I give up, after many, many years!

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.

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic wrote:
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?

Because you do a crappy job of repeating things.

You discard qualifiers, you remove necessary context, and you fail to
understand the domain of applicability of the things you repeat. Whether
this happens because you lack the experience to know which bits are
important or because you just like to cause a ruckus, I couldn't say.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

"Michael Ash" wrote:

You discard qualifiers, you remove necessary context, and you fail to
understand the domain of applicability of the things you repeat. Whether
this happens because you lack the experience to know which bits are
important or because you just like to cause a ruckus, I couldn't say.

Third, and most likely alternative: he's just stupid.

Third, and most likely alternative: he's just stupid.

MX is many things. Persistent, stubborn, blunt, thick-skinned, willing to
argue that black-eyed-peas are really black-eyed-beans, yes. Occasionally
annoying, often entertaining (mostly because of the responses he obtains),
always willing to come back for more. He's like a Weebil that won't fall
down.

But stupid? I don't think so.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On May 18, 11:01*pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Third, and most likely alternative: he's just stupid.

MX is many things. Persistent, stubborn, blunt, thick-skinned, willing to
argue that black-eyed-peas are really black-eyed-beans, yes. * Occasionally
annoying, often entertaining (mostly because of the responses he obtains),
always willing to come back for more. *He's like a Weebil that won't fall
down.

But stupid? * I don't think so.
--
I agree , definately not stupid, probably well above average IQ .A
vertible human sponge of information. But sadly lacking the social
skills necessary to function in any meaningful way to be be able to do
anything useful with the knowledge he has soaked up. The problem with
getting all of your information from books and the internet as
distinct from actually doing anything in real life is that you just
dont know what you dont know. You and I could read 100 books on
neurosurgery but we would realise from our other life experiences that
it would be futile to get into an argument with a neurosurgeon on how
to perform a labotomy. But not our Anthony, he just doesnt have the
life experience outside his virtural existance to realise just how
little he really knows about anything. Its sad really. I wish I could
help him, its a shame some local pilot hasnt tried to take him under
their wing and give him a taste of real life.
Terry

On May 18, 8:36*am, terry wrote:
On May 18, 11:01*pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote: Third, and most likely alternative: he's just stupid.

MX is many things. Persistent, stubborn, blunt, thick-skinned, willing to
argue that black-eyed-peas are really black-eyed-beans, yes. * Occasionally
annoying, often entertaining (mostly because of the responses he obtains),
always willing to come back for more. *He's like a Weebil that won't fall
down.

But stupid? * I don't think so.
--

I agree , definately not stupid, probably well above average IQ .A
vertible human sponge of information. But sadly lacking the social
skills necessary to function in any meaningful way to be be able to do
anything useful with the knowledge he has soaked up. *The problem with
getting all of your information from books *and the internet as
distinct from actually doing anything in real life is that you just
dont know what you dont know. *You and I could read 100 books on
neurosurgery but we would realise from our other life experiences that
it would be futile to get into an argument with a neurosurgeon on how
to perform a labotomy. *But not our Anthony, he just doesnt have the
life experience outside his virtural existance to realise just how
little he really knows about anything. Its sad really. *I wish I could
help him, its a shame some local pilot hasnt tried to take him under
their wing and give him a taste of real life.
Terry

Umm...no.

You started out this paragraph in defense of Mx, and then make a
retraction midway through:

You write:

A
vertible human sponge of information. But sadly lacking the social
skills necessary to function in any meaningful way to be be able to do
anything useful with the knowledge he has soaked up.

Then you write:

But not our Anthony, he just doesnt have the
life experience outside his virtural existance to realise just how
little he really knows about anything

So first you imply that he knows much (relatively speaking). Then you
imply that he knows little (relatively speaking).

Which is it?

As far as social graces go, assuming that he is correct on some
things, which I must clearly state, I do not know, and is verbally
abused by those who disagree with him, then who is lacking in social
grace.

I too have met some freakishly bright people in my life, some with
multiple advanced degress from top university, and those people will
often listen to utter jibberish by a 17 or 18 year-old about things
that they have being doing research about for 30+ years, and not
insult that person, not once. To give you an example...ahem...

In electrical engineering, there are formulas that govern what happens
to a slab of plastic if it is lubricated and placed between two metal
place, a voltage being applied to the plates. The slab will have a
tendency to move. One can make artificial muscles from this, which
would aid the prosthetic word considerably.

Anyhow, one day while studying these formulas, I became so excited
about the potential for artificial muscles, I bounced around the EE
department at my university, until I found on prof who was expert in
this type of technology. He sat quietly, probably a good 10-12 minutes
behind his desk, as I ranted about the design (flaw) and the
mathematics (also flawed), and just smiled. After I finished, I said,
"Ok, I guess you're smiling because my math is flawed but..." and he
reaches down, grabs a magazine, tosses it into my lap, and on front
cover, there is picture of Japanese researchers, making artificial
muscles, using exact same method, but different types of metals.

Here you have, a giant in the field, listening to someone who is so
green that he botches the Biot-Savart Law, not being condescending,
not interrupting me saying, "You got it all wrong, dummy", just
smiling. I never pursued the idea, but I will never forget that Prof.

If experienced pilots, especially in real life, would adopt this
attitude, young pilots would be more inclined to finish flight
training, I think.

There is also another option, which one pilot at my flight school
refused to use, which is, when asked something that is not understood,
like the internals of VOR tranmitter/receiver, to simply say, "I don't
know."

-Le Chaud Lapinn-

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

Here you have, a giant in the field, listening to someone who is so
green that he botches the Biot-Savart Law, not being condescending,
not interrupting me saying, "You got it all wrong, dummy", just
smiling. I never pursued the idea, but I will never forget that Prof.

If experienced pilots, especially in real life, would adopt this
attitude, young pilots would be more inclined to finish flight
training, I think.

The problem is that the vast majority of pilots aren't even remotely "giants
in their field." A true world-class expert has nothing to prove to anyone and
isn't likely to be insecure, but a low-time pilot with more ego than
competence is likely to be very insecure and very eager to prove that he knows
more than other people do. It's not limited to aviation, of course.

There is also another option, which one pilot at my flight school
refused to use, which is, when asked something that is not understood,
like the internals of VOR tranmitter/receiver, to simply say, "I don't
know."

A person has to be pretty secure to be able to say that. Many people aren't.

On Sun, 18 May 2008 10:45:29 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
wrote:



Here you have, a giant in the field, listening to someone who is so
green that he botches the Biot-Savart Law, not being condescending,
not interrupting me saying, "You got it all wrong, dummy", just
smiling. I never pursued the idea, but I will never forget that Prof.

The problem here is that we *DID* that with him. Last year. To
extrapolate your story with him, what he proceeds to then do is tell
the Prof. that the Prof. is wrong and because he read it in a book
somwhere and played with a computer game that the Prof.'s real world
experience and knowledge is inaccurate. That's when the Prof. would
have told him to leave and find someone else to annoy. That's what
we've been attempting to do, but he won't listen. The Prof. would
have called campus police by now.

On May 19, 3:45*am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On May 18, 8:36*am, terry wrote:





On May 18, 11:01*pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote: Third, and most likely alternative: he's just stupid.

MX is many things. Persistent, stubborn, blunt, thick-skinned, willing to
argue that black-eyed-peas are really black-eyed-beans, yes. * Occasionally
annoying, often entertaining (mostly because of the responses he obtains),
always willing to come back for more. *He's like a Weebil that won't fall
down.

But stupid? * I don't think so.
--

I agree , definately not stupid, probably well above average IQ .A
vertible human sponge of information. But sadly lacking the social
skills necessary to function in any meaningful way to be be able to do
anything useful with the knowledge he has soaked up. *The problem with
getting all of your information from books *and the internet as
distinct from actually doing anything in real life is that you just
dont know what you dont know. *You and I could read 100 books on
neurosurgery but we would realise from our other life experiences that
it would be futile to get into an argument with a neurosurgeon on how
to perform a labotomy. *But not our Anthony, he just doesnt have the
life experience outside his virtural existance to realise just how
little he really knows about anything. Its sad really. *I wish I could
help him, its a shame some local pilot hasnt tried to take him under
their wing and give him a taste of real life.
Terry

Umm...no.

You started out this paragraph in defense of Mx, and then make a
retraction midway through:

You write:

A
vertible human sponge of information. But sadly lacking the social
skills necessary to function in any meaningful way to be be able to do
anything useful with the knowledge he has soaked up.

Then you write:

But not our Anthony, he just doesnt have the
life experience outside his virtural existance to realise just how
little he really knows about anything

So first you imply that he knows much (relatively speaking). *Then you
imply that he knows little (relatively speaking).

Which is it?

What I am saying is that he knows lots of stuff, but does not know how
to connect it together or use it in any practical way, or in context
as others have put it. In just about any endeavour there is a
body of know how that you just wont get from reading. No matter how
much information he reads and even retains about flying, he would not
be able to fly a real plane without learning physically how to fly a
real plane, because he knows so little about flying a real plane.
Terry

terry wrote:
On May 18, 11:01 pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Third, and most likely alternative: he's just stupid.
MX is many things. Persistent, stubborn, blunt, thick-skinned, willing to
argue that black-eyed-peas are really black-eyed-beans, yes. Occasionally
annoying, often entertaining (mostly because of the responses he obtains),
always willing to come back for more. He's like a Weebil that won't fall
down.

But stupid? I don't think so.
--
I agree , definately not stupid, probably well above average IQ .A
vertible human sponge of information.

What he lacks--among a lot of things--is the ability to take the
information that he learns into a true understanding of those concepts.

The power-is-altitude thing is an example. If you point a Cessna 172 or
a 747 straight at the ground and apply full power, there are a couple of
very obvious reasons why this will not result in a climb, and these can
even be demonstrated in a flight simulator.

-c