View Single Post
  #10  
Old May 29th 12, 05:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default Please ignore Mx

Dudley Henriques writes:

It's strange I know, but I'm one of those "pilots" who when
everything was considered, really never had any serious problems
with you.


You are more civil than most, but you have shown considerable irritation at
times. Your irritation is tempered by the fact that you often actually know
what you are talking about. Others are not so lucky.

We had our disagreements to be sure, but I've never seen you
as this horrible "threat" to Usenet some others have adopted.


When you know you are right, you don't feel threatened by others with
different opinions. And of course, if they are also right, you have no
disagreement to begin with. Since I often echo concepts and principles that
have long been accepted as correct and valid by the best minds in aviation, it
goes without saying that other people (pilots or not) who are also aware of
these concepts and principles will have no quarrel with me.

People who are misinformed and have issues with insecurity will argue with me.
They are more interested in preserving their egos than they are in actually
being right. Smart people correct themselves when they discover that they are
wrong. Stupid people stubbornly persist in being wrong, even when they know
they are wrong. Sometimes this leads to bad things, like airplane crashes.

In fact, I believe I've commented from time to time that I felt
the posts attacking you far outnumbered any posts from you that
I personally might have found objectionable.


That is indisputably true. Kids who are arguing out of emotion rather than
reason become increasingly aggressive and voluble as their position erodes.

I think if I had to pinpoint a single thing that I would have advised
you to do on a forum where actual pilots are posting, it would have
been for you to have adopted a slightly more "question" persona as
opposed to a "statement" persona.


Sorry, but I don't give anyone deference by default. If they are wrong,
they're wrong, no matter who they are. I ask questions when I want to know
things, but when I see that someone else is misinformed, I provide a
correction. Nothing will prevent me from doing the latter. If Chesley
Sullenberger himself enters this group and says something that is manifestly
incorrect, I'll correct him. But something tells me that he'd never make that
kind of mistake in the first place.

Most pilots are reasonable.


The reasonable ones are not the ones who attack anyone who disagrees with
them.

Many have either vast military experience or have expended tremendous
amounts of resources in experience and education.


Military experience is relevant only to military discussions. Airplanes fly
the same way in the military as they do in civilian life, whatever Maverick
and Iceman might believe.

Often people become so fixated on me that they don't pay attention to the
discussion. Once they become convinced that they must "win," they will ignore
all reason and logic in their increasingly strident posts. But if I'm right,
I'll stay right no matter what they say, so the time they spend attacking me
is time wasted.

Moore is right. Pilots don't react well to being 'equalized" by people
who don't fly.


Then they need to grow up. There's no magic in being a pilot.

If a brain surgeon tells me that he can operate without establishing a sterile
field around the incision, I'll tell him he's wrong, because he is. It doesn't
matter how many surgeries he's done or how many millions of years of
experience he has. Wrong is wrong, and often being right or wrong is easy to
objectively establish for anyone willing to look things up.

I've had pilots argue with me in direct contradiction to FAA regulations, for
example, even when I quote the regulations to them. What they didn't know in
many cases was the depth of my research. On one occasion, I had just finished
talking to the FAA in Washington, and had obtained the absolute final word on
the interpretation of a regulation, and yet still the pilot argued with me. If
only he knew how stupid he looked.

It's that simple really. You want to make a statement, you have to pay
your dues first, THEN make the statement.


Sorry, I don't do the hazing thing. If I'm right, I'm right, dues or no dues.
If I'm wrong, well, paying dues isn't going to make me right.

That sort of thing is for little boys, who are wired to compete and form
simplistic hierarchical command and control structures. But it has nothing to
do with being right or wrong.

You want to ASK a question, ASK!


I do. And if someone says something that's obviously wrong, I correct, too.

Most pilots welcome the opportunity to show the world what they know.


They even welcome the opportunity to parade their ignorance, in many cases.
Fortunately, it's harmless in this group, but a lot of them end up in NTSB
reports. Mother Nature cannot be bullied or intimidated.

On the flip side of that, it helps a LOT if pilots actually know what
they are talking about. Some do, some don't, but the fact that you don't
fly is still the elephant in the room.


That's their problem. They just need to grow up. Of course, if they were grown
up and mature, they probably wouldn't be afflicted by their ignorance, since
they would have corrected their mistakes long ago.

There's a right way to disagree with someone and a wrong way to disagree.


Not for me. The difference exists only for kids, and I'm not a kid.

You might be right, and you might win the battle, but with other pilots
watching you and how you're conducting all this "correcting", you probably
aren't going to win the war!


It's not a war. In most cases, it's a march towards aviation safety. Pilots
who are wrong die a lot.

Respect can't be demanded. It has to be earned.


I agree ... but that rather conflicts with your other suggestions, doesn't it?