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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Please ignore Mx
On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:38:34 PM UTC-4, Mxsmanic wrote:
Dudley Henriques writes: It's strange I know, but I'm one of those "pilots" who when everything was considered, really never had any serious problems with you. You are more civil than most, but you have shown considerable irritation at times. Your irritation is tempered by the fact that you often actually know what you are talking about. Others are not so lucky. We had our disagreements to be sure, but I've never seen you as this horrible "threat" to Usenet some others have adopted. When you know you are right, you don't feel threatened by others with different opinions. And of course, if they are also right, you have no disagreement to begin with. Since I often echo concepts and principles that have long been accepted as correct and valid by the best minds in aviation, it goes without saying that other people (pilots or not) who are also aware of these concepts and principles will have no quarrel with me. People who are misinformed and have issues with insecurity will argue with me. They are more interested in preserving their egos than they are in actually being right. Smart people correct themselves when they discover that they are wrong. Stupid people stubbornly persist in being wrong, even when they know they are wrong. Sometimes this leads to bad things, like airplane crashes. In fact, I believe I've commented from time to time that I felt the posts attacking you far outnumbered any posts from you that I personally might have found objectionable. That is indisputably true. Kids who are arguing out of emotion rather than reason become increasingly aggressive and voluble as their position erodes. I think if I had to pinpoint a single thing that I would have advised you to do on a forum where actual pilots are posting, it would have been for you to have adopted a slightly more "question" persona as opposed to a "statement" persona. Sorry, but I don't give anyone deference by default. If they are wrong, they're wrong, no matter who they are. I ask questions when I want to know things, but when I see that someone else is misinformed, I provide a correction. Nothing will prevent me from doing the latter. If Chesley Sullenberger himself enters this group and says something that is manifestly incorrect, I'll correct him. But something tells me that he'd never make that kind of mistake in the first place. Most pilots are reasonable. The reasonable ones are not the ones who attack anyone who disagrees with them. Many have either vast military experience or have expended tremendous amounts of resources in experience and education. Military experience is relevant only to military discussions. Airplanes fly the same way in the military as they do in civilian life, whatever Maverick and Iceman might believe. Often people become so fixated on me that they don't pay attention to the discussion. Once they become convinced that they must "win," they will ignore all reason and logic in their increasingly strident posts. But if I'm right, I'll stay right no matter what they say, so the time they spend attacking me is time wasted. Moore is right. Pilots don't react well to being 'equalized" by people who don't fly. Then they need to grow up. There's no magic in being a pilot. If a brain surgeon tells me that he can operate without establishing a sterile field around the incision, I'll tell him he's wrong, because he is. It doesn't matter how many surgeries he's done or how many millions of years of experience he has. Wrong is wrong, and often being right or wrong is easy to objectively establish for anyone willing to look things up. I've had pilots argue with me in direct contradiction to FAA regulations, for example, even when I quote the regulations to them. What they didn't know in many cases was the depth of my research. On one occasion, I had just finished talking to the FAA in Washington, and had obtained the absolute final word on the interpretation of a regulation, and yet still the pilot argued with me. If only he knew how stupid he looked. It's that simple really. You want to make a statement, you have to pay your dues first, THEN make the statement. Sorry, I don't do the hazing thing. If I'm right, I'm right, dues or no dues. If I'm wrong, well, paying dues isn't going to make me right. That sort of thing is for little boys, who are wired to compete and form simplistic hierarchical command and control structures. But it has nothing to do with being right or wrong. You want to ASK a question, ASK! I do. And if someone says something that's obviously wrong, I correct, too. Most pilots welcome the opportunity to show the world what they know. They even welcome the opportunity to parade their ignorance, in many cases. Fortunately, it's harmless in this group, but a lot of them end up in NTSB reports. Mother Nature cannot be bullied or intimidated. On the flip side of that, it helps a LOT if pilots actually know what they are talking about. Some do, some don't, but the fact that you don't fly is still the elephant in the room. That's their problem. They just need to grow up. Of course, if they were grown up and mature, they probably wouldn't be afflicted by their ignorance, since they would have corrected their mistakes long ago. There's a right way to disagree with someone and a wrong way to disagree. Not for me. The difference exists only for kids, and I'm not a kid. You might be right, and you might win the battle, but with other pilots watching you and how you're conducting all this "correcting", you probably aren't going to win the war! It's not a war. In most cases, it's a march towards aviation safety. Pilots who are wrong die a lot. Respect can't be demanded. It has to be earned. I agree ... but that rather conflicts with your other suggestions, doesn't it? ...............and with this quantum leap backward I will once again leave this happy Usenet valley and move on to slightly more productive endeavors. My best to both you and your "adversaries" :-)))))))))))))))) Dudley Henriques |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Please ignore Mx
Dudley Henriques wrote:
On Monday, May 28, 2012 9:15:40 PM UTC-4, Bob Moore wrote: Nomen wrote Sounds like nonsense to me.............. Same here. I spent much of my Navy and Airline career evaluating pilots for employment or retention. I found Mx to use far better logic than many of the amateur pilots in this group. But...he was not a REAL pilot. My argument that not even FAA certificated Ground Instructors are required to be pilots fell on deaf ears. Real pilots certainly did not like to be out-argued. Bob Moore True, but it helps a great deal if those pilots are right. :-) Dudley Henriques Not if in this case Dudley but when... |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Please ignore Mx
M MX demonstrates again why Jim in NC might very well be right after all!
On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 4:19:58 PM UTC-4, george wrote: Dudley Henriques wrote: On Monday, May 28, 2012 9:15:40 PM UTC-4, Bob Moore wrote: Nomen wrote Sounds like nonsense to me.............. Same here. I spent much of my Navy and Airline career evaluating pilots for employment or retention. I found Mx to use far better logic than many of the amateur pilots in this group. But...he was not a REAL pilot. My argument that not even FAA certificated Ground Instructors are required to be pilots fell on deaf ears. Real pilots certainly did not like to be out-argued. Bob Moore True, but it helps a great deal if those pilots are right. :-) Dudley Henriques Not if in this case Dudley but when... |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Please ignore Mx
In article ,
a wrote: I am among those who do NOT lay the blame on MX. Part of the blame falls on those that feed the trolls. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Please ignore Mx
On 6/2/2012 5:18 AM, Bob Noel wrote:
In , wrote: I am among those who do NOT lay the blame on MX. Part of the blame falls on those that feed the trolls. And those that quote them... I have my newsreader setup to filter anything from any of the trolls or anonymous remailers (usually they are one in the same)... There *might* be some people who are not trolls that use anonymous remailers, but they're just acceptable collateral damages as far as I'm concerned... |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Test - ignore | Gary G | Piloting | 0 | September 28th 04 03:07 PM |
another test - ignore | Ernie | Soaring | 0 | February 14th 04 10:39 AM |
test-ignore | Ernie | Soaring | 0 | February 14th 04 10:31 AM |
ignore this | bangbang | Owning | 1 | December 28th 03 12:24 AM |
test - please ignore | X | Soaring | 1 | July 20th 03 08:50 PM |