I give up, after many, many years!

Tina writes:

¤The average person does not know how to use a circular slide rule.
The average pilot does, The private pilot must solve wind triangles, a
form of vector analysis, must demonstrate some skill in navigation,
enough gas theory to understand the dynamics of weather systems,
enough physics to know about lapse rates, and so on. The average
person does not.

All of these skills are trivial and largely unrelated to those I mentioned.

terry writes:

Thats a ridiculous statement and non logical at all. There are so
many barriers to gaining a pilots license ( as you would know) that it
would be self evident to any reasonable person that pilots ( even
private ones) must be skewed towards higher education , intelligence,
income and determination than the population as a whole ( ie your
average person).

That's wishful thinking. While there is surely some bias in favor of higher
intelligence, it's overly optimistic to assume that this bias is significant,
even in airline pilots.

Anyone can learn to fly an aircraft by rote.

Steve Foley writes:

I have seen quite a few examples where you were wrong. I have also pointed
these out.

You've disagreed with me, nothing more.

terry writes:

well if you are not sure, it would be polite to say so instead of
using your usual authorative tone ...

There's nothing authoritative about my tone.

That pretty much says it all. You want people to help you but you
dont give a **** what they feel or how you treat them.

I care much more about them than they do about me.

I gave you an example, cacluculating the density of a parcel of
atmosphere from the gas laws.

You just plug in the numbers and do the arithmetic by rote for most
calculations. Nothing particularly advanced or difficult about that.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Steve Foley writes:

I have seen quite a few examples where you were wrong. I have also
pointed
these out.

You've disagreed with me, nothing more.

The 'disagreement' that comes to mind was when you were applying the
incorrect trigonometric function to a vector analysis problem.

I guess you can simply re-define anything you choose. Unfortunately, the
civilized world will probably disagree with your definitions as well.

On May 31, 1:02*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
terry writes:
well if you are not sure, it would be polite to say so instead of
using your usual authorative tone ...

There's nothing authoritative about my tone.

That pretty much says it all. *You want people to help you but you
dont give a **** what they feel or how you treat them.

I care much more about them than they do about me.

I gave you an example, cacluculating the density of a parcel of
atmosphere from the gas laws.

You just plug in the numbers and do the arithmetic by rote for most
calculations. *Nothing particularly advanced or difficult about that.

I neither said it was advanced or difficult, only that it was correct,
and obvious to anyone with a basic grasp of the gas laws. In fact it
was I who made the point in my original thread that it was nothing
more than high school science. But the point is you claimed ( again)
to know what you really didnt. My gut feel is that you probably do
understand you were wrong now, but as I said in my previous post and
others have noted ad nauseum, you will not admit to being wrong. You
have confirmed this once again. And yes Anthony , I do arithmetic by
rote. How do you do arithmetic, by first principles?
Terry
PPL Downunder





Terry

On Thu, 29 May 2008 15:36:35 -0800, Temporal Voyager Onideus Mad Hatter
, in a desperate attempt to change the
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk timestream, said:

On 28 May 2008 01:48:35 GMT, gregvk wrote:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote in news:g1icla$8o3$1
:

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
I don;t have to show anything.

Is there some sort of prize awarded when one gets a person to respond
with that sentence? Anybody know?

Of course.

Oh, yeah, the lame attempt at froup snipping...

I wouldn't.

You give yourself good advice. Eliding groups from the Newsgroups
header isn't right for everyone - ask your doctor if it's right for you.

Moi? I never snip froups.

As to the "literal" thing. someone who jumps into a shark's mouth is not
wht you might call a figurative fjukkwit.

"Jim Logjam" is a funny name.

That's what I'd name my kid if I wanted to make sure he got teased by
other kids to the point of turning into a word class loser with severe
psychological problems.

This from the retard whose parents named him "Greg".

Like a guy who named *himself* "Onideus" has any room to complain.

On teh Internet you can try and hide how pathetic you are

And yet Matty fails completely at it, *every ****ing time*.


--
Lorrill Buyens
MHM: 9x1; Smeeter: #21; WSD: #3; Gutter Chix0r: #19
Alcatroll Labs; Sex, Drugs and Rock 'n' Roll Division

"dsysm, its sooooo smooth and clesr."
- Dave Hillstrom's ringing endorsement of mead, in
aav3f

Steve Foley writes:

The 'disagreement' that comes to mind was when you were applying the
incorrect trigonometric function to a vector analysis problem.

Which problem was that?

I know that when people learn something by rote, they often will not recognize
equally valid statements of the theory behind what they've learned. I've seen
this happen even with extremely experienced pilots. They learn something by
rote, you give a theoretical explanation thereof that they've never heard, and
since they don't know any underlying theory themselves (remember, they learned
by rote), they think the theory is wrong. It would be amusing if it were not
so unfortunate.

I guess you can simply re-define anything you choose. Unfortunately, the
civilized world will probably disagree with your definitions as well.

There are lots of stupid people in the world, and lots of people who are
familiar with rote learning only. Rote learning is what allows the majority
of the population to survive in a technologically complex world.

terry writes:

And yes Anthony , I do arithmetic by
rote. How do you do arithmetic, by first principles?

I've at least examined it theoretically.

Anyway, all the air pressure on our planet results from gravity, not
temperature or confinement or anything else.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

I know that when people learn something by rote, they often will not
recognize
equally valid statements of the theory behind what they've learned.

I didn't learn math and physics by rote.