DUI Conviction

[ceaser28]

Hello Everyone,

I am 23 years old and I have been convicted of 1 DUI for smelling like
alcohol pratically in New Hampshire, do I still have a shot at being a
commercial pilot?

--
Ceaser

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 31, 7:54*pm, "ceaser28" <u45176@uwe> wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I am 23 years old and I have been convicted of 1 DUI for smelling like
> alcohol pratically in New Hampshire, do I still have a shot at being a
> commercial pilot?

How long ago was it?

-Roberrt

[Bob F.[_2_]]

No...you are NOT mentally fit. It doesn't sound like you are repentant
about this at all, have no morals and not willing to follow rules. Do us
all a favor and look for another profession.

--
Regards, BobF.
"ceaser28" <u45176@uwe> wrote in message news:87ffc1e08b8ab@uwe...
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I am 23 years old and I have been convicted of 1 DUI for smelling like
> alcohol pratically in New Hampshire, do I still have a shot at being a
> commercial pilot?
>
> --
> Ceaser
>

[Mxsmanic]

ceaser28 writes:

> I am 23 years old and I have been convicted of 1 DUI for smelling like
> alcohol pratically in New Hampshire, do I still have a shot at being a
> commercial pilot?

Yes, legally. If the conviction was before November 29, 1990, or it was the
only conviction, or it was not the only conviction but it was separated from
any previous conviction(s) by at least three years, you can still obtain a
license. See FAR 61.15.

The FAA is surprisingly lenient towards alcohol abusers, as opposed to its
attitude towards, say, asthmatics. I suppose there are more alcoholics than
asthmatics at the agency.

Whether an airline will hire you with a history of substance abuse is a
separate question for which I do not have an answer.

If you are hired, please name the airline that hired you here, so that I can
avoid it in the future.

[gatt[_5_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> The FAA is surprisingly lenient towards alcohol abusers, as opposed to its
> attitude towards, say, asthmatics.

Asthmatics generally don't have a problem with the FAA.

> If you are hired, please name the airline that hired you here, so that I can
> avoid it in the future.

Some people on the forum act like they've never gotten away with doing
something really stupid when they were young and immortal.



-c

[Rocky Stevens]

On Jul 31, 10:54 pm, "ceaser28" <u45176@uwe> wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I am 23 years old and I have been convicted of 1 DUI for smelling like
> alcohol pratically in New Hampshire, do I still have a shot at being a
> commercial pilot?
>
> --
> Ceaser

Yes, you still have a shot, though as has been said, airlines do frown
upon this kind of thing. 1 DUI ain't too bad, though. Am I correct in
assuming that you haven't started training for your PPL yet? Because
you will need to report the DUIs when you apply for your third class
medical. In any event, I would suggest you join the AOPA; they are
very helpful when it comes to these kinds of questions. You can get a
free 6 month trial membership by going to http://flighttraining.aopa.org/.

Good luck!

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

On Jul 31, 9:54*pm, "ceaser28" <u45176@uwe> wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I am 23 years old and I have been convicted of 1 DUI for smelling like
> alcohol pratically in New Hampshire, do I still have a shot at being a
> commercial pilot?
>
> --
> Ceaser

Sure you do! Everyone makes it out to be a deal killer when it isn't.
If you do continue to exercise poor judgement and get busted again you
can kiss it goodbye as is true with any job requiring good judgement
and self discipline.
Geez ....some of the posters make it out to be like you are a
stumbling falling down commode hugging drunk and you should be
pilloried for ever allowing evil alcohol to touch your lips.
When you go for your FAA flight physical you'll have to admit the DUI
or face serious consequences down the road. In and of itself, a DUI is
simply a flag of stupidity or poor judgement. Additional ones
indicates a serious mental problem as in addiction and can prevent you
from getting the required flight physical.
Good luck and don't be stupid again??!!
Ol S&B

[RST Engineering]

On Jul 31, 9:54 pm, "ceaser28" <u45176@uwe> wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I am 23 years old and I have been convicted of 1 DUI for smelling like
> alcohol pratically in New Hampshire, do I still have a shot at being a
> commercial pilot?
>
> --
> Ceaser


The DUI may not prohibit your career as a commercial pilot, but the
inability to string together a coherent English sentence may have a bearing
on it.

Jim

[Jon]

On Aug 1, 9:33*am, nobody > wrote:
> MXSTOOPID writes:
> >> I am 23 years old and I have been convicted of 1 DUI for smelling like
> >> alcohol pratically in New Hampshire, do I still have a shot at being a
> >> commercial pilot?
> > If the conviction was before November 29, 1990
>
> When he was 5? Another example of your inferior thought process.
>
> >If you are hired, please name the airline that hired you here, so that I can
> >avoid it in the future.

What if he wasn't hired here?

> Doesn't matter. You already avoid all airlines.

If only he'd avoid ambiguity...

[gatt[_5_]]

Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
> On Jul 31, 9:54 pm, "ceaser28" <u45176@uwe> wrote:

> Geez ....some of the posters make it out to be like you are a
> stumbling falling down commode hugging drunk and you should be
> pilloried for ever allowing evil alcohol to touch your lips.


I was thinking that if drinking misbehavior as a young adult was a
limiting factor in aviation, a whole hell of a lot of Navy and Marine
Corps veterans would never be allowed near an airplane. Pappy
Boyington, for example.

Lots of people make mistakes when they're young and immortal. Assuming
it was just a simple offense and not some sort of crime, the test of
character is going to be whether the behavior was curbed or allowed to
continue.


-c

[buttman]

On Aug 1, 6:46*am, "Bob F." > wrote:
> No...you are NOT mentally fit. *It doesn't sound like you are repentant
> about this at all, have no morals and not willing to follow rules. *Do us
> all a favor and look for another profession.
>
> --
> Regards, *BobF.
>
> "ceaser28" <u45176@uwe> wrote in messagenews:87ffc1e08b8ab@uwe...
> > Hello Everyone,
>
> > I am 23 years old and I have been convicted of 1 DUI for smelling like
> > alcohol pratically in New Hampshire, do I still have a shot at being a
> > commercial pilot?
>
> > --
> > Ceaser

You inferred all that from just one sentence? damn...

[[email protected]]

On Aug 1, 1:20*pm, gatt > wrote:
> Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
>
> > On Jul 31, 9:54 pm, "ceaser28" <u45176@uwe> wrote:
> > Geez ....some of the posters make it out to be like you are a
> > stumbling falling down commode hugging drunk and you should be
> > pilloried for ever allowing evil alcohol to touch your lips.
>
> I was thinking that if drinking misbehavior as a young adult was a
> limiting factor in aviation, a whole hell of a lot of Navy and Marine
> Corps veterans would never be allowed near an airplane. *Pappy
> Boyington, for example.
>
> Lots of people make mistakes when they're young and immortal. Assuming
> it was just a simple offense and not some sort of crime, the test of
> character is going to be whether the behavior was curbed or allowed to
> continue.
>
> -c

Consider this. You are a hiring authority, and you are examining the
paperwork of a number of prospects for a piloting job. Assume you've
done due dilligence so you know about the DUI, and further assume you
know it costs upwards of say $100,000 to take a new ATR pilot and
integrate him into your system.

You're making, in effect, a hundred thousand dollar bet on your
decision. Too many bad bets and your boss is not trust your judgement.
There is a small chance, of course, that one of the pilots you hire
will be involved in an accident, and you can be sure the hiring
criteria you used will be used by some lawyer to heap fault on your
airline. Are you going to be nice guy and give the kid a chance, or
are you going with an equally qualified applicant with a clean
record?

That is part of the reality in making hiring decisions. Guys and gals
who rise to the level where they are the decision makers on these
matters tend not to make rash decisions.

[Vaughn Simon]

"buttman" > wrote in message
...
>You inferred all that from just one sentence? damn...

That one sentence told me that the OP is not only unrepentant, but marginally
illiterate. I certainly could be wrong, (and have been before) but I don't
think this person is prime airline material.

Vaughn

[buttman]

On Aug 1, 12:31*pm, wrote:
> On Aug 1, 1:20*pm, gatt > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 31, 9:54 pm, "ceaser28" <u45176@uwe> wrote:
> > > Geez ....some of the posters make it out to be like you are a
> > > stumbling falling down commode hugging drunk and you should be
> > > pilloried for ever allowing evil alcohol to touch your lips.
>
> > I was thinking that if drinking misbehavior as a young adult was a
> > limiting factor in aviation, a whole hell of a lot of Navy and Marine
> > Corps veterans would never be allowed near an airplane. *Pappy
> > Boyington, for example.
>
> > Lots of people make mistakes when they're young and immortal. Assuming
> > it was just a simple offense and not some sort of crime, the test of
> > character is going to be whether the behavior was curbed or allowed to
> > continue.
>
> > -c
>
> Consider this. You are a hiring authority, and you are examining the
> paperwork of a number of prospects for a piloting job. Assume you've
> done due dilligence so you know about the DUI, and further assume you
> know it costs upwards of say $100,000 to take a new ATR pilot and
> integrate him into your system.
>
> You're making, in effect, a hundred thousand dollar bet on your
> decision. Too many bad bets and your boss is not trust your judgement.
> There is a small chance, of course, that one of the pilots you hire
> will be involved in an accident, and you can be sure the hiring
> criteria you used will be used by some lawyer to heap fault on your
> airline. Are you going to be nice guy and give the kid a chance, or
> are you going with an equally qualified applicant with a clean
> record?
>
> That is part of the reality in making hiring decisions. Guys and gals
> who rise to the level where they are the decision makers on these
> matters tend not to make rash decisions.

This argument only works if there is evidence that suggests that a
prior DUI conviction leads to a greater chance of getting into an
aviation accident. Do you have any kind of evidence to suggest this?

Remember, there are lots of people who have clean driving records, no
DUI's, good high school grades, etc etc etc, yet have still crashed an
airplane. At the same time, many successful people, in aviation as
well as the rest of the world, have gone on to do well despite a DUI
in their past.

[Bob F.[_2_]]

That argument works when you can read between the lines intelligently. The
responses were not legal ones, just practical ones. You will never know why
your resume was rejected, but you can almost guarantee it will be. No
evidence needed. Just indications.

--
Regards, BobF.
"buttman" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 1, 12:31 pm, wrote:
> On Aug 1, 1:20 pm, gatt > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 31, 9:54 pm, "ceaser28" <u45176@uwe> wrote:
> > > Geez ....some of the posters make it out to be like you are a
> > > stumbling falling down commode hugging drunk and you should be
> > > pilloried for ever allowing evil alcohol to touch your lips.
>
> > I was thinking that if drinking misbehavior as a young adult was a
> > limiting factor in aviation, a whole hell of a lot of Navy and Marine
> > Corps veterans would never be allowed near an airplane. Pappy
> > Boyington, for example.
>
> > Lots of people make mistakes when they're young and immortal. Assuming
> > it was just a simple offense and not some sort of crime, the test of
> > character is going to be whether the behavior was curbed or allowed to
> > continue.
>
> > -c
>
> Consider this. You are a hiring authority, and you are examining the
> paperwork of a number of prospects for a piloting job. Assume you've
> done due dilligence so you know about the DUI, and further assume you
> know it costs upwards of say $100,000 to take a new ATR pilot and
> integrate him into your system.
>
> You're making, in effect, a hundred thousand dollar bet on your
> decision. Too many bad bets and your boss is not trust your judgement.
> There is a small chance, of course, that one of the pilots you hire
> will be involved in an accident, and you can be sure the hiring
> criteria you used will be used by some lawyer to heap fault on your
> airline. Are you going to be nice guy and give the kid a chance, or
> are you going with an equally qualified applicant with a clean
> record?
>
> That is part of the reality in making hiring decisions. Guys and gals
> who rise to the level where they are the decision makers on these
> matters tend not to make rash decisions.

This argument only works if there is evidence that suggests that a
prior DUI conviction leads to a greater chance of getting into an
aviation accident. Do you have any kind of evidence to suggest this?

Remember, there are lots of people who have clean driving records, no
DUI's, good high school grades, etc etc etc, yet have still crashed an
airplane. At the same time, many successful people, in aviation as
well as the rest of the world, have gone on to do well despite a DUI
in their past.

[gatt[_5_]]

Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "buttman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>You inferred all that from just one sentence? damn...
>
>
> That one sentence told me that the OP is not only unrepentant, but marginally
> illiterate. I certainly could be wrong, (and have been before) but I don't
> think this person is prime airline material.
>
> Vaughn

He said "commercial pilot."

If anybody doesn't think there are successful commercial pilots out here
who have been in trouble with the law--or simply didn't get caught--and
who don't exhibit textbook grammar and punctuation on the usenet, I
suggest they check the archives.

[gatt[_5_]]

wrote:

>
> Consider this. You are a hiring authority, and you are examining the
> paperwork of a number of prospects for a piloting job. Assume you've
> done due dilligence so you know about the DUI, and further assume you
> know it costs upwards of say $100,000 to take a new ATR pilot and
> integrate him into your system.

He asked if he had a shot at being a commercial pilot. I'm a commercial
pilot, and I've never been anywhere near a "hiring authority."

>Are you going to be nice guy and give the kid a chance, or
> are you going with an equally qualified applicant with a clean
> record?

Depends on the applicant. If the one with the clean record acts like a
hotshot or an arrogant know-it-all, it might be that he simply hasn't
been caught yet, or acquired his character deficiencies later in life.
If on the other hand the one with the DUII seems contrite and
intelligent and can demonstrate that he's improved himself, that might
mean a lot.

Ten years from now, for example, there will be a whole lot of former
Marines who did combat tours in Iraq, came home and got popped as soon
as they drove off base because one beer before they deployed has more
impact than one beer did when they were partying every weekend
stateside. I promise, if I am in some sort of context to evaluate them
for employment, I will take the -whole- of their character and
accomplishment into consideration.

-c

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

buttman wrote:

> This argument only works if there is evidence that suggests that a
> prior DUI conviction leads to a greater chance of getting into an
> aviation accident. Do you have any kind of evidence to suggest this?
>
> Remember, there are lots of people who have clean driving records, no
> DUI's, good high school grades, etc etc etc, yet have still crashed an
> airplane. At the same time, many successful people, in aviation as
> well as the rest of the world, have gone on to do well despite a DUI
> in their past.

buttman, have you ever been in a court room?

Here's how that one will play out.

Ambulance Chasing Lawyer: "Capt. Screwed did you have any reason to
beleive that Joe Justhadafewdrinks had a history of bad judgment?"

Capt Screwed (Hiring Officer for REALLY SCREWED Airline): "No, of course
not. He scored well on all pre-hire tests and check flights."

ACL: "Would you have hired him had you known that he had a history of
bad judgment?"

CS: "No"

ACL: "Would you say that a DUI conviction is proof of bad judgement?"

CS: "Uh..uh..yes."

ACL: "Capt., The airline records clearly show you knew Joe
Justhadafewdrinks had an arrest and conviction for DUI and you hired him
anyway. How many applications of equal qualification did you have in
your inbox the day you hired Joe Justhadafewdrinks?

CS: "One or two hundred."

ACL: "How many had DUI convictions?"

CS: "1 or 2"

ACL: "And yet you hired Joe Justhadafewdrinks? No further questions."

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

gatt wrote:
> wrote:

> >Are you going to be nice guy and give the kid a chance, or
>> are you going with an equally qualified applicant with a clean
>> record?
>
> Depends on the applicant. If the one with the clean record acts like a
> hotshot or an arrogant know-it-all, it might be that he simply hasn't
> been caught yet, or acquired his character deficiencies later in life.
> If on the other hand the one with the DUII seems contrite and
> intelligent and can demonstrate that he's improved himself, that might
> mean a lot.
>
> Ten years from now, for example, there will be a whole lot of former
> Marines who did combat tours in Iraq, came home and got popped as soon
> as they drove off base because one beer before they deployed has more
> impact than one beer did when they were partying every weekend
> stateside. I promise, if I am in some sort of context to evaluate them
> for employment, I will take the -whole- of their character and
> accomplishment into consideration.
>
> -c

That really wasn't the question posed. If you have to applicants who are
in pretty much all ways equal which would you hire the guy with the DUI
or the one without?

To use your Marine example, let's say you are hiring one of two Marines
that were in the same squadron, their records are identical in pretty
much every way. One with a DUI, one without a DUI. Which one do you hire?

[gatt[_5_]]

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

>
> That really wasn't the question posed. If you have to applicants who are
> in pretty much all ways equal which would you hire the guy with the DUI
> or the one without?

The one without. But that really wasn't the question posed either. All
he wanted to know was whether he'd be able to get his commercial license.

> To use your Marine example, let's say you are hiring one of two Marines
> that were in the same squadron, their records are identical in pretty
> much every way. One with a DUI, one without a DUI. Which one do you hire?

Their records may be identical, but any two people are not:

How well do they fly the plane?
How well do they understand the regulations and the company?
How well do they present themselves professionally?
What are they trying to accomplish?
How hard are they willing to work to accomplish it?
What are they expecting to earn? ("I deserve more because...")

-c

[george]

On Aug 2, 4:54 am, Jon > wrote:
> On Aug 1, 9:33 am, nobody > wrote:
>
> > MXSTOOPID writes:
> > >> I am 23 years old and I have been convicted of 1 DUI for smelling like
> > >> alcohol pratically in New Hampshire, do I still have a shot at being a
> > >> commercial pilot?
> > > If the conviction was before November 29, 1990
>
> > When he was 5? Another example of your inferior thought process.
>
> > >If you are hired, please name the airline that hired you here, so that I can
> > >avoid it in the future.
>
> What if he wasn't hired here?
>
> > Doesn't matter. You already avoid all airlines.
>
> If only he'd avoid ambiguity...

Mixed up -could- avoid the group pleeeeaaaase

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"RST Engineering" > wrote:

> The DUI may not prohibit your career as a commercial pilot, but the
> inability to string together a coherent English sentence may have a bearing
> on it.

Given the abilities of today's crop of students, I doubt the OP's writing skills
will significantly impact her ability to land a job.

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

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

On Aug 1, 3:50*pm, Bob Noel >
wrote:
> In article >,
> *"RST Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > The DUI may not prohibit your career as a commercial pilot, but the
> > inability to string together a coherent English sentence may have a bearing
> > on it.
>
> Given the abilities of today's crop of students, I doubt the OP's writing skills
> will significantly impact her ability to land a job.
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> (goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Bob
AMEN!!!! And I see it daily with college grads ..... Pretty damned sad
if you ask my opinion.
Ol S&B

[gatt[_5_]]

Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:

>> I doubt the OP's writing skills will significantly impact her
ability >>to land a job.

> AMEN!!!! And I see it daily with college grads ..... Pretty damned sad
> if you ask my opinion.

....he says, with four exclaimation points and a five-period ellipses. ;>


I tend to avoid pessimism but it's pretty disheartening to hear a
college professor friend of mine tell about how every term he WARNS
students that he's going to check their term papers for internet
plagiarism, and yet invariably he has to fail students for turning in
something they downloaded from termpaper.com or whatever. All he does is
paste a couple of sentences into Google and he knows right away that the
student's a fraud.

Meanwhile, my wife just earned a human resources/business degree with a
4.0 GPA, had three internships had SIX scholarships--we didn't have to
pay a dime for her college because of her achievements--years of
experience as a system administrator, all kinds of field-related
volunteer work and a previous honors degree from UTD, a stack of
professional references and she can't start at a living wage in the
northwest now because she doesn't have enough "work experience."

The summer-job CFIs at the license mill across the runway start out at
more than what many four-year honors graduates with previous real-world
experience can hope to make.

Whatever. We're starting our own business. When the going gets weird...

-c

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

gatt wrote:
> When the going gets weird...
>
>-c

the weird get going?

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

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in news:0faf5757-406a-42c8-bbb7-
:

> On Aug 1, 6:46*am, "Bob F." > wrote:
>> No...you are NOT mentally fit. *It doesn't sound like you are repentant
>> about this at all, have no morals and not willing to follow rules. *Do
> us
>> all a favor and look for another profession.
>>
>> --
>> Regards, *BobF.
>>
>> "ceaser28" <u45176@uwe> wrote in messagenews:87ffc1e08b8ab@uwe...
>> > Hello Everyone,
>>
>> > I am 23 years old and I have been convicted of 1 DUI for smelling like
>> > alcohol pratically in New Hampshire, do I still have a shot at being a
>> > commercial pilot?
>>
>> > --
>> > Ceaser
>
> You inferred all that from just one sentence? damn...
>
Good grief. Where did you learn english? From the side of a cereal box?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> ceaser28 writes:
>
>> I am 23 years old and I have been convicted of 1 DUI for smelling
>> like alcohol pratically in New Hampshire, do I still have a shot at
>> being a commercial pilot?
>
> Yes, legally. If the conviction was before November 29, 1990, or it
> was the only conviction, or it was not the only conviction but it was
> separated from any previous conviction(s) by at least three years, you
> can still obtain a license. See FAR 61.15.
>
> The FAA is surprisingly lenient towards alcohol abusers, as opposed to
> its attitude towards, say, asthmatics. I suppose there are more
> alcoholics than asthmatics at the agency.
>
> Whether an airline will hire you with a history of substance abuse is
> a separate question for which I do not have an answer.
>
> If you are hired, please name the airline that hired you here, so that
> I can avoid it in the future.
>

You are an idiot.


Bertie

[buttman]

On Aug 1, 2:50*pm, Bob Noel >
wrote:
> In article >,
> *"RST Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > The DUI may not prohibit your career as a commercial pilot, but the
> > inability to string together a coherent English sentence may have a bearing
> > on it.
>
> Given the abilities of today's crop of students, I doubt the OP's writing skills
> will significantly impact her ability to land a job.
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> (goodness, please trim replies!!!)

YOU DARN KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN !!!!!!

[buttman]

On Aug 1, 3:36*pm, gatt > wrote:
> Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:

> I tend to avoid pessimism but it's pretty disheartening to hear a
> college professor friend of mine tell about how every term he WARNS
> students that he's going to check their term papers for internet
> plagiarism, and yet invariably he has to fail students for turning in
> something they downloaded from termpaper.com or whatever. All he does is
> paste a couple of sentences into Google and he knows right away that the
> student's a fraud.

College aged kids have been doing this crap since the dawn of time.
When I was in college my friend told me about this "term paper bin"
his fraternity had, where whenever a member of the fraternity had to
actually write a paper, they would donate it to the "bin" when they
were finished so another "brother" could use it to turn in to his
class. He told me it was two file cabinets large, and there there
papers in there going back to the 1930s.

> Meanwhile, my wife just earned a human resources/business degree with a
> 4.0 GPA, had three internships had SIX scholarships--we didn't have to
> pay a dime for her college because of her achievements--years of
> experience as a system administrator, all kinds of field-related
> volunteer work and a previous honors degree from UTD, a stack of
> professional references and she can't start at a living wage in the
> northwest now because she doesn't have enough "work experience."

The wole "kids these days are so lazy, my generation is so much
better" is the most contrived argument in the book. Yet is is made by
each and every generation time and time again. I can't get too mad
about it though. I'm sure when I'm in my 60's I'll be saying the same
things to make myself feel better too...

[gatt[_5_]]

buttman wrote:

> College aged kids have been doing this crap since the dawn of time.
> When I was in college my friend told me about this "term paper bin"
> his fraternity had, where whenever a member of the fraternity had to
> actually write a paper, they would donate it to the "bin" when they
> were finished so another "brother" could use it to turn in to his
> class.


Yeah, I used to have to compete for grades against those assholes in the
Computer Science program at OSU. Each person would write a subroutine
of a program and they'd combine it, change around the subroutine names
and comments and stuff and turn it in. I knew a bunch of them that got
busted my senior year. Out of a class of something like 30, myself and
maybe three other people weren't flunked for academic dishonesty. Of
course, I barely passed because I went it alone. (Any of you guys
remember analysis of algorithms for multiplying n-number of
n-dimensional matrices?)

Ironically, some of the folks who flunked the class are making huge
money right now, and one of them writes software for gaming devices such
as slot machines so casinos know exactly how much money is going through
their system during any given period, and for setting the "wheel" sizes
or whatever.


> The wole "kids these days are so lazy, my generation is so much
> better" is the most contrived argument in the book.

Yep.

-c

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote

AMEN!!!! And I see it daily with college grads ..... Pretty damned sad
if you ask my opinion.

Someone, somewhere, needs to get some guts, and fix this problem, early.
Like in the 6th grade, or earlier.

If they can't read and write, they don't advance to the next grade, but
instead spend ALL of their time learning nothing BUT reading and writing.

Will it ever happen?

You guess.
--
Jim in NC

[Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey]

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 21:36:50 +0000 (UTC), gatt wrote:

> Meanwhile, my wife just earned a human resources/business degree with a
> 4.0 GPA, had three internships had SIX scholarships--we didn't have to
> pay a dime for her college because of her achievements--years of
> experience as a system administrator, all kinds of field-related
> volunteer work and a previous honors degree from UTD, a stack of
> professional references and she can't start at a living wage in the
> northwest now because she doesn't have enough "work experience."

But can she ****?
--
"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed,
and third, it is accepted as self-evident"
(Arthur Schopenhauer)

[Mxsmanic]

nobody writes:

> When he was 5?

The regulation makes no special distinction based on age.

[Viperdoc[_5_]]

>> Stupidity and poor judgement are quite dangerous in the cockpit.


But Anthony, you don't fly, and know nothing about flying. Therefore, your
opinion, as usual, means nothing.

By your own admission you couldn't pass even the most introductory
examinations (the PPL written) or certainly the physical- how can you
possibly make self righteous pronouncements on those who clearly have more
ability and potential than you?

[Viperdoc[_5_]]

> The singular is ellipsis. Ellipses is the plural.

The synonym for idiot is Anthony Atkielski.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Aug 1, 1:20 pm, gatt > wrote:
> Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
>
> > On Jul 31, 9:54 pm, "ceaser28" <u45176@uwe> wrote:
> > Geez ....some of the posters make it out to be like you are a
> > stumbling falling down commode hugging drunk and you should be
> > pilloried for ever allowing evil alcohol to touch your lips.
>
> I was thinking that if drinking misbehavior as a young adult was a
> limiting factor in aviation, a whole hell of a lot of Navy and Marine
> Corps veterans would never be allowed near an airplane. Pappy
> Boyington, for example.
>
> Lots of people make mistakes when they're young and immortal. Assuming
> it was just a simple offense and not some sort of crime, the test of
> character is going to be whether the behavior was curbed or allowed to
> continue.
>
> -c

There is a difference between young adults behaving badly and
knowingly committing a punishable offense. If you were never hurt by a
drunk driver, you may think this is blowing out of proportion.

[[email protected]]

Viperdoc > wrote:


> >> Stupidity and poor judgement are quite dangerous in the cockpit.


> But Anthony, you don't fly, and know nothing about flying. Therefore, your
> opinion, as usual, means nothing.

> By your own admission you couldn't pass even the most introductory
> examinations (the PPL written) or certainly the physical- how can you
> possibly make self righteous pronouncements on those who clearly have more
> ability and potential than you?

Raw arrogance.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

Andrew Sarangan writes:

> There is a difference between young adults behaving badly and
> knowingly committing a punishable offense.

What difference is that?

How many young adults don't know that it is dangerous and often illegal to
drink and drive? What makes young adults special, as compared to other
adults?

> If you were never hurt by a drunk driver, you may think this
> is blowing out of proportion.

What amazes me is how many people try to rationalize and justify operating
motor vehicles under the influence of alcohol. The use of the drug is so
widespread that almost everyone is abusing it, and since everyone wants to be
able to avoid going to jail for using it, all sorts of excuses for not acting
to prevent operation of motor vehicles under the influence are made up, no
matter how negatively this affects safety.

It's even more amazing and unsettling when this attitude is applied to flying
under the influence of alcohol.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 2, 4:54*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan writes:
> > There is a difference between young adults behaving badly and
> > knowingly committing a punishable offense.
>
> What difference is that?
>
> How many young adults don't know that it is dangerous and often illegal to
> drink and drive? *What makes young adults special, as compared to other
> adults?
>
> > If you were never hurt by a drunk driver, you may think this
> > is blowing out of proportion.
>
> What amazes me is how many people try to rationalize and justify operating
> motor vehicles under the influence of alcohol. *The use of the drug is so
> widespread that almost everyone is abusing it, and since everyone wants to be
> able to avoid going to jail for using it, all sorts of excuses for not acting
> to prevent operation of motor vehicles under the influence are made up, no
> matter how negatively this affects safety.
>
> It's even more amazing and unsettling when this attitude is applied to flying
> under the influence of alcohol.

Who was suggesting anything in this thread about flying under the
influence of alcohol? It had morphed into a discussion about the
likely employment of people who have commercials and a DUI in their
history. I, given options of otherwise qualified applicants, would opt
not to hire one with a DUI history. Nor would I, for example, be
inclined to hire someone else who has a history of poor judgments,
legal or not. Living in a hovel in Paris might be an example, but then
again we screen pretty well for qualified applicants to interview.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Who was suggesting anything in this thread about flying under the
> influence of alcohol?

Someone with a DUI conviction has already demonstrated his willingness to
operate a vehicle while impaired by alcohol. If he's willing to do it with a
car, it's entirely plausible that he'll be willing to do it with an airplane.

[Buster Hymen]

Nomen Nescio > wrote in
:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Mxsmanic >
>
>>The regulation makes no special distinction based on age.
>
> Moron!
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: N/A
>
> iQCVAwUBSJSyTZMoscYxZNI5AQFUsQP8Dj6xP+4Bbe2jkeUAyk DIS+d7VYnVdajr
> zj5LVnDIxjTj1GEszD/KZNElAGhz1rxN4qB/D0m2LSzIPtXSRZ8neatgOxdtLSwy
> lIckuIkwZS1I/SrG53u0/eluRLEh2wtssM0el6z+ScFF87dYmThLzT7+TzMLN3KZ
> 3AVVvXFLhR4=
> =GtZo
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>

Anthony would need to boost the intelligence of his remark by several
thousand orders of magnitude to reach the level of moron.

Calling Anthony ****ing stupid is giving him way, way too much credit for
intelligence.

A fly hovering around dog **** has thousands of times more intelligence
than Anthony. The fly even knows the difference between **** and shinola!

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> Asthmatics generally don't have a problem with the FAA.
>
> That depends on the severity, frequency, and nature of their attacks.
>
> In any case, there are many categories of medical conditions that the
> FAA excludes for no clear reason. At the same time, however, it
> allows the use of recreational drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.
>
>> Some people on the forum act like they've never gotten away with
>> doing something really stupid when they were young and immortal.
>
> Some people have never been stupid.
>

And you, Anthony, have never been intelligent.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Ol Shy & Bashful writes:
>
>> In and of itself, a DUI is
>> simply a flag of stupidity or poor judgement. Additional ones
>> indicates a serious mental problem as in addiction and can prevent you
>> from getting the required flight physical.
>
> Stupidity and poor judgement are quite dangerous in the cockpit.

Ahhh. So that explains, Anthony, why you will never be in the cockpit of a
real airplane.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 2, 6:25*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Who was suggesting anything in this thread about flying under the
> > influence of alcohol?
>
> Someone with a DUI conviction has already demonstrated his willingness to
> operate a vehicle while impaired by alcohol. *If he's willing to do it with a
> car, it's entirely plausible that he'll be willing to do it with an airplane.

I think someone with a driving DUI is much less likely to be a PIC
while under the influence. That's my opinion, and in this circumstance
I give it more weight than yours. You have no basis for comparison
since you don't live where most general aviation is flown, you most
likely do not socialize with pilots, at least not as much as I do. You
are entitled to your opinion, of course.

Even given what I said, I would be reluctant to hire someone with a
DUI conviction. I like to stack the odds as much as possible in favor
of a good decision.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> I think someone with a driving DUI is much less likely to be a PIC
> while under the influence. That's my opinion, and in this circumstance
> I give it more weight than yours.

What line of reasoning leads you to this opinion?

> You have no basis for comparison
> since you don't live where most general aviation is flown, you most
> likely do not socialize with pilots, at least not as much as I do. You
> are entitled to your opinion, of course.

My conclusion is based upon reasoning that is independent of aviation. A
person who engages in substance abuse in one circumstance would logically be
more likely to do so in another. It's hard to see how or why he would be
_less_ likely to abuse in other circumstances.

Some of the behavior that DUI represents is also behavior that studies in
aviation have found to be correlated with a higher rate of incidents and
accidents among pilots.

> Even given what I said, I would be reluctant to hire someone with a
> DUI conviction. I like to stack the odds as much as possible in favor
> of a good decision.

That doesn't make sense. If you truly believe that someone with a DUI
conviction is less likely to be a PIC while under the influence, then you
should prefer such people when hiring pilots. Why would you be reluctant?

[[email protected]]

On Aug 3, 4:27*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > I think someone with a driving DUI is much less likely to be a PIC
> > while under the influence. That's my opinion, and in this circumstance
> > I give it more weight than yours.
>
> What line of reasoning leads you to this opinion?
>
> > You have no basis for comparison
> > since you don't live where most general aviation is flown, you most
> > likely do not socialize with pilots, at least not as much as I do. You
> > are entitled to your opinion, of course.
>
> My conclusion is based upon reasoning that is independent of aviation. *A
> person who engages in substance abuse in one circumstance would logically be
> more likely to do so in another. *It's hard to see how or why he would be
> _less_ likely to abuse in other circumstances.
>
> Some of the behavior that DUI represents is also behavior that studies in
> aviation have found to be correlated with a higher rate of incidents and
> accidents among pilots.
>
> > Even given what I said, I would be reluctant to hire someone with a
> > DUI conviction. I like to stack the odds as much as possible in favor
> > of a good decision.
>
> That doesn't make sense. *If you truly believe that someone with a DUI
> conviction is less likely to be a PIC while under the influence, then you
> should prefer such people when hiring pilots. *Why would you be reluctant?

I tend not to consider people for employment who have documented
histories of poor judgment, and I assert it makes great sense. Should
you ever be a hiring authority decision maker you'll learn to stack
the odds by choosing people who avoid making poor decisions.

I would, by the way, enjoy seeing citations for your comment
> Some of the behavior that DUI represents is also behavior that studies in
> aviation have found to be correlated with a higher rate of incidents and
> accidents among pilots
.
It may be true, but doubt you read any such studies. Further, your
comment validates my policy of NOT hiring people who have
demonstrated, in the past, the potential for being losers. It need not
be a DWI convection, there could be other evidence of poor judgment.
Not to be snide, but look at your own history and ask yourself if
you'd be a prudent hire for a job where acute decision making is a
critical skill.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> It may be true, but doubt you read any such studies. Further, your
> comment validates my policy of NOT hiring people who have
> demonstrated, in the past, the potential for being losers. It need not
> be a DWI convection, there could be other evidence of poor judgment.
> Not to be snide, but look at your own history and ask yourself if
> you'd be a prudent hire for a job where acute decision making is a
> critical skill.

I'm not trying to become a commercial pilot. And I don't have any DUI
convictions.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> My conclusion is based upon reasoning that is independent of aviation. A
> person who engages in substance abuse in one circumstance would logically be
> more likely to do so in another.

From www.medterms.com:


"Substance abuse: The excessive use of a substance, especially alcohol
or a drug. (There is no universally accepted definition of substance abuse.)

A definition of substance abuse that is frequently cited is that in DSM-IV,
the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM) issued by the American Psychiatric Association. The DSM-IV
definition is as follows:

* A. A maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically
significant impairment or distress, as manifested by one (or more) of
the following, occurring within a 12-month period:
1. Recurrent substance use resulting in a failure to fulfill
major role obligations at work, school, or home (e.g., repeated absences
or poor work performance related to substance use; substance-related
absences, suspensions or expulsions from school; neglect of children or
household)
2. Recurrent substance use in situations in which it is physically
hazardous (e.g., driving an automobile or operating a machine when impaired
by substance use)
3. Recurrent substance-related legal problems (e.g., arrests for
substance-related disorderly conduct
4. Continued substance use despite having persistent or
recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the
effects of the substance (e.g., arguments with spouse about consequences
of intoxication, physical fights)
* B. The symptoms have never met the criteria for Substance Dependence
for this class of substance."

Notice the use of the words "pattern", "continued" and "recurrent" in
the definition?

One DUI isn't "substance abuse", proof of "substance abuse", or anything
other than one DUI.

It seems you don't know **** from shinola about substance abuse.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Rocky Stevens]

On Aug 3, 4:27 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > I think someone with a driving DUI is much less likely to be a PIC
> > while under the influence. That's my opinion, and in this circumstance
> > I give it more weight than yours.
>
> What line of reasoning leads you to this opinion?
>
> > You have no basis for comparison
> > since you don't live where most general aviation is flown, you most
> > likely do not socialize with pilots, at least not as much as I do. You
> > are entitled to your opinion, of course.
>
> My conclusion is based upon reasoning that is independent of aviation. A
> person who engages in substance abuse in one circumstance would logically be
> more likely to do so in another. It's hard to see how or why he would be
> _less_ likely to abuse in other circumstances.
>

What I'm pretty sure he meant is that he would be less likely to be
drunk as PIC than he would be as a driver, NOT that he would be less
likely to be drunk as PIC than someone who did not have a DUI. This
definitely makes sense; there is much more incentive to driving drunk
than flying drunk (i.e. you need to get home from the bar). Also, the
OP is talking about being a commercial pilot; one is a lot less likely
to be drinking on the job (and thus flying drunk) than drinking on the
weekend (and thus driving drunk because you drive as a matter of
course anyway).

Now, obviously P(X flying drunk) > P(Y flying drunk) if X has one DUI
conviction and Y has zero. But I doubt it would be an absolute deal
killer.

To the OP - Again, give AOPA a shot. They have people you can call to
ask these kinds of questions in addition to their forums.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

I'm not trying to become a commercial pilot. And I don't have any DUI
> convictions.

But Anthony, you're not a pilot of any kind, and never will be. As for
DUI's- who cares?

[[email protected]]

On Aug 2, 4:54*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> What amazes me is how many people try to rationalize and justify operating
> motor vehicles under the influence of alcohol.

It appears to be human nature to rationalize and justify just about
anything that is frowned on, but that you want to do.

[Bob F.[_2_]]

Cliffy on "Cheers" rationalized this the best. He noticed that brain cells
also followed the "survival of the fittest" rule. When you drink, you kill
brain cells. As the stronger ones win and weakest die off firsts, it
accounts for a person felling smarter as one gets more drunk.

--
Regards, BobF.
> wrote in message
...
On Aug 2, 4:54 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> What amazes me is how many people try to rationalize and justify operating
> motor vehicles under the influence of alcohol.

It appears to be human nature to rationalize and justify just about
anything that is frowned on, but that you want to do.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> It appears to be human nature to rationalize and justify just about
> anything that is frowned on, but that you want to do.

Sometimes human nature is self-destructive.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > It appears to be human nature to rationalize and justify just about
> > anything that is frowned on, but that you want to do.

> Sometimes human nature is self-destructive.

The best ignorant people can do is state the blindingly obvious as
though it were some great insight.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

"Sometimes human nature is self-destructive."

Anthony, just another vague, irrelevant, and obvious aphorism.

However, considering that you can not find or hold a job or even a place in
society, there may be some truth to the statement as it applies to your own
pathetic circumstances.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> You do realize that a DUI conviction is based on an arbitrary line set
> more by politics that any view of reality?

That line is set in favor of substance abusers, not against them.

You're potentially impaired whenever you have any alcohol at all in your
system. DUI laws are very lenient in that they usually allow you to get away
with having alcohol in your system, as long as it's below a certain generous
threshold. If they were truly based on impairment, the limit would be at or
near zero, although ideally impairment should be measured directly.

> At .15, I'm just starting to catch a buzz.

You've verified this with objective testing for impairment?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The best ignorant people can do is state the blindingly obvious as
> though it were some great insight.

Hmm.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

gatt wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>
>>
>> That really wasn't the question posed. If you have to applicants who
>> are in pretty much all ways equal which would you hire the guy with
>> the DUI or the one without?
>
> The one without. But that really wasn't the question posed either. All
> he wanted to know was whether he'd be able to get his commercial license.

No he asked if he had a shot at becoming a commercial pilot. In the vast
majority of people's minds this means airline pilot. That is why
everyone has been answering the question with that in mind.


>
>> To use your Marine example, let's say you are hiring one of two
>> Marines that were in the same squadron, their records are identical in
>> pretty much every way. One with a DUI, one without a DUI. Which one do
>> you hire?
>
> Their records may be identical, but any two people are not:
>
> How well do they fly the plane?
> How well do they understand the regulations and the company?
> How well do they present themselves professionally?
> What are they trying to accomplish?
> How hard are they willing to work to accomplish it?
> What are they expecting to earn? ("I deserve more because...")
>
> -c

I don't know how many people you have hired over the years but I have
hired or assisted in the hiring of 1000's a bunch (No pilots though).

I've found that their history is a much better indicator of future
success than how well they do in an interview and pre-hire testing. A
lot of bad people can BS their way through an interview and a lot of
poor employees test well. Looking at their history shows what they do
after hire.

All that aside let's look at the OP. He shows no remorse about the
"mistake in his youth", in fact he seems to blame the law more than he
blames himself.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Nomen Nescio writes:

> > You do realize that a DUI conviction is based on an arbitrary line set
> > more by politics that any view of reality?

> That line is set in favor of substance abusers, not against them.

> You're potentially impaired whenever you have any alcohol at all in your
> system. DUI laws are very lenient in that they usually allow you to get away
> with having alcohol in your system, as long as it's below a certain generous
> threshold. If they were truly based on impairment, the limit would be at or
> near zero, although ideally impairment should be measured directly.

You've verified this with objective testing for impairment under
controlled conditions and had the data peer reviewed?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[gatt[_5_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:
>
>
>>Asthmatics generally don't have a problem with the FAA.
>
>
> That depends on the severity, frequency, and nature of their attacks.

How would you know?

[gatt[_5_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:
> Case closed.
>
>
>>But that really wasn't the question posed either.
>
>
> No other background information was provided apart from the DUI conviction, so
> that was effectively the question posed.

No, he said "Commercial license," not, "ATP" or "Airline job."

He can run his own company with a commercial license and never have to
deal with a job interview.

Surprised you missed that.



-c

[gatt[_5_]]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> On Aug 1, 1:20 pm, gatt > wrote:

>>Lots of people make mistakes when they're young and immortal. Assuming
>>it was just a simple offense and not some sort of crime, the test of
>>character is going to be whether the behavior was curbed or allowed to
>>continue.

> There is a difference between young adults behaving badly and
> knowingly committing a punishable offense. If you were never hurt by a
> drunk driver, you may think this is blowing out of proportion.

Maybe. I know somebody who has a DUI on her record for getting pulled
over with an open bottle of Nyquil on her dashboard. They busted her
for driving under the influence when she admitted she'd just taken some
on her way home early from work.

Here in Oregon, there's a new billboard that says you don't have to blow
..08 to get a DUII. WTF does that MEAN? The law states .08. Is it .08,
or isn't it? If you're under .08 and they give you a DUI, and you
plead guilty or No Contest rather than fighting it, does that make you a
bad character?

When I was in college, there were people getting arrested for blowing
under .04, or simply admitting they'd had a drink or taken cold medicine.

(Ironically, also in Oregon, a top-ranking official of the OLCC was
recently arrested for driving under the influence. To quote Homer
Simpson, "DOH!")

-c

[gatt[_5_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
> Someone with a DUI conviction has already demonstrated his willingness to
> operate a vehicle while impaired by alcohol.

W R O N G ! ! !

You can get a DUI in many states for driving under the influence of
certain cold medications.


-c

[gatt[_5_]]

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

> All that aside let's look at the OP. He shows no remorse about the
> "mistake in his youth", in fact he seems to blame the law more than he
> blames himself.

Yep, I agree. That may offer more insight than the DUI itself.


-c

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> How would you know?

I look things up.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You've verified this with objective testing for impairment under
> controlled conditions and had the data peer reviewed?

Not personally, but I've examined some of the literature.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> You can get a DUI in many states for driving under the influence of
> certain cold medications.

That wasn't the case here. He smelled of alcohol.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> When I was in college, there were people getting arrested for blowing
> under .04, or simply admitting they'd had a drink or taken cold medicine.

Were they impaired?

[gatt[_5_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:
>
>
>>How would you know?
>
>
> I look things up.

So, you've never actually taken an FAA medical exam with a previous
asthma diagnosis?


-c

[gatt[_5_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:
>
>
>>When I was in college, there were people getting arrested for blowing
>>under .04, or simply admitting they'd had a drink or taken cold medicine.
>
> Were they impaired?

Depends on whom you ask, doesn't it? The police used to/probably
still lurk outside of the tavern and follow people they see go drive
away. It's happened to me, even when I was the designated driver. At
the smallest infraction, they have you.

People get tickets all the time who aren't impaired, but, if you happen
to get one after blowing .02, that doesn't mean you're "impaired," but,
they still busted people until they got smacked down for it.

-c

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> You've verified this with objective testing for impairment under
>> controlled conditions and had the data peer reviewed?
>
> Not personally, but I've examined some of the literature.
>

You have long demonstrated that you lack the capacity to comprehend what
you read. You are an idiot Anthony.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> The best ignorant people can do is state the blindingly obvious as
>> though it were some great insight.
>
> Hmm.
>

That's right Anthony, you are ignorant. Always have been. Always will be.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> How would you know?
>
> I look things up.
>

IOW you don't know.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Aug 4, 5:27*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > gatt writes:
>
> >> How would you know?
>
> > I look things up.
>
> IOW you don't know.
>
> Bertie

Education, I would say, is learning from other people's mistakes. M
Anthony doesn't learn from his own. Ignorant and arrogant, what a
lovely combination. He provides the comic relief, without intending
to. That makes it even better.

I wish we knew more about the child molesting issue, it would serve to
fill out the picture very nicely, wouldn't it?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Aug 4, 5:27*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> innews:qqke949f9ld9hisvqe93ia0r7je0gs
> :
>>
>> > gatt writes:
>>
>> >> How would you know?
>>
>> > I look things up.
>>
>> IOW you don't know.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Education, I would say, is learning from other people's mistakes. M
> Anthony doesn't learn from his own. Ignorant and arrogant, what a
> lovely combination. He provides the comic relief, without intending
> to. That makes it even better.
>
> I wish we knew more about the child molesting issue, it would serve to
> fill out the picture very nicely, wouldn't it?
>
>

News to me, but I don;t read many of his poasts...
Even though it is fun to imagine him cranking away this **** on usenet
between his non flights, ultimately he's just not as much fun as th
eMaxwells of this world.


Bertie

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> How would you know?
>
> I look things up.
>

You may look things up, but you do NOT understand what you read.
Anthony, you need to face the fact that you are a moron!

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> When I was in college, there were people getting arrested for blowing
>> under .04, or simply admitting they'd had a drink or taken cold
>> medicine.
>
> Were they impaired?
>

Your brain has been impaired since birth.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

gatt wrote:
>
> You can get a DUI in many states for driving under the influence of
> certain cold medications.

You can get a DUI for driving under the influence of spray paint or
properly prescribed meds, too.

The key word is "influence."

[yeadeagisss]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Hmm.

What does this mean? Why was it posted?

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> So, you've never actually taken an FAA medical exam with a previous
> asthma diagnosis?

I've never taken an FAA medical exam, period. How is that relevant?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > You've verified this with objective testing for impairment under
> > controlled conditions and had the data peer reviewed?

> Not personally, but I've examined some of the literature.

Such as...


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> You can get a DUI for driving under the influence of spray paint or
> properly prescribed meds, too.

You can lose your pilot's license the same way.

That's one reason why it's best to avoid drugs that cause impairment when
driving or flying. I should think that concern for safety would be the
overriding reason, but some people don't care about safety--they only care
about being able to do unwise things without getting caught.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Depends on whom you ask, doesn't it?

There are some fairly objective tests of impairment.

> The police used to/probably
> still lurk outside of the tavern and follow people they see go drive
> away. It's happened to me, even when I was the designated driver. At
> the smallest infraction, they have you.

Then avoid infractions.

> People get tickets all the time who aren't impaired, but, if you happen
> to get one after blowing .02, that doesn't mean you're "impaired," but,
> they still busted people until they got smacked down for it.

Then don't drink at all before driving (or flying).

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> B A R R Y writes:
>
>> You can get a DUI for driving under the influence of spray paint or
>> properly prescribed meds, too.
>
> You can lose your pilot's license the same way.
>
> That's one reason why it's best to avoid drugs that cause impairment
> when driving or flying. I should think that concern for safety would
> be the overriding reason, but some people don't care about
> safety--they only care about being able to do unwise things without
> getting caught.

What, you worried about getting a walking under the influence if idiocy
citation?


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> So, you've never actually taken an FAA medical exam with a previous
>> asthma diagnosis?
>
> I've never taken an FAA medical exam, period. How is that relevant?
>

You'll never ever take one because you will never, ever fly.

Bertie

[Benjamin Dover]

wrote in :

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>
>> > You've verified this with objective testing for impairment under
>> > controlled conditions and had the data peer reviewed?
>
>> Not personally, but I've examined some of the literature.
>
> Such as...
>
>

Anthony examined his angle of the dangle and concluded it was the angle of
attack.

[Benjamin Dover]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> B A R R Y writes:
>>
>>> You can get a DUI for driving under the influence of spray paint or
>>> properly prescribed meds, too.
>>
>> You can lose your pilot's license the same way.
>>
>> That's one reason why it's best to avoid drugs that cause impairment
>> when driving or flying. I should think that concern for safety would
>> be the overriding reason, but some people don't care about
>> safety--they only care about being able to do unwise things without
>> getting caught.
>
> What, you worried about getting a walking under the influence if idiocy
> citation?
>
>
> bertie
>

Anthony got a "flying under the influence of idiocy" citation while playing
with MSFS. He's very proud of it as it represents the pinnacle of his
flying accomplishments.

[gatt[_5_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:
>
>>So, you've never actually taken an FAA medical exam with a previous
>>asthma diagnosis?
>
> I've never taken an FAA medical exam, period. How is that relevant?

You wouldn't understand, largely because you don't want to.

-c
been there/done that.

[gatt[_5_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:

> Then don't drink at all before driving (or flying).

Thanks, jackass. We'll all take that under consideration.

-pilot

[[email protected]]

gatt > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > gatt writes:

> > Then don't drink at all before driving (or flying).

> Thanks, jackass. We'll all take that under consideration.

> -pilot

One wonders if he even drives.

Since he begs for stuff costing less that $10, I highly doubt it, so
his "thoughts" on driving would be just as valid as his "thoughts" on
flying.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

nobody writes:

> Looks like a typo.

It's not.

> You mean you *make* things up, don't you?

No.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Thanks, jackass. We'll all take that under consideration.

How much consideration does it take?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> gatt writes:

> > Thanks, jackass. We'll all take that under consideration.

> How much consideration does it take?

If it is coming from you, none.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> nobody writes:
>
>> Looks like a typo.
>
> It's not.
>
>> You mean you *make* things up, don't you?
>
> No.
>

Every one of your posts about flying an airplane is either made up or an
incompetent cut & paste Anthony. You are talking through your asshole.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Seeing that you consider sipping one drop of wine to be impaired,
> that doesn't surprise me.

I consider any alcohol in the blood to carry a risk of impairment.

> Yea, I have.
> My wife's got 2 brothers who are cops.

So any cop's test of impairment is reliable? In which case, if any cop says
you are impaired, he's right? Be careful what you wish for.

> I can easily pass the "field sobriety tests" at twice the legal
> limit.

But are you impaired that that level? Everyone else is. Why wouldn't you be?

> I've never tested it, but I could probably fly just fine with a .08.

Just don't fly anywhere near me. People who think they can "hold their
liquor" are tremendously dangerous in both cars and aircraft.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> If it is coming from you, none.

So you agree that any alcohol at all is too much when operating a vehicle?

[BDS[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> B A R R Y writes:
>
> > You can get a DUI for driving under the influence of spray paint or
> > properly prescribed meds, too.
>
> You can lose your pilot's license the same way.
>
> That's one reason why it's best to avoid drugs that cause impairment when
> driving or flying. I should think that concern for safety would be the
> overriding reason, but some people don't care about safety--they only care
> about being able to do unwise things without getting caught.

How about driving while impaired by age? It's the same as any other
impairment, isn't it?

Why is that particular form of impairment acceptable?

[gatt[_5_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>
>>If it is coming from you, none.
>
>
> So you agree that any alcohol at all is too much when operating a vehicle?



Nope.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Nomen Nescio writes:

> > Seeing that you consider sipping one drop of wine to be impaired,
> > that doesn't surprise me.

> I consider any alcohol in the blood to carry a risk of impairment.

No one here cares what you concider about anything.

> > Yea, I have.
> > My wife's got 2 brothers who are cops.

> So any cop's test of impairment is reliable? In which case, if any cop says
> you are impaired, he's right? Be careful what you wish for.

Maybe, maybe not, but the cop's test is the legal test.

> > I can easily pass the "field sobriety tests" at twice the legal
> > limit.

> But are you impaired that that level? Everyone else is. Why wouldn't you be?

No, everyone else is not.

If you had actually read the "literature" you said you read in a previous
post, you would know that levels are set on a statistical basis, which
means there are those that will be "impaired" at very low levels
and those that will not be "impaired" at very high levels.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > If it is coming from you, none.

> So you agree that any alcohol at all is too much when operating a vehicle?

No, that is obviously an ignorant and incorrect statement.

I agree that nothing you say is worth concideration.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 5, 5:11*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > If it is coming from you, none.
>
> So you agree that any alcohol at all is too much when operating a vehicle?

I do wonder if your opposition to wine and alcohol has been lifelong,
or only since you can't afford to buy jug wine.



.

[Mxsmanic]

nobody writes:

> I guess I'll have to cancel my VATSIM account, to comply with your demands

I meant in real life. I don't care what you do on VATSIM. I've certainly
heard people drunk on the network before.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> If you had actually read the "literature" you said you read in a previous
> post, you would know that levels are set on a statistical basis, which
> means there are those that will be "impaired" at very low levels
> and those that will not be "impaired" at very high levels.

So how can you be sure that you are impaired only at very high levels? And
why even take the risk?

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> I'm almost always "impaired" in that it's rare when I am functioning at
> 100%.

If you say so.

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> How about driving while impaired by age? It's the same as any other
> impairment, isn't it?

Age doesn't produce any significant impairment until very late in life, and
even that is highly variable.

> Why is that particular form of impairment acceptable?

Because it is so minor. In fact, wisdom and experience gained with age often
more than compensate for any minor impairment that might come with age, which
is why older pilots are often better overall than younger pilots (also, young,
stupid pilots tend to die faster).

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> I do wonder if your opposition to wine and alcohol has been lifelong,
> or only since you can't afford to buy jug wine.

I've always considered substance abuse stupid.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > If you had actually read the "literature" you said you read in a previous
> > post, you would know that levels are set on a statistical basis, which
> > means there are those that will be "impaired" at very low levels
> > and those that will not be "impaired" at very high levels.

> So how can you be sure that you are impaired only at very high levels? And
> why even take the risk?

The first question was already answered.

The second question is a non sequitur based on the first answer.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 5, 5:18*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> BDS writes:
> > How about driving while impaired by age? *It's the same as any other
> > impairment, isn't it?
>
> Age doesn't produce any significant impairment until very late in life, and
> even that is highly variable.
>
> > Why is that particular form of impairment acceptable?
>
> Because it is so minor. *In fact, wisdom and experience gained with age often
> more than compensate for any minor impairment that might come with age, which
> is why older pilots are often better overall than younger pilots (also, young,
> stupid pilots tend to die faster).

Still, as I age and watch others around me age, I think a BDR as in
biannual Driving review would be worth considering. Or, maybe, some
kind of reaction time test required of a driver before the car would
start.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 5, 5:19*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > I do wonder if your opposition to wine and alcohol has been lifelong,
> > or only since you can't afford to buy jug wine.
>
> I've always considered substance abuse stupid.

There's evidence that moderate use of alcohol is of benefit. Feel
free to abstain totally, it's your life. A glass of wine or beer among
friends is a social pleasure many of us enjoy.

[Bill[_16_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> Age doesn't produce any significant impairment until very late in life,
and
> even that is highly variable.

You are very wrong here.

> Because it is so minor. In fact, wisdom and experience gained with age
often
> more than compensate for any minor impairment that might come with age,
which
> is why older pilots are often better overall than younger pilots (also,
young,
> stupid pilots tend to die faster).

It is far from minor.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Still, as I age and watch others around me age, I think a BDR as in
> biannual Driving review would be worth considering. Or, maybe, some
> kind of reaction time test required of a driver before the car would
> start.

Some people become significantly impaired in old age (old in this case meaning
well beyond 65), but then again, some are impaired even in youth. Certainly
an objective test is the best way to identify impairment, rather than a
default assumption based on age. The same could be said to a lesser extent of
impairment due to drugs, but since drugs such as alcohol are pretty much
universally impairing and objective on-the-spot tests are difficult to
conduct, sometimes default estimations are made for expediency and safety.

Personally, I don't understand why so many people here are defending the
consumption of alcohol while operating vehicles, especially aircraft. It's an
incredibly stupid thing to do. Should I assume that many people here are
incredibly stupid?

[Mxsmanic]

Bill writes:

> You are very wrong here.

I look forward to your more substantial counterargument.

In many domains, experience is more valuable than reflexes up to a certain
point. Older drivers have slower reflexes, but with more experience they are
able to avoid situations in which fast reflexes are required. The same is
true for pilots: experience allows them to avoid the kind of trouble that
would require extremely fast reactions. And for a person like the captain of
a cruise ship, this is even more true, since fast reactions are almost never
required and experience is extremely important.

I suppose it would be rare for a 70-year-old to be a successful fighter pilot,
but I don't see why other forms of piloting would present a problem, even for
things like aerobatics. As long as the pilot is in reasonable health, there
shouldn't be any issues.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> There's evidence that moderate use of alcohol is of benefit.

There's evidence that any alcohol produces impairment, too. If moderate use
is beneficial, why doesn't the FAA suggest it as part of preflight
procedures--to sharpen the reflexes, say?

Why take chances? The absence of alcohol is clearly not impairing, so why not
just abstain? Is taking drugs more important than safety?

> Feel free to abstain totally, it's your life.

Done.

> A glass of wine or beer among friends is a social pleasure
> many of us enjoy.

Taking drugs is a substitute for proper socialization, not an enhancement of
it. Sometimes, in fact, social contact is just a cover and pretext for heavy
drinking, and the drinkers would more easily give up the socialization than
the drug.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 6, 12:17*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > There's evidence that moderate use of *alcohol is of benefit.
>
> There's evidence that any alcohol produces impairment, too. *If moderate use
> is beneficial, why doesn't the FAA suggest it as part of preflight
> procedures--to sharpen the reflexes, say?
>
> Why take chances? *The absence of alcohol is clearly not impairing, so why not
> just abstain? *Is taking drugs more important than safety?
>
> > Feel free to abstain totally, it's your life.
>
> Done.
>
> > A glass of wine or beer among friends is a social pleasure
> > many of us enjoy.
>
> Taking drugs is a substitute for proper socialization, not an enhancement of
> it. *Sometimes, in fact, social contact is just a cover and pretext for heavy
> drinking, and the drinkers would more easily give up the socialization than
> the drug.

That is an extraordinary extension of my comments. There was no
suggestion alcohol should be used as part of flying. There is ample
evidence a modest consumption of wine, for example, has positive
health benefits. Sharing wine in a social environment is far from
excessive drinking, and there is significant data that heavy drinkers
often drink in solitude. You have 'presented' yourself as having
limited social engagement opportunities in a country where wine is of
a pretty good quality. Do you choose to notice the inconsistencies?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Still, as I age and watch others around me age, I think a BDR as in
> > biannual Driving review would be worth considering. Or, maybe, some
> > kind of reaction time test required of a driver before the car would
> > start.

> Some people become significantly impaired in old age (old in this case meaning
> well beyond 65), but then again, some are impaired even in youth. Certainly
> an objective test is the best way to identify impairment, rather than a
> default assumption based on age. The same could be said to a lesser extent of
> impairment due to drugs, but since drugs such as alcohol are pretty much
> universally impairing and objective on-the-spot tests are difficult to
> conduct, sometimes default estimations are made for expediency and safety.

Utter, pontificating, puerile, superficial, nonsense.

> Personally, I don't understand why so many people here are defending the
> consumption of alcohol while operating vehicles, especially aircraft. It's an
> incredibly stupid thing to do. Should I assume that many people here are
> incredibly stupid?

No, you should assume people here think you don't know **** from shinola
about anything that deals with real life.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > There's evidence that moderate use of alcohol is of benefit.

> There's evidence that any alcohol produces impairment, too. If moderate use
> is beneficial, why doesn't the FAA suggest it as part of preflight
> procedures--to sharpen the reflexes, say?

Because that isn't what the benefit is.

The FAA also doesn't suggest a workout with a substantial increase in
heart rate as part of a prefight procedure.

Pontificating idiot.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> No, you should assume people here think you don't know **** from shinola
> about anything that deals with real life.

Most people here haven't expressed an opinion, and the desperately strident
cries of a small but vocal minority are not necessarily representative.

[Viperdoc[_5_]]

The same is
true for pilots: experience allows them to avoid the kind of trouble
.....

Which is why you will never truly understand flying, simply because you have
no experience other than playing a game on a computer.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> No, you should assume people here think you don't know **** from
>> shinola about anything that deals with real life.
>
> Most people here haven't expressed an opinion, and the desperately
> strident cries of a small but vocal minority are not necessarily
> representative.

ANTHONY - YOU DON'T KNOW **** FROM SHINOLA ABOUT ANYTHING!

[[email protected]]

On Aug 6, 11:58*pm, Buster Hymen > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > writes:
>
> >> No, you should assume people here think you don't know **** from
> >> shinola about anything that deals with real life.
>
> > Most people here haven't expressed an opinion, and the desperately
> > strident cries of a small but vocal minority are not necessarily
> > representative.
>
> ANTHONY - YOU DON'T KNOW **** FROM SHINOLA ABOUT ANYTHING!

If you know anythiing about sampling theory, Anthony, you'd find the
evidence compelling

[yod-yog+ais]

On 8/5/2008 2:10 AM Mxsmanic ignored two million years of human
evolution to write:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> Seeing that you consider sipping one drop of wine to be impaired,
>> that doesn't surprise me.
>
> I consider any alcohol in the blood to carry a risk of impairment.

What you consider is irrelevant.

Anyone who considers "any alcohol in the blood to carry a risk of
impairment" - even if that amount is measured in single-digit
micrograms - is exceptionally stupid.

>> I've never tested it, but I could probably fly just fine with a .08.
>
> Just don't fly anywhere near me.

What will you do if he does? How will you know?

Oh wait. Moot point. You don't fly.

[yod-yog+ais]

On 8/5/2008 2:19 PM Mxsmanic ignored two million years of human
evolution to write:

> writes:
>
>> I do wonder if your opposition to wine and alcohol has been lifelong,
>> or only since you can't afford to buy jug wine.
>
> I've always considered substance abuse stupid.

Your opinion is irrelevant.

You are incapable of understanding the difference between responsible
consumption of alcohol beverages and substance abuse. This is the
type of thinking exhibited not merely by someone who is stupid, but
someone who is profoundly stupid.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2008-07-31 19:54:30 -0700, "ceaser28" <u45176@uwe> said:

> Hello Everyone,
>
> I am 23 years old and I have been convicted of 1 DUI for smelling like
> alcohol pratically in New Hampshire, do I still have a shot at being a
> commercial pilot?

Yes. But I wouldn't recommend getting another DUI. I know of at least
one line guy who lost not only his job, but his girl friend because of
a single DUI -- and a line guy is not even a pilot. But then, he was
driving 120 mph down a runway in his car, flew off the end, and crashed
into the approach lights. Worse yet, he had a contract control tower
guy with him in the car -- and that guy already had a couple
convictions for bar fights as well as DUI. Makes it kind of tough to
ignore. He was lucky he wasn't killed. But even in his case I think he
could probably get a job as a commercial pilot if he keeps his nose
clean. He's a smart kid who probably learned from his mistakes. As for
the air traffic controller, IMHO he has had enough chances. At some
point you have to figure the guy not only is not going to stop drinking
but that he has bad judgment as well. But I understand he actually
found a job somewhere else, giving weather briefings or some such.

I am not sure you have learned anything from your mistake, however.
Have you? What does "pratically" mean? I think the best approach in an
interview is to be up front about it. "Yeah, I got a DUI in New
Hampshire a few years ago. I'm not proud of it and I sure learned a
lesson from it." Make of it an opportunity to demonstrate your honesty,
genuineness, and willingness to admit mistakes and learn from them.
These are great assets in a commercial pilot. Screwing up as a pilot is
not nearly as bad as being unable to admit that you screwed up.

I personally do not drink, never have. Nevertheless, I don't see the
point of condemning someone forever simply because they have done
something stupid once or twice. And I see no reason why others should
not drink simply because I choose not to. Let he who is without sin
cast the first stone.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Mxsmanic]

yod-yog+ais writes:

> Anyone who considers "any alcohol in the blood to carry a risk of
> impairment" - even if that amount is measured in single-digit
> micrograms - is exceptionally stupid.

People who drink and drive/fly tend to be exceptionally stupid, and people who
try to justify such behavior aren't far behind.

Sorry, but nothing you say is going to convince me to toss safety out the
window in favor of taking drugs.

> What will you do if he does? How will you know?

I can just follow the smoke to the crash site.

[Mxsmanic]

yod-yog+ais writes:

> You are incapable of understanding the difference between responsible
> consumption of alcohol beverages and substance abuse.

I know that the safest use of recreational drugs is _no_ use of recreational
drugs.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 7, 7:59*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> yod-yog+ais writes:
> > You are incapable of understanding the difference between responsible
> > consumption of alcohol beverages and substance abuse.
>
> I know that the safest use of recreational drugs is _no_ use of recreational
> drugs.

And I suspect you have a very broad definition of 'recreational
drugs'. Some of us get high on flying. Some others are addicted to TV,
or computers.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> And I suspect you have a very broad definition of 'recreational
> drugs'.

The definition includes nicotine (from tobacco) and alcohol. Nicotine (like
caffeine) is a stimulant and generally does not result in impairment (although
smoking does). Alcohol is a depressant and generally results in impairment.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 7, 10:55*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > And I suspect you have a very broad definition of 'recreational
> > drugs'.
>
> The definition includes nicotine (from tobacco) and alcohol. *Nicotine (like
> caffeine) is a stimulant and generally does not result in impairment (although
> smoking does). *Alcohol is a depressant and generally results in impairment. *

Not 'the' definition, but 'your' definition, and it's likely a moving
target. That's perfectly fine, so long as people you are attempting to
communicate with understand the meanings of the words as you use them.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > And I suspect you have a very broad definition of 'recreational
> > drugs'.

> The definition includes nicotine (from tobacco) and alcohol. Nicotine (like
> caffeine) is a stimulant and generally does not result in impairment (although
> smoking does). Alcohol is a depressant and generally results in impairment.

Earlier you said alcohol always results in impairment irrespective of
the dose.

Smoking increases the probablility of developing certain diseases,
but does not itself result in any "impairment".

Nicotine causes blood pressure to increase, which could marginally
be concidered an "impairment" in those with already high blood
pressure.

Seems you don't know **** from shinola about physiology.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Earlier you said alcohol always results in impairment irrespective of
> the dose.

That's the guideline that I follow. I'm not interested in taking chances.

> Smoking increases the probablility of developing certain diseases,
> but does not itself result in any "impairment".

Smoking increases susceptibility to high altitudes, which is an impairment.
For example, smoker pilots are already losing significant night vision at
around 5000 feet, and should consider using oxygen at that altitude or above
when flying at night.

> Nicotine causes blood pressure to increase, which could marginally
> be concidered an "impairment" in those with already high blood
> pressure.

The medical is supposed to screen for hypertension.

[gatt[_5_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:

>
> Taking drugs is a substitute for proper socialization, not an enhancement of
> it. Sometimes, in fact, social contact is just a cover and pretext for heavy
> drinking, and the drinkers would more easily give up the socialization than
> the drug.

Well, no ****, sherlock, but thanks for the two-bit medical advice. You
a doctor now, too?

[gatt[_5_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Sorry, but nothing you say is going to convince me to toss safety out the
> window in favor of taking drugs.


Nobody gives a damn what you do.




-c

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Earlier you said alcohol always results in impairment irrespective of
> > the dose.

> That's the guideline that I follow. I'm not interested in taking chances.

Non sequitur.


> > Nicotine causes blood pressure to increase, which could marginally
> > be concidered an "impairment" in those with already high blood
> > pressure.

> The medical is supposed to screen for hypertension.

Yes, it does, but not for high blood pressure.

Do you know the difference between having "high blood pressure" and
"hypertension" Dr. Mxsmanic?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[george]

On Aug 6, 4:17 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Taking drugs is a substitute for proper socialization, not an enhancement of
> it. Sometimes, in fact, social contact is just a cover and pretext for heavy
> drinking, and the drinkers would more easily give up the socialization than
> the drug.

Coming from some-one who 'lives' in a country famous for its fine
wines that has to be the geekiest statement ever

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> Coming from some-one who 'lives' in a country famous for its fine
> wines that has to be the geekiest statement ever

It's a country in which one out of every six people is alcoholic, too
(according to some estimates).

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Yes, it does, but not for high blood pressure.

They are synonymous in this context.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Yes, it does, but not for high blood pressure.

> They are synonymous in this context.

No, they are not, Dr. Mxmsmanic.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> No, they are not, Dr. Mxmsmanic.

Explain the difference.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > No, they are not, Dr. Mxmsmanic.

> Explain the difference.

"High blood pressure" means the blood pressure is higher than normal,
which is most sources concider to be between 115/76 to 120/80.

"Hypertension" means the blood pressure is chronically over some
limit, which most sources define as a systolic pressure consistantly
over 140 mmHg and/or a distolic pressure consistantly over 90 mmHg.

As far as the FAA is concerned, absent other conditions, they don't
care until it gets to 155/95.

As with most of your pontifications, you are unable to understand
grey areas.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> "High blood pressure" means the blood pressure is higher than normal,
> which is most sources concider to be between 115/76 to 120/80.
>
> "Hypertension" means the blood pressure is chronically over some
> limit, which most sources define as a systolic pressure consistantly
> over 140 mmHg and/or a distolic pressure consistantly over 90 mmHg.

Your distinction is specious.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 7, 10:30 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > "High blood pressure" means the blood pressure is higher than normal,
> > which is most sources concider to be between 115/76 to 120/80.
>
> > "Hypertension" means the blood pressure is chronically over some
> > limit, which most sources define as a systolic pressure consistantly
> > over 140 mmHg and/or a distolic pressure consistantly over 90 mmHg.
>
> Your distinction is specious.

Among professionals there is a clear distinction between those two
labels, you had that distinction pointed out to you, and you choose to
deny it. That is both ignorant and arrogant.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> On Aug 7, 10:30 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
> > > "High blood pressure" means the blood pressure is higher than normal,
> > > which is most sources concider to be between 115/76 to 120/80.
> >
> > > "Hypertension" means the blood pressure is chronically over some
> > > limit, which most sources define as a systolic pressure consistantly
> > > over 140 mmHg and/or a distolic pressure consistantly over 90 mmHg.
> >
> > Your distinction is specious.

> Among professionals there is a clear distinction between those two
> labels, you had that distinction pointed out to you, and you choose to
> deny it. That is both ignorant and arrogant.

Among his other faults, mxsmanic is unable to see shades of grey and
everything to him is either black or white, as in his statement that
consumption of any alcohol is "impairing".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> "High blood pressure" means the blood pressure is higher than normal,
>> which is most sources concider to be between 115/76 to 120/80.
>>
>> "Hypertension" means the blood pressure is chronically over some
>> limit, which most sources define as a systolic pressure consistantly
>> over 140 mmHg and/or a distolic pressure consistantly over 90 mmHg.
>
> Your distinction is specious.

Your existence is specious.

[Jon]

On Aug 7, 11:05*pm, wrote:
> wrote:
[...]
> > Among professionals there is a clear distinction between those two
> > labels, you had that distinction pointed out to you, and you choose to
> > deny it. That is both ignorant and arrogant.
>
> Among his other faults, mxsmanic is unable to see shades of grey and
> everything to him is either black or white, as in his statement that
> consumption of any alcohol is "impairing".

Perhaps the thread was indenting too far to the right and he decided
he'd wagged his cranium enough in this branch of the thread. :)

So many branches.... must....enlarge...ego....to cover more ground...
since the ground is where I must stay...

> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > "High blood pressure" means the blood pressure is higher than normal,
> > which is most sources concider to be between 115/76 to 120/80.
> >
> > "Hypertension" means the blood pressure is chronically over some
> > limit, which most sources define as a systolic pressure consistantly
> > over 140 mmHg and/or a distolic pressure consistantly over 90 mmHg.

> Your distinction is specious.

Bull****.

Get a physical with a systolic of:

120, doctor says nothing.

125, doctor may say it needs to be watched.

130, doctor may perscribe medication, definitely will advise action.

140, most doctors will perscribe medication and advise action.

No, you are not "normal" with a systolic of 120 and "impaired" at 121.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Among professionals there is a clear distinction between those two
> labels ...

No, there isn't. High blood pressure is just the everyday term for
hypertension. Pretending there is a distinction between them is not only
misleading but potentially hazardous.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Bull****.
>
> Get a physical with a systolic of:
>
> 120, doctor says nothing.
>
> 125, doctor may say it needs to be watched.
>
> 130, doctor may perscribe medication, definitely will advise action.
>
> 140, most doctors will perscribe medication and advise action.
>
> No, you are not "normal" with a systolic of 120 and "impaired" at 121.

If your blood pressure is high, you have hypertension. If you have
hypertension, your blood pressure is high.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Among professionals there is a clear distinction between those two
> > labels ...

> No, there isn't. High blood pressure is just the everyday term for
> hypertension.

Yes, if you are an ignorant twit, "high blood pressure" and "hypertension"
mean the same thing.

No, if you have a clue, "hypertension" is a specific subset of "high
blood pressure".

> Pretending there is a distinction between them is not only
> misleading but potentially hazardous.

Pontificating nonsense, "Dr. Mxsmanic".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Bull****.
> >
> > Get a physical with a systolic of:
> >
> > 120, doctor says nothing.
> >
> > 125, doctor may say it needs to be watched.
> >
> > 130, doctor may perscribe medication, definitely will advise action.
> >
> > 140, most doctors will perscribe medication and advise action.
> >
> > No, you are not "normal" with a systolic of 120 and "impaired" at 121.

> If your blood pressure is high, you have hypertension.

Not true.

If your systolic is 135, you have high blood pressure, but not hypertension.

If your systolic is constantly above 140 you have hypertension.

Just because you don't know the difference doesn't mean the rest of
the world doesn't.

> If you have
> hypertension, your blood pressure is high.

Well, since "hypertension" is a specific subset of "high blood pressure",
at least that one is true.

By your convoluted logic, since all Honda Civics are cars, all cars
are Honda Civics.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 8, 2:15*pm, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
> > > Among professionals there is a clear distinction between those two
> > > labels ...
> > No, there isn't. *High blood pressure is just the everyday term for
> > hypertension.
>
> Yes, if you are an ignorant twit, "high blood pressure" and "hypertension"
> mean the same thing.
>
> No, if you have a clue, "hypertension" is a specific subset of "high
> blood pressure".
>
> > Pretending there is a distinction between them is not only
> > misleading but potentially hazardous.
>
> Pontificating nonsense, "Dr. Mxsmanic".
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Our error is using the language professionals or literate
nonprofessionals would understand. Mx is often entertaining, but
sometimes really disappointing., This was one of those times. He does
not have the stature of a Clinton (except in his own mind) to remind
us it all depends on what 'is' means

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Not true.
>
> If your systolic is 135, you have high blood pressure, but not hypertension.

If your diastolic is 110, you're hypertensive and you have high blood
pressure, irrespective of the systolic.

> Just because you don't know the difference doesn't mean the rest of
> the world doesn't.

Unlike most people (but like many doctors), I don't look at numbers alone.

> Well, since "hypertension" is a specific subset of "high blood pressure",
> at least that one is true.

It's not a subset, it's a synonym.

> By your convoluted logic, since all Honda Civics are cars, all cars
> are Honda Civics.

No, by my logic, all cars are automobiles, and all automobiles are cars.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Not true.
> >
> > If your systolic is 135, you have high blood pressure, but not hypertension.

> If your diastolic is 110, you're hypertensive and you have high blood
> pressure, irrespective of the systolic.

A different set of conditions than were stated and totally irrelevant
to the statement made.

> > Just because you don't know the difference doesn't mean the rest of
> > the world doesn't.

> Unlike most people (but like many doctors), I don't look at numbers alone.

Utter nonsense.

The numbers are the only thing defining "high blood pressure" and
"hypertension".

Though one may have other symptoms that may lead to the suspicion of
a blood pressure problem, it is the numbers, and the numbers alone
that confirm or deny the suspicion.

> > Well, since "hypertension" is a specific subset of "high blood pressure",
> > at least that one is true.

> It's not a subset, it's a synonym.

Only to the ignorant.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> A different set of conditions than were stated and totally irrelevant
> to the statement made.

If your systolic is 135, you may have high blood pressure, and thus you may be
hypertensive.

> The numbers are the only thing defining "high blood pressure" and
> "hypertension".

No, the conditions of measurement are extremely important, also.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > A different set of conditions than were stated and totally irrelevant
> > to the statement made.

> If your systolic is 135, you may have high blood pressure, and thus you may be
> hypertensive.

I already posted what the conditions for hypertension are, i.e.
systolic consistantly over 140 and/or distolic consistantly over 90.

Do you need someone to explain to you what "and/or" and "consistantly"
mean?

> > The numbers are the only thing defining "high blood pressure" and
> > "hypertension".

> No, the conditions of measurement are extremely important, also.

No, the numbers are the numbers.

Most rational people would assume that measurements are taken under
the standard conditions of measurement by the standard methods, so your
babbling about "the conditions of measurement" is nothing but more
irrelevant tripe in a vain attempt to prove your superiority in all things.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 8, 8:35*pm, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
> > > A different set of conditions than were stated and totally irrelevant
> > > to the statement made.
> > If your systolic is 135, you may have high blood pressure, and thus you may be
> > hypertensive.
>
> I already posted what the conditions for hypertension are, i.e.
> systolic consistantly over 140 and/or distolic consistantly over 90.
>
> Do you need someone to explain to you what "and/or" and "consistantly"
> mean?
>
> > > The numbers are the only thing defining "high blood pressure" and
> > > "hypertension".
> > No, the conditions of measurement are extremely important, also.
>
> No, the numbers are the numbers.
>
> Most rational people would assume that measurements are taken under
> the standard conditions of measurement by the standard methods, so your
> babbling about "the conditions of measurement" is nothing but more
> irrelevant tripe in a vain attempt to prove your superiority in all things.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

God, he is sophomoranic and sophomaniac as well as sophomoric, , isn't
he? I guess Mx really got you that time, because you didn't specify
standard condtions.

Sometimes his comic relief just doesn't work.

[Morgans[_2_]]

Sometimes his comic relief just doesn't work.

His comic relief N E V E R Justiefies his existance, here.

Will people E V E R ignore him?

Pleeease God, make them see the light?

[[email protected]]

On Aug 9, 9:34*am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> Sometimes his comic relief just doesn't work.
>
> His comic relief * N E V E R *Justiefies his existance, here.
>
> Will people E V E R ignore him?
>
> Pleeease God, make them see the light?

He amuses some of us, hence his popularity. Use a reader that kill
files him if you find him objectionable.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-08-09, > wrote:
> He amuses some of us, hence his popularity. Use a reader that kill
> files him if you find him objectionable.

I do killfile him, as well as the most obnoxious of those who keep him
going. Unfortunately, there's no good way to killfile a thread once he's
posted to it, which is what it would take to make this group usable again.
--
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 (got it!)

[[email protected]]

On Aug 9, 10:29*am, Jay Maynard >
wrote:
> On 2008-08-09, > wrote:
>
> > He amuses some of us, hence his popularity. Use a reader that kill
> > files him if you find him objectionable.
>
> I do killfile him, as well as the most obnoxious of those who keep him
> going. Unfortunately, there's no good way to killfile a thread once he's
> posted to it, which is what it would take to make this group usable again..
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC * * * * * * * * *http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com* * *http://www.tronguy.net
> Fairmont, MN (FRM) * * * * * * * * * * * *(Yes, that's me!)
> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

The google reader offers an indented tree of messages. It's easy for
me to not read those branches that include MX subthreads in which I've
lost interest. Maybe something like that would work for you.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Bull****.
>>
>> Get a physical with a systolic of:
>>
>> 120, doctor says nothing.
>>
>> 125, doctor may say it needs to be watched.
>>
>> 130, doctor may perscribe medication, definitely will advise action.
>>
>> 140, most doctors will perscribe medication and advise action.
>>
>> No, you are not "normal" with a systolic of 120 and "impaired" at 121.
>
> If your blood pressure is high, you have hypertension. If you have
> hypertension, your blood pressure is high.
>

You are an idiot.













Bertie

[Peter Clark]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 14:29:49 GMT, Jay Maynard
> wrote:

>On 2008-08-09, > wrote:
>> He amuses some of us, hence his popularity. Use a reader that kill
>> files him if you find him objectionable.
>
>I do killfile him, as well as the most obnoxious of those who keep him
>going. Unfortunately, there's no good way to killfile a thread once he's
>posted to it, which is what it would take to make this group usable again.

Agent has a "ignore thread" function which works perfectly for that.