Recently, Tom Conner posted:

Okay. This is the entire post I responded to:

"
Intro flights are typically well below $100.

I've already logged nearly a hundred hours in my simulated
Baron, for far less money than that.

But you have not flown for even one minute. 30 minutes in the
air is worth hundreds of hours behind a game.
"

Again, reading comprehension in this group is abysmal. I wonder if it
carries over to the pilot population in general?

Is it?

1) We are not mind readers. We can only base our understanding on what you
choose to present.

2) Although you now state that the above is the "entire post" you
responded to, it includes a comment to a previous post (mine regarding the
cost of intro flights). Therefore, it was reasonable to think that my
comment is somehow relevant. My comment had to do with the benefits of
actual flight experience in comparison to *only* sim time, as that is the
underlying subject of this thread.

3) It is reasonable to presume that responders to a thread are on-topic,
unless otherwise clarified. The original topic was established with the
comment, "While no mention has been made of a physical issue that would
prevent him from working, he has not made that a point as to why he will
not fly planes..." Your post was about people who *do* fly planes, and
thus my comment distinguishing between the original subject and your new
topic is apparently a correct interpretation.

4) According to your above statement, my comment is not relevant to your
point at all, and should have been excluded from your excerpt. Instead,
you went further and tied your post to the original topic with your
comment, "Not to encourage the village idiot..." To make matters worse,
you included my comment *again* in your current message. So, what about my
comment were you responding to, given that I don't see anything regarding
the cost of intro lessons?

If that is your idea of clear writing, then it's a small wonder that you
think that others can't read.

Neil