A reluctance to take the controls

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 01:47:47 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:
Maybe instead of "make a pot..." I should have said "vote Democratic",
or "get an instrument rating".


I've voted for Democrats, and I'll get the IR someday.

Why not get it today? You are missing an opportunity that few people
(even fewer than those who get a chance to take the wheel of an
airplane) get to experience. I just can't understand any pilot who
wouldn't want to earn their instrument rating as soon as regulations
allow. I guess such pilots are just mis-wired. :-)

Matt


You and Pete are both being unfair. I am sure you realize that obtaining
the IR is a very non-trivial task and requires considerable personal
time and effort. This is not always possible for a recreational pilot
and once you have your PP you are very aware of the further effort
required for the IR.

Personally my attitude was like Jay's - I'll get my IR someday. As it
happens I now have the time and money required and am persuing it (hope
to write the exam on Tuesday). And, having a couple hundred extra hours
of CC time has helped a lot in the situational awareness area - so say
my instructors. But, after getting the PP, I just wanted to fly for fun
for a while. I think it was worth doing it that way for my personal
situation.

Further, I now know that I have to schedule regular IFR flights and
approaches in order to remain current, as well as take the proficiency
checkrides. More work, time and effort. Not all pilots have that
available.




randall g =%^) PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RG
http://www.telemark.net/randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
Vancouver's famous Kat Kam: http://www.katkam.ca

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
It's not that I don't "get" your argument, Pete. It's that I think
your argument is irrelevant to the thread, and your debate style is so
rude as to reduce your arguments to noise.

"My argument"? It's not just "my argument". In fact, Jose is the person
who first attempted to politely put a fine point on it for you. In fact, he
tried twice, and both times you insisted on jerking him around in your
supposedly polite manner, while pointedly ignoring the underlying truth in
what he was saying.

As far as being "rude" goes, I suggest you look at your own reply to my post
elaborating on Jose's post. Rather than discussing the post itself, you
replied with an entirely condescending assessment of my own personality. I
hadn't written a single rude thing to you up until that point. It's a bit
disingenuous for you to accuse me of being rude, when in fact you serve up
great helpings of rudeness on a regular basis, in both veiled and overt
forms.

I try to be polite and explain *why* your argumentativeness is
irrelevant, and you continue to escalate your absurd examples until
you're talking about sodomy, and making personal attacks, in some sort
of a lame attempt to make a feeble point.

The point wasn't feeble, nor was the attempt lame. It only escalated to the
point to which it did because you refused to acknowledge Jose's point. The
point being made cuts right to the heart of the whole issue here. Your
inability to acknowledge the point is simply a symptom of your dismissively
rude treatment of anyone who might have an opinion different from yours.

And you have the nerve to call ME rude. Right. Frankly, I prefer the term
"disrespectful", and you have gone to great lengths to earn that disrespect,
through your own disrespect of others (including but hardly limited to
myself).

"randall g" wrote in message
...
[...]
You and Pete are both being unfair.

Hardly. None of us are trivializing the work it takes to get an instrument
rating. Heck, I think any of us who has one would readily acknowledge that
it is *at least* as great a challenge as the initial Private certificate
training.

The point is that Jay goes on about other people not wanting to do the
things he thinks everyone should want to do, and yet ignores the fact that
he himself doesn't want to do the things other people enjoy (even though we
don't necessarily think everyone should want to do them).

The instrument rating just happens to be one example of this. It only comes
up because of his reputation with respect to it...it has nothing to do with
anyone implying that the instrument rating is easy, or even that Jay
*should* get one (I personally have never said it's a requirement...Jay
clearly finds his own flying enjoyable and convenient without an instrument
rating, and it's not my place to say he should feel otherwise).

It seems to me that if you think I'm being unfair in my reference to the
instrument rating, then you have not understood why it is I refer to it in
the first place. Perhaps that's my fault for not being clear, but the fact
is that nothing you appear to have inferred from my comment about it has
anything to do with what I actually was writing about.

Pete

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 21:53:27 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

Her brother was my last of several CFIs when I got my PPL.

If you had danced with her than you might have also srcewed her that night.
And her brother would have broken your nose instead of giving you flight
instruction. See? It always pays NOT to dance (hey! I always seach for
excuses not to dance ...). *g*

#m
--
Enemy Combatant http://itsnotallbad.com/

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 01:29:47 GMT, Jose wrote:

I've voted for Democrats, and I'll get the IR someday.

"Someday" is not the same as "all over it like stink on you-know-what".

it is "jumping on the opportunity given" ... and beeing blessed to live in
a place where you can go for an instrument rating. And sharing all that
with a great bunch of people all over the world.

#m
--
Enemy Combatant http://itsnotallbad.com/

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 06:33:26 GMT, randall g wrote:

You and Pete are both being unfair. I am sure you realize that obtaining
the IR is a very non-trivial task and requires considerable personal
time and effort. This is not always possible for a recreational pilot
and once you have your PP you are very aware of the further effort
required for the IR.

IIRC Jay has started IFR training back then, but for a couple of reasons he
hasn't finished (mis-wired?? *eg*). He really hasn't jumped on the
opportunity ....

#m
--
Enemy Combatant http://itsnotallbad.com/

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

...we've had
our share of nutcases, and just as they all eventually faded away, so too
will "Mxsmanic")

actually, mx is a repeat offender. I killfiled it back in 2002.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

And you have the nerve to call ME rude. Right. Frankly, I prefer the term
"disrespectful", and you have gone to great lengths to earn that disrespect,
through your own disrespect of others (including but hardly limited to
myself).

I used to work with someone like you, Pete. She was a died-in-the-wool
liberal, never wrong, always opinionated and willing to defend any
point to the death, no matter how irrelevant. The point of contention
was always the argument -- never the underlying point, which we both
knew the other would never concede, or even acknowledge.

At the end of a long day of sparring, we would occasionally end up at a
bar, and she would always close the evening with a tongue-in-cheek
imitation of me saying "The only abortion that I would have approved
was when your mother was pregnant with you!"

Well, at least I think it was tongue-in-cheek.... ;-)

I suspect that in-person, that's pretty much the way these threads
would end. Unfortunately, there is no written equivalent to that sort
of live-and-let-live tone, or, if there is, we haven't found it, yet.

You simply have a nasty habit of converting any thread into personal
attacks. It's a bad thing, and you really should take a chill-pill.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Morgans" wrote in message
...
[...]
Your last two pronouncments (including this one) are easily disproved
simply by looking at what those posters actually post.

Last two?

If you are talking about MX, you would have to prove me wrong. You
couldn't
do it.

No...Mxsmanic is clearly a troll, in spite of a handful of other people
defending him as otherwise.

I'm referring to your reply to another poster, whose name I've forgotten.
Starts with a "T" I think. If I recall, their post came up in the context
of hangar doors? Or maybe it was just around the same time that thread was
here. I don't recall.

This one, I guess it is guilt by association with and support of troll
number 1. Perhaps it is wrong, so I'll wait and see.

There is no way you could legitimately call the person posting as
"Xmnushal8y" a troll. If you'd look at any of the articles posted
previously, that would be apparent. She goes some time between posts
occasionally, but isn't anything like a troll.

Frankly, we're actually relatively lucky. As disruptive as "Mxsmanic" has
been, he's really the only active troll around here these days. Not all
newsgroups are so lucky, nor has r.a.piloting been so lucky in days past
(recalling people like Mulcahy, Zoom, Eagleson, AcroCFI, etc....we've had
our share of nutcases, and just as they all eventually faded away, so too
will "Mxsmanic")

Pete


Wow being knowledgable in aircraft flight dynamics as opposed to FAA
idiot aerodynamics gets you called a nut case.

You are a what?

Martin Hotze wrote:
If you had danced with her than you might have also srcewed her that night.
And her brother would have broken your nose instead of giving you flight
instruction. See? It always pays NOT to dance (hey! I always seach for
excuses not to dance ...). *g*


A vertical expression of a hortizontal idea....



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com