A Google Groups alternative to rec.aviation.piloting?

On Aug 15, 12:40*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
buttman wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:53 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
I note that some people who wish to migrate to a more controlled aviation
forum have a couple issues with the alternatives such as AOPA and POA. The
first being that they appear U.S. centric. The second that the layout is
actually a backward step in user friendliness.

While it isn't as good as some of the classic threaded newsreaders, it
occurs to me that creating a "Google Groups only" (non-Usenet) forum might
help a little toward addressing the two main issues (that I'm aware of,
anyway.) This is Google's info on creating a group on their systems:

http://groups.google.com/intl/en/goo.../overview.html

The third issue is who would most people feel comfortable with as the PIC
of such a group?

That would be worse. The reason this group has degraded is because of
ad-hominem arguments. Notice I didn't say ad-hominem attacks. In my
opinion more damage has been done to this group by allowing
"annointed" people free rides and giving "non-anointed" people attacks
regardless of what they say. The way it should be is that if someone
like Dudley says something stupid, he should get called out on it. If
MX says something, he should get called out on it. If Dudley says
something great he should be praised for it. If MX says something
good, he should get praised for it. But thats not how its done here.
No matter what MX says, he'll get ribbed. No matter what Dudley says,
he'll get praised. If you have a group of people officially annointed
as group moderators, this effect will only be magnified and the
discussion will be even less useless.

I see this sort of thing happen with moderated groups all the time.
You have 4 or 5 people anointed as the "chosen ones", who then strut
around the group with their chests puffed out. They no longer put any
effort into their postings because why bother when you are already
automatically revered by the whole group? If, for some reason you
aren't revered by a member, you can just delete their messages or ban
them from the group.

You're so full of crap it's amazing. Your problem with me started the
day we got into a discussion on you pulling mixture on a student and
you've been a royal PIA ever since.
Not that I mind, but take this post for example. You state something
that is totally false as though it's accepted fact and think it will
stand It won't!
First of all, I am not now, nor have I ever been anything "special" on
this forum, either in my own opinion or in that of others. You simply
pull this crap out of your ass and post it I guess for your own
amusement or for whatever damage you envision it doing.
No big deal. Post away. I think most of the people who frequent this
forum, or at least the ones who would matter anyway, know you have an
agenda here.
Now on to something else you said that reeks of false premise. I've been
posting on these forums for over ten years. Go Google me and come up
with something "stupid" I've posted on these groups and present it here
for everyone to see will you please. I'd be very interested to read what
that happened to be.

--
Dudley Henriques

Jeez, calm down. I was just using you as an example. I said " if
someone like Dudley says something stupid", not "Dudley always says
something stupid". And to be quite honest, 90% of you posts are
neither great nor crappy. Usually you just end up either stating the
obvious or posting something completely banal. The problem is with
sycophants replying to your less than great posts with "OH WOW ANOTHER
GREAT GREAT DUDLEY POST THANK YOU DUDLEY YOU ARE SO AWESOME" which
gives you that sense of importance you have.

But anyways, to illustrate the point I'm trying to make a little
further, consider for a minute what would happen if I were to go back
to 2002, find a well received Dudley post, and post it here right now
under my name. Will it get the exact same response as it did under
Dudley's name? *Should* that post get the same response? If it doesn't
get the same warm response, why not? What if MX reposted it instead of
me?

That is what is wrong with this group right now. No one judges what
your post contains, they only judge who you are, or worse, who they
think you are.

What I'm trying to say here is if this place truly needs *less of* is
creating more celebrity-type personalities to further underminethe
creation of true down-to-business aviation discussion.

buttman wrote:
On Aug 15, 12:40 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
buttman wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:53 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
I note that some people who wish to migrate to a more controlled aviation
forum have a couple issues with the alternatives such as AOPA and POA. The
first being that they appear U.S. centric. The second that the layout is
actually a backward step in user friendliness.
While it isn't as good as some of the classic threaded newsreaders, it
occurs to me that creating a "Google Groups only" (non-Usenet) forum might
help a little toward addressing the two main issues (that I'm aware of,
anyway.) This is Google's info on creating a group on their systems:
http://groups.google.com/intl/en/goo.../overview.html
The third issue is who would most people feel comfortable with as the PIC
of such a group?
That would be worse. The reason this group has degraded is because of
ad-hominem arguments. Notice I didn't say ad-hominem attacks. In my
opinion more damage has been done to this group by allowing
"annointed" people free rides and giving "non-anointed" people attacks
regardless of what they say. The way it should be is that if someone
like Dudley says something stupid, he should get called out on it. If
MX says something, he should get called out on it. If Dudley says
something great he should be praised for it. If MX says something
good, he should get praised for it. But thats not how its done here.
No matter what MX says, he'll get ribbed. No matter what Dudley says,
he'll get praised. If you have a group of people officially annointed
as group moderators, this effect will only be magnified and the
discussion will be even less useless.
I see this sort of thing happen with moderated groups all the time.
You have 4 or 5 people anointed as the "chosen ones", who then strut
around the group with their chests puffed out. They no longer put any
effort into their postings because why bother when you are already
automatically revered by the whole group? If, for some reason you
aren't revered by a member, you can just delete their messages or ban
them from the group.
You're so full of crap it's amazing. Your problem with me started the
day we got into a discussion on you pulling mixture on a student and
you've been a royal PIA ever since.
Not that I mind, but take this post for example. You state something
that is totally false as though it's accepted fact and think it will
stand It won't!
First of all, I am not now, nor have I ever been anything "special" on
this forum, either in my own opinion or in that of others. You simply
pull this crap out of your ass and post it I guess for your own
amusement or for whatever damage you envision it doing.
No big deal. Post away. I think most of the people who frequent this
forum, or at least the ones who would matter anyway, know you have an
agenda here.
Now on to something else you said that reeks of false premise. I've been
posting on these forums for over ten years. Go Google me and come up
with something "stupid" I've posted on these groups and present it here
for everyone to see will you please. I'd be very interested to read what
that happened to be.

--
Dudley Henriques

Jeez, calm down. I was just using you as an example. I said " if
someone like Dudley says something stupid", not "Dudley always says
something stupid". And to be quite honest, 90% of you posts are
neither great nor crappy. Usually you just end up either stating the
obvious or posting something completely banal. The problem is with
sycophants replying to your less than great posts with "OH WOW ANOTHER
GREAT GREAT DUDLEY POST THANK YOU DUDLEY YOU ARE SO AWESOME" which
gives you that sense of importance you have.

But anyways, to illustrate the point I'm trying to make a little
further, consider for a minute what would happen if I were to go back
to 2002, find a well received Dudley post, and post it here right now
under my name. Will it get the exact same response as it did under
Dudley's name? *Should* that post get the same response? If it doesn't
get the same warm response, why not? What if MX reposted it instead of
me?

That is what is wrong with this group right now. No one judges what
your post contains, they only judge who you are, or worse, who they
think you are.

What I'm trying to say here is if this place truly needs *less of* is
creating more celebrity-type personalities to further underminethe
creation of true down-to-business aviation discussion.

With me you have no point. You are possibly the worst CFI I have ever
seen posting on these groups and I've said that on more than one
occasion and will continue to use any credibility I own to advise
students NOT to fly with you.

I'll be glad to use every opportunity you give me by insisting to use my
name in these ridiculous posts of yours to point students to the
following thread started by you on the student group some time ago.
Students reading this thread will note that the procedure you are asking
about as being a good idea you had already done with a student before
asking. They will as well note that several other CFI's besides myself
engaged you on the issue.
Your "mentioning" and "using" of my name in many posts you make has been
based on my absolute and total lack of respect for you as a CFI. I
accept that, and in fact would expect that from someone I have said
public ally I would not fly with, nor recommend anyone else fly with.

So for those who might need a "refresher" on exactly wht I'm talking
about concerning you, I suggest reading the following thread;


http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...d5ed01c0a5aac0


Thank you for the opportunity to present this again. I will continue
doing this every time you post mentioning my name.
Thank you

--
Dudley Henriques

On Aug 15, 4:53*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Thank you for the opportunity to present this again. I will continue
doing this every time you post mentioning my name.
Thank you

--
Dudley Henriques

You're doing it again! You're just illustrating my point for me.

This thread is not about me, its not about you, its not about pulling
the fuel valve on takeoff. Its about how certain people's egos degrade
discussion on this forum by bringing personalities into the picture.
Your sole argument here is "this guy made a lot of dumb posts in the
past, don't listen to anything he says, because by definition he is
wrong" by bringing up completely unrelated posts I made a year ago.

Instead of arguing against the argument, you rather argue against the
person. And it's not just you, many others are guilty too.

buttman wrote in news:ba683e60-73d5-45c4-b617-
:

On Aug 15, 4:53*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Thank you for the opportunity to present this again. I will continue
doing this every time you post mentioning my name.
Thank you

--
Dudley Henriques

You're doing it again! You're just illustrating my point for me.

And yet nobody is listening to you.


go figger.


Bertie

buttman wrote:
On Aug 15, 4:53 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Thank you for the opportunity to present this again. I will continue
doing this every time you post mentioning my name.
Thank you

--
Dudley Henriques

You're doing it again! You're just illustrating my point for me.

This thread is not about me, its not about you, its not about pulling
the fuel valve on takeoff. Its about how certain people's egos degrade
discussion on this forum by bringing personalities into the picture.
Your sole argument here is "this guy made a lot of dumb posts in the
past, don't listen to anything he says, because by definition he is
wrong" by bringing up completely unrelated posts I made a year ago.

Instead of arguing against the argument, you rather argue against the
person. And it's not just you, many others are guilty too.

Yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm doing. In your case, it IS the person, NOT
the present subject.
You have used my name once more in a post in this thread to "make" your
"point". THAT is personal. I have responded to you making it perfectly
clear to anyone (who for whatever reason evades me) might be even
remotely interested in WHY you insist on using my name in this manner.
I say again and will continue to say that you represent everything I
have spent a lifetime in aviation attempting to correct.
Referencing that and nothing else, I again suggest that potential
students read the following thread that you began posted as a CFI and
make up their own minds about the why's of this discussion we're having.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...d5ed01c0a5aac0


--
Dudley Henriques

On Aug 15, 5:24*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
buttman wrote:
On Aug 15, 4:53 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Thank you for the opportunity to present this again. I will continue
doing this every time you post mentioning my name.
Thank you

--
Dudley Henriques

You're doing it again! You're just illustrating my point for me.

This thread is not about me, its not about you, its not about pulling
the fuel valve on takeoff. Its about how certain people's egos degrade
discussion on this forum by bringing personalities into the picture.
Your sole argument here is "this guy made a lot of dumb posts in the
past, don't listen to anything he says, because by definition he is
wrong" by bringing up completely unrelated posts I made a year ago.

Instead of arguing against the argument, you rather argue against the
person. And it's not just you, many others are guilty too.

Yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm doing. In your case, it IS the person, NOT
the present subject.
You have used my name once more in a post in this thread to "make" your
"point". THAT is personal. I have responded to you making it perfectly
clear to anyone (who for whatever reason evades me) might be even
remotely interested in WHY you insist on using my name in this manner.
I say again and will continue to say that you represent everything I
have spent a lifetime in aviation attempting to correct.
Referencing that and nothing else, I again suggest that potential
students read the following thread that you began posted as a CFI and
make up their own minds about the why's of this discussion we're having.


Well if you were deeply offended by me using your name in my post,
then I am truly sorry. I didn't do it to insult you. I thought I made
it clear what the point I was trying to make was. If I could edit
usenet posts, I'd go back and change it to someone else's name.


http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...wse_thread/thr...

--
Dudey Henriques

Also, just to put this out there, Dudley has, for months claimed me to
be "the worst CFI I've ever seen", "the type of person I've spent a
lifetime to try to correct", etc. But he has never elaborated on this,
ever. He just repeats these weasel phrases over and over again. If he
claims to be such an expert on CFI attitudes and aviation safety, then
why doesn't he make the case without resorting to smokescreen tactics
and weasel words? This is another example of people using their
sigfiles and reputation to do the arguing for them, which is exactly
what this group needs less of.

buttman wrote in
:

On Aug 15, 5:24*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
buttman wrote:
On Aug 15, 4:53 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Thank you for the opportunity to present this again. I will
continue doing this every time you post mentioning my name.
Thank you

--
Dudley Henriques

You're doing it again! You're just illustrating my point for me.

This thread is not about me, its not about you, its not about
pulling the fuel valve on takeoff. Its about how certain people's
egos degrade discussion on this forum by bringing personalities
into the picture. Your sole argument here is "this guy made a lot
of dumb posts in the past, don't listen to anything he says,
because by definition he is wrong" by bringing up completely
unrelated posts I made a year ago.

Instead of arguing against the argument, you rather argue against
the person. And it's not just you, many others are guilty too.

Yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm doing. In your case, it IS the person,
NOT the present subject.
You have used my name once more in a post in this thread to "make"
your "point". THAT is personal. I have responded to you making it
perfectly clear to anyone (who for whatever reason evades me) might
be even remotely interested in WHY you insist on using my name in
this manner. I say again and will continue to say that you represent
everything I have spent a lifetime in aviation attempting to correct.
Referencing that and nothing else, I again suggest that potential
students read the following thread that you began posted as a CFI and
make up their own minds about the why's of this discussion we're
having.


Well if you were deeply offended by me using your name in my post,
then I am truly sorry. I didn't do it to insult you. I thought I made
it clear what the point I was trying to make was. If I could edit
usenet posts, I'd go back and change it to someone else's name.



http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...wse_thread/thr
...

--
Dudey Henriques

Also, just to put this out there, Dudley has, for months claimed me to
be "the worst CFI I've ever seen", "the type of person I've spent a
lifetime to try to correct", etc. But he has never elaborated on this,
ever.

Yes, he has.

that makes you a liar!

Bertie

buttman wrote:
On Aug 15, 5:24 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
buttman wrote:
On Aug 15, 4:53 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Thank you for the opportunity to present this again. I will continue
doing this every time you post mentioning my name.
Thank you
--
Dudley Henriques
You're doing it again! You're just illustrating my point for me.
This thread is not about me, its not about you, its not about pulling
the fuel valve on takeoff. Its about how certain people's egos degrade
discussion on this forum by bringing personalities into the picture.
Your sole argument here is "this guy made a lot of dumb posts in the
past, don't listen to anything he says, because by definition he is
wrong" by bringing up completely unrelated posts I made a year ago.
Instead of arguing against the argument, you rather argue against the
person. And it's not just you, many others are guilty too.
Yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm doing. In your case, it IS the person, NOT
the present subject.
You have used my name once more in a post in this thread to "make" your
"point". THAT is personal. I have responded to you making it perfectly
clear to anyone (who for whatever reason evades me) might be even
remotely interested in WHY you insist on using my name in this manner.
I say again and will continue to say that you represent everything I
have spent a lifetime in aviation attempting to correct.
Referencing that and nothing else, I again suggest that potential
students read the following thread that you began posted as a CFI and
make up their own minds about the why's of this discussion we're having.


Well if you were deeply offended by me using your name in my post,
then I am truly sorry. I didn't do it to insult you. I thought I made
it clear what the point I was trying to make was. If I could edit
usenet posts, I'd go back and change it to someone else's name.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...wse_thread/thr...
--
Dudey Henriques

Also, just to put this out there, Dudley has, for months claimed me to
be "the worst CFI I've ever seen", "the type of person I've spent a
lifetime to try to correct", etc. But he has never elaborated on this,
ever. He just repeats these weasel phrases over and over again. If he
claims to be such an expert on CFI attitudes and aviation safety, then
why doesn't he make the case without resorting to smokescreen tactics
and weasel words? This is another example of people using their
sigfiles and reputation to do the arguing for them, which is exactly
what this group needs less of.

Full of crap as usual I see.

Although I have elaborated on this several times before on these forums,
I'll be more than happy to do it again here and now so that there can be
absolutely no misunderstanding as to why I view you as incompetent as a CFI.

You posted AS a CFI on these forums asking if shutting down the fuel on
takeoff with a student was a "good idea". You did this by your own word
in your initial post on the issue AFTER you had already done it with at
least one student. So right off the bat, you, posting as a CFI, were
asking a forum of pilots whether or not something you had already done
with a student was a good idea. This in itself constitutes extremely
poor PIC/CFI judgment as it establishes that you performed a specific
procedure with a student in the aircraft that at the moment you
performed that procedure you were not sure was safe and correct to perform.
This alone would disqualify you with me as a potential CFI hire.

Now, on to the rest of it.

When the fallacy of what you did was pointed out to you not only by
myself, but several other CFI's, instead of accepting the fact that what
you did might have been unsafe, you instead have consistently and ever
since not only attempted to defend the procedure with statements about
the length of the runway etc, but have actively engaged in an open
attempt to portray me as a know it all with some kind of a superiority
complex.

In summation, what you did by shutting down the fuel on take off with a
student was bad enough, as it's not necessary to do this to stress a
point and/or demonstrate an engine failure on takeoff. The reason for
this is quite simple. NO good instructor EVER deliberately puts a
student in a situation that purposely reduces or alters the existing
flight safety options. By selecting the fuel selector valve to OFF on
the takeoff roll, you deliberately put the student in unnecessary danger
by altering the escape option if power was needed to extricate the
aircraft from any unsafe condition that might arise on that takeoff.

What you did was not only unnecessary, it was unsafe!

The fact that you have chosen to challenge rather than simply thank the
instructors who have attempted to set you straight is an indication of a
personality trait I find freightening in a CFI.

I hope this post has answered any questions both you and others might
have had concerning this issue.
As you can see, I have addressed it quite clearly.



--
Dudley Henriques

On Aug 15, 6:51*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Full of crap as usual I see.

Although I have elaborated on this several times before on these forums,
I'll be more than happy to do it again here and now so that there can be
absolutely no misunderstanding as to why I view you as incompetent as a CFI.

You posted AS a CFI on these forums asking if shutting down the fuel on
takeoff with a student was a "good idea". You did this by your own word
in your initial post on the issue AFTER you had already done it with at
least one student. So right off the bat, you, posting as a CFI, were
asking a forum of pilots whether or not something you had already done
with a student was a good idea. This in itself constitutes extremely
poor PIC/CFI judgment as it establishes that you performed a specific
procedure with a student in the aircraft that at the moment you
performed that procedure you were not sure was safe and correct to perform.
This alone would disqualify you with me as a potential CFI hire.

Not quite. What I had already done was not the same thing that I was
asking about.

The day before I made that post, I realized that reaching over towards
the throttle and pulling it back is completely different from the
engine suddenly stopping. I felt that the next step was to try it out
with some students where that particular part of the equation removed.
Instead of reaching over, I will kill the engine by pulling the fuel
valve, since that way it's more realistic to an actual engine failure.
On the takeoff roll, on a 10,000+ ft runway, I pulled the fuel valve,
assuming it would die within a second or two. After 2 or 3 seconds, it
didn't doe, so I pulled the throttle back and aborted the takeoff.
What I did I can't believe is any more unsafe that hundreds of things
CFI's do on a regular basis. I can't accept someone telling me what I
did was attempted murder or whatever people were saying that day.
MEI's pull mixtures and fuel valves all the time in the takeoff roll
in multi-engine airplanes, which in my opinion is way more dangerous
than what I did. But do you see anyone persecuting MEI's who practice
that maneuver?

Later that day I made the thread asking about how long it would take
for the engine to die, and any other ideas about what to expect doing
this maneuver. The response was not what I expected. People were going
berserk, lead by none other than you. If I remember correctly, the
first few responses were pretty mild and well-reasoned, until a few
people such as yourself felt the need to jump in and hulk out. From
that point on, it was you and your sycophants having fun flinging crap
back and forth.

At the time, you and your retard buddies saying I was the world worst
instructor really got to me. I was fairly new to instructing and
didn't have a lot of confidence. I may have had a hard time explaining
myself and it got a little out of hand. But now that I've been at it
for a while, I see it this way: I have never had a complaint from a
student, an examiner, a fellow instructor, etc. etc. The only people
who have any qualms with me are people from Usenet. And it's not like
I'm any different online as I am when talking to people in real life.
After all the dust from that thread settled, I brought the issue up
with my boss, and we had a long discussion about it. No one lost their
temper, and no one accused of being the worlds worst instructor. I
explained to him as best as I could the precautions I made before
doing the actual maneuver (which I may not have made enough effort to
explain to the group when I made the thread). He understood that I
made an honest effort to assure safety and he even understood where I
was coming from when it came to the differences between a student
reacting to the instructor pulling the fuel valve which is hidden
under the seat, as opposed to reaching over and grabbing the throttle.
It was an enlightening and educational experience. We basically came
to the conclusion that it does have some instructing benefits (he said
his instructor back in the 70's used to pull the fuel valve all the
time on him in the C150), but you must be really really careful
because a lot of stuff could go wrong. The main thing I remember from
that conversation was he most definitely *did not* tell me it was
attempted murder or even something he wouldn't do if the conditions
were right (including a long runway, a proficient student, an empty
traffic pattern, among a few others) Too bad the same constructive
conversation couldn't have happened here...


Now, on to the rest of it.

When the fallacy of what you did was pointed out to you not only by
myself, but several other CFI's, instead of accepting the fact that what
you did might have been unsafe, you instead have consistently and ever
since not only attempted to defend the procedure with statements about
the length of the runway etc, but have actively engaged in an open
attempt to portray me as a know it all with some kind of a superiority
complex.

The reason I didn't accept your "criticism" (I say "criticism" because
it was more like "flaming"), was because you were either choosing to
ignore what I had done to ensure safety, or I hadn't explained myself
clear enough and instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt, you
decided to breakdown any chance of meaningful discussion by assume the
worse.


In summation, what you did by shutting down the fuel on take off with a
student was bad enough, as it's not necessary to do this to stress a
point and/or demonstrate an engine failure on takeoff. The reason for
this is quite simple. NO good instructor EVER deliberately puts a
student in a situation that purposely reduces or alters the existing
flight safety options. By selecting the fuel selector valve to OFF on
the takeoff roll, you deliberately put the student in unnecessary danger
by altering the escape option if power was needed to extricate the
aircraft from any unsafe condition that might arise on that takeoff.

And how exactly is this outlandishly more unsafe that pulling the
mixture on takeoff in a multi-engine airplane? Or any other teaching
technique that pushes safety margins?

What you did was not only unnecessary, it was unsafe!

The fact that you have chosen to challenge rather than simply thank the
instructors who have attempted to set you straight is an indication of a
personality trait I find freightening in a CFI.

I am not going to thanks people who do nothing but flame me. I thanked
the people who added to the thread, and I thanked the head CFI at the
flight school where I worked at the time. But I'm sure as hell not
going to thank you or anyone else there for replying to me the way you
did. I don't praise deconstructive *anything*.

Safety is not a "yes" or "no" question. There are factors that make
something safe, and factors that make it unsafe. One would think a
person who claims to be a safety expert like you would know this.
Anyone who treats it as such, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to accept
them as a source of accurate, useful advice. I don't care how many
decades you've been investigating plane crashes, or how many students
you've soloed.


I hope this post has answered any questions both you and others might
have had concerning this issue.
As you can see, I have addressed it quite clearly.

And I have addressed myself quite clearly, I feel. But will you ever
let up? Will you ever accept that I have done even one thing right?
Will you ever maybe consider that you may have been wrong about me? No
you never will. Or at least you never have. At least the other
instructors who replied have moved on. You the only one left on this
"crusade" to spread the word to everybody you see about my
"incompetence". Thats why I feel you are nothing but a blow hard. You
are not interested in Aviation Safety, you are not interested in
Flight Instruction.

You've been playing the "worlds worst instructor" card since my like
20th Usenet post. I remember having like not much more than 20 posts
under the Buttman name. Do you really think it's professional to be
using names like that based on 10 post someone has made on the
internet? You've never met me, you've never flown with me, you've
never even met a single person who does know me. Yet you still insist
I am the worst "you've ever seen". Do you not think that maybe there
is more to me that you may be missing? All I know i that I would
never, ever call someone else "the worlds worst instructor" or
anything else as hyperbolic unless I was 100% certain that I knew the
whole picture, and that I had mounds of evidence to back that claim
up. Not just a few Usenet posts.

buttman writes:

Also, just to put this out there, Dudley has, for months claimed me to
be "the worst CFI I've ever seen", "the type of person I've spent a
lifetime to try to correct", etc. But he has never elaborated on this,
ever. He just repeats these weasel phrases over and over again. If he
claims to be such an expert on CFI attitudes and aviation safety, then
why doesn't he make the case without resorting to smokescreen tactics
and weasel words?

Now you're engaging in the very behavior you just criticized. Care to discuss
aviation?