MXSMANIC - The posts don't add up

In article .com,
"Kev" wrote:

I think he's a good test of how well we can explain things. If we
can't convince someone like him, who's very interested in aviation, how
flying works... then what chance do we have with people who want a TFR
everywhere?

It is not a valid test when someone like him refuses to learn. You'd make
better progress convincing the long island looney bird that airplane noise
is music to his ears.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Kev wrote:
John Theune wrote:
[..] While no mention has been
made of a physical issue that would prevent him from working, he has not
made that a point as to why he will not fly planes, it's always been
about the money. Things just don't add up.

I think it's none of our business. He could be very young or
handicapped, but it doesn't matter. I've been online in some form or
another for over 30 years, and he's one of the most polite and
forgiving posters I've seen (albeit extremely hard headed), considering
the bile thrown at him by some crabby old men and women here.

Those latter people, who think they can dictate whom the rest of us
converse with, should be ashamed of themselves. I've lost a lot of
respect for some of the regulars here, because they've shown just how
full of themselves they are.

I think he's a good test of how well we can explain things. If we
can't convince someone like him, who's very interested in aviation, how
flying works... then what chance do we have with people who want a TFR
everywhere?

Kevin

I agree with every word you said. I don't understand why everyone has
to obsess over him. He's not even that bad of a poster...

The reason he gets so much crap is because some people (90% of this
newsgroup), just absolutely have to constantly remind to the world how
wonderful and great they are. And they do that by condescending on
lesser knowledgeable people, such as mx.

The only reason mx gets so much crap is because he admitted to
everybody he is a below everyone else knowledge wise. He
(involuntarily) offered himself to be the wisemen-know-it-all-wannabe's
punching bag.

The same thing happened to me when I made a thread a few months ago,
and made the mistake of mentioning I was in my early 20's. It didn't
matter what my argument was, I was just a dumb, spoiled punk teenager,
and I knew nothing. If I had made the exact same thread, but portrayed
myself as a grey-haired 60-year old ex-army pilot or something, I would
have been treated so much differently. I swear, if mx would from now on
post only under random pseudo names (like me), no one would say a
single word about any of his posts.

It's not what you say, or how you say it as much as it is who you are.
Sometimes this place resembles a middle school playground more than a
professional discussion group.

buttman wrote:

I agree with every word you said. I don't understand why everyone has
to obsess over him. He's not even that bad of a poster...

he does indeed ask interesting questions (e.g., why are turbines
more expensive than pistons?) and he is not stupid; but he does
have a way of being annoying at times; one thing he does and which
is a sure way of being ostracized in many newsgroups, not just r.a.*,
is that he fails to do his homework: he will question an answer,
or re-ask the same question, even when provided with pretty good
references/sources of info that he obviously does not bother
to read...

--Sylvain

In article .com,
says...

I've been online in some form or
another for over 30 years, and he's one of the most polite and
forgiving posters I've seen (albeit extremely hard headed), considering
the bile thrown at him by some crabby old men and women here.


All that experience still hasn't made you very observant.
Many of us with much less experience have learned to recognize abuse when we
see it, and I regret to see well meaning people, with the desire to teach
and share knowledge being insulted and taken for a ride.

Bob Gardner (to cite only one) has been flying and instructing for decades,
and has made a lifelong passion of trying to translate and explain flying
concepts to beginners of all ages who desire to learn. Even MXSMANIAC could
afford one of Bob's books, and if he were to purchase it, read it in earnest
and try to learn everything in it, he would be a more knowledgable poster,
and less irksome to others. It would also be indicative of a positive
attitude, which is absolutely indispensable to being a pilot. The fact that
he will not do this, and feels free to take the author to task and insult
him over his ignorance is indicative of a non-constructive attitude, which
is why his contributions are (understandably) seen by many here as
manipulative and abusive.

Manipulation and abuse by vindictive posters are very destructive forces in
the "self-governed" world of usenet, and can destroy otherwise useful and
constructive forums. This is why many here are concerned - it is not with
any desire to chastise or punish an individual, even less, as you posit, to
prove some sort of superiority to him - the concern is a degradation of
the quality of discourse here, mixed with just enough insult and
manipulation, to make well-meaning contributors feel they are wasting their
time. They will leave and not come back. Some probably already have.

I hope I have been explicit enough to help you understand.

GF

"Kev" wrote in message
oups.com...
I've been online in some form or
another for over 30 years, and he's one of the most polite and
forgiving posters I've seen (albeit extremely hard headed), considering
the bile thrown at him by some crabby old men and women here.

Those latter people, who think they can dictate whom the rest of us
converse with, should be ashamed of themselves. I've lost a lot of
respect for some of the regulars here, because they've shown just how
full of themselves they are.

I think he's a good test of how well we can explain things. If we
can't convince someone like him, who's very interested in aviation, how
flying works... then what chance do we have with people who want a TFR
everywhere?

You're right that the schoolyard taunts directed at mxsmanic are an
embarrassment to this group (as is the credential-mongering that some people
have resorted to).

The problem, though, is that while much of mxsmanic's discussion is
reasonable (hence, my initial defense of his participation here), much of it
seems instead to be deliberately provocative (which still does not warrant
uncivil responses, but does explain some of the frustration that erupts).

Consider the following assertions he made in the recent "Flying patterns"
thread:

"In IFR, you don't have to look out the window for other aircraft. You
have help from controllers."

"By definition, if you are flying by instruments, you aren't looking
out the window. ATC provides separation."

" Most IFR flights are NOT in IMC.
But IFR means that they are conducted as if they were in IMC,
irrespective of actual conditions."

"You follow their instructions, therefore they are providing
separation."

"Show me where I said that you don't have to look out the window."

"A controller may ask if you have visual contact with traffic. If you
do, you can say so, and thereby assume responsibility for maintaining
separation with it. If you don't see it, you cannot maintain
separation, so you are not responsible for doing so."

"If you are flying IFR, by definition, you may or may not be able to
see other aircraft. If you can see aircraft, you can maintain visual
separation; otherwise you cannot."

"By definition, if you are flying IFR, you don't have to be able to see or
visually maintain separation from anything, unless you implicitly
agree to do so by acknowledging visual contact."

" Where are you getting your information?
I read it, but I don't remember where."

"If you are flying IFR in VMC, VFR traffic is required to see you, but
you are not required to see VFR traffic (or any other traffic)."

In response to his earliest posts above, many of us explained the reality of
IFR in VMC, and provided him with the relevant (free, online) references.
But his stream of obviously, dangerously false assertions continued
unabated. He never tried to cite any factual basis for his claims, but did
phrase them as (insistent, authoritative) statements of fact, which (many of
us felt) required us to keep rebutting him in order to preserve the
integrity of the aviation advice presented here.

He did not appear to be making an effort to engage in responsible,
good-faith discussion in this instance and others. In some threads, he
behaves more reasonably, which may give you a different impression of his
participation.

--Gary

"John Theune" wrote in message
news:BAKXg.9272$ms1.6478@trndny05...

However I've also seen him write on detailed medical and mathematical
subjects and he has demonstrated a fair amount on knowledge.

I can't comment on his medical knowledge, but in the mathematical subjects I
recall, he applied the wrong formula for a given situation.

Pretty mach the same thing he does in aviation matters.

Steve Foley wrote:
"John Theune" wrote in message
news:BAKXg.9272$ms1.6478@trndny05...

However I've also seen him write on detailed medical and mathematical
subjects and he has demonstrated a fair amount on knowledge.

I can't comment on his medical knowledge, but in the mathematical subjects I
recall, he applied the wrong formula for a given situation.

Pretty mach the same thing he does in aviation matters.


True, he was wrong there also, but he knew enough math to make it appear
reasonable ( and wrong ) Not what I would expect from a minimum wage
earning person. If he had that level of knowledge/training he should be
able to get a better job. I know from what I've seen over the years at
work the ability to be right is not required for getting a job, it's
much more knowing the lingo. I'm sure you run into clueless people at
work before also. One wonders how they keep their jobs but its not
terrible surprising how they got them.
Bottom line is I don't buy his line of poverty as a reason to not learn
more about flying from a professional or even by himself from purchased
book.

I believe that the "wrong math" citation that everyone is alluding to
was when he posited that if the probability of one engine failing was
1/1000 then a single engine plane's chance of turning into a glider was
1/1000, but a twin's chance of turning into a glider was 1/1000000,
although the chance of a twin losing an engine was 1/500. Our more
mathematically correct and esteemed colleagues cited the exact formula
(which would correct the 1/500 to 1/500- 1/1000000). I believe that
any engineer worth his salt would call the second term negligible.


John Theune wrote:
Steve Foley wrote:
"John Theune" wrote in message
news:BAKXg.9272$ms1.6478@trndny05...

However I've also seen him write on detailed medical and mathematical
subjects and he has demonstrated a fair amount on knowledge.

I can't comment on his medical knowledge, but in the mathematical subjects I
recall, he applied the wrong formula for a given situation.

Pretty mach the same thing he does in aviation matters.


True, he was wrong there also, but he knew enough math to make it appear
reasonable ( and wrong ) Not what I would expect from a minimum wage
earning person. If he had that level of knowledge/training he should be
able to get a better job. I know from what I've seen over the years at
work the ability to be right is not required for getting a job, it's
much more knowing the lingo. I'm sure you run into clueless people at
work before also. One wonders how they keep their jobs but its not
terrible surprising how they got them.
Bottom line is I don't buy his line of poverty as a reason to not learn
more about flying from a professional or even by himself from purchased
book.

He also quoted an incorrect formula showing something less than 2 Gs in a 60
degree bank.


"swag" wrote in message
ups.com...
I believe that the "wrong math" citation that everyone is alluding to
was when he posited that if the probability of one engine failing was
1/1000 then a single engine plane's chance of turning into a glider was
1/1000, but a twin's chance of turning into a glider was 1/1000000,
although the chance of a twin losing an engine was 1/500. Our more
mathematically correct and esteemed colleagues cited the exact formula
(which would correct the 1/500 to 1/500- 1/1000000). I believe that
any engineer worth his salt would call the second term negligible.


John Theune wrote:
Steve Foley wrote:
"John Theune" wrote in message
news:BAKXg.9272$ms1.6478@trndny05...

However I've also seen him write on detailed medical and mathematical
subjects and he has demonstrated a fair amount on knowledge.

I can't comment on his medical knowledge, but in the mathematical
subjects I
recall, he applied the wrong formula for a given situation.

Pretty mach the same thing he does in aviation matters.


True, he was wrong there also, but he knew enough math to make it appear
reasonable ( and wrong ) Not what I would expect from a minimum wage
earning person. If he had that level of knowledge/training he should be
able to get a better job. I know from what I've seen over the years at
work the ability to be right is not required for getting a job, it's
much more knowing the lingo. I'm sure you run into clueless people at
work before also. One wonders how they keep their jobs but its not
terrible surprising how they got them.
Bottom line is I don't buy his line of poverty as a reason to not learn
more about flying from a professional or even by himself from purchased
book.

Who cares. I usually ignore his posts for the most part
but a few of his posts have generated some interesting
discussion.

All that aside, nutcases like skylunatic ar far more
irritating than mxsmanic, and even very bad for GA in
general because his type will move on to other forums
and spout off the same whiney drivel that aviation-ignorant
dimwits will believe.