Thrown out of an FBO...

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 00:58:31 +0000, Judah wrote:
IMHO, the President of the most powerful country in the world shouldn't
do things half-assed. It weakens the country.

Yeah, but if we had done it *right* (i.e. just nuked the whole ****in'
Mid-East), ya'll would be bitchin' about *that* too...

"Grumman-581" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 09:42:52 -0800, karl gruber wrote:
When you finally come out west you and Mary should stop here on the way.
Flight plan to land here with 1.5 hrs gas.
http://www.ruralnetwork.net/johnsoncreek/

What's all that white **** on the ground?

It looks all black to me...

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:17:01 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote in :

Marriage is between a man and woman.

The religious right would deny the child adopted by a same-sex couple
the legitimacy of having (step) parents who are legally married, thus
encouraging out-of-wedlock parenting. :=)

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 11:27:51 -0800, "karl gruber"
wrote:


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Jay filled the courtesy car because he's too cheap to fill his airplane.

Which brings up an interesting point. Would the average FBO rather
have his courtesy car's tank filled, or would he rather pump 8 gallons
of Avgas into a plane that doesn't need gas?

I had 76 gallons on board when I landed, Karl. Making the line guy
bring the truck over didn't make much sense.


He'd MUCH rather sell you fuel. That's his business.

Maybe. OTOH if the overhead is more than the gas he loses money.

Would you rather a customer just spend one night in your hotel, or fill up
your courtesy car?

And a charter pilot might be a cheap ******* by your accounts, but he'd
NEVER go on a one hour flight in a Cherokee with 500 pounds of gas.

500#? I fill the tanks if I'm going to fly to the neighboring airport
to fill the tanks. Around here you never know whether you are going to
make your destination or find yourself landing three states over due
to unexpected weather. I've seen too many run short. One guy did it
three times in two weeks. Don't know if he used the same bean field
each time or not. First two times were fine. He borrowed 5 gallons of
tractor gas and flew it home. Third time he trashed the plane. (He
didn't get hurt)


The Cessna 185 holds 92 gallons of gas. There are times that I like to take
that much fuel, like on floats into the interior of British Columbia. But
for just cruising around, I like to have FUN, and that means a light
airplane for the $200 hamburger.

Awh come on now:-)) A heavier airplane has a higher maneuvering
speed. Load 'er up and you can let it all hang out.

I have tip tanks on mine so I can carry an extra 30 gallons (180#).


Karl
"Curator" N185KG

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 14:02:54 -0500, Jessica Taylor
wrote:

Peter Duniho wrote:

"The Visitor" wrote in message
...
He has nowhere near enough data points to justify a comment describing
"all" charter pilots.

Do you not need more data points to dispute it?

No. To support a blanket generalization, one needs to survey the entire
population. To refute a blanket generalization, one need only survey a
single member of the population, so long as that member is a
counter-example.

If you had ever studied statistics, you would know that is not true. That is
why sample sizes are less than population sizes, and how confidence levels
are relevant.

There probably aren't enough charter pilots to get a meaningful
distribution.

I do know that those flying comutters for the airlines almost need to
have a second job.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 16:12:34 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Not true. The very foundation of Statistics is infering facts about an
entire
population through the use of a much smaller representative sample.

The "facts" that one infers describe a known *portion* of the population.
You cannot prove anything about 100% of a population with statistics. It is
impossible.

Not true. We can prove that a medicine is effective at treating a malady
without testing its effectiveness on 100% of its population.

Isn't that "We can show within a specific margin of error
(probability) what we can expect from the general population?"


You cannot use statistics to prove that a medicine will be effective on 100%
of the population.

The two of you are using different definitions of proof.
Stastical proof and absolute proof.

When it comes to stastics there are usually exceptions to a proof.
It's sorta like side effects from medication. Even when less than the
placeibo they still have to be listed which generally means those side
effects were probably "all in their head" or elsewhere.



We can prove that
chronic smokers have a higher risk of bladder and lung cancers than their
peers
who have never smoked without needing to find the entire populations of
smokers
and non smokers.

The very term "risk" precludes an absolute statement about 100% of the
population. That's why statistics can be used to describe risk. You can
use statistics to prove "risk", but you cannot use statistics to prove
actual outcomes. In this example, you cannot use statistics to prove that
100% of chronic smokers WILL have bladder and lung cancers. The best you
can do is prove that it is likely a certain percentage of them will.

Those are two different things. If you fail to comprehend that, you have no
idea what statistics actually is.

Statistics has nothing to do with it.

Not true but then again, I don't believe that the original poster said
100%.

Any blanket generalization is necessarily applied to the entire population.
That's why blanket generalizations are so offensive in the first place.

I'm not surprised you're having trouble understanding this. You're a woman.
Those people are the least mathematically inclined around!

Pete

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

I don't care.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...


I believe top posting is poor form for Usenet posts.

Budhism is non-theist.

mike
Old guy: i.e. god, allah, etc.

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...


How is that relevant? You said "No such thing as a non-radical in any
religion AFAIC," and didn't bring up any old guys, or young guys for that
matter (until now.)

Well, if you believe there's some supernatural guy watching out for you or
that there's a heaven or hell, you're out of touch enough with reality to be
considered mentally ill. When you base your actions in life on that mental
illness, you could be considered radical, though that's probalby not the
best word.

mike

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...

Apparently Mike thinks that anyone who has a religion is a radical.
Seems somewhat "intolerant" or "bigoted" to me (according to Mike's
way of thinking).

Ron Lee

"mike regish" wrote in message
. ..

Also, Jay filled the tank. He didn't have to.

As the Fbo owner told him. Maybe his way of paying it forward for the
times he couldn't. And then J just walked up and slapped him in the
face...twice.

Jay didn't slap anybody in the face. What's with the hyperbole?

Someday he'll have to deal with some guy just like him,

Well, he's dealing with comments like yours, isn't he?

and hopefully he'll

....deal with it like an adult rather than a spoiled, reactionary teenager.

A big boy with a cool head--the type who might be worthy of being entrusted
with the lives of passengers--might have said "I'm sorry. That comment
offends me because..."

Do you imagine that Jay hasn't had his share of customers with opinions?

-c