I give up, after many, many years!

The retarded children continue to forge.

Tina writes:

A blatant lie.

Again.

Try it.

Try what? Damaging a real airplane?

Why would I do that? You certainly damaged nothing, but one reading
your post would conclude otherwise.

You simply lied.

Again.




On May 21, 1:45 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Tina writes:
A blatant lie.

Again.

Try it.

On May 21, 7:21 am, wrote:
On May 20, 11:43 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

On May 20, 6:26 pm, wrote:
Compass fluid is a petroleum product and is flammable. Its MSDS
says it's odorless mineral spirits, which would make it similar to
household paint thinner: http://www.setonresourcecenter.com/m...4/wcd00445.htm

Anti-freeze. (glycol)
Ken

Glycol is a "slight to moderate fire hazard," unlike
petroleum products. It is not the same as paint thinner or compass
fluid or anywhere near the same. It's a form of alcohol.http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/e5125.htm
Dan

First, does your preflight check list require you ascertain
your mag-comp as functional, and if so, why?
Ken

On May 21, 5:02 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

First, does your preflight check list require you ascertain
your mag-comp as functional, and if so, why?
Ken

What does that have to do with compass fluid? Compass checks are
carried out during taxi, particularly for an IFR flight. Attitude
indicator erect and steady; heading indicator set and indicating
during turns; turn coordinator functioning and ball free; compass free
and floating, altimeter set and indicating proper elevation, radios
set. That's about as much as I can remember, since my Instrument
ticket lapsed eight years ago.
Compass is not part of the preflight.

Tell me: what does the compass do in a turn to or from North
versus a turn to or from South? Why does this make it useless for
rolling out on a heading unless we use a timer?

Dan

aren't you Mr. Wunnerful give way to senoiurs asshole
Nomen Nescio submitted this idea :
Many years ago, on a bet, I did a pretty fair 4 point roll.......BLINDFOLDED!
I got lunch and a half dozen beers out of the deal.

Michael Ash wrote:

As to whether "waving certificates" in people's faces adds value, it's
not much different than sourcing an official or authoritative reference,
is it? If we were talking about combat it would be relevant for the
readers to understand that the people in the discussion are a video game
geek versus a combat veteran.

It's relevant to the discussion, sure, when you present it as backing for
your opinion or for facts. But when you come straight out and shout
someone dow, saying that they're not allowed to disagree with you because
you have credentials and they don't, that's just bad taste.


Please tell me at what point I "came straight out and shouted somebody
down," and, more importantly, where I've EVER said they're "not allowed
to disagree" because I have credentials and they don't.

It's fine to disagree right up to the point where you're disagreeing
with virtually everybody from private pilots to airline pilots.

If this were rec.surgery.brain and some philosophy student was arguing
with brain surgeons all day, every day, and then admonishing them for
their answers, I wouldn't for a second expect the surgeons not to remind
the student they're they're doctors and that he's not qualified to
contradict literally ALL of them. (Not to mention ignoring their
authoritative references and dodging any challenge to cite sources for
him own information.)

But I never said anybody "wasn't allowed" to disagree with me simply
because of my credentials.

-c

In rec.aviation.student gatt wrote:
Michael Ash wrote:

As to whether "waving certificates" in people's faces adds value, it's
not much different than sourcing an official or authoritative reference,
is it? If we were talking about combat it would be relevant for the
readers to understand that the people in the discussion are a video game
geek versus a combat veteran.

It's relevant to the discussion, sure, when you present it as backing for
your opinion or for facts. But when you come straight out and shout
someone dow, saying that they're not allowed to disagree with you because
you have credentials and they don't, that's just bad taste.

Please tell me at what point I "came straight out and shouted somebody
down," and, more importantly, where I've EVER said they're "not allowed
to disagree" because I have credentials and they don't.

There was the bit which prompted my first message, where you said "DON'T
CONTRADICT ME. I FLY PLANES AND YOU PLAY VIDEO GAMES."

It's fine to disagree right up to the point where you're disagreeing
with virtually everybody from private pilots to airline pilots.

If this were rec.surgery.brain and some philosophy student was arguing
with brain surgeons all day, every day, and then admonishing them for
their answers, I wouldn't for a second expect the surgeons not to remind
the student they're they're doctors and that he's not qualified to
contradict literally ALL of them. (Not to mention ignoring their
authoritative references and dodging any challenge to cite sources for
him own information.)

I have no problem with occasionally reminding people of their
qualifications. But on the other hand, novices can be right and experts
can be wrong, so it's much better to argue based on the facts. If this
doesn't work because the person you're talking to is a flaming moron,
telling him to shut up and listen because you have experience or
credentials isn't likely to help.

But I never said anybody "wasn't allowed" to disagree with me simply
because of my credentials.

Well, you told him not to, same effect in the end.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Michael Ash wrote:


There was the bit which prompted my first message, where you said "DON'T
CONTRADICT ME. I FLY PLANES AND YOU PLAY VIDEO GAMES."

That's has to do with the fact that he asked a valid question, I and
several other people answered it somewhat uniformly, and then he
proceeded to refute that answer in a different thread. (I'm not going to
look it up.)


But I never said anybody "wasn't allowed" to disagree with me simply
because of my credentials.

Well, you told him not to, same effect in the end.

Apparently not. He's still posting here, isn't he? I simply threw him
back into the killfile and will not answer any further questions he asks
unless he pays me for ground instruction.

If there's a problem with that, too bad, I guess. Choosing to ignore
all further questions he asks is entirely my decision. If he chooses to
spout bull**** in a student forum as if he was some sort of authority on
the matter, it's equally my right to illuminate the fact that he's a
fraud and that I'm not.

-c

On Tue, 20 May 2008 08:41:09 -0700, gatt wrote:

I answered MX's question initially because the question had value to the
student pilots in the student group. His utter nonsense that followed
merely adds misinformation and, perhaps, satisfies your entertainment
needs.

He's not worth it, my opinion.

OK, let me put it another way. In the movie Jurassic Park, there's a
scene where a researcher sticks her hand in a pile of dinosaur crap,
digs around, and pulls out an undigested berry. I'm sure if I read more
MX, I too might discover a berry, but to me, the price is too high.