they are a pilot. They drive around town
>>>running errands 3 hours before sign in IN their uniforms
>>
>> FWIW, I know firefighters, mail carriers, a UPS driver, a FedEx driver
>> and a riverboat pilot that do the same.
>>
>
> True. Some would be just too lazy to change, of course!
>
>> In fact I know firefighters that wear something related to
>> firefighting, like a "DC Collapse Unit" t-shirt, EVERY day.
>>
>
> That's a bit creepy, alright. If you've ever had the opportunity to have
> to be consoled for some really major trauma, the feeling that comes from
> having someone show you some genuine sympathy is intense, to say the
> least. It's a physical reaction, obviously designed to encourage the
> person to seek out the assistance of the tribe in hard times and it
> feels as good as an orgasm, or what I might imagine a shot of an opiate
> might feel like. I'm sure lots here have felt it. It's not hard to see
> how it might become addictive, in fact. I've got a notion that it's
> probably the reason that people with Munchausen and it's related
> ailments do what they do.
>
> Bertie
>

What a crock of ****. Are you quoting your brother Dudley directly.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> tman <inv@lid> wrote in
> :
>
>> F. Baum wrote:
>>> On May 11, 7:29 pm, Shirl > wrote:
>>
>>> The thing I dont get about this list is how everything turns
>>> argumentitive after about a dozen posts on a thread. I dont get
>>
>> Totally disagree with that one FB. You are way off base here. Let me
>> start by saying that not _everything_ turns arg after about a dozen
>> posts -- if only there was one that did not.
>>
>
> You're just trying to start an argument now.
>
>
> Bertie

Why, because is disagreed with you?

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Tina > wrote in news:2cf9b37f-fa47-4e08-add7-
> :
>
>> Character, it's been said, is what you do when no one is watching.
>> These days on the 'net it's demonstrated in other ways. Oh well.
>>
>
> I'm considered a bit of a character rl as well.....
>
> Bertie

That's because they were to gracious to say "piece of ****".

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> All can be said to be true at any given moment in time.
> The bottom line on Usenet as I see it anyway, is in how the individual
> sees his/her own interaction with the venue.
> When it's all said and done, it will be only this interpretation that
> defines the Usenet experience for a specific user.
> I agree that it's confusing, and difficult to define; hence this exchange
> as an example.
> The main thing is that individuals be allowed to express opinion without
> attack, but as I'm sure each of us is aware, difficult to achieve on a
> consistent basis.
> Anyone posting to Usenet for any length of time will eventually be
> attacked and most likely assume an online posture more aggressive than
> that experienced in everyday life.
> The exact placing of the blame for this phenomenon remains for me anyway,
> extremely difficult to define clearly and to an exact answer.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Geez, what a crock.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

> wrote:
..
>
> I had one like that, wore it out, and can't find another. Who
> makes it?

This one?

http://www.amazon.com/Citizen-Eco-Drive-WR100-World-BJ9130-05E/dp/B000GDA13W

I have one of these. All I really need in a pilot's watch and it never needs
batteries.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Morgans[_2_]]

This is not aimed at Dan, but instead, everyone that has put up a response
to the lame thread about pilot's watches, started by MX.

Don't you all have a life?

It is bad enough that people reply to MX butt-lick on real topics, but to
respond to the most often posted, lamest thread, (since the dreaded down
wind turn)....

I simply have no words to express my disgust.

Are you all that lonely?

What am I missing? There are some people that I respect, or used to, that
are included in this thread.

COME ON, PEOPLE ! ! ! WAKE UP ! ! !

That sucking sound is the life being drained from this group.

RESIST THE URGE TO PARTICIPATE in ANY thread that has his participation.

I'm With Jay. I'm outta here.

It has been a nice ride; too bad a butt-lick ex-american, in paris, has the
ability to destroy a great forum.

Wake up. I won't be the last to leave, I'm sure.

Last one out, turn out the lights.

Sigh.
--
Jim in NC

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> This is not aimed at Dan, but instead, everyone that has put up a response
> to the lame thread about pilot's watches, started by MX.
>
> Don't you all have a life?
>
> It is bad enough that people reply to MX butt-lick on real topics, but to
> respond to the most often posted, lamest thread, (since the dreaded down
> wind turn)....
>
> I simply have no words to express my disgust.
>
> Are you all that lonely?
>
> What am I missing? There are some people that I respect, or used to, that
> are included in this thread.
>
> COME ON, PEOPLE ! ! ! WAKE UP ! ! !
>
> That sucking sound is the life being drained from this group.
>
> RESIST THE URGE TO PARTICIPATE in ANY thread that has his participation.
>
> I'm With Jay. I'm outta here.
>
> It has been a nice ride; too bad a butt-lick ex-american, in paris, has the
> ability to destroy a great forum.
>
> Wake up. I won't be the last to leave, I'm sure.
>
> Last one out, turn out the lights.
>
> Sigh.

I have a criteria. If anyone posts a legitimate question in a
straightforward and respectful manner, I'll answer that post in kind if
I have an answer.
Posts that don't meet this criteria I treat as the mood hits me.
The post about the watches as far as I could determine was presented in
good faith and answered in kind.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Benjamin Dover]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> This is not aimed at Dan, but instead, everyone that has put up a
> response to the lame thread about pilot's watches, started by MX.
>
> Don't you all have a life?
>
> It is bad enough that people reply to MX butt-lick on real topics, but
> to respond to the most often posted, lamest thread, (since the dreaded
> down wind turn)....
>
> I simply have no words to express my disgust.
>
> Are you all that lonely?
>
> What am I missing? There are some people that I respect, or used to,
> that are included in this thread.
>
> COME ON, PEOPLE ! ! ! WAKE UP ! ! !
>
> That sucking sound is the life being drained from this group.
>
> RESIST THE URGE TO PARTICIPATE in ANY thread that has his
> participation.
>
> I'm With Jay. I'm outta here.
>
> It has been a nice ride; too bad a butt-lick ex-american, in paris,
> has the ability to destroy a great forum.
>
> Wake up. I won't be the last to leave, I'm sure.
>
> Last one out, turn out the lights.
>
> Sigh.

It's fun to kick MXSmoron around.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote

> I have a criteria. If anyone posts a legitimate question in a
> straightforward and respectful manner, I'll answer that post in kind if I
> have an answer.

I humbly suggest that you change that criteria.

This is a question from a person that is about to put the last nail in the
coffin of RAP; a place that many people have come to for answers, and you
have helped to provide.

I would suspect that conservetively, there are only about 33% of the posters
stuill here that used to frequent this forum, and most of the missing have
been driven off by him and the trolls that came in "to get" him.

Would you answer questions of a known murderer, about the best way to kill
people, and not get caught? How about giving answers to a known child
abuser, about ways to get young children to come into his house?

I hope you would not honostly answer yes to the above questions, because if
you do, you need help.

You say you want to increase the safety of people flying, right? I believe
you have. If they are not in here, you can't help them. They are not here
because of a person you are enabling, by responding to.

Your criteria should include a part about not answering known trolls. It
does not take much imagination to conclude that he is a troll.

Until you and others start to see it that way, he will stay, and others will
_stay away_.

Like I said, the last one out, turn out the lights.
--
Jim in NC

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
>> I have a criteria. If anyone posts a legitimate question in a
>> straightforward and respectful manner, I'll answer that post in kind if I
>> have an answer.
>
> I humbly suggest that you change that criteria.
>
> This is a question from a person that is about to put the last nail in the
> coffin of RAP; a place that many people have come to for answers, and you
> have helped to provide.
>
> I would suspect that conservetively, there are only about 33% of the
> posters stuill here that used to frequent this forum, and most of the
> missing have been driven off by him and the trolls that came in "to get"
> him.
>
> Would you answer questions of a known murderer, about the best way to kill
> people, and not get caught? How about giving answers to a known child
> abuser, about ways to get young children to come into his house?
>
> I hope you would not honostly answer yes to the above questions, because
> if you do, you need help.
>
> You say you want to increase the safety of people flying, right? I
> believe you have. If they are not in here, you can't help them. They are
> not here because of a person you are enabling, by responding to.
>
> Your criteria should include a part about not answering known trolls. It
> does not take much imagination to conclude that he is a troll.
>
> Until you and others start to see it that way, he will stay, and others
> will _stay away_.
>
> Like I said, the last one out, turn out the lights.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>

Very well said Jim. I often disagree with you, but today is not one of those
times.

It amazes me how many otherwise sensible people, continue to enable not only
Mx, but Bertie as well, by supplying them with STRAIGHT answers.

They are literally feeding the trolls. It causes me to seriously consider
the agenda of anyone that does so.

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "ML" == Marco Leon > writes:

ML> Wow, you guys really filter-out Jay?

Wow, you really like his astonishingly ignorant off-topic posts?

--
Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the
song still in them.
~ Henry David Thoreau

[F. Baum]

On May 13, 5:19*pm, "Morgans"
> This is not aimed at Dan, but instead, everyone that has put up a response
> to the lame thread about pilot's watches, started by MX.

Actually, the last pilot watch thread that I can remember was started
by Jay H. (I gotta admit I dont reference this list that often). I
went and got a pretty decent watch , on sale no less, after reading
that thread. I wear it every time I go flying.
>
> Don't you all have a life?

Dont you.
>
>
> I simply have no words to express my disgust.

Come on, let it all out.

>
> What am I missing? *There are some people that I respect, or used to, that
> are included in this thread.

I dont get no repsect.

>
>
> That sucking sound is the life being drained from this group.

This coming from the guy who threatened to kick so and so's ass if he
showed up at Jays Oshcosh party.
>
>
> I'm With Jay. *I'm outta here.

If you are "Outa here", why are you still posting?
>
> It has been a nice ride; too bad a butt-lick ex-american, in paris, has the
> ability to destroy a great forum.
>
> Wake up. *I won't be the last to leave, I'm sure.
>
> Last one out, turn out the lights.

James, look man, Its springtime. Go out and enjoy the nice flying WX
and the airshow season and we can pick up the bickering in November.
.
> --
> Jim in NC
Frank

[romeomike]

Morgans wrote:
> This is not aimed at Dan, but instead, everyone that has put up a response
> to the lame thread about pilot's watches, started by MX.


Once I posted a complaint about the OT posts of one of your buddies
here, and you replied with a condescending offer to show me how to use a
kill file. Why don't you just follow your own advice?

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

on 5/13/2008 6:52 AM Clark said the following:
> Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:48287b7e$0$950$804603d3
> @auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:
>
>> on 5/12/2008 11:36 AM Blanche said the following:
>>> And I've found that a kill file solves about 60% of the problems on
>>> this list (as well as others). I've also noticed that once a thread
>>> gets past 10-12 responses, it's either off-target (and usually
>>> irrelevant) or nothing but absurbist posts.
>> Like this one?
>>
> So you say. I can simulate this thread and by that demonstration prove that
> it is relevent and on-target in that context. You should just answer the
> question and stick to the point rather than trying to attack the person with
> the question. After all the original question and thread simulation is all
> that matters.
>
> Now stick with the program and simulation, ok?

Uh, no.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"romeomike" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans wrote:
>> This is not aimed at Dan, but instead, everyone that has put up a
>> response to the lame thread about pilot's watches, started by MX.
>
>
> Once I posted a complaint about the OT posts of one of your buddies here,
> and you replied with a condescending offer to show me how to use a kill
> file. Why don't you just follow your own advice?

After tomorrow, I won't need to.

As far as that subject goes, I don't see MX or his dribble, nor do I see
many of his prime supporters and troll buddies. I have a larger kill file
by tenfold, than I have ever had before. I do see some of it in the replies
sent his way, regardless.

There is no way to filter out every one of those, without filtering most of
the group.

Past that, what I object to, is what his presence has done to this group, as
I already stated. Many good people are not willing to wade through the
crap, and are no longer participating. There is less and less reason to
look here, any longer. Tomorrow, I will be gone, with them.

Long ago, when a personality like this appeared, he was shown the door, and
it was made to stick.

No longer, unfortunately.

Oh, by the way, thanks, you are in my trash bin, thanks to your timely
reminder.
--
Jim in NC

[romeomike]

Morgans wrote:

>
> Oh, by the way, thanks, you are in my trash bin, thanks to your timely
> reminder.

You're leaving but still need to update your killfile? :-) You'll be
back. Bye

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

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

>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>
>>> I have a criteria. If anyone posts a legitimate question in a
>>> straightforward and respectful manner, I'll answer that post in kind
>>> if I have an answer.
>>
>> I humbly suggest that you change that criteria.
>>
>> This is a question from a person that is about to put the last nail
>> in the coffin of RAP; a place that many people have come to for
>> answers, and you have helped to provide.
>>
>> I would suspect that conservetively, there are only about 33% of the
>> posters stuill here that used to frequent this forum, and most of the
>> missing have been driven off by him and the trolls that came in "to
>> get" him.
>>
>> Would you answer questions of a known murderer, about the best way to
>> kill people, and not get caught? How about giving answers to a known
>> child abuser, about ways to get young children to come into his
>> house?
>>
>> I hope you would not honostly answer yes to the above questions,
>> because if you do, you need help.
>>
>> You say you want to increase the safety of people flying, right? I
>> believe you have. If they are not in here, you can't help them.
>> They are not here because of a person you are enabling, by responding
>> to.
>>
>> Your criteria should include a part about not answering known trolls.
>> It does not take much imagination to conclude that he is a troll.
>>
>> Until you and others start to see it that way, he will stay, and
>> others will _stay away_.
>>
>> Like I said, the last one out, turn out the lights.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>>
>>
>
> Very well said Jim. I often disagree with you, but today is not one of
> those times.
>
> It amazes me how many otherwise sensible people, continue to enable
> not only Mx, but Bertie as well, by supplying them with STRAIGHT
> answers.
>
> They are literally feeding the trolls. It causes me to seriously
> consider the agenda of anyone that does so.
>


What, like you, for example?


And "seriously consider the agenda" ?

Bwawhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhhawhhahwhahwhahhw!


Bertie
>
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:8unWj.42277$KJ1.13770
@newsfe19.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> One of my favorite quotations of all time is this. Gregory Peck, when
he
>> had just hit the big time in the early fifties, and his gang showed
up
>> at a fancy restaurant. The Maitre'd informed them it would be some
time
>> before they could be seated. One of his entourage stepped up to the
>> Maitre'd and said, excuse me, but do you know who this is?" Peck
pulled
>> him aside and said to him "If ya gotta tell 'em who you are, you
ain't"
>> I think of this every time I see a guy with watch with 47 functions
on
>> it.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I think of it every time you and Dudley get in to one of your stroking
> sessions.


I bet you do.


If you sub to a proper new server instead of that Okie crap you got you
could read even more on alt.fan.bertie-the-bunyip.



Bertie
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:ZwnWj.42280$KJ1.25937
@newsfe19.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Tina > wrote in news:2cf9b37f-fa47-4e08-add7-
>> :
>>
>>> Character, it's been said, is what you do when no one is watching.
>>> These days on the 'net it's demonstrated in other ways. Oh well.
>>>
>>
>> I'm considered a bit of a character rl as well.....
>>
>> Bertie
>
> That's because they were to gracious to say "piece of ****".
>
>

Some say that, I'm sure. I don't really care. You can't please
everyone..

Do you actually think anything an idiot like you says bothers me, BTW?


Just wondering.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:NvnWj.42278$KJ1.2800
@newsfe19.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>B A R R Y > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Mon, 12 May 2008 12:14:45 -0700 (PDT), "F. Baum"
>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>Partially agree here. At work I see the types who have to make sure
>>>>evryone at a party knows they are a pilot. They drive around town
>>>>running errands 3 hours before sign in IN their uniforms
>>>
>>> FWIW, I know firefighters, mail carriers, a UPS driver, a FedEx
driver
>>> and a riverboat pilot that do the same.
>>>
>>
>> True. Some would be just too lazy to change, of course!
>>
>>> In fact I know firefighters that wear something related to
>>> firefighting, like a "DC Collapse Unit" t-shirt, EVERY day.
>>>
>>
>> That's a bit creepy, alright. If you've ever had the opportunity to
have
>> to be consoled for some really major trauma, the feeling that comes
from
>> having someone show you some genuine sympathy is intense, to say the
>> least. It's a physical reaction, obviously designed to encourage the
>> person to seek out the assistance of the tribe in hard times and it
>> feels as good as an orgasm, or what I might imagine a shot of an
opiate
>> might feel like. I'm sure lots here have felt it. It's not hard to
see
>> how it might become addictive, in fact. I've got a notion that it's
>> probably the reason that people with Munchausen and it's related
>> ailments do what they do.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> What a crock of ****. Are you quoting your brother Dudley directly.
>

Nope. Personal experience, fjukktard.
And there are several peole here aware of that experience and so realise
what a ninny you are.

Not that that would be much of a revelation.

Bertie
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:cwnWj.42279$KJ1.26529
@newsfe19.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> tman <inv@lid> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> F. Baum wrote:
>>>> On May 11, 7:29 pm, Shirl > wrote:
>>>
>>>> The thing I dont get about this list is how everything turns
>>>> argumentitive after about a dozen posts on a thread. I dont get
>>>
>>> Totally disagree with that one FB. You are way off base here. Let
me
>>> start by saying that not _everything_ turns arg after about a dozen
>>> posts -- if only there was one that did not.
>>>
>>
>> You're just trying to start an argument now.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Why, because is disagreed with you?
>


Whoosh.

(Insert lame IKYABWAI lame here, Maxie)



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:atnWj.42276$KJ1.16744
@newsfe19.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I was! It's a fukkin joke!
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Nah, you're the ****ing joke.
>
>
Well, almost, i'm the ****ing joker.




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

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

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> All can be said to be true at any given moment in time.
>> The bottom line on Usenet as I see it anyway, is in how the
>> individual sees his/her own interaction with the venue.
>> When it's all said and done, it will be only this interpretation that
>> defines the Usenet experience for a specific user.
>> I agree that it's confusing, and difficult to define; hence this
>> exchange as an example.
>> The main thing is that individuals be allowed to express opinion
>> without attack, but as I'm sure each of us is aware, difficult to
>> achieve on a consistent basis.
>> Anyone posting to Usenet for any length of time will eventually be
>> attacked and most likely assume an online posture more aggressive
>> than that experienced in everyday life.
>> The exact placing of the blame for this phenomenon remains for me
>> anyway, extremely difficult to define clearly and to an exact answer.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Geez, what a crock.
>
>
>

Geez what a ****.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

HARRY POTTER > wrote in
:

> Maxwell wrote:
>>
>> Very well said Jim. I often disagree with you, but today is not one
>> of those times.
>>
>> It amazes me how many otherwise sensible people, continue to enable
>> not only Mx, but Bertie as well, by supplying them with STRAIGHT
>> answers.
>>
>> They are literally feeding the trolls. It causes me to seriously
>> consider the agenda of anyone that does so.
>
> I agree with you on Bertie, but not MX. I honestly think MX posts here
> because he genuinely wants to learn about piloting. All his threads
> starts on a reasonable tone. Its other people who turn it into a
> ****fest, which he then responds to. His "trolling", I feel, is mainly
> caused by his frustration of the fact that people judge his opinions
> solely on who he is, rather than what he posts. If people treated his
> opinions like they would anybody else, he'd stop being so blatantly
> obtuse.
>
> It's like punishing a dog when it does something bad, as well as
> punishing it when it does something good. After a while, the
> punishment loses all meaning. People here think that by being rude to
> him everytime he makes a post is going to drive him away, but all it's
> doing is making him more and more bitter and dismissive of people's
> criticism.
>
> Bertie, on the other hand, reminds me of this kid I knew in middle
> school whose acting up in class was largely caused by all the other
> kids in the class' giggling at his antics. As long as people keep
> namedropping Bertie him in their more serious threads and showing
> sycophantic feelings towards him, his trolling "personality" will
> continue to be positively reinforced and it'll never stop.`


mmm, yes and no, while attention is always nice, it's not central to
what I do or why I do it. I kinda thought that would be a bit more
obvious.
>
> Bertie's trolling is caused by something completely different that
> what causes MX to troll, so they need to be dealt with differently.
>

And good luck with that, you'll be the first.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Benjamin Dover > wrote in
:

> "Morgans" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> This is not aimed at Dan, but instead, everyone that has put up a
>> response to the lame thread about pilot's watches, started by MX.
>>
>> Don't you all have a life?
>>
>> It is bad enough that people reply to MX butt-lick on real topics,
but
>> to respond to the most often posted, lamest thread, (since the
dreaded
>> down wind turn)....
>>
>> I simply have no words to express my disgust.
>>
>> Are you all that lonely?
>>
>> What am I missing? There are some people that I respect, or used to,
>> that are included in this thread.
>>
>> COME ON, PEOPLE ! ! ! WAKE UP ! ! !
>>
>> That sucking sound is the life being drained from this group.
>>
>> RESIST THE URGE TO PARTICIPATE in ANY thread that has his
>> participation.
>>
>> I'm With Jay. I'm outta here.
>>
>> It has been a nice ride; too bad a butt-lick ex-american, in paris,
>> has the ability to destroy a great forum.
>>
>> Wake up. I won't be the last to leave, I'm sure.
>>
>> Last one out, turn out the lights.
>>
>> Sigh.
>
> It's fun to kick MXSmoron around.
>
>

Voila, it's been said.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

HARRY POTTER > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> mmm, yes and no, while attention is always nice, it's not central to
>> what I do or why I do it. I kinda thought that would be a bit more
>> obvious.
>
> Then why DO you do it? How exactly do you get satisfaction out of
> making 100 pointless oneliners every day to many people who don't even
> reply back? I have not seen MX, Jay Honeck, or many others reply to a
> single one of your "trolls" (or whatever you prefer to call them), yet
> you still persist. Can't you just think of these witty things to say,
> but instead of posting them, keep them to yourself? Will you at least
> agree than by posting all the time, you're genuinely decreasing the
> quality of this group as a whole? Is that what motivates you? Knowing
> you're making it hard for others to enjoy this group? Or is it because
> you think by "ribbing" the undesirable people, you active as a voice
> that speaks on the behalf of the rest of the group? I'm honestly
> curious.
>

Well, as you can see I post just like anyone else most of the time. But
when a target of oppotunity arises, well, it's just too hard to resist.
Entetaining and educational.
As to the rest, I did tell anyone who was interested to killfile me from
the start.....






Bertie

[More_Flaps]

On May 14, 7:03*pm, HARRY POTTER > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> > mmm, yes and no, while attention is always nice, it's not central to
> > what I do or why I do it. I kinda thought that would be a bit more
> > obvious.
>
> Then why DO you do it? How exactly do you get satisfaction out of making 100
> pointless oneliners every day to many people who don't even reply back? I
> have not seen MX, Jay Honeck, or many others reply to a single one of
> your "trolls" (or whatever you prefer to call them), yet you still persist..
> Can't you just think of these witty things to say, but instead of posting
> them, keep them to yourself? Will you at least agree than by posting all
> the time, you're genuinely decreasing the quality of this group as a whole?
> Is that what motivates you? Knowing you're making it hard for others to
> enjoy this group? Or is it because you think by "ribbing" the undesirable
> people, you active as a voice that speaks on the behalf of the rest of the
> group? I'm honestly curious.

BtB really doesn't care what you think or what the group may become.
He views the entire internet as something for his amusement, which it
is of course. He delights in holding a magnifying glass to the ants
and watch them scurry as it gets hotter. That's all and he'll not
change.

my 2c

Cheers

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Bob Fry wrote:
>>>>>> "ML" == Marco Leon > writes:
>
>> Wow, you guys really filter-out Jay?
>
> Wow, you really like his astonishingly ignorant off-topic posts?


I found his postings self-serving and designed to point attention to himself. I
filtered him quite a while ago. Like MX, he doesn't bother me now.

Don't like somebody's postings? Don't read them. The kill file is your friend.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

More_Flaps > wrote in
:

> On May 14, 7:03*pm, HARRY POTTER > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> > mmm, yes and no, while attention is always nice, it's not central
>> > to what I do or why I do it. I kinda thought that would be a bit
>> > more obvious.
>>
>> Then why DO you do it? How exactly do you get satisfaction out of
>> making 1
> 00
>> pointless oneliners every day to many people who don't even reply
>> back? I have not seen MX, Jay Honeck, or many others reply to a
>> single one of your "trolls" (or whatever you prefer to call them),
>> yet you still persist
> .
>> Can't you just think of these witty things to say, but instead of
>> posting them, keep them to yourself? Will you at least agree than by
>> posting all the time, you're genuinely decreasing the quality of this
>> group as a whole
> ?
>> Is that what motivates you? Knowing you're making it hard for others
>> to enjoy this group? Or is it because you think by "ribbing" the
>> undesirable people, you active as a voice that speaks on the behalf
>> of the rest of the
>
>> group? I'm honestly curious.
>
> BtB really doesn't care what you think or what the group may become.
> He views the entire internet as something for his amusement, which it
> is of course. He delights in holding a magnifying glass to the ants
> and watch them scurry as it gets hotter. That's all and he'll not
> change.
>
> my 2c
>
> Cheers
>

I woulodn't do that to ants!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

More_Flaps > wrote in
:

> On May 14, 7:03*pm, HARRY POTTER > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> > mmm, yes and no, while attention is always nice, it's not central
>> > to what I do or why I do it. I kinda thought that would be a bit
>> > more obvious.
>>
>> Then why DO you do it? How exactly do you get satisfaction out of
>> making 1
> 00
>> pointless oneliners every day to many people who don't even reply
>> back? I have not seen MX, Jay Honeck, or many others reply to a
>> single one of your "trolls" (or whatever you prefer to call them),
>> yet you still persist
> .
>> Can't you just think of these witty things to say, but instead of
>> posting them, keep them to yourself? Will you at least agree than by
>> posting all the time, you're genuinely decreasing the quality of this
>> group as a whole
> ?
>> Is that what motivates you? Knowing you're making it hard for others
>> to enjoy this group? Or is it because you think by "ribbing" the
>> undesirable people, you active as a voice that speaks on the behalf
>> of the rest of the
>
>> group? I'm honestly curious.
>
> BtB really doesn't care what you think or what the group may become.
> He views the entire internet as something for his amusement, which it
> is of course. He delights in holding a magnifying glass to the ants
> and watch them scurry as it gets hotter. That's all and he'll not
> change.
>
> my 2c
>
> Cheers
>
Oh, allegory!

Yes,


Bertie

[cavedweller]

On May 13, 11:44 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:

> After tomorrow, I won't need to.
>
> As far as that subject goes, I don't see MX or his dribble,

Well, before you go, it's "drivel"

[Andrew Sarangan]

On May 13, 11:44*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "romeomike" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Morgans wrote:
> >> This is not aimed at Dan, but instead, everyone that has put up a
> >> response to the lame thread about pilot's watches, started by MX.
>
> > Once I posted a complaint about the OT posts of one of your buddies here,
> > and you replied with a condescending offer to show me how to use a kill
> > file. Why don't you just follow your own advice?
>
> After tomorrow, I won't need to.
>
> As far as that subject goes, I don't see MX or his dribble, nor do I see
> many of his prime supporters and troll buddies. *I have a larger kill file
> by tenfold, than I have ever had before. *I do see some of it in the replies
> sent his way, regardless.
>
> There is no way to filter out every one of those, without filtering most of
> the group.
>
> Past that, what I object to, is what his presence has done to this group, as
> I already stated. *Many good people are not willing to wade through the
> crap, and are no longer participating. *There is less and less reason to
> look here, any longer. *Tomorrow, I will be gone, with them.
>
> Long ago, when a personality like this appeared, he was shown the door, and
> it was made to stick.
>
> No longer, unfortunately.
>
> Oh, by the way, thanks, you are in my trash bin, thanks to your timely
> reminder.
> --
> Jim in NC

I have been posting here since 1994, so I've seen many kinds. Long
ago, when personalities like this appeared, they were dealt with
professionally. MX's naiive questions could be answered in a simple
one-liner, or ignored. But his groupies are constantly barraging with
endless taunts and insults. With the abundance of throw-away email
addresses and perfect anonymity, insults and taunts have now become
the norm.

[[email protected]]

On May 13, 11:50 pm, HARRY POTTER > wrote:

> I agree with you on Bertie, but not MX. I honestly think MX posts here
> because he genuinely wants to learn about piloting. All his threads starts
> on a reasonable tone. Its other people who turn it into a ****fest, which
> he then responds to. His "trolling", I feel, is mainly caused by his
> frustration of the fact that people judge his opinions solely on who he is,
> rather than what he posts. If people treated his opinions like they would
> anybody else, he'd stop being so blatantly obtuse.

You haven't been here long enough. Many times Mx or Le Chaud
Lapin will ask a question, get the right answer in a polite manner,
and then argue endlessly against that answer, belittling the teacher.
What reaction would you expect?
Many of the physics and other things in aviation are not
intuitive; that is, they don't make sense to the uninitiated, and
without well-rounded groundschooling and flight instruction they never
will make sense. Flight simulators don't teach these things. Add to
that the fact that there are people who are certain that they're much
smarter than the average bear and so they have "new" answers to
aviation's problems. Those new answers killed a lot of guys a long
time ago but they don't know that. To them, "well-rounded
groundschooling" is equal to standard party propaganda and therefore
false.
Do some searching on past posts and see what I mean. The only
reason I answer him at all, when he asks a legitimate question, is
that there are others lurking here who likely have the same questions
in their minds. Something I've leaned as a classroom teacher: If one
asks, some of the others want the answer, too.
If those lurkers are still here, that is, after all the
electronic mudslinging recently.

Dan

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> I humbly suggest that you change that criteria.

Geez, Jim -- with ALL the crap that's been going on here lately, you let a
post about a WATCH push you over the edge?

Have another beer and relax. You coming to OSH this year?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Then why DO you do it? How exactly do you get satisfaction out of making
> 100
> pointless oneliners every day to many people who don't even reply back? I
> have not seen MX, Jay Honeck, or many others reply to a single one of
> your "trolls" (or whatever you prefer to call them), yet you still
> persist.

You're wasting your breath (and, worse, making the troll's posts visible to
those who have killfiled him) -- there is no logic to mental illness.
That's why it's classified as an "illness"...

Trolls are like mosquitoes. Killfiles are like "Off!". I use both, and
spend much less time itching. I suggest you follow suit.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You haven't been here long enough. Many times Mx or Le Chaud
> Lapin will ask a question, get the right answer in a polite manner,
> and then argue endlessly against that answer, belittling the teacher.

That's not true, at least in my case (I haven't audited all the threads in
which Le Chaud Lapin participates).

Many times, I get an answer that the poster believes to be correct, but it
conflicts with other sources I've consulted, so naturally I question it. Or I
get an answer that sounds intriguing, but when I ask for an explanation, the
person who gave me the answer has none--he learned it from someone and simply
accepted it, without caring about or looking up the supporting theory (if
any). Or I get multiple conflicting answers from several people, who then
start arguing with each other and trading insults--they cannot all be
simultaneously right.

I don't belittle anyone, but some people here are so incredibly insecure that
anything other than total, unconditional acceptance of anything they say is an
intolerable blow to their fragile egos, and they become defensive, resorting
to personal attacks, when confronted with anything less than total acceptance.
They are so sensitive, in fact, that they interpret every request for
clarification as a personal affront. People like this are hard to deal with
because they are so hypersensitive and emotional; however, they often don't
know much about anything, so dealing with them isn't always necessary.
Unfortunately, they are often among the first to respond. Once they learn
that their responses may not be instantly and totally accepted, their
subsequent responses consist of nothing more than personal attacks.

> Many of the physics and other things in aviation are not
> intuitive; that is, they don't make sense to the uninitiated, and
> without well-rounded groundschooling and flight instruction they never
> will make sense.

It's worse than that. I've discovered that many pilots just don't understand
those concepts, and asking about them only irritates them as they realize how
little they understand. The reality is that many of these concepts don't have
to be understood just to fly an airplane, and of those that might be useful to
understand, few are mandatory for safe flight.

Pilots are instructed by rote, just as most people are instructed by rote in
most things. The threshold of aptitude required to absorbe rote learning is
much lower than that required to understand theory, which is why it is usually
used. And rote learning accomplishes the purpose, as long as experience is
limited to situations covered by that learning. It only fails in situations
where inferences must be made for unforeseen situations based on theory, and
these are thankfully rare.

> Flight simulators don't teach these things.

Nobody teaches them, apparently, or at least nobody in flight instruction.

At one time I believed that flight instruction was far more comprehensive. I
now know, from what I see here and from my own investigations of the training
materials, that it is much simpler than I believed it to be. This shouldn't
surprise me (because almost all training is like this), but it does.

No amount of insult, personal attacks, or trolling intimidates me, so I don't
know why people bother. It actually seems to bother them far more than it
does me, when they discover that I don't care.

I'd be content to discuss aviation, but some people turn every discussion into
a discussion of personalities instead.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> You haven't been here long enough. Many times Mx or Le Chaud
> Lapin will ask a question, get the right answer in a polite manner,
> and then argue endlessly against that answer, belittling the teacher.

I have been here forever, and I have NEVER seen MX belittle anyone.

Not once.

Now, either that's because I don't read every, single thread MX responds to,
or it's because my definition of "belittling" differs from yours -- but I
have only seen polite responses from him in the face of some VERY demeaning
attacks.

In this regard, he certainly doesn't fit the M.O. of most trolls.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:iQDWj.163659$yE1.32309@attbi_s21:

>> Then why DO you do it? How exactly do you get satisfaction out of
>> making 100
>> pointless oneliners every day to many people who don't even reply
>> back? I have not seen MX, Jay Honeck, or many others reply to a
>> single one of your "trolls" (or whatever you prefer to call them),
>> yet you still persist.
>
> You're wasting your breath (and, worse, making the troll's posts
> visible to those who have killfiled him) -- there is no logic to
> mental illness. That's why it's classified as an "illness"...
>
> Trolls are like mosquitoes. Killfiles are like "Off!". I use both,
> and spend much less time itching. I suggest you follow suit.

He did, fjukktard. That's why he can't see your poasts.

Can't you read?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:NUDWj.109571$TT4.43765@attbi_s22:

>> You haven't been here long enough. Many times Mx or Le Chaud
>> Lapin will ask a question, get the right answer in a polite manner,
>> and then argue endlessly against that answer, belittling the teacher.
>
> I have been here forever, and I have NEVER seen MX belittle anyone.
>
> Not once.

I've seen him try, but of course, those went over your pointy head.
>
> Now, either that's because I don't read every, single thread MX
> responds to, or it's because my definition of "belittling" differs
> from yours -- but I have only seen polite responses from him in the
> face of some VERY demeaning attacks.
>
> In this regard, he certainly doesn't fit the M.O. of most trolls.


You wouldn't know wat a troll was if it bit you in the nuts.



Bertie

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>Actually, the last pilot watch thread that I can remember was started
>by Jay H. (I gotta admit I dont reference this list that often). I
>went and got a pretty decent watch , on sale no less, after reading
>that thread. I wear it every time I go flying.

Right -- me, too. It was a good thread, and I ended up with a great,
affordable flying watch, thanks to the recommendations from this group.

Honestly, I don't understand why Jim (or anyone else) gets so riled up over
MX. His threads are almost 100% on-topic, and who really cares if he's not
a "real" pilot? The true harm comes from the trolls who follow him
everywhere like butt-sniffing dogs, creating an atmosphere of bitterness and
anger that poisons the free exchange of information in this group.

How many great posts have been aborted, how many great posters have we lost,
simply because they see what's posted here in response to apparently benign
questions by guys like MX? Hell, if the group was like this ten years ago,
I sure wouldn't have posted all the (probably stupid) questions that I did
back then.

Back then, however, guys like Denny, and gals like Snowbird, and a host of
other incredibly experienced pilots patiently helped me learn the mysteries
and intricacies of flying and aircraft ownership. They reveled in their
ability to share their knowledge, and everyone was polite and grateful for
their help.

Later, after they had passed their knowledge on, many of us became the
"experts" that newbies approached for answers. It was, quite literally, the
perfect use for Usenet, and these groups flourished for many years. There
were simply no trolls, and no killfiles were necessary.

Oh, sure, there was the occasional spirited foray into politics, especially
during the divisive 2000 and 2004 elections -- but it was (mostly) conducted
politely and with good humor. Religion even popped in here once in a
while -- but piloting never lost center stage.

Until now.

What's especially painful is that the worst trolls here are apparently real
pilots. I've always believed that pilots were a cut-above the common man
or woman, and I've built a successful business based on that model. Every
time I come here now, though, I'm shown harsh evidence that mental illness
and a pilot's certificate are not mutually exclusive. THAT is what is so
sad -- and a little scary -- about the current state of our group.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Wow, you guys really filter-out Jay?

I can't decide whether to be disappointed...or honored.

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

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"HARRY POTTER" > wrote in message
...
>
> I agree with you on Bertie, but not MX. I honestly think MX posts here
> because he genuinely wants to learn about piloting. All his threads starts
> on a reasonable tone. Its other people who turn it into a ****fest, which
> he then responds to. His "trolling", I feel, is mainly caused by his
> frustration of the fact that people judge his opinions solely on who he
> is,
> rather than what he posts. If people treated his opinions like they would
> anybody else, he'd stop being so blatantly obtuse.
>
> It's like punishing a dog when it does something bad, as well as punishing
> it when it does something good. After a while, the punishment loses all
> meaning. People here think that by being rude to him everytime he makes a
> post is going to drive him away, but all it's doing is making him more and
> more bitter and dismissive of people's criticism.
>
> Bertie, on the other hand, reminds me of this kid I knew in middle school
> whose acting up in class was largely caused by all the other kids in the
> class' giggling at his antics. As long as people keep namedropping Bertie
> him in their more serious threads and showing sycophantic feelings towards
> him, his trolling "personality" will continue to be positively reinforced
> and it'll never stop.
>
> Bertie's trolling is caused by something completely different that what
> causes MX to troll, so they need to be dealt with differently.
>

You must be new to the group. Give it a little time, you are making the same
mistake others have made, many times before. In fact, MX counts on new
people to feed his threads. He is totally lost without them. They are the
only reason he is still here today.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
..

You're a liar, and an idiot.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On May 14, 9:40*am, wrote:
> On May 13, 11:50 pm, HARRY POTTER > wrote:
>
> > I agree with you on Bertie, but not MX. I honestly think MX posts here
> > because he genuinely wants to learn about piloting. All his threads starts
> > on a reasonable tone. Its other people who turn it into a ****fest, which
> > he then responds to. His "trolling", I feel, is mainly caused by his
> > frustration of the fact that people judge his opinions solely on who he is,
> > rather than what he posts. If people treated his opinions like they would
> > anybody else, he'd stop being so blatantly obtuse.

I have at least hinted that the pilots here might try that, and each
time they claimed that I was trolling.

> * * * You haven't been here long enough. Many times Mx or Le Chaud
> Lapin will ask a question, get the right answer in a polite manner,
> and then argue endlessly against that answer, belittling the teacher.
> What reaction would you expect?

I know of two specific examples were the answer was wrong. And also,
some of the stock answers are still under debate, like what causes
lift, probably one of the most fundamental, theoretical questions a
pilot might ask about flying.

Also, speaking for myself, I never said I was right. I was simply
exploring possibilities. There is nothing wrong with exploration of
topics still under debate.

> * * *Many of the physics and other things in aviation are not
> intuitive; that is, they don't make sense to the uninitiated, and
> without well-rounded groundschooling and flight instruction they never
> will make sense. Flight simulators don't teach these things. Add to
> that the fact that there are people who are certain that they're much
> smarter than the average bear and so they have "new" answers to
> aviation's problems. Those new answers killed a lot of guys a long
> time ago but they don't know that. To them, "well-rounded
> groundschooling" is equal to standard party propaganda and therefore
> false.

I agree with Harry. Though I have disagreed with Mx on one point, he
has never been rude, condescending, or hostile to me in any way. In
fact, I took a look at many of his posts a while back, and the
rudeness and hostility were coming from elsewhere. There also seemed
to be people who tend to vacillate between being helpful and being
hostile, depending on their given mood.

Secondly, I do not agree that there are things that necessarily do not
make sense to the "uninitiated."

A big part of flight dynamics is based upon Newtonian physics, and I
do understand Newtonian physics, and I personally know of people who
received advanced degrees in aero/astro who do not have a pilot's
license. Some of these individuals might know a bit about flight
dynamics too.

Also, there are some people who are both heavily-experienced pilots
who also understand the underlying physics: I was watching television
one day about Blue Angels, and the commentator mentioned that "only a
very few special pilots get to fly these aircraft, and precisely at
that moment, the camera panned to a classroom blackboard for only a
few hundred milliseconds, and behold, on the board, was none other
than a moderately complex transfer function H(s).

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

I thought..."Hmmm...Transfer functions...impressive...probably talking
about instability."

Most pilots I would imagine eventually develop an intuitive feel for
oscillations caused by instability, but they would not know where the
poles of transfer function governing that instability lie.

And as far as flying, from what I see, a large part of it is what one
knows, and there is a lot that can be learned from a simulator, like
VOR practice, which would be far more expensive if learned solely from
cockpit at $100/hour than using fixed $50 product from convenience of
home.

So the question becomes...how much theory can be learned in the
absence of actually flying, and how much requires being in the plane
(or having a groundschool instructor present while you read the book).

I think that quite a bit can be learned [and understood] before ever
leaving the ground, far more than what can only be learned by being in
the aircraft.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:zgEWj.163693
$yE1.47269@attbi_s21:

>> Wow, you guys really filter-out Jay?
>
> I can't decide whether to be disappointed...or honored.
>
>:-)

Of course you can't



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

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

>
> "HARRY POTTER" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I agree with you on Bertie, but not MX. I honestly think MX posts
>> here because he genuinely wants to learn about piloting. All his
>> threads starts on a reasonable tone. Its other people who turn it
>> into a ****fest, which he then responds to. His "trolling", I feel,
>> is mainly caused by his frustration of the fact that people judge his
>> opinions solely on who he is,
>> rather than what he posts. If people treated his opinions like they
>> would anybody else, he'd stop being so blatantly obtuse.
>>
>> It's like punishing a dog when it does something bad, as well as
>> punishing it when it does something good. After a while, the
>> punishment loses all meaning. People here think that by being rude to
>> him everytime he makes a post is going to drive him away, but all
>> it's doing is making him more and more bitter and dismissive of
>> people's criticism.
>>
>> Bertie, on the other hand, reminds me of this kid I knew in middle
>> school whose acting up in class was largely caused by all the other
>> kids in the class' giggling at his antics. As long as people keep
>> namedropping Bertie him in their more serious threads and showing
>> sycophantic feelings towards him, his trolling "personality" will
>> continue to be positively reinforced and it'll never stop.
>>
>> Bertie's trolling is caused by something completely different that
>> what causes MX to troll, so they need to be dealt with differently.
>>
>
> You must be new to the group. Give it a little time, you are making
> the same mistake others have made, many times before. In fact, MX
> counts on new people to feed his threads. He is totally lost without
> them. They are the only reason he is still here today.



And you are the only reason I'm still here.



Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
> news:NUDWj.109571$TT4.43765@attbi_s22:
>
>>> You haven't been here long enough. Many times Mx or Le Chaud
>>> Lapin will ask a question, get the right answer in a polite manner,
>>> and then argue endlessly against that answer, belittling the teacher.
>>
>> I have been here forever, and I have NEVER seen MX belittle anyone.
>>
>> Not once.
>
> I've seen him try, but of course, those went over your pointy head.
>>
>> Now, either that's because I don't read every, single thread MX
>> responds to, or it's because my definition of "belittling" differs
>> from yours -- but I have only seen polite responses from him in the
>> face of some VERY demeaning attacks.
>>
>> In this regard, he certainly doesn't fit the M.O. of most trolls.
>
>
> You wouldn't know wat a troll was if it bit you in the nuts.
>
>
>
> Bertie

Yeah, like you could, wanna boi.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

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

You;re a legend in your own mind.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

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

>
> Whoosh.
>
> (Insert lame IKYABWAI lame here, Maxie)
>
>
>
> Bertie

Keep your hollow head out of the wind, or wear ear muffs.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:idEWj.163686$yE1.109396@attbi_s21...

Damn Jay, I'm really surprised you would take up for that piece of ****. Mx
is not your friend, or any one else's. You need to spend more time observing
his behavior ALL the time, before you take up his cause.

As for the old days, we have always had problems with things like this. Can
you say "Liability Stealth". The biggest difference back then was 90% of the
players were a smaller, and closed knit group. They more often agreed who to
shun, and poke **** at. Today there are so many new players, many who only
THINK they know the ropes, and it confuses the mix.

EVERYONE needs to be much more careful about who the attack, and who the
real problem children really are.

[[email protected]]

On May 14, 9:52 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > You haven't been here long enough. Many times Mx or Le Chaud
> > Lapin will ask a question, get the right answer in a polite manner,
> > and then argue endlessly against that answer, belittling the teacher.
>
> I have been here forever, and I have NEVER seen MX belittle anyone.
>
> Not once.
>
> Now, either that's because I don't read every, single thread MX responds to,
> or it's because my definition of "belittling" differs from yours -- but I
> have only seen polite responses from him in the face of some VERY demeaning
> attacks.

There have been times, believe me, where we can get some
frustrated. If he isn't as bad as I made out, I apologize. But here's
an example of a reply from him about a year ago:

Viperdoc writes:
> Hey Anthony you butthead- your basic premise is incorrect: the autopilot in
> small planes (like the Baron I've flown for around 500 hours) does not do
> coordinated turns. Just because there might be some anomalous behavior in
> your game does not make is so in real life.

There is no anomaly in the game. The only anomaly I see is that
nobody here
knows the answer. Lots of people strutting about and claiming to be
experts,
and calling each other stupid, but nobody really knows, and that is
pretty
glaringly obvious to the observer.

> However, so little rudder is needed at speed, it makes no difference if the
> ball is halfway out, in terms of comfort.

Then my attempts to keep it centered with the rudder are not
necessary,
either.

> Also, a standard rate turn is not
> necessarily a coordinated turn, although some of your statements suggested
> that you do not know the difference.

I know the difference.

> As good as you might think it is, do not mistake the flying model of a $50
> computer game with real flying. Your presumed knowledge and the basis of
> your questions are obviously limited by the shortcomings of MSFS.

Do not assume that every anomaly is a simulator defect. The simulator
is a
lot better than you think. Indeed, it predicts the behavior of an
aircraft a
lot better than anyone here does.

End of quote.

A little presumptuous, maybe? Here's the whole thread if
interested:

http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.aviation.piloting/browse_thread/thread/b4b946f9d24fa995/23e320618b9960ce?hl=en&

Dan

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > You haven't been here long enough. Many times Mx or Le Chaud
> > Lapin will ask a question, get the right answer in a polite manner,
> > and then argue endlessly against that answer, belittling the teacher.

> I have been here forever, and I have NEVER seen MX belittle anyone.

> Not once.

I've never noticed him belittle individuals.

He belittles broad groups.

It makes him superior to the crowd to be able to say he never stoops
to personal attacks while catagorizing entire groups as stupid,
incompetent, lazy, etc.

That the groups he belittles are generally the majority of the readers
of the USENET groups he posts to is irrelevant.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> There have been times, believe me, where we can get some
> frustrated. If he isn't as bad as I made out, I apologize. But here's
> an example of a reply from him about a year ago:
>
> Viperdoc writes:
>> Hey Anthony you butthead- your basic premise is incorrect:

<MX's reply snipped>

Yep, MX was out of line with his facts -- but in the face of a personal
attack like that ("you butthead"?), you've got to be fairly impressed with
his calm response. Some of the so-called pilots here would have
immediately defaulted to cuss words and insults.

MX is a lot of things -- impolite isn't one of them.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[skym]

On May 14, 10:17*am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > Wow, you guys really filter-out Jay?
>
> I can't decide whether to be disappointed...or honored.
>
Jay,

You and I are on the opposite ends of the political spectrum.
However, I respect your (nonpolitical) replies as contributory to the
group. Actually, MX usually asks relevant questions also, even though
he is a poseur. He isn't offensive. BtB is a loser who needs to get
a life. I encounter and hear from guys like him in my practice every
day. They are a dime a dozen. Ignore him; it's not worth your
time...really.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:AWHWj.2949$hJ1.583
@newsfe17.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>>
>>
>
> You;re a legend in your own mind.
>
>
>

Yes, i am.


Also in NZ.


Soon also in Okieland, i 'spect.




Bertie


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:AWHWj.2950$hJ1.372
@newsfe17.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>
>> Whoosh.
>>
>> (Insert lame IKYABWAI lame here, Maxie)
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Keep your hollow head out of the wind, or wear ear muffs.
>
>
>

Well done. Now roll over.


Bertie
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

skym > wrote in news:34297d6f-ee61-4db1-ad87-
:

> On May 14, 10:17*am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>> > Wow, you guys really filter-out Jay?
>>
>> I can't decide whether to be disappointed...or honored.
>>
> Jay,
>
> You and I are on the opposite ends of the political spectrum.
> However, I respect your (nonpolitical) replies as contributory to the
> group. Actually, MX usually asks relevant questions also, even though
> he is a poseur. He isn't offensive. BtB is a loser who needs to get
> a life. I encounter and hear from guys like him in my practice every
> day. They are a dime a dozen. Ignore him; it's not worth your
> time...really.
>

Snort!

Doubt it.


Besides, he is ignoring me. didn't he tell you?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:uaHWj.17763$CE1.5989
@newsfe23.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>> news:NUDWj.109571$TT4.43765@attbi_s22:
>>
>>>> You haven't been here long enough. Many times Mx or Le Chaud
>>>> Lapin will ask a question, get the right answer in a polite manner,
>>>> and then argue endlessly against that answer, belittling the
teacher.
>>>
>>> I have been here forever, and I have NEVER seen MX belittle anyone.
>>>
>>> Not once.
>>
>> I've seen him try, but of course, those went over your pointy head.
>>>
>>> Now, either that's because I don't read every, single thread MX
>>> responds to, or it's because my definition of "belittling" differs
>>> from yours -- but I have only seen polite responses from him in the
>>> face of some VERY demeaning attacks.
>>>
>>> In this regard, he certainly doesn't fit the M.O. of most trolls.
>>
>>
>> You wouldn't know wat a troll was if it bit you in the nuts.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Yeah, like you could, wanna boi.
>
>
>
>

Like I would. fjukktard.



Yew so dumm you don't know if you got nuts or bolts anyway.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:mVNWj.110214$TT4.105042@attbi_s22:

>> There have been times, believe me, where we can get some
>> frustrated. If he isn't as bad as I made out, I apologize. But here's
>> an example of a reply from him about a year ago:
>>
>> Viperdoc writes:
>>> Hey Anthony you butthead- your basic premise is incorrect:
>
> <MX's reply snipped>
>
> Yep, MX was out of line with his facts -- but in the face of a
> personal attack like that ("you butthead"?), you've got to be fairly
> impressed with his calm response. Some of the so-called pilots here
> would have immediately defaulted to cuss words and insults.
>
> MX is a lot of things -- impolite isn't one of them.

You're an idiot. It's a technique.


Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 14 May 2008 21:48:00 -0700 (PDT), skym >
wrote in
>:

>BtB is a loser who needs to get a life.

Actually, it seems to be a shell-persona of multiple rogue anarchists,
who revel in evil and destruction, to don similar to a bandit's mask.

But Usenet is a fire hose of ideas from which one may selectively sip.
Some see it as a virtual tavern, others as a worldwide egalitarian
forum like mankind has never before witnessed. It's creators
envisioned an open vehicle for rapid news dispersal nobly rooted in
self governance. It is all those things, and more. Ultimately,
Usenet is what we make it.


--

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
--The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 14 May 2008 21:48:00 -0700 (PDT), skym >
> wrote in
> >:
>
>>BtB is a loser who needs to get a life.
>
> Actually, it seems to be a shell-persona of multiple rogue anarchists,
> who revel in evil and destruction, to don similar to a bandit's mask.


That's it, shout terrorist.
>
> But Usenet is a fire hose of ideas from which one may selectively sip.
> Some see it as a virtual tavern, others as a worldwide egalitarian
> forum like mankind has never before witnessed. It's creators
> envisioned an open vehicle for rapid news dispersal nobly rooted in
> self governance. It is all those things, and more. Ultimately,
> Usenet is what we make it.
>
>


Netkkkop.

Bertie

[Daedalus]

On Thu, 15 May 2008 05:42:07 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:uaHWj.17763$CE1.5989
:
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>>> news:NUDWj.109571$TT4.43765@attbi_s22:
>>>
>>>>> You haven't been here long enough. Many times Mx or Le Chaud
>>>>> Lapin will ask a question, get the right answer in a polite manner,
>>>>> and then argue endlessly against that answer, belittling the
>teacher.
>>>>
>>>> I have been here forever, and I have NEVER seen MX belittle anyone.
>>>>
>>>> Not once.
>>>
>>> I've seen him try, but of course, those went over your pointy head.
>>>>
>>>> Now, either that's because I don't read every, single thread MX
>>>> responds to, or it's because my definition of "belittling" differs
>>>> from yours -- but I have only seen polite responses from him in the
>>>> face of some VERY demeaning attacks.
>>>>
>>>> In this regard, he certainly doesn't fit the M.O. of most trolls.
>>>
>>>
>>> You wouldn't know wat a troll was if it bit you in the nuts.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Yeah, like you could, wanna boi.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Like I would. fjukktard.
>
>
>
>Yew so dumm you don't know if you got nuts or bolts anyway.
Yew so dumm you read "Drive thru" and kept on going.


Jade

>
>
>Bertie

[F. Baum]

On May 14, 9:15*pm, "Jay Honeck" <> Yep, MX was out of line with his
facts -- but in the face of a personal
> attack like that ("you butthead"?), you've got to be fairly impressed with
> his calm response. * Some of the so-called pilots here would have
> immediately defaulted to cuss words and insults.
>
> MX is a lot of things -- impolite isn't one of them.
Im gonna beg to differ with this one. A year ago or so I answered one
of his posts , which I ussually dont do, that had something to do with
airliners and balanced field length. He wrote back that I was wrong
and some theory that since pilots fly airliners into terain their
answers cannot be trusted. And I was polite to the guy ! (You are the
only one I call names on this list ;))
Frank

[Shirl]

Jay Honeck:
> > MX is a lot of things -- impolite isn't one of them.

F. Baum:
> Im gonna beg to differ with this one. A year ago or so I answered one
> of his posts , which I ussually dont do, that had something to do with
> airliners and balanced field length. He wrote back that I was wrong
> and some theory that since pilots fly airliners into terain their
> answers cannot be trusted. And I was polite to the guy ! (You are the
> only one I call names on this list ;))

Frank, I agree w/you. It's a different version of impolite.

It's the inexperienced-yet-authoritative, condescending arguments and
tone with people who have actual experience and knowledge. It's the
practice of baiting with what appear to be innocent, genuine questions
only to courteously tell others who respond that they're full of sh*t.
It's not the more typical in-your-face name-calling; it's the
condescending blanket generalizations about people with *actual
experience* not having a clue while HE has a clear, accurate
understanding.

That's not as blatant or easily recognizable as "impolite" as calling
someone a "butthead", but it is impolite just the same, albeit more
cleverly so.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> But Usenet is a fire hose of ideas from which one may selectively sip.
> Some see it as a virtual tavern, others as a worldwide egalitarian
> forum like mankind has never before witnessed. It's creators
> envisioned an open vehicle for rapid news dispersal nobly rooted in
> self governance. It is all those things, and more. Ultimately,
> Usenet is what we make it.

Glorious, ain't it? Even in its current state, this forum is...fun.

As I've said before, this, too, shall pass.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Im gonna beg to differ with this one. A year ago or so I answered one
>of his posts , which I ussually dont do, that had something to do with
>airliners and balanced field length. He wrote back that I was wrong
>and some theory that since pilots fly airliners into terain their
>answers cannot be trusted. And I was polite to the guy ! (You are the
>only one I call names on this list ;))
>Frank

"Frank, you ignorant slut. The only abortion I would have approved of
would've been on your mother, when she was pregnant with you..."

(My apologies to Saturday Night Live, circa 1975, Dan Akroyd vs. Jane
Curtin)

:-)

Anywho, I'm not saying MX is right, nor am I saying he's not necessarily a
troll, in the classic sense of the word. I *am* saying he's primarily
on-topic, occasionally asks really good questions, and is never overtly
rude.

In this forum, nowadays, that's as good as it gets.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:qjXWj.110866$TT4.1642
@attbi_s22:

>> But Usenet is a fire hose of ideas from which one may selectively sip.
>> Some see it as a virtual tavern, others as a worldwide egalitarian
>> forum like mankind has never before witnessed. It's creators
>> envisioned an open vehicle for rapid news dispersal nobly rooted in
>> self governance. It is all those things, and more. Ultimately,
>> Usenet is what we make it.
>
> Glorious, ain't it? Even in its current state, this forum is...fun.
>
> As I've said before, this, too, shall pass.

Why, you going somewhere?



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:XqXWj.164975$yE1.105992@attbi_s21:

>> Im gonna beg to differ with this one. A year ago or so I answered one
>>of his posts , which I ussually dont do, that had something to do with
>>airliners and balanced field length. He wrote back that I was wrong
>>and some theory that since pilots fly airliners into terain their
>>answers cannot be trusted. And I was polite to the guy ! (You are the
>>only one I call names on this list ;))
>>Frank
>
> "Frank, you ignorant slut. The only abortion I would have approved of
> would've been on your mother, when she was pregnant with you..."
>
> (My apologies to Saturday Night Live, circa 1975, Dan Akroyd vs. Jane
> Curtin)
>
>:-)
>
> Anywho, I'm not saying MX is right, nor am I saying he's not
> necessarily a troll, in the classic sense of the word. I *am* saying
> he's primarily on-topic, occasionally asks really good questions, and
> is never overtly rude.
>
> In this forum, nowadays, that's as good as it gets.

You're a stupid fjukkwad.


Bertie

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Morgans" wrote:

> RESIST THE URGE TO PARTICIPATE in ANY thread that has his participation.
>

Oh, fer chrissakes, Jim: I didn't even *know* who started the thread.

Relax, will ya?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> That's not as blatant or easily recognizable as "impolite" as calling
> someone a "butthead", but it is impolite just the same, albeit more
> cleverly so.

Agree 100%. But in that regard, this sort of subtle "impoliteness" is de
rigueur amongst the population in general nowadays. At least its clever,
which is more than you can say about the other trolls here.

Ignorance is not necessarily abated by becoming a certificated pilot.
(Witness the number of pilots who responded negatively to my flying to
Florida VFR using on-board XM weather.) At least MX's ignorance often leads
to good topics.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:_GXWj.164990$yE1.44525@attbi_s21:

>> That's not as blatant or easily recognizable as "impolite" as calling
>> someone a "butthead", but it is impolite just the same, albeit more
>> cleverly so.
>
> Agree 100%. But in that regard, this sort of subtle "impoliteness"
> is de rigueur amongst the population in general nowadays. At least
> its clever, which is more than you can say about the other trolls
> here.
>
> Ignorance is not necessarily abated by becoming a certificated pilot.
> (Witness the number of pilots who responded negatively to my flying to
> Florida VFR using on-board XM weather.)


Good god you're a moron.




Bertie

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-05-15, Dan Luke > wrote:
> "Morgans" wrote:
>> RESIST THE URGE TO PARTICIPATE in ANY thread that has his participation.
> Oh, fer chrissakes, Jim: I didn't even *know* who started the thread.

Me either. I didn't jump into the pilot watch thread (with what I thought
was a relevant, reasonable, on-topic message) until well after it had been
started, and by the time I did, all trace of participation by MX had
disappeared. He's in my kill file, so I didn't see his original message in
the first place.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> There have been times, believe me, where we can get some
>> frustrated. If he isn't as bad as I made out, I apologize. But here's
>> an example of a reply from him about a year ago:
>>
>> Viperdoc writes:
>>> Hey Anthony you butthead- your basic premise is incorrect:
>
> <MX's reply snipped>
>
> Yep, MX was out of line with his facts -- but in the face of a personal
> attack like that ("you butthead"?), you've got to be fairly impressed
> with his calm response. Some of the so-called pilots here would have
> immediately defaulted to cuss words and insults.
>
> MX is a lot of things -- impolite isn't one of them.


Jay you are obviously not reading many of Anthony's posts. As someone
mentioned above he isn't impolite to individuals very often he insults
huge groups of people.

And for the record the "you butthead" comment made by Viperdoc happened
when Anthony was being a butthead. Though I might have used stronger
language.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On May 14, 9:23*pm, Clark > wrote:
> Learn to fly and then come back and tell everyone how much you really knew
> before actually flying the plane.
>
> Alternatively: talk to instructors about the students who "studied" on a
> simulator before learning to fly. It's rather entertaining to hear about
> folks who can tune a radio and fly the airways but they can't reliably find a
> runway much less land on it. Hell, on my practical test the only VOR work I
> had to do was give a simple heading to an airport. The DPE was much more
> concerned about the practical operation of the aircraft rather than simple
> radio nav skills.
>
> In other words, studying a subject academically is much different than
> actually participating in that subject physically and mentally.

Certainly you will agree that, all things being equal, it is good to
learn as much as one can on the ground before getting into the cockpit?
There is no substitute for manual practice, but manual practice is
going to happen anyway. Why wait until getting into the cockpit
before learning things that can be learned on the ground?

And why do all these flight schols have simulators?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Unlike the other posters on this NG, you have been to my hangar, shared
> some stories, and met my family. I have flown to visit you on several
> different occasions as well, and stayed at your business. If you think of
> me as a bad person, so be it- I simply like to think that I respond to
> Anthony with the same respect that he shows the rest of us that honestly
> try to answer his questions.

This isn't about you, Doc, this is about MX. The example (not mine) was
merely one that shows (IMHO) that MX isn't rude and doesn't resort to
personal attacks, unlike the other major trolls in this group.

I have great respect for you and your family, and sincerely hope that our
friendship isn't affected by something so stupid as arguing about which of
our resident trolls is worse!

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

[[email protected]]

On May 15, 7:17 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> Certainly you will agree that, all things being equal, it is good to
> learn as much as one can on the ground before getting into the cockpit?
> There is no substitute for manual practice, but manual practice is
> going to happen anyway. Why wait until getting into the cockpit
> before learning things that can be learned on the ground?
>
> And why do all these flight schols have simulators?

There's a right way and several wrong ways to do just about
anything. Would you like to go under the knife wielded by a surgeon
who learned his craft on a surgery simulator? Ride in a bus driven by
a guy who learned to drive on a desktop sim?
We sometimes get students who have lots of sim time. MSFS
time. Those students can have a lot of bad habits to break, and many
things to learn over again the right way. Engine operation, various
maneuvers, and instrument scans are just a few of the problem areas.
The sim, despite what some claim, is not very accurate. Some
proponents of the sim try to tell us that the airplane must be wrong
if it isn't the same as the sim! Further, there are no physical
sensations, and those alone can confuse the experienced simmer when he
gets into the real thing. Scares some of them.
Instructors are taught, as part of their training, the Seven
Learning Factors. The second of those is Primacy, which says that
first impressions, things seen first, are the longest-lasting, and so
they had better be right the first time. A guy fooling with a sim on
his own is not likely to get things right the first time, maybe never,
and is busy developing a handicap. See the Learning factors here:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/general/flttrain/planes/Pubs/TP975/PartI/Factors.htm

We use sims in flight training. The big difference is that the
student is under the tutelage of an instructor who has spent
considerable time learning things the right way himself, and
understands the importance of the student's learning things properly.
The student already has actual flight time when he sits at the sim and
so understands much more about what he's doing. And why it needs to be
done a certain way. If he doesn't do thing right, he'll not pass the
flight tests and will likely be an incompetent pilot.

Dan

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> There's a right way and several wrong ways to do just about
> anything. Would you like to go under the knife wielded by a surgeon
> who learned his craft on a surgery simulator? Ride in a bus driven by
> a guy who learned to drive on a desktop sim?

Ask some professionals if they've ever used simulation, and you may be
surprised. It isn't limited to pilot training.

> We use sims in flight training. The big difference is that the
> student is under the tutelage of an instructor who has spent
> considerable time learning things the right way himself, and
> understands the importance of the student's learning things properly.
> The student already has actual flight time when he sits at the sim and
> so understands much more about what he's doing. And why it needs to be
> done a certain way. If he doesn't do thing right, he'll not pass the
> flight tests and will likely be an incompetent pilot.

Do you have test performance figures and accident rates for pilots who had
used a desktop simulator vs. those who had not, prior to in-aircraft training?

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> Second, don't pretend to know what you need learn before getting in an
> airplane. As I said before, talk to flight instructors and trust their
> guidance in the matter. The instructors I know say that simulation before
> flying is a detriment. Why would you assume to know better?????

An instructor is one person. Why listen to just one person when you can
consult a wealth of literature written by experts? If all the experts say one
thing, and the instructor says another, in all probability the instructor is
wrong.

It's important to remain objective. Trust if you must, but verify.

> Simulators have a place but it is not in pre-flight training. Here's a
> simple example: another student and I started our training at the same
> time. He'd been through a university instrument training course and I was
> off the street. I took my private pilot check ride two weeks after he
> soloed. We had the same instructor and flew about the same number of hours
> per week. My instructor mentioned that the other guy spent a long time
> learning to look out the window rather than at the gauges.

So what's the connection with simulation?

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Who are all these "experts" that you keep mentioning?

The ones who write aviation books for the FAA, NASA, etc.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> Who are all these "experts" that you keep mentioning?
>
> The ones who write aviation books for the FAA, NASA, etc.

Some of these people participate in this forum. A few years ago you didn't
hesitate to tell them they didn't know what they were talking about. Now
you refer to them as "experts".

YOU DON'T KNOW **** FROM SHINOLA!

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> Who are all these "experts" that you keep mentioning?
>
> The ones who write aviation books for the FAA, NASA, etc.

Good instructors don't teach as one person basing what they teach on
their opinion alone. Good instructors use good material written by
experts in their field. I know many who have themselves written for
their field.
No instructor worth the title shuns the collective knowledge of those
who came before him/her.
Good instructors also know where simulation can be useful and where it
should be avoided.
All good instruction is fluid and makes use of all pertinent and useful
tools.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On May 14, 9:23 pm, Clark > wrote:
>> Learn to fly and then come back and tell everyone how much you really knew
>> before actually flying the plane.
>>
>> Alternatively: talk to instructors about the students who "studied" on a
>> simulator before learning to fly. It's rather entertaining to hear about
>> folks who can tune a radio and fly the airways but they can't reliably find a
>> runway much less land on it. Hell, on my practical test the only VOR work I
>> had to do was give a simple heading to an airport. The DPE was much more
>> concerned about the practical operation of the aircraft rather than simple
>> radio nav skills.
>>
>> In other words, studying a subject academically is much different than
>> actually participating in that subject physically and mentally.
>
> Certainly you will agree that, all things being equal, it is good to
> learn as much as one can on the ground before getting into the cockpit?
> There is no substitute for manual practice, but manual practice is
> going to happen anyway. Why wait until getting into the cockpit
> before learning things that can be learned on the ground?
>
> And why do all these flight schols have simulators?
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

Because you don't fully understand the context of what you are learning.
Back in the dark ages when I got my PPL it was common practice to take
the ground school at night while training. Sort of like having classroom
and lab.

As for the simulators they are used almost exclusively for IFR training.

[gatt[_3_]]

Clark wrote:

>We had the same instructor and flew about the same number of hours
> per week. My instructor mentioned that the other guy spent a long time
> learning to look out the window rather than at the gauges.


He probably had trouble getting used to "feeling" slips, skids and
G-force difference as well. Also the difference between control
movement and control pressure.

The payoff for him will come around during Instrument training, if he
chooses to do that. I got a lot of mileage out of MSFS during my IFR
training, and still shoot approaches in it. In fact, in this month's
AOPA Pilot magazine, Rod Machado mentions Flight Simulator as a tool to
stay proficient during extended periods away from the cockpit. Of
course, that assumes the reader is already a pilot.

-c

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On May 15, 9:40*pm, Clark > wrote:
> First off, don't even pretend to know what I will agree with. If you can't
> do that then there is absolutely no point at all in responding. Got it?
>
> Second, don't pretend to know what you need learn before getting in an
> airplane. As I said before, talk to flight instructors and trust their
> guidance in the matter. The instructors I know say that simulation before
> flying is a detriment. Why would you assume to know better?????

I use the simulator for things that the simulator is good for.

Getting experience with VOR tracking in a simulator is a lot cheaper
than hands-on-training in a cockpit at $100US/hour, for example.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On May 16, 8:36*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > On May 14, 9:23 pm, Clark > wrote:
> >> Learn to fly and then come back and tell everyone how much you really knew
> >> before actually flying the plane.
>
> >> Alternatively: talk to instructors about the students who "studied" on a
> >> simulator before learning to fly. It's rather entertaining to hear about
> >> folks who can tune a radio and fly the airways but they can't reliably find a
> >> runway much less land on it. Hell, on my practical test the only VOR work I
> >> had to do was give a simple heading to an airport. The DPE was much more
> >> concerned about the practical operation of the aircraft rather than simple
> >> radio nav skills.
>
> >> In other words, studying a subject academically is much different than
> >> actually participating in that subject physically and mentally.
>
> > Certainly you will agree that, all things being equal, it is good to
> > learn as much as one can on the ground before getting into the cockpit?
> > There is no substitute for manual practice, but manual practice is
> > going to happen anyway. *Why wait until getting into the cockpit
> > before learning things that can be learned on the ground?
>
> > And why do all these flight schols have simulators?
>
> > -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> Because you don't fully understand the context of what you are learning.
> * Back in the dark ages when I got my PPL it was common practice to take
> the ground school at night while training. Sort of like having classroom
> and lab.

What about books?

I am reading FAA Handbook from front to back currently.

Any danger in doing that without an instructor present? :)

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On May 16, 11:19*am, gatt > wrote:
> Clark wrote:
> >We had the same instructor and flew about the same number of hours
> > per week. My instructor mentioned that the other guy spent a long time
> > learning to look out the window rather than at the gauges.
>
> He probably had trouble getting used to "feeling" slips, skids and
> G-force difference as well. *Also the difference between control
> movement and control pressure.

If this is the danger that pilots warn about, I know I will not have
it.

I have all the flight sim controls, including CH Pro peddals, yoke,
joysticks, separte headset, life-size render of guages, etc..

I do not delude myself into thinking that any of these things are a
substitute for a cockpit. I only use the simulator for "mens" part of
"mens et manus".

> The payoff for him will come around during Instrument training, if he
> chooses to do that. *I got a lot of mileage out of MSFS during my IFR
> training, and still shoot approaches in it. *In fact, in this month's
> AOPA Pilot magazine, Rod Machado mentions Flight Simulator as a tool to
> stay proficient during extended periods away from the cockpit. *Of
> course, that assumes the reader is already a pilot.

And let us not forget the "Learning to Fly With Rod Machado" that
comes with MSFS.

I think that if flight simulators were as dangerous as some pilots
claimed, someone so dedicated to teaching would have said so.

I think it comes down to the disposition and discipline of the
student. As long as s/he understands which part are safely
transferrable from the simulator (like understanding how VOR works),
then not much harm will be done.

In any case, I have already flown in real cockpit, and not at anytime
did I expect the aircraft to behave or feel like my living room sofa.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[gatt[_3_]]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

>> He probably had trouble getting used to "feeling" slips, skids and
>> G-force difference as well. Also the difference between control
>> movement and control pressure.
>
> If this is the danger that pilots warn about, I know I will not have
> it.
>
> I have all the flight sim controls, including CH Pro peddals, yoke,
> joysticks, separte headset, life-size render of guages, etc..

They won't slide you around in the seat during an uncoordinated turn or
lift you against the belt harness centripetal acceleration.

The closest "simulator" to the real thing I've ever flown is a Frasca
Tru-Flight like this one: http://www.frasca.com/body/TruVision170.Lo.jpg

They usually cost about $100/hr to fly but if there's one in your area,
I highly recommend it. I do instrument approaches in one every few
months or so.

> I think that if flight simulators were as dangerous as some pilots
> claimed, someone so dedicated to teaching would have said so.

Many do.

>As long as s/he understands which part are safely transferrable from the simulator (like understanding how VOR works),
> then not much harm will be done.

That's exactly correct. It's the bad habits that one needs to be aware
of. (Simulators are forgiving and you don't have to worry about ADM,
communication, runway incursions or ground procedures.) I recently
installed the Wings of Power aircraft on my MSFS2004 and have been
having a blast with the heavy bombers, as well as a P-38.

-c

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> They won't slide you around in the seat during an uncoordinated turn or
> lift you against the belt harness centripetal acceleration.

Those sensations aren't necessarily imporant, unless one is flying by the seat
of one's pants, which probably isn't a good idea for most types of flight.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> gatt writes:

> > They won't slide you around in the seat during an uncoordinated turn or
> > lift you against the belt harness centripetal acceleration.

> Those sensations aren't necessarily imporant, unless one is flying by the seat
> of one's pants, which probably isn't a good idea for most types of flight.

Wrong.

If IFR an uncoordinated turn generally means either the instruments
have lunched or you've screwed up.

If VFR you are supposed to be looking out the window, not staring at
the instruments, so the sensation of an uncoordinated turn would
normally be the first indication it is happening.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

>
> I use the simulator for things that the simulator is good for.
>
> Getting experience with VOR tracking in a simulator is a lot cheaper
> than hands-on-training in a cockpit at $100US/hour, for example.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

But you are learning, or not learning as is probably the case, out of
order. Sort of like learning Algebra before you know what 2 + 2 is.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On May 16, 8:36 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:

>> Because you don't fully understand the context of what you are learning.
>> Back in the dark ages when I got my PPL it was common practice to take
>> the ground school at night while training. Sort of like having classroom
>> and lab.
>
> What about books?
>
> I am reading FAA Handbook from front to back currently.
>
> Any danger in doing that without an instructor present? :)
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
>

Nope not at all. But if you ever do actually learn to fly I'll bet you
have to read them all over again.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:
>
>> They won't slide you around in the seat during an uncoordinated turn or
>> lift you against the belt harness centripetal acceleration.
>
> Those sensations aren't necessarily imporant, unless one is flying by the seat
> of one's pants, which probably isn't a good idea for most types of flight.

It is damn near required for all types of flying.

[gatt[_3_]]

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> gatt writes:
>
>>> They won't slide you around in the seat during an uncoordinated turn or
>>> lift you against the belt harness centripetal acceleration.
>
>> Those sensations aren't necessarily imporant, unless one is flying by the seat
>> of one's pants, which probably isn't a good idea for most types of flight.

Those sensations are very important. Knowing how to interpret them
(and how to avoid misinterpreting them) is especially important.

"There are three sources of actual 'feel' that are very important to the
pilot. One is the pilot's own body as it responds to the forces of
acceleration. The 'G' loads imposed on the airframe are also felt by the
pilot. Centripetal accelerations for the pilot down into the seat or
raise the pilot against the seat belt. Radial accelerations, as they
produce slips or skids of the airframe, shift the pilot from side to
side in the seat. These forces need not be strong, only perceptible by
the pilot to be useful. An accomplished pilot who had excellent 'feel'
for the airplane will be able to detect even the minutest change.
....
"Another type of 'feel' comes to the pilot through the airframe. It
consists mainly of vibration. An example is the aerodynamic buffeting
and shaking that precedes a stall.
....
"The senses that contribute to 'feel' of the airplane are inherent in
every person. However, 'feel' must be developed. The flight instructor
should direct the beginning pilot to be attuned to these senses and
teach an awareness of their meaning as it relates to various conditions
of flight. To do this effectively, the flight instructor must fully
understand the difference between perceiving something and merely
noticing it. It is a well established fact that the pilot who develops a
"feel" for the airplane early in flight training will have little
difficulty with advanced flight maneuvers." - FAA-H-8083-3A

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> If IFR an uncoordinated turn generally means either the instruments
> have lunched or you've screwed up.

Nothing to do with sensation.

> If VFR you are supposed to be looking out the window, not staring at
> the instruments, so the sensation of an uncoordinated turn would
> normally be the first indication it is happening.

In VFR, if you aren't looking out the window or at your instruments, sensation
won't help you.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> If IFR an uncoordinated turn generally means either the instruments
>> have lunched or you've screwed up.
>
> Nothing to do with sensation.
>
>> If VFR you are supposed to be looking out the window, not staring at
>> the instruments, so the sensation of an uncoordinated turn would
>> normally be the first indication it is happening.
>
> In VFR, if you aren't looking out the window or at your instruments,
> sensation won't help you.
>

What do you call stall buffet? In your world it probably equates to
ejaculation. It's something you sense. Any pilot knows what it is. You
don't. You're a fraud Anthony. You're not a pilot, and you don't want to
learn anything. You just play a game while jerking yourself off.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Those sensations are very important. Knowing how to interpret them
> (and how to avoid misinterpreting them) is especially important.

Then why must they be ignored for safe IFR flight?

> "There are three sources of actual 'feel' that are very important to the
> pilot. One is the pilot's own body as it responds to the forces of
> acceleration. The 'G' loads imposed on the airframe are also felt by the
> pilot. Centripetal accelerations for the pilot down into the seat or
> raise the pilot against the seat belt. Radial accelerations, as they
> produce slips or skids of the airframe, shift the pilot from side to
> side in the seat. These forces need not be strong, only perceptible by
> the pilot to be useful. An accomplished pilot who had excellent 'feel'
> for the airplane will be able to detect even the minutest change.

How do pilots of RC models and UAVs manage to fly, given that they do not have
these sensations?

I understand why so many pilots without IFR training last only a few minutes
in IMC before they spin out of control, if they have such an overwhelming
dependence on relatively unreliable physical sensations.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

> It is damn near required for all types of flying.

Not for instrument flight.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Even in IMC, physical sensations are crucial to maintaining smooth flight.

Examples?

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601Xl Builder writes:
>
>> It is damn near required for all types of flying.
>
> Not for instrument flight.
>

Unless you have autoland, it is. And landing isn't the only use for
sensations. Despite your claimed superior education, you're an idiot.

Again, Anthony, you've proved you don't know **** from shinola about
aviation.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> Even in IMC, physical sensations are crucial to maintaining smooth
>> flight.
>
> Examples?
>

You're recent crash of a 172 in Colorodo, moron. The sensations might not
tell you which way something is happening, but they tell you something is
happening. You then snap your attention from whatever you're doing (like
reading charts) and get them back on the instuments to see what exactly is
happening. A very basic concept which is way, way, way above your miniscule
IQ.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > If IFR an uncoordinated turn generally means either the instruments
> > have lunched or you've screwed up.

> Nothing to do with sensation.

Wrong.

In that case the sensation may be the only indication of an uncoordinated
turn available.

> > If VFR you are supposed to be looking out the window, not staring at
> > the instruments, so the sensation of an uncoordinated turn would
> > normally be the first indication it is happening.

> In VFR, if you aren't looking out the window or at your instruments, sensation
> won't help you.

Point totally missed again.

In VFR you are supposed to be looking out the window. In that case the
sensation is your only indicator of an uncoordinated turn.

If your are doing something other than looking out the window or
glancing at the instruments, the sensation still tells you that you
are in an uncoordinated turn.

A real pilot in a real airplane does not need a turn and bank indicator
to make a coordinated turn.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On May 16, 4:25*pm, Clark > wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in news:9268454e-372c-404b-8a00-
> :
>
> > On May 15, 9:40*pm, Clark > wrote:
> >> First off, don't even pretend to know what I will agree with. If you can't
>
> >> do that then there is absolutely no point at all in responding. Got it?
>
> >> Second, don't pretend to know what you need learn before getting in an
> >> airplane. As I said before, talk to flight instructors and trust their
> >> guidance in the matter. The instructors I know say that simulation before
> >> flying is a detriment. Why would you assume to know better?????
>
> > I use the simulator for things that the simulator is good for.
>
> You really don't seem to be open to other folk's opinions and guidance on
> things they teach. That approach will set you back in any practical training
> that you do.

It could be learning style. Some people would rather learn from a
person than from a book. I'm the opposite. I would rather learn what I
can from a book, then let the person fill in the gaps or
misunderstandings. It's more efficient (for me).

> > Getting experience with VOR tracking in a simulator is a lot cheaper
> > than hands-on-training in a cockpit at $100US/hour, for example.
>
> Good luck with that approach. After you learn to fly a real aircraft be sure
> and come back here to appologize for your arrogance.

What is there to apologize for?

Does everything about flying require an instructor to be present? If
that were the case, then there would be no point in buying books, etc.

There has to be something that a simulator can offer that does not
require the instructor to be present.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On May 16, 2:59*pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>
> > I use the simulator for things that the simulator is good for.
>
> > Getting experience with VOR tracking in a simulator is a lot cheaper
> > than hands-on-training in a cockpit at $100US/hour, for example.
>
> > -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> But you are learning, or not learning as is probably the case, out of
> order. Sort of like learning Algebra before you know what 2 + 2 is.

Certainly the learning is not entirely linear. There has to be some
benefit of a simulator that can be gain independently of being in a
cockpit.

Someone wrote a post here not long ago claiming that all ATC reps
should have licenses, for example, which implies that there are ATC
personnel who do not.

Is all that knowledge useless? Is all of it irrelevant to flying? If
those ATC personnel without licenses decided to get licenses, would
they have to be brainwashed of all things learned for ATC and
retaught?

I am using MSFS to practice initerpretation of airport visual aids,
for example.

I doubt that, when I get my license, I will have to unlearn that and
and have an an instructor (at $40/hour) help me re-read the book.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On May 16, 3:00*pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > On May 16, 8:36 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> > wrote:
> >> Because you don't fully understand the context of what you are learning..
> >> * Back in the dark ages when I got my PPL it was common practice to take
> >> the ground school at night while training. Sort of like having classroom
> >> and lab.
>
> > What about books?
>
> > I am reading FAA Handbook from front to back currently.
>
> > Any danger in doing that without an instructor present? :)
>
> > -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> Nope not at all. But if you ever do actually learn to fly I'll bet you
> have to read them all over again.

Hmm...someone should write an email to FAA warning them that they
should warn readers that the HoAK should not be read by any aspiring
pilot who has not yet been properly instructed of its contents by
human.

But then, if the instructor is to tell all to the student that is in
the book, then there is no point in writing the book.

Maybe it should be retitled...

"Refresher Handbook For Pilot's Who Already Learned This Stuff From A
Person. But Not Anyone Else.."

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[RST Engineering]

Algebra is mathematics. 2+2 is arithmetic. It is possible to learn one
without the other, or learn them in either order, although in most instances
they compliment each other nicely.

Jim

--
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it."
--Aristotle


"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
...
>
> But you are learning, or not learning as is probably the case, out of
> order. Sort of like learning Algebra before you know what 2 + 2 is.

[Mxsmanic]

Benjamin Dover writes:

> What do you call stall buffet?

A sensation that you might feel in some aircraft under some circumstances when
approaching a stall.

It is also an all-you-can-eat meal in a stable.

> It's something you sense. Any pilot knows what it is.

Even some non-pilots know what is is. So what?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> In that case the sensation may be the only indication of an uncoordinated
> turn available.

If you have neither instruments nor visual references to depend on, you're in
serious trouble, no matter what the magic sensations to which you've become
mystically attuned as a pilot.

> In VFR you are supposed to be looking out the window. In that case the
> sensation is your only indicator of an uncoordinated turn.

You're permitted to look at instruments even under VFR.

> If your are doing something other than looking out the window or
> glancing at the instruments, the sensation still tells you that you
> are in an uncoordinated turn.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. If you really need to know, you have an
instrument that will tell you.

> A real pilot in a real airplane does not need a turn and bank indicator
> to make a coordinated turn.

So pilots wimpy and cowardly enough to resort to instruments are not Real
Pilots, eh? Where have I seen mention of this attitude in the literature?

[Mxsmanic]

Benjamin Dover writes:

> Unless you have autoland, it is.

You can land visually without sensations, particularly if you have instruments
as well.

> And landing isn't the only use for sensations.

I'm very puzzled by this preoccupation with sensations. I can only assume
that it has much to do with the type of pilots who are being most vocal here.

[Mxsmanic]

Benjamin Dover writes:

> You're recent crash of a 172 in Colorodo, moron.

I was not in IMC.

> The sensations might not tell you which way something is
> happening, but they tell you something is happening.

What do the leans tell you is happening?

> You then snap your attention from whatever you're doing (like
> reading charts) and get them back on the instuments to see what exactly is
> happening.

In IMC, you maintain an instrument scan that does not require you to depend on
sensations to alert you to changes.

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:
>
>> Those sensations are very important. Knowing how to interpret them
>> (and how to avoid misinterpreting them) is especially important.
>
> Then why must they be ignored for safe IFR flight?

The ones that are ignored are different sensations and typically have to
do with equilibrium and the inner ear. Examples are somatogravic and
coriolis and inversion illusions. If your ass leaves the seat or
compresses into it, however, it's not something you ignore.


>> "There are three sources of actual 'feel' that are very important to the
>> pilot. One is the pilot's own body as it responds to the forces of
>> acceleration. The 'G' loads imposed on the airframe are also felt by the
>> pilot. Centripetal accelerations for the pilot down into the seat or
>> raise the pilot against the seat belt. Radial accelerations, as they
>> produce slips or skids of the airframe, shift the pilot from side to
>> side in the seat. These forces need not be strong, only perceptible by
>> the pilot to be useful. An accomplished pilot who had excellent 'feel'
>> for the airplane will be able to detect even the minutest change.
>
> How do pilots of RC models and UAVs manage to fly, given that they do not have
> these sensations?

There aren't many/any RC pilots who haven't catastrophically augured an
RC plane. UAV systems are much more sophisticated than those in the
average single-engine piston airplane, and--I've not flown a UAV so I'm
guessing here--they're not doing things like steep-bank turns or
short-field approaches.

> I understand why so many pilots without IFR training last only a few minutes
> in IMC before they spin out of control, if they have such an overwhelming
> dependence on relatively unreliable physical sensations.

Those are different sensations and you have to know the difference and
also what to reject or ignore. VFR pilots are subject to similar but
different sensations such as visual autokinesis, reversal of motion and
black hole approaches.

You can have those sensations while remaining perfectly still in normal
flight. When your ass is sliding toward the inside or outside of a
turn, or getting compressed into the seat or lifted into the lap belt,
those are not illusions.

-c

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > In that case the sensation may be the only indication of an uncoordinated
> > turn available.

> If you have neither instruments nor visual references to depend on, you're in
> serious trouble, no matter what the magic sensations to which you've become
> mystically attuned as a pilot.

There is no visual reference that will tell you whether or not you are
coordinated in a turn and there is nothing magical or mystical to the
sensation once you've felt it.

Obviously you are totally unable to relate.

> > In VFR you are supposed to be looking out the window. In that case the
> > sensation is your only indicator of an uncoordinated turn.

> You're permitted to look at instruments even under VFR.

True but irrelevant.

In VFR you are much safer looking out the window than staring at the
instruments like a simmer, especially in a turn.
`
> > If your are doing something other than looking out the window or
> > glancing at the instruments, the sensation still tells you that you
> > are in an uncoordinated turn.

> Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. If you really need to know, you have an
> instrument that will tell you.

Wrong.

It does.

> > A real pilot in a real airplane does not need a turn and bank indicator
> > to make a coordinated turn.

> So pilots wimpy and cowardly enough to resort to instruments are not Real
> Pilots, eh? Where have I seen mention of this attitude in the literature?

Point totally, absolutely, and completely missed.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Benjamin Dover writes:

> > Unless you have autoland, it is.

> You can land visually without sensations, particularly if you have instruments
> as well.

> > And landing isn't the only use for sensations.

> I'm very puzzled by this preoccupation with sensations. I can only assume
> that it has much to do with the type of pilots who are being most vocal here.

That's because all your simming leaves you totally unable to relate.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Benjamin Dover writes:
>
>> What do you call stall buffet?
>
> A sensation that you might feel in some aircraft under some
> circumstances when approaching a stall.
>
> It is also an all-you-can-eat meal in a stable.
>
That's right. I forgot that gourmet dining to you is picking through the
trash bin at McDonalds and then flavoring what you find by sucking the
farts out if bicycle seats.
>> It's something you sense. Any pilot knows what it is.
>
> Even some non-pilots know what is is. So what?
>

You don't have the foggiest idea. You don't know **** from shinola about
flying.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Benjamin Dover writes:
>
>> Unless you have autoland, it is.
>
> You can land visually without sensations, particularly if you have
> instruments as well.
>
>> And landing isn't the only use for sensations.
>
> I'm very puzzled by this preoccupation with sensations. I can only
> assume that it has much to do with the type of pilots who are being
> most vocal here.
>

BULL ****. You land by "the seat of your pants". You don't have the
foggiest idea of what that means and why. You just jerk yourself off
playing MSFS and have deluded yourself into believing you're a pilot. You
don't know **** from shinola about flying. You're just a fraud, nothing
but fecal matter wired to a keyboard.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Benjamin Dover writes:
>
>> You're recent crash of a 172 in Colorodo, moron.
>
> I was not in IMC.
>
>> The sensations might not tell you which way something is
>> happening, but they tell you something is happening.
>
> What do the leans tell you is happening?
>
>> You then snap your attention from whatever you're doing (like
>> reading charts) and get them back on the instuments to see what
>> exactly is happening.
>
> In IMC, you maintain an instrument scan that does not require you to
> depend on sensations to alert you to changes.
>

You don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. You just
regurgitate words you've read, but have zero understanding of what they
mean or if you are even using them in the proper context.

There are some sensations you need to learn how to ignore. Others you need
to feel and they provide valuable information to help you. Only a dumb ass
simmer who has never experienced any of them would so blindly and stupidly
dismiss all sensaions and worthless.

You've been making the same stupid ass erroneous claims every since you
came over to this newsgroup.

You don't fly. You never will fly. You're too ****ing stupid to learn to
fly.

All you do is jerk off while playing a game. You don't know **** from
shinola and you don't want to learn. You're a moron, Anthony. A totally
useless waste of a human being. No wonder you're such a failure in life.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>There has to be something that a simulator can offer that does not
>require the instructor to be present.

Much depends on the level of your simulator. If you have something like our
Penguin (see it here: http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm )
you can learn a lot. If you're flying a mouse in front of your laptop, not
so much.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Benjamin Dover]

Nomen Nescio > wrote in
:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From:
>
>>That's because all your simming leaves you totally unable to relate.
>
> Give it up, Jim.
> He's retarded.
>
> Last Fall, I went to a Corporate Anniversary party at the Bradley Air
> Museum. One guy brought his 12 yo son, who was just starting flying
> lessons and had logged 5 hours of instruction. When he heard I was a
> pilot, he followed my wife and I around the museum for an hour talking
> about flying. The kid was very knowledgable about aviation. Way beyond
> MX. He'd played with MSFS for many years before taking his first
> lesson, so I asked him if he thought it helped.
> To summarize his 10 minute answer:
> "I knew how the instruments and radio worked.
> A real C150 is tricky to start.
> They bounce around a lot.
> The rudder pedals felt weird and worked very different.
> My instructor kept telling me to look out the window (surprise!)
> Landing is hard. Crosswinds are even harder.
> (and most important)
> Now that I'm getting the FEEL of the plane, I'm doing much better."
>
> Bottom line
> A 12 yo with 5 hours gets it.
>
> A fat, numb ass, delusional, antisocial, retarded, middle aged loser,
> who never leaves his room, will never get it.
>
> I guess "Bertie" has the right idea.
> Just tell him he's an idiot and be done with it.
>
> He won't believe the correct answer.........
> He won't believe he's an idiot.
>
> Saves a lot of typing. :)
> Same result.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: N/A
>
> iQCVAwUBSC6SkpMoscYxZNI5AQHD2gP/Vhvux6aKQz2RHtx2Ng+fRqy06cy0kFOy
> HsHdrQ9JKxSA8WFA1M1c3uTRPMymmqryR1EiOfOCIaW8Qd8MJm akV0KC0Im/Lcx3
> AZykSbgfubxE2oA+WM4UJUWVAucUZxHyFDREviz39+h/I2RYn9QrwjPQ8WqwHczV
> MV7EXx4QmvA=
> =Fz5Z
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

Well said, sir, well said!

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> The ones that are ignored are different sensations and typically have to
> do with equilibrium and the inner ear. Examples are somatogravic and
> coriolis and inversion illusions. If your ass leaves the seat or
> compresses into it, however, it's not something you ignore.

Yes, it is, because it is no more reliable than any other sensation.

If you enter a coordinated turn at constant altitude, your buttocks will tell
you that you are climbing ... but you aren't. Your inner ear will tell you
the same thing, and it will be just as wrong.

> There aren't many/any RC pilots who haven't catastrophically augured an
> RC plane.

Of those who have, how did they manage, without sensation? Indeed, how do
they ever manage on any flight, without sensation?

> UAV systems are much more sophisticated than those in the
> average single-engine piston airplane, and--I've not flown a UAV so I'm
> guessing here--they're not doing things like steep-bank turns or
> short-field approaches.

But aviation is more than single-engine piston airplanes ... much more.

> Those are different sensations and you have to know the difference and
> also what to reject or ignore. VFR pilots are subject to similar but
> different sensations such as visual autokinesis, reversal of motion and
> black hole approaches.

Can you fly safely with your eyes closed, relying only on sensations, and
selectively ignoring or accepting the sensations you feel?

> You can have those sensations while remaining perfectly still in normal
> flight. When your ass is sliding toward the inside or outside of a
> turn, or getting compressed into the seat or lifted into the lap belt,
> those are not illusions.

But they may not be what you think they are, either.

What people are asserting here is 180 degrees different from what I read in
all the literature. You cannot fly by the seat of your pants. You can't fly
based on sensations. They are too unreliable. Conversely, you can fly
without sensations, as long as you have visual and/or instrument information.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> There is no visual reference that will tell you whether or not you are
> coordinated in a turn and there is nothing magical or mystical to the
> sensation once you've felt it.

Well, close your eyes and make the turn, and see where you end up.

> True but irrelevant.

On the contrary, it's important. Can you really be sure that your turn is
perfectly coordinated and that you are holding altitude without ever looking
at the instruments? How do you know how far you've turned? How do you tell
the difference between an uncoordinated turn and being pushed by the wind?

> In VFR you are much safer looking out the window than staring at the
> instruments like a simmer, especially in a turn.

In VFR you are safest if you do both. And you can look out the window in a
sim, too.

> Wrong.

How do you know the difference between a coordinated turn and, say, an
uncoordinated turn that encounters wind that moves the aircraft? If you
depend on sensation alone, an updraft or downdraft might make you think that
an uncoordinated turn is level and coordinated, when in fact it is
uncoordinated and you are climbing or descending.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> If you can't understand, I suggest you try this.
> Walk up to the top of your building, stand with your toes hanging off the ledge,
> close your eyes, and just stand there for a few minutes.
> If you fall to your death.......you're right.
> If you survive. Everyone else is right.

Show me.

[Mxsmanic]

Benjamin Dover writes:

> BULL ****. You land by "the seat of your pants".

How are computers able to land aircraft, then?

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> I regularly travel a stretch of highway about 100 miles long.
> 2 trips
> same time of the day
> same traffic
> same speed
> When I use cruise control for the entire trip, I average about 18 mpg.
> When I use my foot the whole way, I average over 20 mpg.

Do you look out the window, or look at the speedometer, or do you drive
blindfolded and rely on sensations?

Why do airline operators prefer that their pilots use a flight management
computer instead of flying by hand?

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> A book does not equal a simulator.

Actually it does. It describes flying without actually allowing a person to
experience it. The distinction in this debate is between the alleged unique
and essential character of real experience vs. simulation of real experience.
Simulation can take many forms, and is not found only in the form of a desktop
PC program. Reading about something is simulation. So is an instructor's
illustration with paper and pencil or with a model airplane. If simulation
with a PC cannot be adequate, then neither can anything else.

However, the reality is that simulation is fine. The closer it is to reality
and the more accurate it is, the more useful it is, but anything that
simulates with any accuracy at all is always useful.

> The apology is in order for claiming that you know better than the folks
> who have gone before you when you haven't made the journey yourself.

I owe nothing to them, and I feel no obligation to preserve or inflate their
egos. I merely discuss aviation. Other people are names on a screen. I
evaluate what they say by comparing it to what I read and learn from other
sources. When I see high correlations, I assume that I'm getting accurate
information. When I see large conflicts, I assume that someone or something
is wrong. To me it's all facts and information, not personalities. I'm sorry
if some people are so insecure that they cannot sustain a conversation without
constant praise and validation, but that is their problem, not mine.

> Everything about flying the aircraft requires an instructor present until
> you solo.

Why?

> Why do you claim that?

Actually, I consider it self-evident.

> Tell ya what, survey practical simulator use in
> flight training (or just about any training) and get back to us on how many
> simulators are used without instructors present.

People use simulators with instructors mainly so that they can officially log
the hours in some way, not because simulators are not useful without
instructors. Part of the instructor's role is just to verify that the student
really is using the simulator.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:cPsXj.113142$TT4.57109@attbi_s22:

>>There has to be something that a simulator can offer that does not
>>require the instructor to be present.
>
> Much depends on the level of your simulator. If you have something
> like our Penguin (see it here:
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm ) you can learn a
> lot.


Of ****#



Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> You read something, misinterpreted it, and now think it's a fact.

I read many things, see claims here that conflict with what I read, and tend
to trust what I read. No amount of emotion or invective here will sway me
from that policy.

> Give it up. You don't understand. You will never understand.
> And it does not matter because you will never fly.

Given the vehemence of your replies, it must matter to you a great deal.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> The ones that are ignored are different sensations and typically have
>> to do with equilibrium and the inner ear. Examples are somatogravic
>> and coriolis and inversion illusions. If your ass leaves the seat or
>> compresses into it, however, it's not something you ignore.
>
> Yes, it is, because it is no more reliable than any other sensation.
>
> If you enter a coordinated turn at constant altitude, your buttocks
> will tell you that you are climbing ... but you aren't. Your inner
> ear will tell you the same thing, and it will be just as wrong.
>
>> There aren't many/any RC pilots who haven't catastrophically augured
>> an RC plane.
>
> Of those who have, how did they manage, without sensation? Indeed,
> how do they ever manage on any flight, without sensation?
>
>> UAV systems are much more sophisticated than those in the
>> average single-engine piston airplane, and--I've not flown a UAV so
>> I'm guessing here--they're not doing things like steep-bank turns or
>> short-field approaches.
>
> But aviation is more than single-engine piston airplanes ... much
> more.
>
>> Those are different sensations and you have to know the difference
>> and also what to reject or ignore. VFR pilots are subject to similar
>> but different sensations such as visual autokinesis, reversal of
>> motion and black hole approaches.
>
> Can you fly safely with your eyes closed, relying only on sensations,
> and selectively ignoring or accepting the sensations you feel?
>
>> You can have those sensations while remaining perfectly still in
>> normal flight. When your ass is sliding toward the inside or outside
>> of a turn, or getting compressed into the seat or lifted into the lap
>> belt, those are not illusions.
>
> But they may not be what you think they are, either.
>
> What people are asserting here is 180 degrees different from what I
> read in all the literature. You cannot fly by the seat of your pants.
> You can't fly based on sensations. They are too unreliable.
> Conversely, you can fly without sensations, as long as you have visual
> and/or instrument information.
>

You're a moron. You're not competent to read with comprehension.
Anthony, you don't know **** from shinola.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> You read something, misinterpreted it, and now think it's a fact.
>
> I read many things, see claims here that conflict with what I read,
> and tend to trust what I read. No amount of emotion or invective here
> will sway me from that policy.
>
>> Give it up. You don't understand. You will never understand.
>> And it does not matter because you will never fly.
>
> Given the vehemence of your replies, it must matter to you a great
> deal.
>

Anthony, the fecal matter you call a brain lacks the capacity to comprehend
what you read. You don't know **** from shinola.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> There is no visual reference that will tell you whether or not you
>> are coordinated in a turn and there is nothing magical or mystical to
>> the sensation once you've felt it.
>
> Well, close your eyes and make the turn, and see where you end up.
>
>> True but irrelevant.
>
> On the contrary, it's important. Can you really be sure that your
> turn is perfectly coordinated and that you are holding altitude
> without ever looking at the instruments? How do you know how far
> you've turned? How do you tell the difference between an
> uncoordinated turn and being pushed by the wind?
>
>> In VFR you are much safer looking out the window than staring at the
>> instruments like a simmer, especially in a turn.
>
> In VFR you are safest if you do both. And you can look out the window
> in a sim, too.
>
>> Wrong.
>
> How do you know the difference between a coordinated turn and, say, an
> uncoordinated turn that encounters wind that moves the aircraft? If
> you depend on sensation alone, an updraft or downdraft might make you
> think that an uncoordinated turn is level and coordinated, when in
> fact it is uncoordinated and you are climbing or descending.
>

Anthony, are you talking from your exensive experience in up/down drafts in
a real airplane or is this yet another of your fantasies while jerking off
to MSFS?

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Benjamin Dover writes:
>
>> BULL ****. You land by "the seat of your pants".
>
> How are computers able to land aircraft, then?
>

They don't land nearly as softly as a real pilot can. Its obvious who
landed the aircraft when you're a pax and know what the sensation to look
for is. Something you will, fortunately, NEVER COMPREHEND. You don't know
**** from shinola.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> I regularly travel a stretch of highway about 100 miles long.
>> 2 trips
>> same time of the day
>> same traffic
>> same speed
>> When I use cruise control for the entire trip, I average about 18 mpg.
>> When I use my foot the whole way, I average over 20 mpg.
>
> Do you look out the window, or look at the speedometer, or do you drive
> blindfolded and rely on sensations?
>
> Why do airline operators prefer that their pilots use a flight management
> computer instead of flying by hand?
>

Another questions which is beyond your ability to comprehend. If you could
think, you wouldn't have had to as the question. You're too ****ing stupid
to think.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> People use simulators with instructors mainly so that they can
> officially log the hours in some way, not because simulators are not
> useful without instructors. Part of the instructor's role is just to
> verify that the student really is using the simulator.
>

No, you ****ing retard. The instructor is there to ensure you are using
the simulator properly and learning stuff which will let you live when you
enter real IMC.

[Mike Isaksen]

> Mxsmanic wrote
>
>> Nomen Nescio writes:
>>> Give it up. You don't understand. You will never understand.
>>> And it does not matter because you will never fly.
>>
>> Given the vehemence of your replies, it must matter to you a
>> great deal.
>>

For the love of this Group please
stop, Stop,... STOP REPLYING TO MX.

He is the person in the Movie House who tries to start a conversation during
the movie. Ignore him, move away, but please don't lecture him about the
importance of not talking during the movie. HE KNOWS!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Mike Isaksen" > wrote in
news:DYAXj.1110$pk1.418@trndny07:

>> Mxsmanic wrote
>>
>>> Nomen Nescio writes:
>>>> Give it up. You don't understand. You will never understand.
>>>> And it does not matter because you will never fly.
>>>
>>> Given the vehemence of your replies, it must matter to you a
>>> great deal.
>>>
>
> For the love of this Group please
> stop, Stop,... STOP REPLYING TO MX.
>
> He is the person in the Movie House who tries to start a conversation
> during the movie. Ignore him, move away, but please don't lecture him
> about the importance of not talking during the movie. HE KNOWS!
>
>
>
>

And you're the one who shouts "fire"

Bertie

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>> What people are asserting here is 180 degrees different from what I
>> read in all the literature. You cannot fly by the seat of your pants.
>> You can't fly based on sensations. They are too unreliable.
>> Conversely, you can fly without sensations, as long as you have visual
>> and/or instrument information.
>>
>
> You're a moron. You're not competent to read with comprehension.
> Anthony, you don't know **** from shinola.

Presuming we're talking about IFR flight, what, precisely, do you find
incorrect in MX's paragraph, above?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:erBXj.113694
$TT4.102500@attbi_s22:

>>> What people are asserting here is 180 degrees different from what I
>>> read in all the literature. You cannot fly by the seat of your pants.
>>> You can't fly based on sensations. They are too unreliable.
>>> Conversely, you can fly without sensations, as long as you have visual
>>> and/or instrument information.
>>>
>>
>> You're a moron. You're not competent to read with comprehension.
>> Anthony, you don't know **** from shinola.
>
> Presuming we're talking about IFR flight, what, precisely, do you find
> incorrect in MX's paragraph, above?

Snort! I love it when k00ks start to slurp each other for a bit of comfort.


Bertie

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 17, 8:53*am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Presuming we're talking about IFR flight, what, precisely, do you find
> incorrect in MX's paragraph, above?

Flying by sensation Jay. To make a blank statement you cannot fly in
IMC by sensations is flat out wrong.

While you have to ignore SOME sensations while flying inside a cloud,
some sensations give you warning of impending danger.

Somebody already pointed out stall buffering. That is a sensation you
DON'T want to feel inside a cloud that will not show up on an
instrument until it's too late.

You would also be surprised, flying by the seat of your pants does
work wonders on an ILS approach, especially when you slip slightly
below glideslope and adding power to recapture the glide slope can be
felt in the seat of your pants, which is a confirmation of what the
instruments are reading. If you don't feel that firmness in the seat
of your pants, then something is drastically wrong.

There are times inside the clag, where you feel more in the seat of
your pants better then in VMC because your senses are more heightened.
When you add throttle, you should expect to feel some firmness in the
seat of your pants, when you reduce, you should feel less. If you
don't feel it, something is wrong.

Hearing is a sense, something that cannot be ignored. Not sure if you
saw my last post on a video about a vacuum problem in IMC, so I am
talking from first hand experience.

Listening to your engine is a secondary airspeed ***TREND***
indicator. Ignore that, and you will be in more of a boatload of
trouble when your vacuum system goes belly up. Hearing my engine
while under partial panel procedures probably was the sense that made
my life exponentially easier, and the last I know of, hearing is a
sense or a sensation..

When used correctly, your senses CONFIRM what you see on the gauges,
but when it comes to hearing and feeling, some of those signals cannot
be ignored especially when gauges give conflicting information (I.E
vacuum failure). When gauges give conflicting information, the
emphasis become a little more on senses to bring your skin back home
in one piece.

Sims are great for IFR procedures, but they do not simulate the real
deal. The hood doesn't do it for the real deal.

I have taken instrument students and VFR pilots in IMC and afterwards,
their reactions have been priceless.

If you have not done so yourself, you may want to hitch a ride with a
IA pilot and see what it's like to fly an approach even down to 1000
feet AGL which in most cases is not even close to minimums. 1000
feet AGL on a standard descent is only two minutes from being in a
milk bottle to touchdown.

ILS minimums, it's only 20 seconds. The more you use your senses WITH
instruments in IMC, the better chance your outcome will be.

[F. Baum]

On May 17, 4:44*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> Why do airline operators prefer that their pilots use a flight management
> computer instead of flying by hand?

Misconception here. The FMC doesnt "Fly" the aircraft, it directs it.
You can hand fly with the FMC for guidance. The main purpose of the
autopilot is to manage the workload. FWIW I hand fly ALL approaches
that I am legal to do so.
Frank

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 17, 7:33 am, "F. Baum" > wrote:
> On May 17, 4:44 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> > Why do airline operators prefer that their pilots use a flight management
> > computer instead of flying by hand?

> Misconception here. The FMC doesnt "Fly" the aircraft, it directs it.
> You can hand fly with the FMC for guidance. The main purpose of the
> autopilot is to manage the workload. FWIW I hand fly ALL approaches
> that I am legal to do so.
> Frank

A misconception in r.a.p, Bertie must be posting again.
Don't blame the group, blame its parents.

Guys like Yeager and Neil Armstrong where 2 in a
million, smack in the golden age of jet aviation.

After flying model's, and doing real piloting ,with the
advent of the electronic computer I/we designed started
aeronautical modeling, like a computerized wind tunnel.
Soon computer power, speed and memory enabled writing
a cockpit program to "fly" the model.
Personally, I could learn more aeronautical science
using that program in 1 hour than I could flying 10
hours, but both are necessary. I was able to flight
test more X-craft than Yeager and Armstrong put
together!
That differs from a toy or professional simulator,
because it put's us inside a scientific experiment,
that we can control and program experiments.

The words "aeronautical/aerospace sims" cover a
very broad range of software/hardware.
Ken

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberman writes:

> Flying by sensation Jay. To make a blank statement you cannot fly in
> IMC by sensations is flat out wrong.

It's entirely right. You cannot trust sensations in IMC. You must trust your
instruments.

> While you have to ignore SOME sensations while flying inside a cloud,
> some sensations give you warning of impending danger.

The instruments do a better job of that, and they are consistent and reliable.

> Somebody already pointed out stall buffering. That is a sensation you
> DON'T want to feel inside a cloud that will not show up on an
> instrument until it's too late.

If you are watching your instruments and you know your aircraft, why are you
experiencing stall buffet?

> You would also be surprised, flying by the seat of your pants does
> work wonders on an ILS approach ...

I'm not sure that I'd want ILS needles in the seat of my pants.

> ... especially when you slip slightly
> below glideslope and adding power to recapture the glide slope can be
> felt in the seat of your pants, which is a confirmation of what the
> instruments are reading.

You have it backwards: The instruments confirm, not the sensations. You don't
need a confirmation of instruments. If there is a disagreement between
sensations and instruments, the instruments take priority.

> If you don't feel that firmness in the seat of your pants, then
> something is drastically wrong.

If you're instruments tell you that you're in trouble, you're in trouble. If
they tell you that you're not in trouble, you're safe. The seat of your pants
may tell you all sorts of things, but relying on it will result in an
accident.

> There are times inside the clag, where you feel more in the seat of
> your pants better then in VMC because your senses are more heightened.

Completely false. In IMC, you must trust your instruments if you want to stay
alive. Ignore what you feel.

> When you add throttle, you should expect to feel some firmness in the
> seat of your pants, when you reduce, you should feel less. If you
> don't feel it, something is wrong.

Look at your instruments; they'll tell you if something is wrong.

> ILS minimums, it's only 20 seconds. The more you use your senses WITH
> instruments in IMC, the better chance your outcome will be.

You aren't in IMC below minimums.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Nomen Nescio > wrote in
:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: "Jay Honeck" >
>
>>>> What people are asserting here is 180 degrees different from what I
>>>> read in all the literature. You cannot fly by the seat of your
>>>> pants.
>>>> You can't fly based on sensations. They are too unreliable.
>>>> Conversely, you can fly without sensations, as long as you have
>>>> visual and/or instrument information.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're a moron. You're not competent to read with comprehension.
>>> Anthony, you don't know **** from shinola.
>>
>>Presuming we're talking about IFR flight, what, precisely, do you find
>>incorrect in MX's paragraph, above?
>
> 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.

Hopefully after the flight and not before. I'm nauseous just thinking of
doing that!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Lieberman writes:
>
>> Flying by sensation Jay. To make a blank statement you cannot fly in
>> IMC by sensations is flat out wrong.
>
> It's entirely right.

No it isn't.


You cannot trust sensations in IMC.


Only one.


You must
> trust your instruments.
>
>> While you have to ignore SOME sensations while flying inside a cloud,
>> some sensations give you warning of impending danger.
>
> The instruments do a better job of that, and they are consistent and
> reliable.

Nope.


>
>> Somebody already pointed out stall buffering. That is a sensation
>> you DON'T want to feel inside a cloud that will not show up on an
>> instrument until it's too late.
>
> If you are watching your instruments and you know your aircraft, why
> are you experiencing stall buffet?
>
>> You would also be surprised, flying by the seat of your pants does
>> work wonders on an ILS approach ...
>
> I'm not sure that I'd want ILS needles in the seat of my pants.
>
>> ... especially when you slip slightly
>> below glideslope and adding power to recapture the glide slope can be
>> felt in the seat of your pants, which is a confirmation of what the
>> instruments are reading.
>
> You have it backwards: The instruments confirm, not the sensations.
> You don't need a confirmation of instruments. If there is a
> disagreement between sensations and instruments, the instruments take
> priority.
>
>> If you don't feel that firmness in the seat of your pants, then
>> something is drastically wrong.
>
> If you're instruments tell you that you're in trouble, you're in
> trouble. If they tell you that you're not in trouble, you're safe.

You're a moron.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On May 17, 7:33 am, "F. Baum" > wrote:
>> On May 17, 4:44 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> > Why do airline operators prefer that their pilots use a flight
>> > management computer instead of flying by hand?
>
>> Misconception here. The FMC doesnt "Fly" the aircraft, it directs it.
>> You can hand fly with the FMC for guidance. The main purpose of the
>> autopilot is to manage the workload. FWIW I hand fly ALL approaches
>> that I am legal to do so.
>> Frank
>
> A misconception in r.a.p, Bertie must be posting again.
> Don't blame the group, blame its parents.
>
> Guys like Yeager and Neil Armstrong where 2 in a
> million, smack in the golden age of jet aviation.
>
> After flying model's, and doing real piloting ,with the
> advent of the electronic computer I/we designed started
> aeronautical modeling, like a computerized wind tunnel.
> Soon computer power, speed and memory enabled writing
> a cockpit program to "fly" the model.
> Personally, I could learn more aeronautical science
> using that program in 1 hour than I could flying 10
> hours, but both are necessary.

Everything you have posted to date would indicate otherwise.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> gatt writes:

> > The ones that are ignored are different sensations and typically have to
> > do with equilibrium and the inner ear. Examples are somatogravic and
> > coriolis and inversion illusions. If your ass leaves the seat or
> > compresses into it, however, it's not something you ignore.

> Yes, it is, because it is no more reliable than any other sensation.

> If you enter a coordinated turn at constant altitude, your buttocks will tell
> you that you are climbing ... but you aren't. Your inner ear will tell you
> the same thing, and it will be just as wrong.

Point totally missed yet again.

That sensation tells you that you are coordinated, which is the point.

> > There aren't many/any RC pilots who haven't catastrophically augured an
> > RC plane.

> Of those who have, how did they manage, without sensation? Indeed, how do
> they ever manage on any flight, without sensation?

Irrelevant.

The sensation in real airplanes allows you to fly more precisely and
safer.

> > UAV systems are much more sophisticated than those in the
> > average single-engine piston airplane, and--I've not flown a UAV so I'm
> > guessing here--they're not doing things like steep-bank turns or
> > short-field approaches.

> But aviation is more than single-engine piston airplanes ... much more.

Irrelevant to the topic at hand.

> > Those are different sensations and you have to know the difference and
> > also what to reject or ignore. VFR pilots are subject to similar but
> > different sensations such as visual autokinesis, reversal of motion and
> > black hole approaches.

> Can you fly safely with your eyes closed, relying only on sensations, and
> selectively ignoring or accepting the sensations you feel?

A blazingly stupid comment that shows you know nothing about real
flight.

> > You can have those sensations while remaining perfectly still in normal
> > flight. When your ass is sliding toward the inside or outside of a
> > turn, or getting compressed into the seat or lifted into the lap belt,
> > those are not illusions.

> But they may not be what you think they are, either.

It only takes a couple of hours in a real airplane to learn to interpret
what they are and what they mean.


> What people are asserting here is 180 degrees different from what I read in
> all the literature. You cannot fly by the seat of your pants. You can't fly
> based on sensations. They are too unreliable. Conversely, you can fly
> without sensations, as long as you have visual and/or instrument information.

Bull****.

That's not what the "literature" says.

Get a dictionary from someone who owns one and look up the word "context".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 17, 9:30 am, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: "Jay Honeck" >
>
> >>> What people are asserting here is 180 degrees different from what I
> >>> read in all the literature. You cannot fly by the seat of your pants.
> >>> You can't fly based on sensations. They are too unreliable.
> >>> Conversely, you can fly without sensations, as long as you have visual
> >>> and/or instrument information.
>
> >> You're a moron. You're not competent to read with comprehension.
> >> Anthony, you don't know **** from shinola.
>
> >Presuming we're talking about IFR flight, what, precisely, do you find
> >incorrect in MX's paragraph, above?
>
> 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.
>
> A plane is flown by sensations. In the short term, it's quite reliable. In the long
> term, slight errors start to compound and need to be eliminated by squaring
> things up with the instruments or horizon.
> When you catch an updraft coming over a ridge, do you wait for the altimeter
> to tell you you're climbing? Or do you slightly lower the nose based on
> FEELING the additional lift?
> How about landing. Are you FLYING visually or by feel? Do you NEED to look
> at the airspeed indicator to tell if you're trending faster or slower?
> I fly by feel. I orient myself visually, either looking out the window or looking
> at the instruments. I navigate visually. But I FLY by feel.
> Humans are hard wired with a decent inertial nav. system. MX is a few wires
> short of a complete circuit.

I pretty much agree with MX, the human inertial nav
is clumsy, we didn't have the evolution of birds.
An example is a "spiral dive", it's actually quite benign
from the standpoint of inertial inputs, it's better to use
instruments.
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On May 17, 9:30 am, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> From: "Jay Honeck" >
>>
>> >>> What people are asserting here is 180 degrees different from what
>> >>> I read in all the literature. You cannot fly by the seat of your
>> >>> pants.
>> >>> You can't fly based on sensations. They are too unreliable.
>> >>> Conversely, you can fly without sensations, as long as you have
>> >>> visual and/or instrument information.
>>
>> >> You're a moron. You're not competent to read with comprehension.
>> >> Anthony, you don't know **** from shinola.
>>
>> >Presuming we're talking about IFR flight, what, precisely, do you
>> >find incorrect in MX's paragraph, above?
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> A plane is flown by sensations. In the short term, it's quite
>> reliable. In the long term, slight errors start to compound and need
>> to be eliminated by squaring things up with the instruments or
>> horizon. When you catch an updraft coming over a ridge, do you wait
>> for the altimeter to tell you you're climbing? Or do you slightly
>> lower the nose based on FEELING the additional lift?
>> How about landing. Are you FLYING visually or by feel? Do you NEED to
>> look at the airspeed indicator to tell if you're trending faster or
>> slower? I fly by feel. I orient myself visually, either looking out
>> the window or looking at the instruments. I navigate visually. But I
>> FLY by feel. Humans are hard wired with a decent inertial nav.
>> system. MX is a few wires short of a complete circuit.
>
> I pretty much agree with MX, the human inertial nav
> is clumsy, we didn't have the evolution of birds.
> An example is a "spiral dive", it's actually quite benign
> from the standpoint of inertial inputs, it's better to use
> instruments.
> Ken

Like you could.


Bertie
>

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Lieberman writes:

> > Flying by sensation Jay. To make a blank statement you cannot fly in
> > IMC by sensations is flat out wrong.

> It's entirely right. You cannot trust sensations in IMC. You must trust your
> instruments.

It is obvious you've done a little reading, with emphasis on the little.

You also have zero practical application of that reading.

As has happened so many times in the past, your tunnel vision along
with your black and white viewpoint lead you to make pronouncements
that are not only wrong but laughable.

The bottom line is you flat out don't know what you are talking about.

That could be cured with a couple of hours in a real airplane, but we
all know that's never going to happen.

So you will keep on posting your nonsense.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > There is no visual reference that will tell you whether or not you are
> > coordinated in a turn and there is nothing magical or mystical to the
> > sensation once you've felt it.

> Well, close your eyes and make the turn, and see where you end up.

That's yet another blazingly stupid comment to make.

> > True but irrelevant.

> On the contrary, it's important. Can you really be sure that your turn is
> perfectly coordinated and that you are holding altitude without ever looking
> at the instruments?

Yes.

> How do you know how far you've turned?

Looking out the window. It is a VFR turn, remember from the stuff you cut?

> How do you tell
> the difference between an uncoordinated turn and being pushed by the wind?

Once again a blazingly stupid comment that shows you know nothing about
flying.

> > In VFR you are much safer looking out the window than staring at the
> > instruments like a simmer, especially in a turn.

> In VFR you are safest if you do both. And you can look out the window in a
> sim, too.

Wrong.

You are safest spending as much time as possible looking out the window.

When low and slow I will occasionally glance at the turn coordinator,
but other than that it is basically ignored.

> > Wrong.

> How do you know the difference between a coordinated turn and, say, an
> uncoordinated turn that encounters wind that moves the aircraft? If you
> depend on sensation alone, an updraft or downdraft might make you think that
> an uncoordinated turn is level and coordinated, when in fact it is
> uncoordinated and you are climbing or descending.

Utter nonsense.

Since you have never flown, you have no idea just how idiotic that statement
is.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Nomen Nescio writes:

> > I regularly travel a stretch of highway about 100 miles long.
> > 2 trips
> > same time of the day
> > same traffic
> > same speed
> > When I use cruise control for the entire trip, I average about 18 mpg.
> > When I use my foot the whole way, I average over 20 mpg.

> Do you look out the window, or look at the speedometer, or do you drive
> blindfolded and rely on sensations?

You really have a fixation on the blindfold thing.

Do you like to be tied up?

And, just so you know, vision is a sensation.

> Why do airline operators prefer that their pilots use a flight management
> computer instead of flying by hand?

You haven't a clue what a FMC is, what it does, or how it is used.

Do tell us about the FMC in your Baron.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> It's entirely right. You cannot trust sensations in IMC. You must
> trust your instruments.
>

No it isn't, you dumb ****. You have never flown a real airplane in the
clouds. You don't know **** from shinola. Stick your head back up your
ass, that's all you're good for.

[Buster Hymen]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
:

> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
> :
>
>> On May 17, 9:30 am, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>
>>> From: "Jay Honeck" >
>>>
>>> >>> What people are asserting here is 180 degrees different from what
>>> >>> I read in all the literature. You cannot fly by the seat of your
>>> >>> pants.
>>> >>> You can't fly based on sensations. They are too unreliable.
>>> >>> Conversely, you can fly without sensations, as long as you have
>>> >>> visual and/or instrument information.
>>>
>>> >> You're a moron. You're not competent to read with comprehension.
>>> >> Anthony, you don't know **** from shinola.
>>>
>>> >Presuming we're talking about IFR flight, what, precisely, do you
>>> >find incorrect in MX's paragraph, above?
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> A plane is flown by sensations. In the short term, it's quite
>>> reliable. In the long term, slight errors start to compound and need
>>> to be eliminated by squaring things up with the instruments or
>>> horizon. When you catch an updraft coming over a ridge, do you wait
>>> for the altimeter to tell you you're climbing? Or do you slightly
>>> lower the nose based on FEELING the additional lift?
>>> How about landing. Are you FLYING visually or by feel? Do you NEED to
>>> look at the airspeed indicator to tell if you're trending faster or
>>> slower? I fly by feel. I orient myself visually, either looking out
>>> the window or looking at the instruments. I navigate visually. But I
>>> FLY by feel. Humans are hard wired with a decent inertial nav.
>>> system. MX is a few wires short of a complete circuit.
>>
>> I pretty much agree with MX, the human inertial nav
>> is clumsy, we didn't have the evolution of birds.
>> An example is a "spiral dive", it's actually quite benign
>> from the standpoint of inertial inputs, it's better to use
>> instruments.
>> Ken
>
> Like you could.
>
>
> Bertie
>>
>
>

You're a moron!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Buster Hymen > wrote in
02:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> news:4df208ad-4920-4f77-93c1-
:
>>
>>> On May 17, 9:30 am, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>
>>>> From: "Jay Honeck" >
>>>>
>>>> >>> What people are asserting here is 180 degrees different from
what
>>>> >>> I read in all the literature. You cannot fly by the seat of
your
>>>> >>> pants.
>>>> >>> You can't fly based on sensations. They are too unreliable.
>>>> >>> Conversely, you can fly without sensations, as long as you have
>>>> >>> visual and/or instrument information.
>>>>
>>>> >> You're a moron. You're not competent to read with
comprehension.
>>>> >> Anthony, you don't know **** from shinola.
>>>>
>>>> >Presuming we're talking about IFR flight, what, precisely, do you
>>>> >find incorrect in MX's paragraph, above?
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> A plane is flown by sensations. In the short term, it's quite
>>>> reliable. In the long term, slight errors start to compound and
need
>>>> to be eliminated by squaring things up with the instruments or
>>>> horizon. When you catch an updraft coming over a ridge, do you wait
>>>> for the altimeter to tell you you're climbing? Or do you slightly
>>>> lower the nose based on FEELING the additional lift?
>>>> How about landing. Are you FLYING visually or by feel? Do you NEED
to
>>>> look at the airspeed indicator to tell if you're trending faster or
>>>> slower? I fly by feel. I orient myself visually, either looking out
>>>> the window or looking at the instruments. I navigate visually. But
I
>>>> FLY by feel. Humans are hard wired with a decent inertial nav.
>>>> system. MX is a few wires short of a complete circuit.
>>>
>>> I pretty much agree with MX, the human inertial nav
>>> is clumsy, we didn't have the evolution of birds.
>>> An example is a "spiral dive", it's actually quite benign
>>> from the standpoint of inertial inputs, it's better to use
>>> instruments.
>>> Ken
>>
>> Like you could.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>>
>>
>>
>
> You're a moron!
>
>

You're a moron!


Bertie

[Buster Hymen]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
:

> Buster Hymen > wrote in
> 02:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>>> news:4df208ad-4920-4f77-93c1-
> :
>>>
>>>> On May 17, 9:30 am, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "Jay Honeck" >
>>>>>
>>>>> >>> What people are asserting here is 180 degrees different from
> what
>>>>> >>> I read in all the literature. You cannot fly by the seat of
> your
>>>>> >>> pants.
>>>>> >>> You can't fly based on sensations. They are too unreliable.
>>>>> >>> Conversely, you can fly without sensations, as long as you have
>>>>> >>> visual and/or instrument information.
>>>>>
>>>>> >> You're a moron. You're not competent to read with
> comprehension.
>>>>> >> Anthony, you don't know **** from shinola.
>>>>>
>>>>> >Presuming we're talking about IFR flight, what, precisely, do you
>>>>> >find incorrect in MX's paragraph, above?
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> A plane is flown by sensations. In the short term, it's quite
>>>>> reliable. In the long term, slight errors start to compound and
> need
>>>>> to be eliminated by squaring things up with the instruments or
>>>>> horizon. When you catch an updraft coming over a ridge, do you wait
>>>>> for the altimeter to tell you you're climbing? Or do you slightly
>>>>> lower the nose based on FEELING the additional lift?
>>>>> How about landing. Are you FLYING visually or by feel? Do you NEED
> to
>>>>> look at the airspeed indicator to tell if you're trending faster or
>>>>> slower? I fly by feel. I orient myself visually, either looking out
>>>>> the window or looking at the instruments. I navigate visually. But
> I
>>>>> FLY by feel. Humans are hard wired with a decent inertial nav.
>>>>> system. MX is a few wires short of a complete circuit.
>>>>
>>>> I pretty much agree with MX, the human inertial nav
>>>> is clumsy, we didn't have the evolution of birds.
>>>> An example is a "spiral dive", it's actually quite benign
>>>> from the standpoint of inertial inputs, it's better to use
>>>> instruments.
>>>> Ken
>>>
>>> Like you could.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You're a moron!
>>
>>
>
> You're a moron!
>
>
> Bertie

Sorry, Bertie. That last response was meant for Ken "****head" Tucker, the
wannabe mother ****er.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Buster Hymen > wrote in
02:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> :
>
>> Buster Hymen > wrote in
>> 02:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>>>> news:4df208ad-4920-4f77-93c1-
>> :
>>>>
>>>>> On May 17, 9:30 am, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Jay Honeck" >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>> What people are asserting here is 180 degrees different from
>> what
>>>>>> >>> I read in all the literature. You cannot fly by the seat of
>> your
>>>>>> >>> pants.
>>>>>> >>> You can't fly based on sensations. They are too unreliable.
>>>>>> >>> Conversely, you can fly without sensations, as long as you
>>>>>> >>> have visual and/or instrument information.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> You're a moron. You're not competent to read with
>> comprehension.
>>>>>> >> Anthony, you don't know **** from shinola.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >Presuming we're talking about IFR flight, what, precisely, do
>>>>>> >you find incorrect in MX's paragraph, above?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A plane is flown by sensations. In the short term, it's quite
>>>>>> reliable. In the long term, slight errors start to compound and
>> need
>>>>>> to be eliminated by squaring things up with the instruments or
>>>>>> horizon. When you catch an updraft coming over a ridge, do you
>>>>>> wait for the altimeter to tell you you're climbing? Or do you
>>>>>> slightly lower the nose based on FEELING the additional lift?
>>>>>> How about landing. Are you FLYING visually or by feel? Do you
>>>>>> NEED
>> to
>>>>>> look at the airspeed indicator to tell if you're trending faster
>>>>>> or slower? I fly by feel. I orient myself visually, either
>>>>>> looking out the window or looking at the instruments. I navigate
>>>>>> visually. But
>> I
>>>>>> FLY by feel. Humans are hard wired with a decent inertial nav.
>>>>>> system. MX is a few wires short of a complete circuit.
>>>>>
>>>>> I pretty much agree with MX, the human inertial nav
>>>>> is clumsy, we didn't have the evolution of birds.
>>>>> An example is a "spiral dive", it's actually quite benign
>>>>> from the standpoint of inertial inputs, it's better to use
>>>>> instruments.
>>>>> Ken
>>>>
>>>> Like you could.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're a moron!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You're a moron!
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Sorry, Bertie. That last response was meant for Ken "****head"
> Tucker, the wannabe mother ****er.
>
>
Heh heh, too bad, I was hoping for a "no, you're a moron" marathon.


Bertie

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

schrieb:

> So you will keep on posting your nonsense.

and you keep on replying to him and thus keep up the noise.

#m

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 11 May 2008 11:33:33 -0400, 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!


My, my! After browsing through more than a hundred replies in this
thread, I can see why the OP has abandoned this NG. With the
exception of 2 or 3 posters that stayed on topic, the rest of the
thread is proof positive that Jay was wise to quit this NG.
Scrooge McDuck

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> As has happened so many times in the past, your tunnel vision along
> with your black and white viewpoint lead you to make pronouncements
> that are not only wrong but laughable.

Show the errors.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> A plane is flown by sensations.

Explain autopilots.

> When you catch an updraft coming over a ridge, do you wait for the altimeter
> to tell you you're climbing? Or do you slightly lower the nose based on
> FEELING the additional lift?

I look out the window and/or check the instruments to see what has changed.

> How about landing. Are you FLYING visually or by feel? Do you NEED to look
> at the airspeed indicator to tell if you're trending faster or slower?

Yes.

> I fly by feel. I orient myself visually, either looking out the window or looking
> at the instruments. I navigate visually. But I FLY by feel.

How many seconds can you fly by feel before you get into trouble.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> That sensation tells you that you are coordinated, which is the point.

No, it does not. Other things can produce the same sensation. You have no
way of knowing which movement produced the sensation unless you cross-check
against instruments or the world outside the window.

> The sensation in real airplanes allows you to fly more precisely and
> safer.

The sensation in real airplanes gives some pilots a false sense of security.

> A blazingly stupid comment that shows you know nothing about real
> flight.

I'll ask again: Can you fly safely with your eyes closed, relying only on
sensations, and selectively ignoring or accepting the sensations you feel?

> It only takes a couple of hours in a real airplane to learn to interpret
> what they are and what they mean.

Sometimes it takes an accident to learn that you can't trust those sensations.

> That's not what the "literature" says.

That's exactly what it says. Trust your instruments, ignore your sensations.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On May 16, 11:04*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >There has to be something that a simulator can offer that does not
> >require the instructor to be present.
>
> Much depends on the level of your simulator. *If you have something like our
> Penguin (see it here:http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm)
> you can learn a lot. *If you're flying a mouse in front of your laptop, not
> so much.

Hah...I must have come full circle.

Last year, when I decided to get into flying, everything was new, and
so I just went to Google and jumped in, then took ground school, etc.

Your link you give is one of the first one's I saw. I remember
thinking, "That simulator is soooo coool...and the idea of a flying-
themed hotel. Maybe one day..."

Going to reread your site, now that I have some idea of what I'm
looking at.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> As has happened so many times in the past, your tunnel vision along
>> with your black and white viewpoint lead you to make pronouncements
>> that are not only wrong but laughable.
>
> Show the errors.
>

The character string "mxsmanic" in the "From" field for a post indicates
that what follows is a gross error.

Show that it doesn't. If you can't, you're a moron.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> That's exactly what it says. Trust your instruments, ignore your
> sensations.

Hey, you dumb ****, vision is a sense.

You don't know **** from shinola Anthony. You're a moron.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> > On the contrary, it's important. Can you really be sure that your turn is
> > perfectly coordinated and that you are holding altitude without ever looking
> > at the instruments?
>
> Yes.

How?

> Looking out the window. It is a VFR turn, remember from the stuff you cut?

Looking out the window is no longer flying by the seat of your pants, which
disproves your assertion.

> > How do you tell
> > the difference between an uncoordinated turn and being pushed by the wind?
>
> Once again a blazingly stupid comment that shows you know nothing about
> flying.

How do you tell the difference between an uncoordinated turn and being pushed
by the wind?

> You are safest spending as much time as possible looking out the window.

Why? I thought you could fly by the seat of your pants?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You haven't a clue what a FMC is, what it does, or how it is used.

I know quite a bit about how a FMC works.

> Do tell us about the FMC in your Baron.

There is no FMC in the Baron.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On May 17, 9:30*am, A Lieberman > wrote:
> Listening to your engine is a secondary airspeed ***TREND***
> indicator. *Ignore that, and you will be in more of a boatload of
> trouble when your vacuum system goes belly up. *Hearing my engine
> while under partial panel procedures probably was the sense that made
> my life exponentially easier, and the last I know of, hearing is a
> sense or a sensation..

I never expected a simulator to replace physical feedback in a real
cockpit, but this last paragraph is interesting because noticed that,
in a sim, it is a lot easier to fly if the engine can be heard. Many
time I have fumble to find the voice control because information was
lacking.

But as mentioned, I only use a Sim for theory, not physical feedback.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Mxsmanic]

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

> I never expected a simulator to replace physical feedback in a real
> cockpit, but this last paragraph is interesting because noticed that,
> in a sim, it is a lot easier to fly if the engine can be heard. Many
> time I have fumble to find the voice control because information was
> lacking.

I've noticed the same thing, but it's no surprise. Often there is no direct
indication of what the engine(s) is doing on the visible instruments, and
there is no motion in the sim. That, coupled with the delay inherent in the
response of many engines and the delay in the airframe's reaction, makes it
easier to fly if the engine can be heard. Fortunately, MSFS handles engine
sounds in a fairly consistent and predictable way.

[[email protected]]

On May 17, 11:24*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> It's entirely right. *You cannot trust sensations in IMC. *You must trust your
> instruments.

Did you read my post? Did you forget the fact my vacuum system wasn't
working? How can I trust the instruments?

> The instruments do a better job of that, and they are consistent and reliable.

Not when the vacuum system is broke. I just experienced it
yesterday. Are you telling me I am wrong that my attitude indicator
showed a pitch up yet I was on level flight that I am to ignore my
senses and fly by the attitude indicator?

> If you are watching your instruments and you know your aircraft, why are you
> experiencing stall buffet?

Uh, did you forget climb is pretty close to stall buffet? A couple of
degrees pitch up and you will get close to stall buffet. Of course
you don't feel that in the simulator.

> I'm not sure that I'd want ILS needles in the seat of my pants.

That's because you don't fly a real plane. Again, you are in the
wrong newsgroup.

> You have it backwards: The instruments confirm, not the sensations. *You don't
> need a confirmation of instruments. *If there is a disagreement between
> sensations and instruments, the instruments take priority.

Wrong. I have been there. You have not. The ABSENSE of a feeling is
more important then defective instruments (see above, hint vacuum
failure).

> If you're instruments tell you that you're in trouble, you're in trouble. *If
> they tell you that you're not in trouble, you're safe. *The seat of your pants
> may tell you all sorts of things, but relying on it will result in an
> accident.

WRONG. See above regarding vacuum failures.

> Completely false. *In IMC, you must trust your instruments if you want to stay
> alive. *Ignore what you feel.

WRONG See above regarding vacuum failures.

> Look at your instruments; they'll tell you if something is wrong.

WRONG See above regarding vacuum failures.

> > ILS minimums, it's only 20 seconds. *The more you use your senses WITH
> > instruments in IMC, the better chance your outcome will be.
>
> You aren't in IMC below minimums.

WRONG Re-read what I said above. You got to use your senses to get
to minimums.

Again, you are talking to a pilot, who just experienced IMC and a
vacuum failure. The primary instruments failed, I cannot use them.

Everything on a sim doesn't even come close to what I experienced. Oh
yeah, it wasn't straight and level flight, instrument approaches
require turns. Using an attitude indicator that displays level flight
and a DG that doesn't move and my GPS shows degrees ticking off,
doesn't bode well for survival if I don't trust my senses ALONG with
the backup instruments.

Can't wait for your answer on the above.

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 17, 2:54*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> *Fortunately, MSFS handles engine
> sounds in a fairly consistent and predictable way.

So, in this case the simulator fails in teaching the real world as
engine sounds are not consistent or predictable. Take a XC in a REAL
plane over a rural area, and you will KNOW what I am talking about.

Sim won't do it.

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 17, 11:30*am, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> I orient myself visually, either looking out the window or looking
> at the instruments. I navigate visually. But I FLY by feel.

I do as well, especially the last 6 inches of flight on landing :-)
Touch of power just to feel it in the seat of my pants so wheels
gently meet terra firma. That touch of power, while not noticeable to
the passenger shows up vividly on my videos by watching the strobing
of the prop in my flare. Invariably, you will see it reverse
direction as I treat the last few inches over the runway.

Same for ILS, slip below glide slope, add just enough power to feel it
in my britches to "drive it" back to glide slope.

No sim will ever be able to simulate the finer points of flying as it
takes sensation even in solid IMC. In my case, the instrument is
confirming what I feel by the recapture of a glide slope.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Did you read my post? Did you forget the fact my vacuum system wasn't
> working? How can I trust the instruments?

You don't need vacuum for electric instruments.

If you have no instruments and you're in IMC, you have a big problem.

> Not when the vacuum system is broke. I just experienced it
> yesterday.

Don't fly IFR until it's fixed.

> Uh, did you forget climb is pretty close to stall buffet?

Is it? You mean "pretty close" as "within 45 degrees"?

> A couple of degrees pitch up and you will get close to stall buffet.
> Of course you don't feel that in the simulator.

If you're a good pilot, you should never feel it at all.

> Wrong. I have been there. You have not.

Maybe next time you're there, you won't come back. Trust your instruments.

> The ABSENSE of a feeling is
> more important then defective instruments (see above, hint vacuum
> failure).

I'm not talking about defective instruments. You should never fly IFR with
defective instruments.

> WRONG Re-read what I said above. You got to use your senses to get
> to minimums.

No, you can use instruments to get to minimums. After that, you use your eyes
and instruments.

> 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.

> Everything on a sim doesn't even come close to what I experienced. Oh
> yeah, it wasn't straight and level flight, instrument approaches
> require turns. Using an attitude indicator that displays level flight
> and a DG that doesn't move and my GPS shows degrees ticking off,
> doesn't bode well for survival if I don't trust my senses ALONG with
> the backup instruments.

You were lucky.

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberman writes:

> So, in this case the simulator fails in teaching the real world as
> engine sounds are not consistent or predictable.

They are very consistent and predictable. So much so that they can be used
for analysis of accidents.