Sad day for Mxsmanic

In article ,
says...



No, unfortunately it is not. A pilot's license with an instrument rating, for
example, would cost $20,000 to $40,000, according to pilots and instructors
I've talked to.


Why do you talk to pilots? I thought that was a waste of time. . .
Fact I'm sure it's a waste of their time.

-b- writes:

Says Who?

Say my instructors.

But you have never had any training of this kind!

Well, yes, I have.

VOR-DME writes:

What chance do I have of making your list of "good pilots"?

I don't know anything about you, but what little I've seen in your posts does
not flatter you.

-b- writes:

Is there something you haven't told us?
Are you confined to a hospital bed or something?
You know, plenty of people with disabilities still learn to fly.
There are plenty of paraplegics, and some quadriplegics who fly, each with
respect to their own disabilities. There are even blind pilots' flying
associations.

I don't recall mentioning any disabilities.

a writes:

Would you characterize Sec of State Clinton that way? Or McCain?

I don't know enough about either of them to speculate.

In article ,
-b- wrote:

Oh by the way - why did you dutifully reproduce the preceding text, but wipe
out the part about schizophrenia?

It's a classic MX trolling tactic. He is a master of selectively quoting
people, and then responding only to what's quoted to steer the
conversation in his preferred direction. If you stated that the Earth is
round in a debate with him, he would snip out just enough to make it
look like you were an idiot, and then make a reply that, at least
superficially, makes him look like the only one who knows anything.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

OK, 2 trivial examples, not crashing the airplane is an objective
and every place has fuel that fills the tanks to the top in zero time
when you get near the gas pump is an arbitrary rule.

Nothing requires you to avoid crashing your airplane, so that is not an
objective. I've seen people deliberately crash airplanes again and again in
the sim.

Then their objective in the game is to crash the airplane.

Nothing requires you to hit the ball in baseball either, yet it is
generally an objective of the game.

People's objectives in playing games can be pretty loosse, which is one
of the reasons they are called "games" and not called "real life".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
-b- writes:

The vendor, Microsoft, lists Flight Simulator as a "computer game".
This from its first version through the last.

Calling it a game avoids a lot of liability.

Such as truth in advertising prosecution.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Mar 2, 3:54*am, -b- wrote:
In article ,
says...



In article ,
-b- wrote:

Oh by the way - why did you dutifully reproduce the preceding text, but wipe
out the part about schizophrenia?

It's a classic MX trolling tactic. He is a master of selectively quoting
people, and then responding only to what's quoted to steer the
conversation in his preferred direction. If you stated that the Earth is
round in a debate with him, he would snip out just enough to make it
look like you were an idiot, and then make a reply that, at least
superficially, makes him look like the only one who knows anything.

I completely disagree. You give him far too much credit.
I don't think he's a master of much, and I don't think his intellectual
dishonesty fools much of anyone. You make it sound like he's sly and
resourceful - I see him as slow, dumb and cumbersome. Getting the better of him
intellectually is extremely easy, and his lame attempts at recovery are
transparent to all. He rarely makes a successful rejoinder to any challenge,
and contradicts himself repeatedly. I cannot recall any instance in which he
has made anyone other than himself look like an idiot.





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

- Show quoted text -

With respect, I'd urge you to not underestimate MX. I have not tested
him, but judging from the level of his responses I'd judge a
conventional IQ test would find him in the 125 area. That is not to
say his social skills or human interaction skills are advanced -- they
are not.

On Mar 2, 5:07*am, -b- wrote:
In article ,
says...



With respect, I'd urge you to not underestimate MX. I have not tested
him, but judging from the level of his responses I'd judge a
conventional IQ test would find him in the 125 area. That is not to
say his social skills or human interaction skills are advanced -- they
are not.

125's not much. . .
Certainly far from sufficient to substantiate the profile he's trying to cut
here. He's out of his depth and running naked.

Quite a few contributors here who can better that score and better him - and
do, regularly, while making tuna salad in the background.

I'm well aware of that. Never the less, mischaracterizing him
diminishes the person doing that. He may be a standard deviation or
more to the good side of normal in IQ, but far to the other side in
other important social characteristics.

That's just my opinion, of course, but I do have some training and
professional experience in that area.



to his level.