FADEC = complex

"Jose" wrote

Mx has his flaws,

Too many to even begin naming

but this group has taken to attacking everything he says, no matter whether it
is totally wrong, somewhat wrong, or just has a spelling error,

Your "somewhat wrong"analysis of his posts are from your point of view. To
other people, me included, what you say is somewhat wrong is blatently wrong, to
the people arguing these points.

Spelling errrors? I don't recall that being a major issue. Certainly no more
than anyone else, and possibly less that others.

and also attacking him ad hominum.

For good reason. Many, many good reasons.

This is unacceptable behavior, and is also counterproductive (it increases
noise).

If it takes making more noise to get rid of a constant sonic boom, then I'm all
for it. Acceptable behaviour.

True. One must be aware that one is or isn't using that kind of autopilot.
The basic point however is still valid. Autopilots can hide a developing
problem, sometimes leading to an unpleasant surprise.

You have lost sight of the reason for jumping on the auto pilot issue.

To compare a faulty mode in a FADEC with ignoring (or whatever) an auto pilot is
absurd. They are totally different systems, with totally different failure
modes, and even a totally different level of pilot interaction. He has been
successful in leading you astray if you think, in any way, they are comparable
issues.

You know, you are one of the most argumentative people on this group. Why are
you having a problem with people arguing with him? I'm starting to believe that
you are part of the problem, too.
--
Jim in NC

Your "somewhat wrong"analysis of his posts are from your point of view.

The point that evoked my contribution was a statement that a certain
statement that he made was "utter nonsense". It was not untter
nonsense. His POV may be utter nonsense, but the statement he made was
somewhat wrong, and somewhat right. I'm responding to the statement,
not the person.

Spelling errrors?

Ok, I made that one up.

and also attacking him ad hominum.
For good reason.

There is never a good reason for an ad hominum attack.

If it takes making more noise...

It won't work. It's what trolls want. By your analysis, it's what he
wants.

You have lost sight of the reason for jumping on the auto pilot issue.

To compare a faulty mode in a FADEC with ignoring (or whatever) an auto pilot is absurd.

Ok, then make =that= point.

You know, you are one of the most argumentative people on this group.

No I'm not.

Why are you having a problem with people arguing with him?

I'm not. What I'm having a problem with is condemning statements =just=
because they are his, and the ad hominum attacks. If anybody else had
made the statement about autopilots, it would not have garnered the
response "utter rubbish".

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Recently, Jose posted:

Jim wrote:

Why are you having a problem with people arguing with him?

I'm not. What I'm having a problem with is condemning statements
=just= because they are his, and the ad hominum attacks.

Really, Jose, this doesn't happen as often as you are implying. Maybe once
or twice per absurd comment. It's just the volume of his absurd comments
that make it seem like a big issue. ;-)

If anybody
else had made the statement about autopilots, it would not have
garnered the response "utter rubbish".

Having been on the "receiving end" of some statements that the group
though were absurd, I'd beg to differ. This group takes pretty much
everyone to task for statements that they feel are inaccurate, and I see
no reason why Mxmanic should be treated differently.

Neil

Neil,

This group takes pretty much
everyone to task for statements that they feel are inaccurate, and I see
no reason why Mxmanic should be treated differently.


Add to that the fact that he has never, ever, not even once, beginning
with his first question (on transponders, I believe) offered factual
support of his statements when asked for it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Jose" wrote in message
. com...
Your "somewhat wrong"analysis of his posts are from your point of view.

The point that evoked my contribution was a statement that a certain statement
that he made was "utter nonsense". It was not untter nonsense. His POV may
be utter nonsense, but the statement he made was somewhat wrong, and somewhat
right. I'm responding to the statement, not the person.


And I'm responding, saying his statement was NOT somewhat right, but instead, it
was all wrong, and utter nonsense.

There is never a good reason for an ad hominum attack.

The furthest I have gone is making statements about points in his post, but I
did go as far as calling him a troll. Other than that, my language has been
above board, and I have spoken to statements. Period. Calling him a troll is
true, and necessary.

It won't work. It's what trolls want. By your analysis, it's what he wants.

Yes, I know that is what trolls want. I will have to deal with that, and accept
that unfortunate fact, but the real goal is to make everyone, and I do mean
everyone, in the group realize that he is troll, not worthy of a response when
he posts.

Ok, then make =that= point.

Have you been reading for comprehension? I have made that point, on nearly
every post in this thread. Look back, to verify.

I'm not. What I'm having a problem with is condemning statements =just=
because they are his, and the ad hominum attacks. If anybody else had made
the statement about autopilots, it would not have garnered the response "utter
rubbish".

I am responding his statements, not just because they are from him. You are not
in my head. Again, I call him a troll, because it is true and necessary.

With someone else, there might be a more civil discussion, but we know from
history, that is not possible with this person.

Still, arguing about the autopilot is not what the subject was. He is
deflecteng the discussion away from FADEC, because his argument is unwinable.
--
Jim in NC