![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
buttman wrote:
oh god shut up. I've been frankly answering his questions for a while now and I've yet to see him respond to me in that manner, or to other people in that manner either. If this is an example of your skills when it observational skills then I really am concerned about your ability to act as a CFI. If it bothers you so much why don't you just not read this place anymore? There are tons of people that post here that I don't like. I cope with it by *gasp* ignoring them. Its not as hard as it sounds. So feel free to add me to your ignore list. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jul 23, 10:53*am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote: buttman wrote: oh god shut up. I've been frankly answering his questions for a while now and I've yet to see him respond to me in that manner, or to other people in that manner either. If this is an example of your skills when it observational skills then I really am concerned about your ability to act as a CFI. Uh huh. How about providing me with one of these seemingly ubiquitous examples of him telling me, or anyone else that they are "wrong" and that he has "studied the issue in depth"? The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. I just went through the last 5 or so post I've made to his threads and I haven't noticed any rudeness. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
buttman wrote:
On Jul 23, 10:53 am, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote: buttman wrote: oh god shut up. I've been frankly answering his questions for a while now and I've yet to see him respond to me in that manner, or to other people in that manner either. If this is an example of your skills when it observational skills then I really am concerned about your ability to act as a CFI. Uh huh. How about providing me with one of these seemingly ubiquitous examples of him telling me, or anyone else that they are "wrong" and that he has "studied the issue in depth"? The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. I just went through the last 5 or so post I've made to his threads and I haven't noticed any rudeness. Well seeing has Anthony has posted to R.A.P. over 7000 times since August of 2006 as I wouldn't say that the last 5 or so posts are a legitimate sample size. Just wait, I'll point it out to you next time it happens. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote: buttman wrote: On Jul 23, 10:53 am, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote: buttman wrote: oh god shut up. I've been frankly answering his questions for a while now and I've yet to see him respond to me in that manner, or to other people in that manner either. If this is an example of your skills when it observational skills then I really am concerned about your ability to act as a CFI. Uh huh. How about providing me with one of these seemingly ubiquitous examples of him telling me, or anyone else that they are "wrong" and that he has "studied the issue in depth"? The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. I just went through the last 5 or so post I've made to his threads and I haven't noticed any rudeness. Well seeing has Anthony has posted to R.A.P. over 7000 times since August of 2006 as I wouldn't say that the last 5 or so posts are a legitimate sample size. Just wait, I'll point it out to you next time it happens. try in the Take off and landing advice thread begun Jun 2002 You haven't been here long enough. Many times Mx or Le Chaud Lapin will ask a question, get the right answer in a polite manner, and then argue endlessly against that answer, belittling the teacher. That's not true, at least in my case (I haven't audited all the threads in which Le Chaud Lapin participates). Many times, I get an answer that the poster believes to be correct, but it conflicts with other sources I've consulted, so naturally I question it. Or I get an answer that sounds intriguing, but when I ask for an explanation, the person who gave me the answer has none--he learned it from someone and simply accepted it, without caring about or looking up the supporting theory (if any). Or I get multiple conflicting answers from several people, who then start arguing with each other and trading insults--they cannot all be simultaneously right. I don't belittle anyone, but some people here are so incredibly insecure that anything other than total, unconditional acceptance of anything they say is an intolerable blow to their fragile egos, and they become defensive, resorting to personal attacks, when confronted with anything less than total acceptance. They are so sensitive, in fact, that they interpret every request for clarification as a personal affront. People like this are hard to deal with because they are so hypersensitive and emotional; however, they often don't know much about anything, so dealing with them isn't always necessary. Unfortunately, they are often among the first to respond. Once they learn that their responses may not be instantly and totally accepted, their subsequent responses consist of nothing more than personal attacks. Many of the physics and other things in aviation are not intuitive; that is, they don't make sense to the uninitiated, and without well-rounded groundschooling and flight instruction they never will make sense. It's worse than that. I've discovered that many pilots just don't understand those concepts, and asking about them only irritates them as they realize how little they understand. The reality is that many of these concepts don't have to be understood just to fly an airplane, and of those that might be useful to understand, few are mandatory for safe flight. Pilots are instructed by rote, just as most people are instructed by rote in most things. The threshold of aptitude required to absorbe rote learning is much lower than that required to understand theory, which is why it is usually used. And rote learning accomplishes the purpose, as long as experience is limited to situations covered by that learning. It only fails in situations where inferences must be made for unforeseen situations based on theory, and these are thankfully rare. Flight simulators don't teach these things. Nobody teaches them, apparently, or at least nobody in flight instruction. At one time I believed that flight instruction was far more comprehensive. I now know, from what I see here and from my own investigations of the training materials, that it is much simpler than I believed it to be. This shouldn't surprise me (because almost all training is like this), but it does. No amount of insult, personal attacks, or trolling intimidates me, so I don't know why people bother. It actually seems to bother them far more than it does me, when they discover that I don't care. I'd be content to discuss aviation, but some people turn every discussion into a discussion of personalities instead. -- Bob Noel (goodness, please trim replies!!!) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Bob Noel" wrote in message
... His Wikipedia 'bio' is even more telling: I like to engage people in discussions when I detect that they cling to opinions that they are unable to defend (opinions based on emotion, opinions adopted wholesale from others, etc.), in order to try to compel them to think for themselves. I have been involved in online debates along these lines for several decades, usually under various pseudonyms (mainly to guard against spam). I'm an extremely strong supporter of freedom of speech in all public venues, as well as civil liberties in general. [edit] Contacts |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote If this is an example of your skills when it observational skills then I really am concerned about your ability to act as a CFI. Just that is not has made some people wonder if he is a CFI, or a dangerous one, if he is. Things like cutting the engine just after rotation on a student. Other examples abound. He is definitely brain dead, if he thinks answering MF is a "good thing" to do. Another nail in a nearly filled coffin. -- Jim in NC |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Aviation Weather Services, AC 00-45F | Bob Gardner | Piloting | 1 | December 20th 07 02:58 AM |
Gliding Weather Services around the world | [email protected] | Soaring | 9 | May 3rd 07 09:42 AM |
AF#2/conditions | Christopher Range | Piloting | 11 | October 26th 06 02:57 AM |
National Weather Services Duties Act of 2005 | Rob | Piloting | 0 | September 7th 05 09:44 PM |
Deicing during heavy weather conditions | William W. Plummer | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | December 24th 04 01:12 PM |