Experience Question

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

What is with all of the extra lines in your .sig? Or am I the only one
seeing that?

No, you are not the only one seeing it.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Bob Noel wrote:

What is with all of the extra lines in your .sig? Or am I the only one
seeing that?

No, you are not the only one seeing it.

Do not adjust your set. Newsfeeds, my current news provider, adds their
own BS advertising to the bottom of all of their subscribers' posts. Other
than going with another news provider, there is nothing I can do about it.

As a form of protest, though, I do add a few carriage returns after my name
in my sig in an attempt to push their garbage way down and out of view of
most PC-based newsreaders.



--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Your cantankerous persona in these aviation groups has become quite
tiresome.

Really? Do tell. Your insistence on misinterpreting other people's posts,
and then writing fallacious "corrections" to those posts isn't?

Okay then.

wrote in message
oups.com...

It's not like you're taking them rock climbing, for crying out loud.

Oh, no, not a rock climbing dig!

I guess I should have posted in HTML so I could increase the font size for
the smiley for folks like you?

Still, last I read, the fatal accident rate for certain sports, including
rock climbing, is significantly higher than that for flying. In terms of
risk exposure for a single outing, comparing rock climbing to flying is not
far off from comparing flying to driving.

The reason for this difference may be different between flying and rock
climbing, compared to between flying and driving. But nevertheless, as far
as I know the difference does exist (maybe it's changed recently?).

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

Really? Do tell.

Your argumentative, humorless posting history over the last three years of
my participation in these aviation groups is *so much* more pronounced than
I could ever hope to achieve.

Back in 2002 when I was a student pilot, I enjoyed reading your posts, as
they contained much relevant aviation content and tempered discussion.
However, these days the majority of your posts demonstrates nothing more
than a persona in constant need of one-upping all others.

I'll certainly concede that you do appear to know aviation and you seem
quite intelligent, but your humorless and combative presentation has
increased to the point where I certainly have grown tired of wading through
your thorns to find the fruit.

Your insistence on misinterpreting other people's posts,
and then writing fallacious "corrections" to those posts isn't?

I see nothing in my first few posts in this thread that even closely
represents your remark. But, call it as you do. That is your aviation
newsgroup persona and it has become predictable and boring.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

It's true, folks like me can be kinda sensitive.

You have a good point about the relative risk rates of climbing and
flying. Honestly, it's very hard to find comparative data. And it's not
even clear what would be comparative? Deaths per year per 100,000
practitioners? That would not distinguish between people who climb/fly
a lot or a little? Or deaths per 100,000 hours? That would not account
for the fact that people don't climb continuously for hours like pilots
fly. Also, how does one account for the level of training? (There's no
climber's certificate, though sometimes I think there should be.) So
it's hard.

You also could try to separate out certain types of particularly
dangerous climbing that that most climbers don't do, such as solo free
climbing. (ie, no rope, no mistakes allowed). Fact is, climbing often
attracts a certain type of risk taker, and to be honest, many climbers
are just not as thoughtful as pilots -- but that doesn't mean that
climbing is to blame.

What is definitely true is that your chance of injury (scraped skin,
twisted ankles, broken bones) is a good deal higher for rock climbing
than flying. Death, however, is going to be much closer.

In any case, I'm really pushing my luck, because I sometimes fly to go
climbing!
And do think, my mother used to joke that her precious children should
only be allowed to play checkers -- and then, only wearing goggles.

-- dave j

wrote in message
oups.com...

It's true, folks like me can be kinda sensitive.

I was thinking more just the poor eyesight. But if it's a sensitivity
issue, maybe the larger smiley would have helped that too.

You have a good point about the relative risk rates of climbing and
flying. Honestly, it's very hard to find comparative data. And it's not
even clear what would be comparative?

Therein lies the rub. Even for the basic flying vs driving comparison,
there's debate as to the "correct" way to compare them. The relative ratios
don't come out the same for all methods (in fact, I'm pretty sure *none* are
the same).

The same thing is true for comparing flying to rock climbing, of course. Or
any other activity. Which comparison one chooses depends often as much on
what point the person making the comparison is trying to make, as it does on
any objective desire to provide the most relevant and accurate comparison.

I'm not saying I have a perfect way to compare the various activities. Just
that, for various measures, certain activities are consistently more or less
(depending on the activity) dangerous than flying.

Pete

I was instrument-rated and had 300 hours before I took my first
passenger.

I wanted to make very sure that I could handle whatever Mother Nature
(within reason) handed me before I flew with someone else.

The fact that you passed a checkride says pretty much nothing about
your safety or competence.

"Scott Draper" wrote in message
...
I was instrument-rated and had 300 hours before I took my first
passenger.

I wanted to make very sure that I could handle whatever Mother Nature
(within reason) handed me before I flew with someone else.

The fact that you passed a checkride says pretty much nothing about
your safety or competence.

Sorry Scott,

But having your IA and 300+ hours says nothing about yours either.

As other have pointed out, there are low-time pilots who fly as
professionally as ATPs and there are high-time pilots who are lucky to still
be alive.

IMO, it boils down to personal limits and not letting your ego write checks
your experience can't cash.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

"Peter Duniho" writes:

wrote in message
oups.com...

It's not like you're taking them rock climbing, for crying out loud.

Oh, no, not a rock climbing dig!

I guess I should have posted in HTML so I could increase the font size for
the smiley for folks like you?

Still, last I read, the fatal accident rate for certain sports, including
rock climbing, is significantly higher than that for flying. In terms of
risk exposure for a single outing, comparing rock climbing to flying is not
far off from comparing flying to driving.

Per mile traveled? I'd certainly expect it to be different! :-) :-)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/