If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Please ignore Mx
Please, everyone, if you don't know the history of this group, let me tell you... Don't ever respond to MX. He was the primary reason this formerly vital and active group (around 200 posts per day) has been all but abandoned. He is death to any group he touches. -- Jim in NC |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Please ignore Mx
Morgans writes:
Please, everyone, if you don't know the history of this group, let me tell you... Don't ever respond to MX. He was the primary reason this formerly vital and active group (around 200 posts per day) has been all but abandoned. He is death to any group he touches. The only post I see in this group today is this one. Will you be joining my fan club, given that you are more interested in posting about me than about aviation? And I haven't had anything to do with the decline of this group. Like most Usenet groups, it has been damaged by spam and a general lack of interest. The most recent flame war didn't involve me at all, but I did observe it in disappointed amazement. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Please ignore Mx
On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 13:01:32 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
Morgans writes: Please, everyone, if you don't know the history of this group, let me tell you... Don't ever respond to MX. He was the primary reason this formerly vital and active group (around 200 posts per day) has been all but abandoned. He is death to any group he touches. The only post I see in this group today is this one. Will you be joining my fan club, given that you are more interested in posting about me than about aviation? And I haven't had anything to do with the decline of this group. Like most Usenet groups, it has been damaged by spam and a general lack of interest. The most recent flame war didn't involve me at all, but I did observe it in disappointed amazement. Hey I just want to give you a blow job. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Please ignore Mx
Dan writes:
Hey I just want to give you a blow job. Thank you for the offer, but I am not interested in homosexuality or sex in general (if that is what you are referring to). I am interested in aviation, though. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Please ignore Mx
I am one of the 'used to be" regulars on this newgroup. Mx provided some entertainment and interesting threads, but its death was driven by others engaged in ****ing contests. Examine the history for all of the evidence you might need.
I check in, as Jim in NC does, from time to time, but would suggest a DNR is a suitable final post. The old group had some real benefits -- I am. I think, a better pilot for having read some postings, but the worthwhile comments were swamped by nonsense posts, until they all went away. I am among those who do NOT lay the blame on MX. On Monday, May 28, 2012 8:02:46 PM UTC-4, Nomen Nescio wrote: "Morgans" wrote: Please, everyone, if you don't know the history of this group, let me tell you... Don't ever respond to MX. He was the primary reason this formerly vital and active group (around 200 posts per day) has been all but abandoned. He is death to any group he touches. -- Jim in NC Sounds like nonsense to me. A few years ago I recall claims in this group being made that were not mathematically sound. When challenged, (and verifiable proof to the contrary was posted), accusations and attacks of "MXing" came out, instead of sound reasoning as to why someones unexplained viewpoint must be accepted. I don't know MX, but he seems to be surrounded by fools who expect blind acceptance of opinions (expressed as fact), as opposed to using good logic or sound math. I actually left the newsgroup because of what seemed to be foolish regulars who use mob rule to force unsubstantiated opinions down ones throat. I left because of those surrounding and attacking MXmaniac and anyone who tried to discuss topics logically. I just stepped into the newsgroup today for the first time in years, and find this gem of a post. Guess I'll have to give a few years more. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Please ignore Mx
Nomen Nescio wrote
Sounds like nonsense to me.............. Same here. I spent much of my Navy and Airline career evaluating pilots for employment or retention. I found Mx to use far better logic than many of the amateur pilots in this group. But...he was not a REAL pilot. My argument that not even FAA certificated Ground Instructors are required to be pilots fell on deaf ears. Real pilots certainly did not like to be out-argued. Bob Moore |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Please ignore Mx
Nomen Nescio writes:
I don't know MX, but he seems to be surrounded by fools who expect blind acceptance of opinions (expressed as fact), as opposed to using good logic or sound math. Most people adopt their opinions from others, rather than develop their own opinions based on facts they research or encounter themselves. It's easier to simply copy someone else's opinions wholesale, and it requires less intelligence. Unfortunately, adopting someone else's opinions makes a person highly vulnerable to manipulation, and impairs the ability to make sound decisions. It often goes hand in hand with allowing emotion to control one's behavior, rather than reason. A person who copies his opinions cannot defend them, since he has no idea how they were arrived at. And if those opinions are long-standing, anything that threatens them can be uncomfortable and destabilizing, such that the person who holds them may react emotionally and irrationally to any request, implied or direct, to defend such opinions. I am good at recognizing opinions that have been copied from those of other people, and I ask people holding such opinions to defend them. Of course, they cannot, and so a considerable debate ensues, which they invariably lose. Ideally, this would incite them to start developing their own opinions, but few people actually progress in that way. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Please ignore Mx
On Monday, May 28, 2012 9:15:40 PM UTC-4, Bob Moore wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote Sounds like nonsense to me.............. Same here. I spent much of my Navy and Airline career evaluating pilots for employment or retention. I found Mx to use far better logic than many of the amateur pilots in this group. But...he was not a REAL pilot. My argument that not even FAA certificated Ground Instructors are required to be pilots fell on deaf ears. Real pilots certainly did not like to be out-argued. Bob Moore True, but it helps a great deal if those pilots are right. :-) Dudley Henriques |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Please ignore Mx
On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 5:55:31 AM UTC-4, Mxsmanic wrote:
Nomen Nescio writes: I don't know MX, but he seems to be surrounded by fools who expect blind acceptance of opinions (expressed as fact), as opposed to using good logic or sound math. Most people adopt their opinions from others, rather than develop their own opinions based on facts they research or encounter themselves. It's easier to simply copy someone else's opinions wholesale, and it requires less intelligence. Unfortunately, adopting someone else's opinions makes a person highly vulnerable to manipulation, and impairs the ability to make sound decisions. It often goes hand in hand with allowing emotion to control one's behavior, rather than reason. A person who copies his opinions cannot defend them, since he has no idea how they were arrived at. And if those opinions are long-standing, anything that threatens them can be uncomfortable and destabilizing, such that the person who holds them may react emotionally and irrationally to any request, implied or direct, to defend such opinions. I am good at recognizing opinions that have been copied from those of other people, and I ask people holding such opinions to defend them. Of course, they cannot, and so a considerable debate ensues, which they invariably lose. Ideally, this would incite them to start developing their own opinions, but few people actually progress in that way. It's strange I know, but I'm one of those "pilots" who when everything was considered, really never had any serious problems with you. We had our disagreements to be sure, but I've never seen you as this horrible "threat" to Usenet some others have adopted. In fact, I believe I've commented from time to time that I felt the posts attacking you far outnumbered any posts from you that I personally might have found objectionable. I think if I had to pinpoint a single thing that I would have advised you to do on a forum where actual pilots are posting, it would have been for you to have adopted a slightly more "question" persona as opposed to a "statement" persona. Most pilots are reasonable. Many have either vast military experience or have expended tremendous amounts of resources in experience and education. Moore is right. Pilots don't react well to being 'equalized" by people who don't fly. It's that simple really. You want to make a statement, you have to pay your dues first, THEN make the statement. You want to ASK a question, ASK! Most pilots welcome the opportunity to show the world what they know. On the flip side of that, it helps a LOT if pilots actually know what they are talking about. Some do, some don't, but the fact that you don't fly is still the elephant in the room. There's a right way to disagree with someone and a wrong way to disagree. You might be right, and you might win the battle, but with other pilots watching you and how you're conducting all this "correcting", you probably aren't going to win the war! Discretion is a virtue. Respect can't be demanded. It has to be earned. Dudley Henriques |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Please ignore Mx
Dudley Henriques writes:
It's strange I know, but I'm one of those "pilots" who when everything was considered, really never had any serious problems with you. You are more civil than most, but you have shown considerable irritation at times. Your irritation is tempered by the fact that you often actually know what you are talking about. Others are not so lucky. We had our disagreements to be sure, but I've never seen you as this horrible "threat" to Usenet some others have adopted. When you know you are right, you don't feel threatened by others with different opinions. And of course, if they are also right, you have no disagreement to begin with. Since I often echo concepts and principles that have long been accepted as correct and valid by the best minds in aviation, it goes without saying that other people (pilots or not) who are also aware of these concepts and principles will have no quarrel with me. People who are misinformed and have issues with insecurity will argue with me. They are more interested in preserving their egos than they are in actually being right. Smart people correct themselves when they discover that they are wrong. Stupid people stubbornly persist in being wrong, even when they know they are wrong. Sometimes this leads to bad things, like airplane crashes. In fact, I believe I've commented from time to time that I felt the posts attacking you far outnumbered any posts from you that I personally might have found objectionable. That is indisputably true. Kids who are arguing out of emotion rather than reason become increasingly aggressive and voluble as their position erodes. I think if I had to pinpoint a single thing that I would have advised you to do on a forum where actual pilots are posting, it would have been for you to have adopted a slightly more "question" persona as opposed to a "statement" persona. Sorry, but I don't give anyone deference by default. If they are wrong, they're wrong, no matter who they are. I ask questions when I want to know things, but when I see that someone else is misinformed, I provide a correction. Nothing will prevent me from doing the latter. If Chesley Sullenberger himself enters this group and says something that is manifestly incorrect, I'll correct him. But something tells me that he'd never make that kind of mistake in the first place. Most pilots are reasonable. The reasonable ones are not the ones who attack anyone who disagrees with them. Many have either vast military experience or have expended tremendous amounts of resources in experience and education. Military experience is relevant only to military discussions. Airplanes fly the same way in the military as they do in civilian life, whatever Maverick and Iceman might believe. Often people become so fixated on me that they don't pay attention to the discussion. Once they become convinced that they must "win," they will ignore all reason and logic in their increasingly strident posts. But if I'm right, I'll stay right no matter what they say, so the time they spend attacking me is time wasted. Moore is right. Pilots don't react well to being 'equalized" by people who don't fly. Then they need to grow up. There's no magic in being a pilot. If a brain surgeon tells me that he can operate without establishing a sterile field around the incision, I'll tell him he's wrong, because he is. It doesn't matter how many surgeries he's done or how many millions of years of experience he has. Wrong is wrong, and often being right or wrong is easy to objectively establish for anyone willing to look things up. I've had pilots argue with me in direct contradiction to FAA regulations, for example, even when I quote the regulations to them. What they didn't know in many cases was the depth of my research. On one occasion, I had just finished talking to the FAA in Washington, and had obtained the absolute final word on the interpretation of a regulation, and yet still the pilot argued with me. If only he knew how stupid he looked. It's that simple really. You want to make a statement, you have to pay your dues first, THEN make the statement. Sorry, I don't do the hazing thing. If I'm right, I'm right, dues or no dues. If I'm wrong, well, paying dues isn't going to make me right. That sort of thing is for little boys, who are wired to compete and form simplistic hierarchical command and control structures. But it has nothing to do with being right or wrong. You want to ASK a question, ASK! I do. And if someone says something that's obviously wrong, I correct, too. Most pilots welcome the opportunity to show the world what they know. They even welcome the opportunity to parade their ignorance, in many cases. Fortunately, it's harmless in this group, but a lot of them end up in NTSB reports. Mother Nature cannot be bullied or intimidated. On the flip side of that, it helps a LOT if pilots actually know what they are talking about. Some do, some don't, but the fact that you don't fly is still the elephant in the room. That's their problem. They just need to grow up. Of course, if they were grown up and mature, they probably wouldn't be afflicted by their ignorance, since they would have corrected their mistakes long ago. There's a right way to disagree with someone and a wrong way to disagree. Not for me. The difference exists only for kids, and I'm not a kid. You might be right, and you might win the battle, but with other pilots watching you and how you're conducting all this "correcting", you probably aren't going to win the war! It's not a war. In most cases, it's a march towards aviation safety. Pilots who are wrong die a lot. Respect can't be demanded. It has to be earned. I agree ... but that rather conflicts with your other suggestions, doesn't it? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Test - ignore | Gary G | Piloting | 0 | September 28th 04 03:07 PM |
another test - ignore | Ernie | Soaring | 0 | February 14th 04 10:39 AM |
test-ignore | Ernie | Soaring | 0 | February 14th 04 10:31 AM |
ignore this | bangbang | Owning | 1 | December 28th 03 12:24 AM |
test - please ignore | X | Soaring | 1 | July 20th 03 08:50 PM |