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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
I give up, after many, many years!
Dudley Henriques writes:
Personal attack must be clearly defined as a cold, unsolicited post attacking an individual with totally 0 provocation. That's not a standard definition. A personal attack is an attack against the person (the poster), rather than his or her arguments. It is a fallacy in debate, a last resort of the incompetent, and a first resort of the bully. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
I give up, after many, many years!
Mxsmanic wrote:
Dudley Henriques writes: Personal attack must be clearly defined as a cold, unsolicited post attacking an individual with totally 0 provocation. That's not a standard definition. A personal attack is an attack against the person (the poster), rather than his or her arguments. It is a fallacy in debate, a last resort of the incompetent, and a first resort of the bully. Again, the individual interpretation that is the very essense of Usenet. This definition might not be the "standard" (and just who defines standard anyway :-) but it's my definition as it applies to my personal Usenet experience.......again and as always....Usenet defies "standard definitions". -- Dudley Henriques |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
I give up, after many, many years!
On May 12, 12:55*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote: Dudley Henriques writes: Personal attack must be clearly defined as a cold, unsolicited post attacking an individual with totally 0 provocation. That's not a standard definition. *A personal attack is an attack against the person (the poster), rather than his or her arguments. *It is a fallacy in debate, a last resort of the incompetent, and a first resort of the bully. Again, the individual interpretation that is the very essense of Usenet. This definition might not be the "standard" (and just who defines standard anyway :-) but it's my definition as it applies to my personal Usenet experience.......again and as always....Usenet defies "standard definitions". It is always possible to take something not-provable, but widly regarded as fact, and claim that it is not a fact do to its subjective nature. True or False: * Britney Spears is famous. * Water is wet. * Computerized-control is better at stabilizing aircraft than manual, human-control. * Some pilots in rec.aviation.piloting make personal attacks. Any of these statements can be said to be true or false, depending on the personal, subjective whims of the assessor. What is important, IMO, is that the assessor asks himself on a case-by- case basis whether he is being consistently objective or momentarily subjective as a matter of rhetorical convenience. -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
I give up, after many, many years!
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On May 12, 12:55 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote: Mxsmanic wrote: Dudley Henriques writes: Personal attack must be clearly defined as a cold, unsolicited post attacking an individual with totally 0 provocation. That's not a standard definition. A personal attack is an attack against the person (the poster), rather than his or her arguments. It is a fallacy in debate, a last resort of the incompetent, and a first resort of the bully. Again, the individual interpretation that is the very essense of Usenet. This definition might not be the "standard" (and just who defines standard anyway :-) but it's my definition as it applies to my personal Usenet experience.......again and as always....Usenet defies "standard definitions". It is always possible to take something not-provable, but widly regarded as fact, and claim that it is not a fact do to its subjective nature. True or False: * Britney Spears is famous. * Water is wet. * Computerized-control is better at stabilizing aircraft than manual, human-control. * Some pilots in rec.aviation.piloting make personal attacks. Any of these statements can be said to be true or false, depending on the personal, subjective whims of the assessor. What is important, IMO, is that the assessor asks himself on a case-by- case basis whether he is being consistently objective or momentarily subjective as a matter of rhetorical convenience. -Le Chaud Lapin- All can be said to be true at any given moment in time. The bottom line on Usenet as I see it anyway, is in how the individual sees his/her own interaction with the venue. When it's all said and done, it will be only this interpretation that defines the Usenet experience for a specific user. I agree that it's confusing, and difficult to define; hence this exchange as an example. The main thing is that individuals be allowed to express opinion without attack, but as I'm sure each of us is aware, difficult to achieve on a consistent basis. Anyone posting to Usenet for any length of time will eventually be attacked and most likely assume an online posture more aggressive than that experienced in everyday life. The exact placing of the blame for this phenomenon remains for me anyway, extremely difficult to define clearly and to an exact answer. -- Dudley Henriques |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
I give up, after many, many years!
On May 12, 11:08*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
I should hope that most pilots were not this bad, and it seems that they are not. *I'm not sure why so many pilots in this newsgroup fit the description; perhaps it is a combination of personality characteristics that produces it. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
I give up, after many, many years!
On May 12, 11:10*am, HARRY POTTER wrote:
Don't think I'm just ragging on old people. There are plenty older pilots I know who are very well mannered. One pilot who comes to mind is that guy who landed the airliner using nothing but the throttles after a complete control system failure. I saw a documentary about him, as was really impressed by his humility. I once saw Bob Hoover give a talk and he came off the same way. I find that the ones who really have had great fulfilling careers are the ones who are able to rise above all the cockyness. The ones who have really had their hero moments. Why would you need to put down others when you've already got it made? It's the ones who I guess have been let down by the promise of being a hero of some sort who feel the need to be bitter towards others. I don't know, just my two cents. I like the Bob Hoover comments. I have heard the guy speak at aviation functions, meet him personally, and read his book and I dont think you will find anyone as gracious and unasuming. Yeager on the other hand was an hour and a half of listening to him tell everyone how great he is . I think some of these heros start to believe all the hype and let it get to their heads. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
I give up, after many, many years!
Mxsmanic wrote:
A personal attack is an attack against the person (the poster) Well, that's a good thing to know. In your case, then, it's impossible to make a personal attack. You're not a person. You're just a name on a screen. Thus, you've never been personally attacked. -- dgs |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
I give up, after many, many years!
F. Baum writes:
Partially agree here. At work I see the types who have to make sure evryone at a party knows they are a pilot. They drive around town running errands 3 hours before sign in IN their uniforms, they have mailboxes shaped like an F16, they have a jet engine for a ringtone on the cellphone etc. Most of these guys are a pain to have to fly with. Their entire persona is wraped up with being a pilot. Mebbie they just need something better to do on their days off. There are really such pilots? It sounds like some sort of Hollywood parody. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
I give up, after many, many years!
F. Baum wrote:
On May 12, 11:10 am, HARRY POTTER wrote: Don't think I'm just ragging on old people. There are plenty older pilots I know who are very well mannered. One pilot who comes to mind is that guy who landed the airliner using nothing but the throttles after a complete control system failure. I saw a documentary about him, as was really impressed by his humility. I once saw Bob Hoover give a talk and he came off the same way. I find that the ones who really have had great fulfilling careers are the ones who are able to rise above all the cockyness. The ones who have really had their hero moments. Why would you need to put down others when you've already got it made? It's the ones who I guess have been let down by the promise of being a hero of some sort who feel the need to be bitter towards others. I don't know, just my two cents. I like the Bob Hoover comments. I have heard the guy speak at aviation functions, meet him personally, and read his book and I dont think you will find anyone as gracious and unasuming. Yeager on the other hand was an hour and a half of listening to him tell everyone how great he is . I think some of these heros start to believe all the hype and let it get to their heads. My exact opinion on both these individuals. -- Dudley Henriques |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
I give up, after many, many years!
Mxsmanic wrote:
F. Baum writes: Partially agree here. At work I see the types who have to make sure evryone at a party knows they are a pilot. They drive around town running errands 3 hours before sign in IN their uniforms, they have mailboxes shaped like an F16, they have a jet engine for a ringtone on the cellphone etc. Most of these guys are a pain to have to fly with. Their entire persona is wraped up with being a pilot. Mebbie they just need something better to do on their days off. There are really such pilots? It sounds like some sort of Hollywood parody. There are, just as there are pilots with good solid personalities. There is also a third scenario to envision; that being a pilot with a good solid personality who is visualized as being other than this by someone or others with personality problems of their own. -- Dudley Henriques |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DC-3 parts to give away | Robert Little | Restoration | 2 | November 23rd 06 03:30 AM |
Who can give a checkout? | Mark S Conway | General Aviation | 2 | May 9th 05 12:15 AM |
Winch give-away | KP | Soaring | 6 | January 11th 05 08:04 PM |
Did you ever give up on an IR? | No Such User | Piloting | 24 | November 26th 03 02:45 PM |
FS 2004 give away | Ozzie M | Simulators | 0 | November 23rd 03 03:50 PM |