"Frank Ch. Eigler" wrote in message
...
And yet there you have it. Michael uses an assertive style of making
pronouncements that assumes an audience open-minded enough not to
interpret them at their most straw-man shallow.

It's hard to interpret Michael's statement in any way other than how he said
it. He didn't use ambiguous terminology. He said "*NO* judgment can be
learned" and "*NOTHING* is at stake". That's just patently false.

I would agree that the training environment does limit to some extent
real-world situations that can produce a maturation of good judgment. But
to say that no judgment can be learned in a training environment, and that
nothing is at stake, is just plain stupid and an insult to all the
instructors out there that manage to successfully teach good judgment as
part of their curriculum.

Pete