Do not answer Mxsmanic

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:52:54 -0400, Jay Somerset
wrote:

I tend to agree, and might remind folks that the name of this NG is
rec.aviation.PILOTING, not rec.aviation.SIMULATORS or rec.aviation.GAMES.

So what? He's asking real live pilots stuff about real live piloting.






randall g =%^) PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RG
http://www.telemark.net/randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
Vancouver's famous Kat Kam: http://www.katkam.ca

"randall g" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:52:54 -0400, Jay Somerset
wrote:

I tend to agree, and might remind folks that the name of this NG is
rec.aviation.PILOTING, not rec.aviation.SIMULATORS or rec.aviation.GAMES.

So what? He's asking real live pilots stuff about real live piloting.


And then he spends the next 20 posts in the thread arguing with them that
their answers are wrong.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

"randall g" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:52:54 -0400, Jay Somerset
wrote:

I tend to agree, and might remind folks that the name of this NG is
rec.aviation.PILOTING, not rec.aviation.SIMULATORS or rec.aviation.GAMES.

So what? He's asking real live pilots stuff about real live piloting.


And then he spends the next 20 posts in the thread arguing with them that
their answers are wrong.

Something akin to high schoolers arguing economics with Dr. Thomas Sowell:
www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell081798.html

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 08:15:45 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:


"randall g" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:52:54 -0400, Jay Somerset
wrote:

I tend to agree, and might remind folks that the name of this NG is
rec.aviation.PILOTING, not rec.aviation.SIMULATORS or rec.aviation.GAMES.

So what? He's asking real live pilots stuff about real live piloting.


And then he spends the next 20 posts in the thread arguing with them that
their answers are wrong.

So what? It still relates to piloting does it not? Nobody is forcing you
to participate in or read those threads.





randall g =%^) PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RG
http://www.telemark.net/randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
Vancouver's famous Kat Kam: http://www.katkam.ca

randall g wrote:

So what? It still relates to piloting does it not? Nobody is forcing you
to participate in or read those threads.


It diverts energy from the newsgroup. If you have limited time to read and post
and you **** away two thirds of it reading his lectures and the resulting
answers, then you have very little time left for legitimate posts.

He's not interested in your answers to his questions. He's interested in
demonstrating his superiority to you in aviation matters. The fact that he's
never flown matters not. The fact that you may be infinitely more experienced
does not qualify you to answer his questions in his mind. If it did, how could
his aviation knowledge be superior to yours?

He claims he's been flying sims for 15 years, then he asks if a rudder is
required for coordinated flight? Is that a legitimate question for a 15 year
"pilot"? People try to straighten him out but it would take more time than I
still have on this earth. So many misconceptions, so little willingness to
learn. He's a troll; nothing more.

I should killfile him but I keep finding myself drawn to his posts like a moth
to a flame... I'm never disappointed as he seldom says anything cogent to real
pilots. But he says what he says with such conviction!

Some newbie is going to read one of his pronouncements, believe it, and it's
going to get him killed. Numbnuts will just tsk, tsk the death as the
inevitable proof of his assertion that aviation is unsafe.


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

I would disagree . I have read with some entertainment the recent 200+
message thread about multiengine airplanes and have been impressed that
he has been putting forth arguments that were made by my flight
instructors and best pilot friends. And he has been doing it without
any resort to ad hominem constructs. There have been two categories of
responses to him. In my opinion, those that try to emphasize their
points with name calling only reflect badly on themselves.

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
randall g wrote:

So what? It still relates to piloting does it not? Nobody is forcing you
to participate in or read those threads.


It diverts energy from the newsgroup. If you have limited time to read and post
and you **** away two thirds of it reading his lectures and the resulting
answers, then you have very little time left for legitimate posts.

He's not interested in your answers to his questions. He's interested in
demonstrating his superiority to you in aviation matters. The fact that he's
never flown matters not. The fact that you may be infinitely more experienced
does not qualify you to answer his questions in his mind. If it did, how could
his aviation knowledge be superior to yours?

He claims he's been flying sims for 15 years, then he asks if a rudder is
required for coordinated flight? Is that a legitimate question for a 15 year
"pilot"? People try to straighten him out but it would take more time than I
still have on this earth. So many misconceptions, so little willingness to
learn. He's a troll; nothing more.

I should killfile him but I keep finding myself drawn to his posts like a moth
to a flame... I'm never disappointed as he seldom says anything cogent to real
pilots. But he says what he says with such conviction!

Some newbie is going to read one of his pronouncements, believe it, and it's
going to get him killed. Numbnuts will just tsk, tsk the death as the
inevitable proof of his assertion that aviation is unsafe.


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

swag wrote:
I would disagree . I have read with some entertainment the recent 200+
message thread about multiengine airplanes and have been impressed that
he has been putting forth arguments that were made by my flight
instructors and best pilot friends. And he has been doing it without
any resort to ad hominem constructs. There have been two categories of
responses to him. In my opinion, those that try to emphasize their
points with name calling only reflect badly on themselves.

Um, he's saying that multiengine rated pilots who don't own twins don't
know what they are talking about. How is that a rational argument?

OK Emily--you made me go back and reread every single one of his posts
to the group to see if he ever said any such thing and the answer is
that he did not. You may have interpolated that if one of his
statements or questions called into question a statement by a
multiengine rated pilot he was saying such a thing. But my reading of
every one of his posts was that he never called anyone a name and he
never said "you don't know what you're talking about." Several of his
questions which seemed legit , like--"why is a turboprop more expensive
than a piston, since it has fewer moving parts, is more reliable, and
uses cheaper fuel?" were treated with disdain. One respondent said
"You can look it up on google, so quit wasting our time." People are
reacting to him with negativity that seems from this casual (and
multiengine owner and rated) observer's perspective to be unearned and
(since everyone seems to cite their negativity as emanating from the
fact that as owners and pilots they must know more than him) quite
bigoted.

Emily wrote:
swag wrote:
I would disagree . I have read with some entertainment the recent 200+
message thread about multiengine airplanes and have been impressed that
he has been putting forth arguments that were made by my flight
instructors and best pilot friends. And he has been doing it without
any resort to ad hominem constructs. There have been two categories of
responses to him. In my opinion, those that try to emphasize their
points with name calling only reflect badly on themselves.

Um, he's saying that multiengine rated pilots who don't own twins don't
know what they are talking about. How is that a rational argument?

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:





It diverts energy from the newsgroup. If you have limited time to read and post
and you **** away two thirds of it reading his lectures and the resulting
answers, then you have very little time left for legitimate posts.

Are you really that dumb? No matter what I or anybody else posts you
just have to read it? Are you kidding me? I bet I don't read 60-70% of
what's posted here. It just doesn't interest me.

Newps wrote:
Are you really that dumb? No matter what I or anybody else posts you
just have to read it? Are you kidding me? I bet I don't read 60-70% of
what's posted here. It just doesn't interest me.


No, I'm not that dumb. The people here are. They're the ones who waste their
time answering him. I don't bother answering him; I just insult him.
Apparently that's a waste of time as well, since he keeps getting what he wants
from the group anyway.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com