wrote in message
...
Bob F. wrote:
wrote in message
...
Tim wrote:

Mx posts something and then a certain contingent tries their best to
find
some flaw, however minor, to argue endlessly over. Occasionally Mx is
right
and the contingent is wrong, but that doesn't stop them from
embarrasing
themselves for weeks on end as the arguement goes from nit picking to
semantics to the sublimely ridiculous. The amazing thing is that it
occurs
with almost every one of his posts.

Let me help you here - Mx meant that you must fly on instruments when
you
have no reliable outside visual references.

I'm no Mx fan - far from it. But sometimes you guys are your own
worst
enemy.

And you know what he meant is correct while what he actually said was
wrong how?

Let me help you here - Mx has no grasp of nuance, subtlety, or shades
of grey and everything is black and white, ergo if you are in
instrument
conditions, you must be on instruments.


Well, why not, that's right! If you are in "instrument conditions" you
must be on instruments. Now on the other hand, if you were in IMC per
the
AIM definition, that would be another situation. You have to consider
the
"nuance, subtlety, or shades of grey"

You do understand what the 'I' and 'C' in IMC stand for, don't you?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.


Ah, but in your transcription you neglected to quote "IMC" and just said
"instrument conditions". "IMC" is a special definition in the AIM.
"instrument conditions" is just English... look the words up in Webster, put
them together and it means: conditions using instruments.

Hey I got an idea...how about stop bashing the OP, simply state the nuances,
politely, have a reasonable discussion and move on...how about that?


--
Regards, BobF.