Viable alternatives for serious aviation discussion

Mxsmanic wrote:
John Godwin writes:

You are a perfect example of a failed educational system. Freedom of
speech (as in the Constitution) applies only to what the government
can't do.

Freedom of speech is a general principle that has no specific
connection to government.

Describe a scenario under which the "freedom of speech" principle or
concept is applicable to communications among private entities that doesn't
implicitly or explicitly involve government.

Dudley Henriques writes:

A great deal of what either makes a "driver" or a "pilot" depends
heavily on the initial CFI experience. I've had pilots come through my
aerobatic program with 20K hours who couldn't fly their way out of a
paper bag. Conversely, I've had comparatively low time pilots trained by
extremely good instructors who could fly the airplane while blowing up
the paper bag. Almost everything in flying is relative to that initial
training curve.

With large amounts of experience, the personality of the student is more
important than the influence of the instructor. Some people will continue to
learn on their own without any prodding, others will immediately stop learning
as soon as the instructor is gone and they've learned enough to do the job.

Dudley Henriques writes:

Obviously, moderated forums are not for you. I know a WHOLE lot of
people who will deeply appreciate that fact :-)

I can't recall ever encountering competent moderators, and incompetent ones
inevitably clash with me. I was not satisfied with my own performance as a
moderator, either (although I was better than the run of the mill), and I
didn't like the job.

Jim Logajan writes:

Describe a scenario under which the "freedom of speech" principle or
concept is applicable to communications among private entities that doesn't
implicitly or explicitly involve government.

It applies to every situation and circumstance. If you are allowed to speak
without restriction, you have freedom of speech. If you are prevented from
speaking or your words are intercepted before they are heard, you do not have
freedom of speech. Extreme penalties for speaking also have a chilling
effect.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Dudley Henriques writes:

A great deal of what either makes a "driver" or a "pilot" depends
heavily on the initial CFI experience. I've had pilots come through
my aerobatic program with 20K hours who couldn't fly their way out of
a paper bag. Conversely, I've had comparatively low time pilots
trained by extremely good instructors who could fly the airplane
while blowing up the paper bag. Almost everything in flying is
relative to that initial training curve.

With large amounts of experience, the personality of the student is
more important than the influence of the instructor. Some people will
continue to learn on their own without any prodding, others will
immediately stop learning as soon as the instructor is gone and
they've learned enough to do the job.


Wheras you never learn


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Dudley Henriques writes:

Obviously, moderated forums are not for you. I know a WHOLE lot of
people who will deeply appreciate that fact :-)

I can't recall ever encountering competent moderators, and incompetent
ones inevitably clash with me. I was not satisfied with my own
performance as a moderator, either (although I was better than the run
of the mill), and I didn't like the job.

You don't like any job.....



Bertie

writes:

By the government.

By anyone. Freedom of speech is independent of the venue.

You're confusing laws that guarantee or eliminate freedom of speech with the
freedom itself.

You have no right to say anything to any individual or group of
individuals who don't wish to listen to you.

Oh yes, you do. They don't have to listen. If nobody had the right to speak
unless everyone else within earshot approved of what he said, the world would
be a very sad and bizarre place.

Your ability to "say" something facilited by privately owned facilities,
whether it be a supermarket bulletin board or an ISP, is at the
pleasure and discretion of the facilities owner.

If the owner provides the medium, yes. Many owners are strong supporters of
freedom of speech and will not interfere. In some cases, non-interference
also protects them legally.

You can rant all day on any subject you want in a public park, but not
in a mall parking lot if the mall owner doesn't want you there.

And if the mall owner doesn't care, you can rant all you want in the parking
lot, and other people have to hear you.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Jim Logajan writes:

Describe a scenario under which the "freedom of speech" principle or
concept is applicable to communications among private entities that
doesn't implicitly or explicitly involve government.

It applies to every situation and circumstance. If you are allowed to
speak without restriction, you have freedom of speech. If you are
prevented from speaking or your words are intercepted before they are
heard, you do not have freedom of speech. Extreme penalties for
speaking also have a chilling effect.


You are an idiot.


Bertie

Dudley Henriques writes:

Try standing in front of most anyone on this forum and saying "You don't
have the guts to slam me in the teeth". If you like I'll pick out
somebody for you.

Smart people don't want to go to prison, so I'd probably pick someone smart.

You can spend years in prison for hitting someone; only very stupid people
disregard that risk.

Instant example that there are consequences for total unrestrained
freedom of speech that might stay with you for awhile.

More like an example of how people resort to metaphors of violence when they
are angered by opinions that differ from their own. It's very common among
men, far less common among women.

Nomen Nescio writes:

Then you're living in the wrong country, Dip****.

There isn't any country that guarantees unfettered freedom of speech. There
just aren't enough people around who believe in the freedom that strongly.
Most are eager to enjoy freedom of speech themselves, but extremely opposed to
granting it to others with whom they disagree--and often they cannot see the
parallels between the two.