A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

MXSMANIC - The posts don't add up



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 17th 06, 06:18 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Neil Gould
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default MXSMANIC - The posts don't add up

Recently, Tom Conner posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
Sorry, but it's your usage of the example that is completely wrong.
The Navy is not using MSFS *in lieu* of flight training, the point
under discussion here.


The poor reading comprehension skills of posters on this group never
ceases to amaze me. Nobody said the Navy is using MSFS in lieu of
flight training. I was responding to the completely wrong statement
that "30 minutes in the air is worth hundreds of hours behind a game."

If that was the only comment you were responding to, then you should have
clipped the rest. The inclusion of other comments implies that you were
responding to *the post*, not some fragment therein, and it is quite
reasonable that a reader would assume as much. Reading comprehension is
helped by clear messages.

Neil




  #2  
Old October 17th 06, 07:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Tom Conner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default MXSMANIC - The posts don't add up


"Neil Gould" wrote in message
news
Recently, Tom Conner posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
Sorry, but it's your usage of the example that is completely
wrong. The Navy is not using MSFS *in lieu* of flight training,
the point under discussion here.


The poor reading comprehension skills of posters on this group never
ceases to amaze me. Nobody said the Navy is using MSFS in lieu of
flight training. I was responding to the completely wrong statement
that "30 minutes in the air is worth hundreds of hours behind a game."

If that was the only comment you were responding to, then you should
have clipped the rest. The inclusion of other comments implies that you
were responding to *the post*, not some fragment therein, and it is quite
reasonable that a reader would assume as much. Reading comprehension is
helped by clear messages.


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?


  #3  
Old October 17th 06, 09:42 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Neil Gould
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default MXSMANIC - The posts don't add up

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


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Metatrivia: Third highest ever posts to r.a.p happened last month. Jim Logajan Piloting 14 October 12th 06 02:17 AM
Please Ignore Mxsmanic Terry Piloting 45 September 29th 06 08:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.