[DMCForum] ATTN: CheckSix3 (Commercial Air Transport, etc)

["content22207" <brobertson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Did you not READ the commercial aviation paragraph in question? I
honestly think you just skim over my words then jump to your own
preconceived conclusions. Why do I even bother writing them? *I* was
the one who stated that the widebodies in question are the
present/future of passenger air transport. *I* was the one who called
them the safest and (almost) most comfortable aircraft ever (let's be
honest -- seat cushions *HAVE* gotten thinner). As a member of the
ticket buying public, I surely appreciate their economies of
operation. But even you all but imply  they are simply not as
aesthetically pleasing to watch ("As if looks matter much in
aviation"). That's the tradeoff. We sacrifice beauty for function.

In retrospect I agree your private correspondence to me should be kept
private, and thus will not forward anything to Walt. That was a bad
idea. Besides, enough other people have received similar flame mails
with your name on them to vouch for the acerbic malfeasance that drips
from their every word. Your writing portrays you very unflatteringly
(IMHO). 

Isn't it nice that we agree never to correspond directly again, only
to drag our dirty laundy into a public forum...

Bill Robertson
#5939

>--- In DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "checksix3" <jetjock11@xxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> > I'll forward this morning's eMail correspondence when I get back to
> > the office. "Abrasive" is a charitable description. A different "A"
> > word came to my mind<
> 
> Now Billy, thats not fair because you can edit to make me look 
> more "abrasive" than I really am. It's also not fair unless you 
> forward your replies and all previous messages. I'm afraid you leave 
> me no choice but to post in public where you can't edit things. 
> I dislike correcting people in public and is why I wrote you off list 
> to begin with. 
> 
> Do you really believe Martin, Walt, and I are the only ones who read 
> your posts? Good God man, if you really think that then why do you 
> post at all? In that case, what would be your contribution? Frankly, 
> your thought processes continue to astound me.
> 
> I assure you no one gets "mad" over what you write. Martin should 
> know better than to tussle with you because it's such an easy win for 
> him. I suspect it's more of an effort to stem the tide of 
> misinformation than anything else. As for Walt and myself (or 
> others), I think it's simply for amusement.
> 
> In the end it's all up to you. It's clear you think you're right in 
> cases when you're not. No skin off my nose, I'm not the one who 
> suffers from that approach. I needed no one's help to make 
> my car run like a swiss watch but it'd be nice if the people who 
> do need it (and there seem to be many because of the peculiar 
> demographics of D ownership) could get good advice and not have to 
> have the bad constantly corrected. 
> 
> Fwiw, I see the same problem over on the "real" list too. Other than 
> a handful of people who know what they're doing it's all form and no 
> substance. Mass confusion. Still, it beats reading some of the 
> foolishness that goes on here and is why I only offer advice off 
> list. Lol, and here I see someone wants to start *another* list? 
> Keeerist...
> 
> It pains me at times to have ready answers to things people often ask 
> about. For example, my car had anti-lock brakes and a system that 
> greatly increased highway mileage (and I could tell you something 
> about LED lighting that's never been mentioned on either list) but 
> it's not worth the hassle to deal with the BS that goes on here. 
> 
> Ah well, I've got too many other lists that take my time. I'll leave 
> it up to Walt and Martin to keep you honest, though I'm not sure why 
> they continue to bother.
> 
> PS: I was simply too stunned to reply after reading your comments 
> about the B777, B737 (in which I have many hours) and the DC 8. Made 
> me finally realize just how far gone you are. Let me know when you're 
> typed in any of these aircraft, that way you can put some substance 
> behind your comments. Ugly you say? As if looks matter much in 
> aviation. It's safety, reliability, and ease of maintenance that 
> counts. Thats why all modern aircraft use God awful, crappy, 
> unreliable electronic technology, with many of the lastest employing 
> fly-by-wire and glass cockpits...just as our front line military 
> fighters do. Hello? McFly?
> 
> I also remind you an airplane is unlike any other machine: How it 
> works is on the *outside*. It's shape is what determines it's 
> performance and compromises must be made. Still, the people who fly 
> them tell me the triple seven is one of the most beautiful airplanes 
> ever made and a joy to operate, if not excruciatingly boring at times.
> Even the ScareBus has a decent history compared to older technology. 
> 
> If you want to see *real* ugly, look no further than your driveway 
> full of old Fords...

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

---

Yahoo! Groups Links

• To visit your group on the web, go to:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DMCForum/
   
• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  DMCForum-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   
• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.