I give up, after many, many years!

terry writes:

Its not a bad thing at all, as long as you are sure the other person
is indeed wrong.

Why do I have to be sure? (Although I typically am.)

But where you have gone wrong on this group is too
many times you have told people incorrectly that they were wrong, that
will really **** a lot of people off.

Why would I care about that? People who react in that way are reliably
stupid, and I'm not interested in talking to stupid people.

And then to make it worse,
there have been people who would still take the time to explain to you
why you were wrong, and you would refuse to accept it or acknowledge
you were wrong.

Examples?

Come to think of it I cant recall a single time you admitted you
were wrong.

That's because I'm not often wrong, but I admit it when it is the case.

Example? would you like
to tell us again why we cant apply the ideal gas law to calculate the
air density of a parcel of air we want to fly in.

You cannot use the combined laws (note the nuance) because the volume of the
atmosphere is not constrained.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...


That's because I'm not often wrong, but I admit it when it is the case.


I have seen quite a few examples where you were wrong. I have also pointed
these out.

You have NEVER admitted to being wrong in rec.aviation.piloting.

Steve Foley writes:

I have seen quite a few examples where you were wrong. I have also pointed
these out.

You've disagreed with me, nothing more.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Steve Foley writes:

I have seen quite a few examples where you were wrong. I have also
pointed
these out.

You've disagreed with me, nothing more.

The 'disagreement' that comes to mind was when you were applying the
incorrect trigonometric function to a vector analysis problem.

I guess you can simply re-define anything you choose. Unfortunately, the
civilized world will probably disagree with your definitions as well.

Steve Foley writes:

The 'disagreement' that comes to mind was when you were applying the
incorrect trigonometric function to a vector analysis problem.

Which problem was that?

I know that when people learn something by rote, they often will not recognize
equally valid statements of the theory behind what they've learned. I've seen
this happen even with extremely experienced pilots. They learn something by
rote, you give a theoretical explanation thereof that they've never heard, and
since they don't know any underlying theory themselves (remember, they learned
by rote), they think the theory is wrong. It would be amusing if it were not
so unfortunate.

I guess you can simply re-define anything you choose. Unfortunately, the
civilized world will probably disagree with your definitions as well.

There are lots of stupid people in the world, and lots of people who are
familiar with rote learning only. Rote learning is what allows the majority
of the population to survive in a technologically complex world.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

I know that when people learn something by rote, they often will not
recognize
equally valid statements of the theory behind what they've learned.

I didn't learn math and physics by rote.

Steve Foley writes:

I didn't learn math and physics by rote.

So?

On May 31, 5:50*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Steve Foley writes:
The 'disagreement' that comes to mind was when you were applying the
incorrect trigonometric function to a vector analysis problem.

Which problem was that?

I know that when people learn something by rote, they often will not recognize
equally valid statements of the theory behind what they've learned. *I've seen
this happen even with extremely experienced pilots. *They learn something by
rote, you give a theoretical explanation thereof that they've never heard, and
since they don't know any underlying theory themselves (remember, they learned
by rote), they think the theory is wrong. *It would be amusing if it were not
so unfortunate.

I guess you can simply re-define anything you choose. Unfortunately, the
civilized world will probably disagree with your definitions as well.

There are lots of stupid people in the world, and lots of people who are
familiar with rote learning only. *Rote learning is what allows the majority
of the population to survive in a technologically complex world.

Yes Anthony there are lots of stupid people in the world, and people
who can understand complex theory are definately in the minority, and
as such they are highly respected people who will be in high demand
and found in well paying jobs or self employment. Stupid people are
mostly unemployed, or do low paid menial work or are just
unemployable, and fortunately they dont fly planes.

"terry" wrote at the end of a useless discussion with MX...

... Stupid people are mostly unemployed, or do low
paid menial work, or are just unemployable, and
fortunately they don't fly planes.


See,... there you go. You got yourself mad and dizzy at the same time.
That's the MX dance. So sad to see so many victims.

Best advice:
Don't mud wrestle with a pig. You get all dirty,... and the pig really likes
it.

terry writes:

Yes Anthony there are lots of stupid people in the world, and people
who can understand complex theory are definately in the minority, and
as such they are highly respected people who will be in high demand
and found in well paying jobs or self employment.

You're two-thirds correct. While intelligence or acquired skills do generally
correlate well with material success, they are hardly a guarantee. There are
many stupid and incompetent people occupying highly-paid jobs, and there are
many competent and intelligent people who cannot find jobs.

If the correlation were complete, someone like Stephen Hawking, a respected
and competent scientist, would be making far more than someone like Carly
Fiorina, who was paid $45 million as reward for being fired and nearly driving
HP into bankruptcy.

Stupid people are
mostly unemployed, or do low paid menial work or are just
unemployable, and fortunately they dont fly planes.

There's a threshold of intelligence required to fly an airplane, but it's not
as high as many pilots like to believe.