K l e i n writes:

Jay, folks in this group dismiss his ideas about instrument flight in
the same way that someone who's been married for over 40 years would
dismiss a lecture on sexual technique from a 7 year old. Maybe the 7
year old is precocious and has read a lot of books and seen a lot of
magazines, but he still has nothing to offer to an experienced adult.

If I do indeed repeat what I read, and the information came from reliable
sources and was correct when I read it, why would it cease to be correct when
I repeat it?

I prefer reliable sources to self-proclaimed pilots blowing smoke on a
newsgroup. When the latter start arguing with the former, I know I've
stumbled losers.

When I read something here that I haven't seen before, I look it up. If what
I've read here correlates well with my other sources, I assume it is correct;
if it conflicts dramatically with my other sources, I assume it is incorrect.
Many "pilots" here say things that conflict dramatically with all my other
sources; I discard what they say. A few say things that do not conflict with
my other sources; I accept what they say.

I won't name "pilots" who are constantly saying incorrect things, as that
would embarrass them, and additionally they are legion. However, I can name
one pilot who regularly echoes what my other sources say: Dudley. (He's not
the only one, simply the first one who came to mind.) While he seems to find
me just as irritating as so many other people here, when I check up on what he
says I usually find strong positive correlations. Even so, if he says
something that conflicts with my other sources, I will still call him on it.
And conversely, if one of the losers on the group manages to say something
that can be independently verified, I'll still accept it (but that doesn't
happen very often).

If I dispute something that someone says, it means that they've said something
that conflicts when other sources I've consulted. No amount of personal
attack or other diversionary tactics will cause me to forget the conflict, so
I'm not sure why anyone bothers with that.

Pretty much the same thing applies to you in this regard as you have
only made it to somewhere between second and third base in the IFR
realm.

What you're really saying is that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid.

What you need to do, if you wish to persuade refractory persons like myself,
is explain and support your assertions. Simply saying that someone else is
wrong makes absolutely no dent on people like me. You have to be able to
substantiate your assertion. If you cannot, it goes directly into the
bitbucket. I'm not interested in hearing about your credentials, experience,
or other questionable claims to fame. I'm only interested in hearing direct
support of your assertions. If you don't have that, I will ignore those
assertions, even if you're Chuck Yeager.

People who really do know things are always able to explain those things and
are generally willing to do so. People who don't know things always insist
that you take them at their word because they are so enormously competent (in
their own minds).

There are a lot of people on this group who are quite
experienced in IFR flight and I might be one of them. But I still
welcome the opportunity to learn from those who have earned my
respect. The IFR virgins should shut up, listen and learn.

You don't have to earn my respect; you just have to be right. If I find that
you are not right, I won't listen to you. If I find that you are right, I'll
listen. It doesn't matter what experience you have. What matters is what you
actually know.

And I suggest that others here regard me in the same way. It will save them
from looking stupid when I say something that is demonstrably correct and they
feel compelled to disagree publicly with it just because I'm the one who said
it.