I give up, after many, many years!

In rec.aviation.student gatt wrote:
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.)

I understand the context (and the sentiment behind it; really!) but I just
think that when it gets to this level it ends up being counterproductive.

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.

I think this is a good decision. Refuting him *can* be useful, but in my
opinion only until it reaches the point where he's obviously being
ridiculous, at which point you just have to let him be, because otherwise
you'll never reach the end of it. Killfiling him is a fine alternative,
though.

There's a great comic on this subject: http://xkcd.com/386/

Ultimately you have to just give up and let the troll be wrong.

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

On May 22, 10:26 pm, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:
"Tina" wrote in message

...

I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. But it does
take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?

Maybe it's just me, but this seems like an interesting question. Anyone
would have to admit the written and practical exams for and ATP, are
certainly know match when compared to a doctorate. But how can you weight
the knowledge gained from 2000 or 3000 flight hours, especially in the
variety of aircraft and flight conditions required for and ATP, with 200 or
300 college hours?

There are different skill sets for each. Also, I am sure there are
many more Ph.Ds granted in the US than are ATRs. Still, some of us are
far more demanding
of our candidates than instructors are for those in training for an
ATR, and remember our candidates are in training for four years, and
that excludes their primary degrees. Ah, those four grad school years
are pretty much full time work years in our institution. (Think what
you might like, but most students want to finish as soon as they can,
they are mostly very motivated, and it takes that long anyhow).

Never the less, I think in each case the best are aiming for the
highest credentials in their fields, and I would not care to have to
defend one class of 'best' as better than another.

I can assure you from personal experience the IFR written is far
easier to pass than our qualifying exams (a few weeks of study was
enough for that exam vs a complete test of one's knowledge of a field
of study for the PhD). I know nothing about the ATR writtens.

On May 22, 9:26*pm, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:
"Tina" wrote in message

...

I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. *But it does
take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?

Maybe it's just me, but this seems like an interesting question. Anyone
would have to admit the written and practical exams for and ATP, are
certainly know match when compared to a doctorate. But how can you weight
the knowledge gained from 2000 or 3000 flight hours, especially in the
variety of aircraft and flight conditions required for and ATP, with 200 or
300 college hours?

I think that, all things being equal, the academic will have an
advantage in the cockpit, because s/he will not only have a set of
rules to follow, but have fundamental understanding of why those rules
are applicable.

During my own ground school, there were several places during
instruction where knowledge of math and science was clearly
advantageous:

1. magnetos (induction)
2. carb ice (adiabatic cooling of condensate)
3. density/pressure altitude (ideal gas law)
4. course tracking in high crosswind (vectors)
5. balance and center of gravity (arms and moments)
6. compass error due to EMI (basic electrodynamics)
7. mixture enrichment and leaning (density of gases vs altitude)
8. VOR (electromagnetic radiation)
9. load factor (basic trigonometry, Newton's law for circular motion)
10. vestibular disorientation (physiology of inner ear)
11. gyroscopic precession (torque, Newton's Law)

An electrical engineer will, I think, have an easier time remembering
basic radio frequencies by virtue of the fact that s/he knows what a
frequency really is. Inn ground school, I tested hypothesis by asking
the class (and the instructor), if the frequency was in megahertz or
kilohertz. There was silence, as no one knew. This difference might
seem inconsequential and irrelevant until a pilot is asked to recite
all the standard frequencies. The EE, I think, might have an easier
time. The reason is context. When someone utters an RNAV frequency as
a number, the EE might think of many things, but often there is a
visualization. Maybe he thinks about the humps of sine waves. Maybe he
thinks about where it lies in spectrum, a few MHz beyond the FCC limit
on FM in the USA. Whatever he thinks, he will have something to think
about. To some others, the number is just a number, surround by a
black void that provides no crutch for recollection.

Then there is the E6-B. It makes a lot more sense to someone who
understands the fundamentals of what they are doing than following a
learned procedure, which is why I stopped following the "do this, then
do that" instructions, and examine the thing and thought about why it
works, what relationships exist between the scales etc.

So I regard my flight training as mostly a cerebral experience, with
the instructor filling in the parts that are not found in books.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"Tina" wrote in message
news:797c5043-2d03-45ce-957d-f2ef609c7cf2
@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com.
..
I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. But it does
take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?


Maybe it's just me, but this seems like an interesting question.
Anyone would have to admit the written and practical exams for and
ATP, are certainly know match when compared to a doctorate. But how
can you weight the knowledge gained from 2000 or 3000 flight hours,
especially in the variety of aircraft and flight conditions required
for and ATP, with 200 or 300 college hours?




Oh brother. Like you'd know.


Bertie

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:SFEYj.122583$Ft5.13875
@newsfe15.lga:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

You're a forger, a liar and a cross posting ass hole.

If I'm lying, prove it. You are already a known liar.


No, i'm not, and if I'm forging you you can have both my altopia and
databasix accounts terminated in a new york minute.



But since you haven't, and I know why you haven't, btw, you are simply
full of ****.


That's my proof.


Bertie

The Watcher ore wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

I don't forge, fjukkwit.

You forged your finger up your step daughter's snatch, didn't you?


No, but i do now know where your head is at there Jay.


Bertie

Maxwell luv2^fly99@live.^com wrote in
:

In article , Bertie the
Bunyip says...

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"Steve Foley" wrote in message
news:YwzYj.3273$Zy1.1619@trndny05...

He/She/It has denied being Anthony Atkielski, so we really have no
way to tell.

1) Anthony Atkielski published a blog (aprenta.blogspot.com)

2) MX denies having ever written a blog

Therefore MX denies being Anthony Atlielski


And with the proven desire both Bertie and his ilk (recruited by
constant cross posting), has shown in forging identities, Bertie's
influence on the noise level of this group is really the only thing
we can be sure of.

As long as i have you anyway!

Y'know, if'n Maxine doesn't like the noise level in rap, mebbe he
should ask teh B8MBis for a moderated froup.



Wel, he could always use afbtb if he likes.

Bertie

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:0BWYj.88769$y05.16755
@newsfe22.lga:


The retarded children continue to forge.





Do they now?


Bertie

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:9_nZj.175573$yE1.84854@attbi_s21:

This leads to an interesting disconnect. In this group, it is not
rare for a rank novice - a student pilot or even someone who has
never flown - to know more than the supposed experts. This makes the
'experts' uncomfortable - especially when the novice asks questions,
the experts answer, and then the novice proceeds to point out the
logical inconsistencies and factual errors in their answers and
refuses to accept them just because they have credentials and he does
not.

This is the most cogent explanation yet of MX's power over some of the
regulars here. It perfectly explains how he -- a known non-pilot --
is able to throw many known pilots into apoplectic fits simply by
posting a few relatively innocuous comments.

Since you're on a roll, I'd love to hear your theories about Bertie.
To me, he is twice the mystery of MX, since he's obviously a real (or,
at least, former) pilot -- yet he has an apparently irresistable urge
to troll the group.

Nope, I just post. When I meet an asshole,. I have an irrestable urge to
kick him in the nuts. Thus my attraction to you.


Bertie

Rich Ahrens wrote in news:4833709b$0$42292$804603d3
@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:

on 5/17/2008 4:49 PM Bertie the Bunyip said the following:
Helen Waite wrote in
:

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Again, you are talking to a pilot, who just experienced IMC and a
vacuum failure.
You're a very lucky pilot, then, if you're here posting to this
newsgroup.
Good grief! The poster is NOT the only pilot who has experienced
vacuum failure in IMC. It's one of the basic things we train for.
I
had vacuum failure the very first time I was in the clouds after
passing my checkride. It was a non-event.

Bertie was being charitable when he said you know less about
aviation
than a cinder block.

I'm kind of the mother Theresa of usenet.

Old, dead, and smelly???


You're just mean.


Bertie