I give up, after many, many years!

On Wed, 21 May 2008 13:44:34 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

The argument has gone Clinton-esque, by nuancing the meaning of "sensation"
down to the subtlest level. Now, of course, MX has gone off on a zillion
tangents since then, and the signal/noise ratio here has gone back to
unintelligible levels.

I don't know what strange power MX wields over so many here, but it's
creepy.

He hasn't got any power, no more than a person pushing a perfectly round
rock down a completely flat 45 degree grade.

On May 12, 11:29*am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
There are other groups, where the gap between what resident sages know
and what newbies know is much larger, say in sci.crypt and comp.dsp,
and the hostility is no where near what I have seen in this group.

I have the same experience with sci.engr.chem and a few others. In
fact, the climate there is so different that I have no need to post
anonymously. I also have a theory. It is precisely because the
difference between what the resident sages (sic!) and the newbies know
is so much smaller in this group that the hostility is so much
greater.

The truth of the matter is that in this forum, there is no opportunity
to demonstrate aviation skill - that requires an aircraft. There is
an opportunity to demonstrate aviation knowledge - but precious little
of that is required to earn any certificate or rating, be it private,
commercial, instrument, CFI, ATP, or A&P. Of course that's only my
opinion, but at least it's an informed one - since I've earned all of
the above and can compare that to the effort required to earn
corresponding credentials in some of the other groups, of which I
also . There is little comparison. Some have suggested that the ATP
and A&P combined might be considered the Ph.D. of aviation. As
someone who has also earned an actual Ph.D. I consider this
laughable. The associate degree seems more comparable - and that's at
the ATP/A&P level.

That's not to say there is not more to know - there is always more to
know, and it really does make a difference if you really want to get
the most out of your airplane - but the amount of knowledge required
to get the credentials is laughably small, something any bright person
might pick up in his spare time with relatively little effort.

This leads to an interesting disconnect. In this group, it is not
rare for a rank novice - a student pilot or even someone who has never
flown - to know more than the supposed experts. This makes the
'experts' uncomfortable - especially when the novice asks questions,
the experts answer, and then the novice proceeds to point out the
logical inconsistencies and factual errors in their answers and
refuses to accept them just because they have credentials and he does
not. In comp.dsp and sci.engr.chem, just to pick two examples I
happen to be familiar with, that doesn't happen much. The barrier to
entry is too high.

Michael

On May 22, 10:16*am, gatt wrote:
If this were rec.surgery.brain and some philosophy student was arguing
with brain surgeons all day, every day, and then admonishing them for
their answers, I wouldn't for a second expect the surgeons not to remind
the student they're they're doctors and that he's not qualified to
contradict literally ALL of them. * (Not to mention ignoring their
authoritative references and dodging any challenge to cite sources for
him own information.)

But I never said anybody "wasn't allowed" to disagree with me simply
because of my credentials.

Hmm..point of view is valid except for one important fact:

Many of the pilots in this group have not spoken with the same
objectivity that one would expect from an expert who expects his
opinion to supersede that of a novice.

I am reading a parallel thread in which someone claims that the theory
of lift often exists incorrectly in the minds of those who think they
understand it.

When I, as a novice, made this same statement a few months ago when I
joined the group, most of the responding pilots said, "It is
understood. You are the one who does not understand." When I showed
examples of actual experts (university professors in aero/astro, books
by pilots with 20,000+ hours, respected educators in aviation, the
NASA link given by Jim Logajan, etc.", the pilots still said, "You are
still wrong."

Note that it was not a few obstinate pilots making these claims, but
most of them.

When pilots take this position, refuting people whom one would imagine
has even greater understanding of the subject, it becomes difficult to
lend credibility simply because they have a pilot's license.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

On May 23, 8:03*am, Michael wrote:
On May 12, 11:29*am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

There are other groups, where the gap between what resident sages know
and what newbies know is much larger, say in sci.crypt and comp.dsp,
and the hostility is no where near what I have seen in this group.

I have the same experience with sci.engr.chem and a few others. *In
fact, the climate there is so different that I have no need to post
anonymously. *I also have a theory. *It is precisely because the
difference between what the resident sages (sic!) and the newbies know
is so much smaller in this group that the hostility is so much
greater.

The truth of the matter is that in this forum, there is no opportunity
to demonstrate aviation skill - that requires an aircraft. *There is
an opportunity to demonstrate aviation knowledge - but precious little
of that is required to earn any certificate or rating, be it private,
commercial, instrument, CFI, ATP, or A&P. *Of course that's only my
opinion, but at least it's an informed one - since I've earned all of
the above and can compare that to the effort required to earn
corresponding credentials in some of the other groups, of which I
also . *There is little comparison. *Some have suggested that the ATP
and A&P combined might be considered the Ph.D. of aviation. *As
someone who has also earned an actual Ph.D. I consider this
laughable. *The associate degree seems more comparable - and that's at
the ATP/A&P level.

That's not to say there is not more to know - there is always more to
know, and it really does make a difference if you really want to get
the most out of your airplane - but the amount of knowledge required
to get the credentials is laughably small, something any bright person
might pick up in his spare time with relatively little effort.

This leads to an interesting disconnect. *In this group, it is not
rare for a rank novice - a student pilot or even someone who has never
flown - to know more than the supposed experts. *This makes the
'experts' uncomfortable - especially when the novice asks questions,
the experts answer, and then the novice proceeds to point out the
logical inconsistencies and factual errors in their answers and
refuses to accept them just because they have credentials and he does
not. *In comp.dsp and sci.engr.chem, just to pick two examples I
happen to be familiar with, that doesn't happen much. *The barrier to
entry is too high.


I think you just gave a nail a headache!

Cheers

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
When pilots take this position, refuting people whom one would imagine
has even greater understanding of the subject, it becomes difficult to
lend credibility simply because they have a pilot's license.

I do not know about you, but given a choice between riding in an airplane
piloted by a certificated pilot who has an incorrect grasp of aerodynamics
and an aerodynamics engineer who has no piloting experience, I'd go with
the certificated pilot. ;-)

This leads to an interesting disconnect. In this group, it is not
rare for a rank novice - a student pilot or even someone who has never
flown - to know more than the supposed experts. This makes the
'experts' uncomfortable - especially when the novice asks questions,
the experts answer, and then the novice proceeds to point out the
logical inconsistencies and factual errors in their answers and
refuses to accept them just because they have credentials and he does
not.

This is the most cogent explanation yet of MX's power over some of the
regulars here. It perfectly explains how he -- a known non-pilot -- is able
to throw many known pilots into apoplectic fits simply by posting a few
relatively innocuous comments.

Since you're on a roll, I'd love to hear your theories about Bertie. To me,
he is twice the mystery of MX, since he's obviously a real (or, at least,
former) pilot -- yet he has an apparently irresistable urge to troll the
group.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On May 22, 3:03*pm, Michael wrote:
The truth of the matter is that in this forum, there is no opportunity
to demonstrate aviation skill - that requires an aircraft. *There is
an opportunity to demonstrate aviation knowledge - but precious little
of that is required to earn any certificate or rating, be it private,
commercial, instrument, CFI, ATP, or A&P. *Of course that's only my
opinion, but at least it's an informed one - since I've earned all of
the above and can compare that to the effort required to earn
corresponding credentials in some of the other groups, of which I
also . *There is little comparison. *Some have suggested that the ATP
and A&P combined might be considered the Ph.D. of aviation. *As
someone who has also earned an actual Ph.D. I consider this
laughable. *The associate degree seems more comparable - and that's at
the ATP/A&P level.

Certainly a plausible explanation.

Ph.D.? Chemistry or?

Should be fun to bug you about wacky ideas I have from time to time to
see if they make sense.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. But it does
take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?






lOn May 22, 9:12 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On May 22, 3:03 pm, Michael wrote:

The truth of the matter is that in this forum, there is no opportunity
to demonstrate aviation skill - that requires an aircraft. There is
an opportunity to demonstrate aviation knowledge - but precious little
of that is required to earn any certificate or rating, be it private,
commercial, instrument, CFI, ATP, or A&P. Of course that's only my
opinion, but at least it's an informed one - since I've earned all of
the above and can compare that to the effort required to earn
corresponding credentials in some of the other groups, of which I
also . There is little comparison. Some have suggested that the ATP
and A&P combined might be considered the Ph.D. of aviation. As
someone who has also earned an actual Ph.D. I consider this
laughable. The associate degree seems more comparable - and that's at
the ATP/A&P level.

Certainly a plausible explanation.

Ph.D.? Chemistry or?

Should be fun to bug you about wacky ideas I have from time to time to
see if they make sense.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

"Tina" wrote in message
...
I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. But it does
take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?


Maybe it's just me, but this seems like an interesting question. Anyone
would have to admit the written and practical exams for and ATP, are
certainly know match when compared to a doctorate. But how can you weight
the knowledge gained from 2000 or 3000 flight hours, especially in the
variety of aircraft and flight conditions required for and ATP, with 200 or
300 college hours?

On May 21, 7:44*am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

... I don't know what strange power MX wields over so many here, but
it's
creepy.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

He's an easy target for peope who only have the courage to post on the
BBS.