"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:_Z8se.1136$eV4.769@fed1read01...
I don't think anyone is saying she is expected to fill anyone's shoes.

Sure seems like that, in context of my original statements. Why bother
replying otherwise? I said Bax was a unique writer, unlikely to be matched
for a long time, if ever. Then someone ELSE brought up Lane Wallace's name.

How did her name get into this thread at all, if not as a suggestion of
someone who could match Bax's ability?

[...] Bax, however, had the advantage of knowing some of the giants of
aviation and had a few more years worth of experiences to draw from.

Bax had a way with words that both predated, and did not depend on, his
personal contacts and advanced years.

There are lots of qualified writers, in aviation and elsewhere. No one is
saying that Lane Wallace isn't one of them. However, one can count on one
hand, with fingers left over, the number who are in the same class with Bax.
That was the sole point of my post.

Lane Wallace is not one of those in the same class with Bax, but my original
post never even mentioned her, not was it the point to call out all the
aviation writers who do NOT meet the bar Bax set long ago. Still, in the
context of my post, whether or not she is qualified to meet the standards of
Flying Magazine's editorial content is irrelevant, and has not been
questioned in any case.

I suppose it's just the nature of Usenet that a post praising someone
recently deceased could degenerate into defensiveness and argumentiveness.
But frankly, I think it's pretty dumb for that to have happened. What is it
about Usenet that my comments could not have simply be left to stand as they
were?

Pete