Do not answer Mxsmanic

In article ,
randall g wrote:

His actions are typical of trolls that are out to pollute a newsgroup to the
point of making is useless.

That is nowhere near happening here.

yeah, right.

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

swag wrote:
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.

First, you did not read every single one of his posts in the several
hours since I posted. Nice try, but it just isn't possible, I don't
care how fast you read.

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."

No, he's too good of a troll for that. But when Chris said he was an
MEI, MX's repsonse was, "But do you own a twin?" Does he believe an MEI
who does not own a twin knows less than an MEI who does? It doesn't
work that way. He DID basically tell Chris that he didn't know what he
was talking about.


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?"

If you honestly believe that is a legit question, you have a lot of
learning to do.

I did in fact read every one of his posts, and that was easy to do in a
few minutes. There really aren't that many authored by him in that
thread. But thanks for the ad hominem towards me.

Asking if someone who is an MEI owns a twin may be interpreted in a
perjorative vein or not depending on your inclination. I choose to
interpret it as a legitimate query. I wrestled with many of these
arguments for a long time before changing from single to twin. I had
my MEL for 8 years before changing from single to twin. The pros and
cons are numerous and I did not find any of his points specious.

Finally, Emily, I do have a lot of learning to do. I admit it.

Emily wrote:
swag wrote:
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.

First, you did not read every single one of his posts in the several
hours since I posted. Nice try, but it just isn't possible, I don't
care how fast you read.

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."

No, he's too good of a troll for that. But when Chris said he was an
MEI, MX's repsonse was, "But do you own a twin?" Does he believe an MEI
who does not own a twin knows less than an MEI who does? It doesn't
work that way. He DID basically tell Chris that he didn't know what he
was talking about.


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?"

If you honestly believe that is a legit question, you have a lot of
learning to do.

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:30:47 -0500, Emily
wrote:

swag wrote:

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?"

If you honestly believe that is a legit question, you have a lot of
learning to do.


I am a low time private pilot, and I learn from discussions like this.
Insult away.




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

swag wrote:
I did in fact read every one of his posts, and that was easy to do in a
few minutes. There really aren't that many authored by him in that
thread.

My mistake. I assumed you'd read every one of his inane questions in
every thread. Without doing that, you simply can't see the big picture.

Asking if someone who is an MEI owns a twin may be interpreted in a
perjorative vein or not depending on your inclination. I choose to
interpret it as a legitimate query.

How? Is an MEI who does not own a twin a lesser pilot than one who
does? I think not.

randall g wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:30:47 -0500, Emily
wrote:

swag wrote:

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?"
If you honestly believe that is a legit question, you have a lot of
learning to do.


I am a low time private pilot, and I learn from discussions like this.
Insult away.

How was that an insult? I was simply saying it's not a legitimate
question.

I did not choose to view the question in that vein. I choose to view
it as why indeed does someone have a rating and not choose a multi to
own? Is it safety? is it cost? is it task intensity? If a person who
teaches the rating chooses not to own, perhaps it is a decision worth
examining. It is actually an interesting question. I had the rating
for a long time and flew a single. But I was predominantly flying over
the cornfields of Illinois. Now my home base is the piney woods of
Arkansas and I have chosen to triple the costs of flying in order to
increase my safety margin. In the six months since I have had the
airplane, one engine blew an oil seal, and I was able to get to an
airport safely. So I am happy with my decision. Although my friends
who are still in singles argue (with some validity) that my chance of
an engine failure in a turbocharged twin in much higher than theirs in
a non turbocharged single.

Emily wrote:
swag wrote:
I did in fact read every one of his posts, and that was easy to do in a
few minutes. There really aren't that many authored by him in that
thread.

My mistake. I assumed you'd read every one of his inane questions in
every thread. Without doing that, you simply can't see the big picture.

Asking if someone who is an MEI owns a twin may be interpreted in a
perjorative vein or not depending on your inclination. I choose to
interpret it as a legitimate query.

How? Is an MEI who does not own a twin a lesser pilot than one who
does? I think not.

swag wrote:
I did not choose to view the question in that vein. I choose to view
it as why indeed does someone have a rating and not choose a multi to
own? Is it safety? is it cost? is it task intensity? If a person who
teaches the rating chooses not to own, perhaps it is a decision worth
examining.

What about those MEI's among us who don't own a plane at all? I'm not a
poor instructor because I DON'T own one.

The fact is, that's not how his question was posed. CJ posted that he
was an MEI, and MX asked if he owned a twin. Clearly, he was
insinuating that an MEI doesn't know what he is talking about if he
doesn't own a twin.

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

swag wrote:
Although my friends
who are still in singles argue (with some validity) that my chance of
an engine failure in a turbocharged twin in much higher than theirs in
a non turbocharged single.


Of course you have twice as much chance of suffering an engine failure in a
twin; you have twice as many engines. But that's neither here nor there. The
real issue is who suffers the higher injury/death rate after an engine failure.
That should be the bottom line.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com