-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Larry Dighera wrote:

From the tone of your response it seems that you are taking the
corrective comments you received as a personal attack rather than
informative comment. That probably isn't the best sort of
personality/demeanor for a controller to possess.

If you were truly a candidate to become an Air Traffic Controller, you
would have found the pertinent section(s) in FAA Order 7110.65 and
discovered that it fails to mandate reading back clearances. But you
took the comments as personal insults rather than objective
information and got your feelings hurt. If you're going to be a
controller, you've got to cool and objective. Work on it.


I agree. I did take comments here as insulting. But when you
have someone here telling you that you're ignorant, it's rather hard
not to take that as insulting. Double that coming from a controller. It
really makes you want to rethink entering the field if a potential
coworker, who should be helping you on it (albeit, he is helping) while
not berating you with the next word out of his mouth. I admitted that I
was wrong, and that you're right, the .65P doesn't mandate reading back
clearances. But on the other hand, I deserve more respect than being
insulted, let alone more respect for admitting that I was wrong.

But you're right. I should, and will work on it.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCf8nMyBkZmuMZ8L8RAkElAJwJjKAEmS+Dy5y04gRiFx cpMLki1ACglk0O
kDyhMWyeBWMxYIAbtzEj/+w=
=8O48
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----