I give up, after many, many years!

It was that white powder on the table that muddied his keyboard.


On May 23, 6:18 am, More_Flaps wrote:
On May 23, 5:52 pm, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in .com...

That's what the squirty ****drip routine is all about. Your OCD.

Snort!

Bertie

I thought Riddlin was in table form. Do you crush it so you can snort it?

Riddlin? Table form? Are you trying to raise a tricky question here or
just free associating with the english language?

Cheers

Tina wrote in
:

It was that white powder on the table that muddied his keyboard.


ooohkay..

Bertie

On May 23, 6:18 am, More_Flaps wrote:
On May 23, 5:52 pm, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in
.com...

That's what the squirty ****drip routine is all about. Your OCD.

Snort!

Bertie

I thought Riddlin was in table form. Do you crush it so you can
snort it?

Riddlin? Table form? Are you trying to raise a tricky question here
or just free associating with the english language?

Cheers

Maxwell wrote:
That's what the squirty ****drip routine is all about. Your OCD.

I thought Riddlin was in table form. Do you crush it so you can snort it?

Ritalin

(Methylphenidate)

HTH ; )

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200805/1

Jim Logajan writes:

I do not know about you, but given a choice between riding in an airplane
piloted by a certificated pilot who has an incorrect grasp of aerodynamics
and an aerodynamics engineer who has no piloting experience, I'd go with
the certificated pilot. ;-)

When choosing an aircraft, however, I'd go with the aircraft designed by an
engineer, rather than one designed by a pilot.

Tina writes:

I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. But it does
take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?

The important point is that the knowledge gap between an average ATP and an
average non-pilot is far smaller than the gap between someone with a PhD in
chemistry and someone with no special knowledge of chemistry.

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

Then there is the E6-B. It makes a lot more sense to someone who
understands the fundamentals of what they are doing than following a
learned procedure, which is why I stopped following the "do this, then
do that" instructions, and examine the thing and thought about why it
works, what relationships exist between the scales etc.

So I regard my flight training as mostly a cerebral experience, with
the instructor filling in the parts that are not found in books.

Rote learning has the advantage of being accessible to almost anyone of
reasonably normal intelligence. Learning theory requires a higher level of
intelligence, and in some domains (quite a few, in fact), the theory is
complex enough that one must be of above-average intelligence in order to
grasp it.

Rote learning works well for dealing with situations that are covered by the
rote-learning curriculum. It can even work better than theory for certain
specific situations (for which learning all the necessary theory would be
impractical). However, knowing theory is vastly more useful when dealing with
situations that are not covered by the rote-learning curriculum.

In summary, rote learning covers most situations well and is accessible to
all, while theory covers all situations but is too difficult for some and
involves higher overhead when it comes to dealing with simple, common
situations.

Just about all practical learning (piloting, driving, cooking, etc.) is by
rote, whereas abstract subjects often involve mostly theory.

"Mxsmanic" wrote ...
Tina writes:

I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. But it does
take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?

The important point is that the knowledge gap between an average ATP and
an
average non-pilot is far smaller than the gap between someone with a PhD
in
chemistry and someone with no special knowledge of chemistry.

How can you possibly quantify something like this?

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Jim Logajan writes:

I do not know about you, but given a choice between riding in an airplane
piloted by a certificated pilot who has an incorrect grasp of
aerodynamics
and an aerodynamics engineer who has no piloting experience, I'd go with
the certificated pilot. ;-)

When choosing an aircraft, however, I'd go with the aircraft designed by
an
engineer, rather than one designed by a pilot.

Based on no experience at all. What a dumb ****.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Tina writes:

I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. But it does
take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?

The important point is that the knowledge gap between an average ATP
and an average non-pilot is far smaller than the gap between someone
with a PhD in chemistry and someone with no special knowledge of
chemistry.

Just like the knowledge gap between a cockroach and you, Anthony.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Rote learning has the advantage of being accessible to almost anyone of
reasonably normal intelligence.

It failed in your case Anthony.