Who does flight plans?

Oh lighten up. The supposedly offensive post was just an attempt at
being entertaining. Nothing wrong with that and it was better than this
spittle.

The original:
"To send us off on another tangent, and one that I haven't seen mentioned
in this thread before, it's "ded-reckoning", not "dead-reckoning". The
"ded" stands for "deduced", not whatever "dead" might stand for other
than the obvious."

We now return you to your regularly scheduled navigation argument.

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote in message
...

[...]
I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong - are you?


Sure. I'm not perfect. I have admitted to being wrong several times here,
the rare instances it happened.

My post was less-than-kind simply because your post was as well. I realize
Usenet is the perfect forum for petty nit-picking, but that doesn't make it
okay. Whether it's ded or dead, it was clear that everyone involved knew
what we were talking about. Your post had no point, other than to (falsely,
as it happens) claim some superior knowledge. It contributed nothing to the
discussion, and was no more useful than a post the purpose of which was
solely to correct a spelling or grammar error.

Those kinds of posts **** me off. If it were actually important to correct
spelling or grammar errors here on Usenet, each thread would be half
messages about spelling and grammar. Clearly it's not important, but still
every now and then, some smug "I know something you don't" person comes
along and posts nothing but a correction to spelling or grammar.

And by the way, as person who works very hard to ensure his posts are as
free of spelling and grammatical errors as possible, I feel I have the right
to assert that such errors really aren't all that important. I do the work
because it's important TO ME, not because I think it's a critical need in
the newsgroup.

Such posts are, whether worded nicely or not, simply belittling. They imply
that the person or people to whom they refer are somehow ignorant or
otherwise less-worthy of consideration, based on no greater evidence than a
simple spelling or grammatical error.

It's irritating enough when they are correct, but when they actually aren't,
it's even more annoying. Annoyances beget rude posts. Even more so when
that's the first contribution a person has made in a month.

I should probably be following the old adage, "if you have nothing good to
say, say nothing at all". But that cuts both ways. You should have thought
about that yourself before posting your message.

Pete

"Maule Driver" wrote in message
...
Oh lighten up. The supposedly offensive post was just an attempt at being
entertaining.

We'll just have to disagree on that claim. I saw no smiley, and found the
post far from entertaining.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote in message
...
[...]
I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong - are you?

Sure. I'm not perfect. I have admitted to being wrong several times
here, the rare instances it happened.

My post was less-than-kind simply because your post was as well. I
realize Usenet is the perfect forum for petty nit-picking, but that
doesn't make it okay. Whether it's ded or dead, it was clear that
everyone involved knew what we were talking about. Your post had no
point, other than to (falsely, as it happens) claim some superior
knowledge. It contributed nothing to the discussion, and was no more
useful than a post the purpose of which was solely to correct a spelling
or grammar error.

Those kinds of posts **** me off. If it were actually important to
correct spelling or grammar errors here on Usenet, each thread would be
half messages about spelling and grammar. Clearly it's not important, but
still every now and then, some smug "I know something you don't" person
comes along and posts nothing but a correction to spelling or grammar.

Becuzz I'm in agreemint with youre pazishun about knot kerrecting posts
jest to bee doing somthing, I offer the following in regards to Dead
Reckoning:

The Dictionary of Misinformation says of the "deduced" theory, "There is no
evidence for such a belief." The Oxford English Dictionary says that the
term is from the adjective "dead" and doesn't deign to even discuss the
supposed derivation from "deduced". The Oxford Dictionary of English
Etymology provides the final nail in the coffin: "a proposed etym. ded., for
deduced, has no justification." [From:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/...eckoning.html]

Regards,

Casey

Casey Wilson wrote:
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

"Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote in message
...

[...]
I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong - are you?

Sure. I'm not perfect. I have admitted to being wrong several times
here, the rare instances it happened.

My post was less-than-kind simply because your post was as well. I
realize Usenet is the perfect forum for petty nit-picking, but that
doesn't make it okay. Whether it's ded or dead, it was clear that
everyone involved knew what we were talking about. Your post had no
point, other than to (falsely, as it happens) claim some superior
knowledge. It contributed nothing to the discussion, and was no more
useful than a post the purpose of which was solely to correct a spelling
or grammar error.

Those kinds of posts **** me off. If it were actually important to
correct spelling or grammar errors here on Usenet, each thread would be
half messages about spelling and grammar. Clearly it's not important, but
still every now and then, some smug "I know something you don't" person
comes along and posts nothing but a correction to spelling or grammar.


Becuzz I'm in agreemint with youre pazishun about knot kerrecting posts
jest to bee doing somthing, I offer the following in regards to Dead
Reckoning:

The Dictionary of Misinformation says of the "deduced" theory, "There is no
evidence for such a belief." The Oxford English Dictionary says that the
term is from the adjective "dead" and doesn't deign to even discuss the
supposed derivation from "deduced". The Oxford Dictionary of English
Etymology provides the final nail in the coffin: "a proposed etym. ded., for
deduced, has no justification." [From:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/...eckoning.html]

Regards,

Casey

Peter Duniho wrote:

Sure. I'm not perfect. I have admitted to being wrong several times
here, the rare instances it happened.

Very big of you :-). In many years of watching you post, I can't
remember any, but maybe my memory is just faulty.

My post was less-than-kind simply because your post was as well....
.... Your post had no point, other than to (falsely, as it happens)
claim some superior knowledge. It contributed nothing to the
discussion, and was no more useful than a post the purpose of which
was solely to correct a spelling or grammar error.

That's certainly not what was intended, nor what I believe I did - see
below.

Those kinds of posts **** me off.

What, if anything, does not?

extraneous contemporizing about grammer and spelling posts deleted for
brevity's sake, since no one was correcting grammer and/or spelling.

Such posts are, whether worded nicely or not, simply belittling.....

There was no reference to spelling, since the issue at hand was whether
or not "ded" or "dead" was the right "reckoning" type, based on the
derivation of the term, not on the spelling of a word. I THOUGHT that I
knew the answer, so was explaining it. Since I was probably wrong, a
couple of folks nicely pointed that out, with references to where I
could find the correct information. There was nothing belittling about
my post, and no-one else seemed to take it that way. Is it at all
possible that the fact that you seem to find just about everything
annoying a function of you, and not the world around you?

It's irritating enough when they are correct, but when they actually
aren't, it's even more annoying. Annoyances beget rude posts.

Especially when someone has an particularly short fuse.

.... Even more so when that's the first contribution a person has made
in a month.

Aha. So the validity of a post is determined by the prolificity of the
poster? My post was probably wrong, but certainly on topic for the
group. If you do a Google search on my postings, you'll find that I'm
on topic 99% of the time, and have a very high S/N ratio. Many other
folks would be hard pressed to say the same.

I should probably be following the old adage, "if you have nothing
good to say, say nothing at all". But that cuts both ways. You
should have thought about that yourself before posting your message.

Since I thought that I was distributing information that might be of
interest to folks (wrongly, as it probably turns out), and wasn't
attacking anyone or insulting them, I'm not sure how that applies.

NOW, we're off topic, so I won't respond any more.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2005

"Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote in message
...
What, if anything, does not?

Hardy har har har. Still, it should be clear enough to the most casual
observer that there are plenty of posts that don't **** me off.

extraneous contemporizing about grammer and spelling posts deleted for
brevity's sake, since no one was correcting grammer and/or spelling.

I put the type of correction you made in exactly that same category.
Whether we spell it "ded" or "dead" is irrelevant, and amounts only to a
spelling "error" one way or the other.

[...]
Especially when someone has an particularly short fuse.

It's true I have a shorter fuse than many other folks. So what? Life would
be pretty boring if we were all exactly the same.

Aha. So the validity of a post is determined by the prolificity of the
poster?

No. But certainly when it's your sole contribution for the month, it
illustrates quite clearly what your primary interest in the newsgroup is.
That primary interest is clearly correcting other people's language usage,
rather than contributing to aviation topics.

Pete

In article , Marc J. Zeitlin wrote:
To send us off on another tangent, and one that I haven't seen mentioned
in this thread before, it's "ded-reckoning", not "dead-reckoning". The
"ded" stands for "deduced", not whatever "dead" might stand for other
than the obvious.

Dead does not stand for anything.
From http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/enc..._reckoning.htm :

There is some controversy about the derivation of the phrase. It is
popularly thought to come from deduced reckoning and is sometimes given
in modern sources as ded reckoning. However, according to
the Oxford English Dictionary, the phrase dead reckoning dates from
Elizabethan times (1605-1615).

The popular etymology from deduced is not documented in the Oxford
English Dictionary or any other historical dictionary. Dead reckoning
is navigation without stellar observation. With stellar observation,
you are "live", working with the stars and the movement of the planet.
With logs, compasses, clocks, but no sky, you are working "dead".
--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Marc J. Zeitlin wrote:

To send us off on another tangent, and one that I haven't seen mentioned
in this thread before, it's "ded-reckoning", not "dead-reckoning".

Not according to the OED.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

Marc J. Zeitlin wrote:

Peter Duniho wrote:


How so? Dead-reckoning is not nearly as reliable as pilotage....


To send us off on another tangent, and one that I haven't seen mentioned
in this thread before, it's "ded-reckoning", not "dead-reckoning". The
"ded" stands for "deduced", not whatever "dead" might stand for other
than the obvious.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled navigation argument.


Hardly that clear. There are about as many references that say "dead"
as there are that say "ded."

Saying deduced reckoning is close to being redundant.


Matt