On air conversation about JFK controller - Video

On Mar 6, 9:56*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

Award or not, the controller didn't save that pilot.

B/S! You are wrong as usual, the controller DID, DID may I repeat DID
save that pilot's life! Would he have gotten down safely without the
controller? Probably not! You are talking out of your backside! You
know nothing about the real world of flight, you don't fly, you
probably never will, and nothing that proceeds from your trap should
be taken with any amount of sincerity whatsoever.

Ricky

On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 11:22:01 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Of course Mx makes a judgment without being there.

Why do you possibly care? What shortcoming in your life, what void,
does he fill?

On Mar 13, 4:11*pm, "Jay \"Little Napoleon\" Severson"
wrote:
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 11:22:01 -0800 (PST), wrote:
Of course Mx makes a judgment without being there.

Why do you possibly care? What shortcoming in your life, what void,
does he fill?

The answer to your question is fortunately none :-)

His judgment is clearly a credibility issue especially when he claims
the ATC controller was breaking rules.

He still hasn't showed me the reference when I asked him to point the
page in the reference he provided to Jim that idle chat is prohibited
on the frequency.

Gee I wonder why.....

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 14:58:21 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Mar 13, 4:11*pm, "Jay \"Little Napoleon\" Severson"
wrote:
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 11:22:01 -0800 (PST), wrote:
Of course Mx makes a judgment without being there.

Why do you possibly care? What shortcoming in your life, what void,
does he fill?

The answer to your question is fortunately none :-)

His judgment is clearly a credibility issue especially when he claims
the ATC controller was breaking rules.

He still hasn't showed me the reference when I asked him to point the
page in the reference he provided to Jim that idle chat is prohibited
on the frequency.

Gee I wonder why.....

Because he's a troll who gets off on ruining newsgroups and sucking in
ppl like you to accomplish his means?

On Mar 15, 2:53*pm, "Jay \"Little Napoleon\" Severson"
wrote:

Because he's a troll who gets off on ruining newsgroups and sucking in
ppl like you to accomplish his means?- Hide quoted text -

Can't argue that.... Unfortunately I did take the bait hook line and
sinker.

On Mar 16, 8:57*am, " wrote:
On Mar 15, 2:53*pm, "Jay \"Little Napoleon\" Severson"

wrote:
Because he's a troll who gets off on ruining newsgroups and sucking in
ppl like you to accomplish his means?- Hide quoted text -

Can't argue that.... Unfortunately I did take the bait hook line and
sinker.

But then if you just let idiots post half arsed claims about aviation
some-one out there will think that (because there is no reply) that
the idiot has a point.

On Mar 15, 3:07*pm, george wrote:

But then if you just let idiots post half arsed claims about aviation
some-one out there will think that (because there is no reply) that
the idiot has a point.

This is true too! :-)

I guess the hard thing is to finding that right balance without
feeding the Mx troll.

"george" wrote

But then if you just let idiots post half arsed claims about aviation
some-one out there will think that (because there is no reply) that
the idiot has a point.

*****************
My reply on how to handle that problem is a boilerplate statement that does
not acknowledge the poster as being worth a direct argument.

Reply with something like:

The poster, Mxsmaniac that wrote the above is not a pilot, and has been
proven to be a troll that is only posting here to stir up trouble and
destroy this newsgroup. He frequently posts information that is partially
or totally false, so his posts should not be believed. Others would be best
advised to not engage with this poster, which only prolongs his disruptive
presence.
--
Jim in NC

On Mar 15, 7:07*pm, "Morgans" wrote:

Reply with something like:

The poster, Mxsmaniac that wrote the above is not a pilot, and has been
proven to be a troll that is only posting here to stir up trouble and
destroy this newsgroup. *

Ya know, Jim, I agree somewhat, but I wonder if Mx's intent is really
to "destroy this newsgroup?" I could be wrong.
He seems to have legitimate things to say & ask sometimes, or most of
the time, but he is possibly one with a mental deficiency of sorts,
which may lead to his annoying comments here. I don't get the
impression that he's trying to purposefully be disruptive, but he is
anyway.

I do agree, however, that a blanket statement such as your's is
wisdom, especially for one who may be inclined to take what he says
with any amount of sincerity.

Ricky

george wrote:


But then if you just let idiots post half arsed claims about aviation
some-one out there will think that (because there is no reply) that
the idiot has a point.


No, you completely ignore them, and they will eventually go away for
lack of attention.