I give up, after many, many years!

Dudley Henriques writes:

Personal attack must be clearly defined as a cold, unsolicited post
attacking an individual with totally 0 provocation.

That's not a standard definition. A personal attack is an attack against the
person (the poster), rather than his or her arguments. It is a fallacy in
debate, a last resort of the incompetent, and a first resort of the bully.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Dudley Henriques writes:

Personal attack must be clearly defined as a cold, unsolicited post
attacking an individual with totally 0 provocation.

That's not a standard definition. A personal attack is an attack against the
person (the poster), rather than his or her arguments. It is a fallacy in
debate, a last resort of the incompetent, and a first resort of the bully.
Again, the individual interpretation that is the very essense of Usenet.
This definition might not be the "standard" (and just who defines
standard anyway :-) but it's my definition as it applies to my personal
Usenet experience.......again and as always....Usenet defies "standard
definitions".

--
Dudley Henriques

On May 12, 12:55*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Dudley Henriques writes:

Personal attack must be clearly defined as a cold, unsolicited post
attacking an individual with totally 0 provocation.

That's not a standard definition. *A personal attack is an attack against the
person (the poster), rather than his or her arguments. *It is a fallacy in
debate, a last resort of the incompetent, and a first resort of the bully.

Again, the individual interpretation that is the very essense of Usenet.
This definition might not be the "standard" (and just who defines
standard anyway :-) but it's my definition as it applies to my personal
Usenet experience.......again and as always....Usenet defies "standard
definitions".

It is always possible to take something not-provable, but widly
regarded as fact, and claim that it is not a fact do to its subjective
nature.

True or False:

* Britney Spears is famous.
* Water is wet.
* Computerized-control is better at stabilizing aircraft than manual,
human-control.
* Some pilots in rec.aviation.piloting make personal attacks.

Any of these statements can be said to be true or false, depending on
the personal, subjective whims of the assessor.

What is important, IMO, is that the assessor asks himself on a case-by-
case basis whether he is being consistently objective or momentarily
subjective as a matter of rhetorical convenience.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On May 12, 12:55 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Dudley Henriques writes:
Personal attack must be clearly defined as a cold, unsolicited post
attacking an individual with totally 0 provocation.
That's not a standard definition. A personal attack is an attack against the
person (the poster), rather than his or her arguments. It is a fallacy in
debate, a last resort of the incompetent, and a first resort of the bully.
Again, the individual interpretation that is the very essense of Usenet.
This definition might not be the "standard" (and just who defines
standard anyway :-) but it's my definition as it applies to my personal
Usenet experience.......again and as always....Usenet defies "standard
definitions".

It is always possible to take something not-provable, but widly
regarded as fact, and claim that it is not a fact do to its subjective
nature.

True or False:

* Britney Spears is famous.
* Water is wet.
* Computerized-control is better at stabilizing aircraft than manual,
human-control.
* Some pilots in rec.aviation.piloting make personal attacks.

Any of these statements can be said to be true or false, depending on
the personal, subjective whims of the assessor.

What is important, IMO, is that the assessor asks himself on a case-by-
case basis whether he is being consistently objective or momentarily
subjective as a matter of rhetorical convenience.

-Le Chaud Lapin-
All can be said to be true at any given moment in time.
The bottom line on Usenet as I see it anyway, is in how the individual
sees his/her own interaction with the venue.
When it's all said and done, it will be only this interpretation that
defines the Usenet experience for a specific user.
I agree that it's confusing, and difficult to define; hence this
exchange as an example.
The main thing is that individuals be allowed to express opinion without
attack, but as I'm sure each of us is aware, difficult to achieve on a
consistent basis.
Anyone posting to Usenet for any length of time will eventually be
attacked and most likely assume an online posture more aggressive than
that experienced in everyday life.
The exact placing of the blame for this phenomenon remains for me
anyway, extremely difficult to define clearly and to an exact answer.

--
Dudley Henriques

On May 12, 11:08*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

I should hope that most pilots were not this bad, and it seems that they are
not. *I'm not sure why so many pilots in this newsgroup fit the description;
perhaps it is a combination of personality characteristics that produces it.

On May 12, 11:10*am, HARRY POTTER wrote:

Don't think I'm just ragging on old people. There are plenty older pilots I
know who are very well mannered. One pilot who comes to mind is that guy
who landed the airliner using nothing but the throttles after a complete
control system failure. I saw a documentary about him, as was really
impressed by his humility. I once saw Bob Hoover give a talk and he came
off the same way. I find that the ones who really have had great fulfilling
careers are the ones who are able to rise above all the cockyness. The ones
who have really had their hero moments. Why would you need to put down
others when you've already got it made? It's the ones who I guess have been
let down by the promise of being a hero of some sort who feel the need to
be bitter towards others. I don't know, just my two cents.

I like the Bob Hoover comments. I have heard the guy speak at aviation
functions, meet him personally, and read his book and I dont think you
will find anyone as gracious and unasuming. Yeager on the other hand
was an hour and a half of listening to him tell everyone how great he
is . I think some of these heros start to believe all the hype and
let it get to their heads.

Mxsmanic wrote:

A personal attack is an attack against the
person (the poster)

Well, that's a good thing to know. In your case, then, it's impossible
to make a personal attack. You're not a person. You're just a name on
a screen. Thus, you've never been personally attacked.
--
dgs

F. Baum writes:

Partially agree here. At work I see the types who have to make sure
evryone at a party knows they are a pilot. They drive around town
running errands 3 hours before sign in IN their uniforms, they have
mailboxes shaped like an F16, they have a jet engine for a ringtone on
the cellphone etc. Most of these guys are a pain to have to fly with.
Their entire persona is wraped up with being a pilot. Mebbie they just
need something better to do on their days off.

There are really such pilots? It sounds like some sort of Hollywood parody.

F. Baum wrote:
On May 12, 11:10 am, HARRY POTTER wrote:
Don't think I'm just ragging on old people. There are plenty older pilots I
know who are very well mannered. One pilot who comes to mind is that guy
who landed the airliner using nothing but the throttles after a complete
control system failure. I saw a documentary about him, as was really
impressed by his humility. I once saw Bob Hoover give a talk and he came
off the same way. I find that the ones who really have had great fulfilling
careers are the ones who are able to rise above all the cockyness. The ones
who have really had their hero moments. Why would you need to put down
others when you've already got it made? It's the ones who I guess have been
let down by the promise of being a hero of some sort who feel the need to
be bitter towards others. I don't know, just my two cents.

I like the Bob Hoover comments. I have heard the guy speak at aviation
functions, meet him personally, and read his book and I dont think you
will find anyone as gracious and unasuming. Yeager on the other hand
was an hour and a half of listening to him tell everyone how great he
is . I think some of these heros start to believe all the hype and
let it get to their heads.

My exact opinion on both these individuals.

--
Dudley Henriques

Mxsmanic wrote:
F. Baum writes:

Partially agree here. At work I see the types who have to make sure
evryone at a party knows they are a pilot. They drive around town
running errands 3 hours before sign in IN their uniforms, they have
mailboxes shaped like an F16, they have a jet engine for a ringtone on
the cellphone etc. Most of these guys are a pain to have to fly with.
Their entire persona is wraped up with being a pilot. Mebbie they just
need something better to do on their days off.

There are really such pilots? It sounds like some sort of Hollywood parody.
There are, just as there are pilots with good solid personalities. There
is also a third scenario to envision; that being a pilot with a good
solid personality who is visualized as being other than this by someone
or others with personality problems of their own.

--
Dudley Henriques