Viable alternatives for serious aviation discussion

"The Bunyip Slayer" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote
Looks like we have a winner!

Anthony is NOT here to talk aviation.

Back in high school, when we wanted to bed Mary Jane Rottencrotch, we
didn't
just walk up and say hey, wanna screw?

Neither does Mx. It that respect, he does prove himself much smarter than
many of the "pilots" here, everyday. Are you listening Dudley?


Dudley isn't the problem - I have never seen Dudley respond in any manner
other than to provide an answer to a question. That's what this NG is
supposed to be about after all.

OTOH, there are dozens of posters who go back and forth with the guy
endlessly, eventually resorting to childish name calling and similar
behavior presumably out of frustration. Tell me, how does that help?

Dudley Henriques writes:

It most certainly does work this way. If the student doesn't graduate a
good pilot, the instructor has failed. Therefore the instructor by
definition isn't the good instructor in your example.

I wasn't thinking of the graduation. After the pilot graduates, he flies. A
good pilot is someone who flies well even years after doing what is necessary
to get a license. The same applies to drivers of cars, doctors, lawyers, and
so on. It's one thing to pass a test; it's another to stay competent and/or
perhaps improve over long periods. Instructors have no control over that.

writes:

Most moderated groups would eventually ban you not because of the content
of your posts at first, but because your posts are normally carefully
crafted to **** people off and be disruptive in the long run.

As hard as it may be to believe and accept, people **** themselves off; I
don't do it (nor does any other external party). If you cultivate a certain
mindset and attitude, nothing ****es you off.

Rocky Stevens writes:

I do not actually disagree with people on this NG any more than I do
with people on the AOPA forum (though being new to aviation, I do not
have many strong opinions yet). What I get from the moderated groups
is a much higher signal to noise ratio, as overly personal attacks are
avoided. I think that because people know they will be blocked if they
post some asinine attack, it forces them to put some actual content
into their posts.

A tremendous number of moderated discussion forums have long lists of
unofficially favored and disfavored members. The favored ones routinely
engage in personal attacks and other "violations" with impunity, whereas the
disfavored ones are often accused of violations even when they haven't
committed any. There are _very_ few moderators who can stay cool, distant,
and objective no matter what happens. Most intervene prematurely, too
invasively, and with extreme prejudice (the less experience they have, the
worse they are).

Jay Honeck writes:

What's truly ironic, Anthony, is that I have never read anything you've
posted that would result in you being censored on Pilots of America.

I'm never censored based on content, I'm censored because people don't like
me. Typically I follow all the rules.

On the flipside, many of the people who blast you to kingdom-come every day
would be instantly removed from PofA for their rudeness and personal
attacks. If anyone would benefit from a moderated group, it would be you.

It requires quite a remarkable moderator for that to be true. I have rarely
encountered such moderators.

Yet, you stay here. I can only conclude that you enjoy abuse...

I cannot be banned from a newsgroup, as there are no hamhanded moderators to
censor it.

Jay Honeck writes:

Hmmm....good point. I must confess, it *is* kind of funny/pathetic to watch
how effortlessly he can jerk around pilots who are otherwise (apparently)
logical, even-tempered folks...

I take care to be nice and civil, but I do not engage in the kind of
mollycoddling that some people require in order to stay calm. If they cannot
stand direct, objective discussion, that's their problem, not mine. I do not
have the time or inclination to hold the hands of people who insist on
behaving like children.

writes:

I see you have little experience with real women.

I have a great deal of experience with them, and I tend to prefer their
company because they are less emotional than men. Of course, stupid people of
either sex tend to be excessively emotional, but I try to avoid stupid people.
Most of my female friends are on the smart side of the curve.

Dudley Henriques writes:

You seem to have a very low opinion of men.

They are very emotional and often engage in fairly stereotyped, negative
behaviors, especially as a group.

"If you cultivate a certain mindset and attitude, nothing ****es you off"

Nothing?

What if you get your Dick caught in your zipper when you are late for
a meeting and the boss is right next to your urinal while you writhe in
agony??

It takes a real man to not get ****ed at that!

You are a tough guy

Jim Logajan writes:

Aren't you supposed to weigh risk with the corresponding personal value or
benefit of any particular action?

I do. And that drives me to avoid many types of risk.

I lack the thrill-seeking, irritable, and competitive behavior that afflicts
so many males, so I take fewer risks than most people of my gender.