Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

BobbySamd nearing 4000 posts!!!!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter JTrain
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 4

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

JTrain

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 26, 2001
Posts
179
Ladies & Gentlemen,

I am projecting that sometime on Wednesday (Dec 31st), BobbySamd will add his 4000th post to the FlightInfo board. (As I write this, it is the evening of Sun Dec 28th; BobbySamd currently is at 3986 posts, and has been averaging between 5-6 posts/day since the FlightInfo board was reborn in its current format near the end of 2001).

As a minor contributor to the board (I've yet to crack 100 posts) I'd like to personally thank BobbySamd for everything he ads to this site. Often he stands as the voice of experience and and reason, offering his counsel and wisdom to the next generation of aviators. Not many people are willing to go out of their way to help like so, and BobbySamd is truly unique in his desire to share his knowledge and background with others. On behalf of the entire FlightInfo community - thanks BobbySamd!

JTrain

p.s. we explored this discussion once in the past - we've *got* to get your current again - any more thoughts?
 
p.s. we explored this discussion once in the past - we've *got* to get your current again - any more thoughts?

I personally would like to see this materialize and happen since it is quite obvious that he still has quite an interest and love for this industry. I still believe without a doubt in my mind that the time will come where he re-enters this profession, he has "accomplished" too much not to finish what was started a long time ago. It may not happen overnight, next month, or this year, but I do believe that he will one day be back in the industry that he still loves to this day. The flight time, knowledge, background, experience, etc, etc, is there now it is just a matter of getting him "current" which is the easy part.!! !! !! !! !!

I admire very few people in this indsutry but Bobby is one guy that I have the utmost of respect and admiration for. I find it amazing that post after post he refuses to include the negativity and insults that have been common for many who frequent this board. To date I have not seen one negative post from him, all have been "positive" and have been tailored in a manner to help his fellow aviators out, especially the up and coming "younger" generation.


Bobby, you truly are a special person to this board that many look up to and I look forward to continuing to read what you have to post for years to come. I wish you and your entire family a very prosperus and safe New Years.. Next time in DIA the BBQ is on me.:D


3 5 0

ps>>I think 4000 will come before wed. !! !! My guess is monday or tuesday morning at the very latest.
 
JTrain said:
we explored this discussion once in the past - we've *got* to get your current again - any more thoughts?

We talked about that yesterday over BBQ. It seems that between wrangling lawsuits and us morons he has very little time on his hands. Who knows? Maybe Bob can pull himself away from Flightinfo long enough to renew his CFI and get current... One can only hope that the aviation community could be so lucky!

Here's to number 4000...

Skyking :cool:
 
JTrain said:
Ladies & Gentlemen,

I am projecting that sometime on Wednesday (Dec 31st), BobbySamd will add his 4000th post to the FlightInfo board. (As I write this, it is the evening of Sun Dec 28th; BobbySamd currently is at 3986 posts, and has been averaging between 5-6 posts/day since the FlightInfo board was reborn in its current format near the end of 2001).

As a minor contributor to the board (I've yet to crack 100 posts) I'd like to personally thank BobbySamd for everything he ads to this site. Often he stands as the voice of experience and and reason, offering his counsel and wisdom to the next generation of aviators. Not many people are willing to go out of their way to help like so, and BobbySamd is truly unique in his desire to share his knowledge and background with others. On behalf of the entire FlightInfo community - thanks BobbySamd!

JTrain

p.s. we explored this discussion once in the past - we've *got* to get your current again - any more thoughts?

I've got a ways to go to get that many posts....
 
I think it would be great if B.S.D. could time his 4,000th post to be exactly at midnight on New Years.

As far as hobbies go for B.S.D? Nothing wrong with writing and evidently he enjoys it, sounds like a hobby to me.
 
Goodness sakes . . . .

Thanks, everyone, for the extremely kind comments. I am extremely touched.

This board and its predecessor has been my lifeline back to aviation. I hadn't thought much about flying since 1993, the last time I was employed in aviation, except that I'd flip through my AOPA Pilot once in a while and would look to the skies when I heard engines. I found the first version of the board in 2001, a couple of months before 911, and, except for several rules changes, different paintjobs on aircraft and company names, that very little had really changed! Same concerns about training, getting chances, getting jobs, interviewing, career-building, and, seemingly, greater concerns about you-know-what. So, although my reference point was and still is primarily the early '90s and my story hasn't exactly been one of great success, I wanted to contribute. I thought that my experiences might lend perspective to our readers.

In that light, I have written what some might perceive as negative comments about issues such as age discrimination and later-life career-changing. Everything I've written is based on my experiences. I call things as I see them.

Skyking and I indeed discussed me flying again at lunch Saturday at Brothers BBQ near APA. I'd love to, but, as we all know, flying requires a major time and financial commitment. For me, that would involve some hours flying, but quite a few more hours studying. My life has changed since I was flying, and, sadly, I don't have the time to commit at this time. I hope I will, someday. I'd love to get back my CFI and take a student or two.

Finally, I do have other interests. I watch and follow football, with a special interest in alternative football, such as Arena, NFL-Europe, and CFL (unfortunately, no CFL on the tube this past fall :( ). I watch other TV and read. I have my family. But I really enjoy spending time here on flightinfo.com. People do not realize the board's value as a resource. Twelve years ago, there were no internet aviation message boards. Any company information and interview gouge came through rumors or from outdated Kit Darby files, with many vital career decisions based on such inauthentic information. Now, with this board, you put up a question and will receive mostly authentic, real-time feedback within a couple of hours.

Thanks again, everyone. I guess this is Post No. 3991.
 
Last edited:
Congrats Bobbysamd! You are the voice of wisdom on this board and we all appreciate when you chime in on topics!

Hey, maybe you could start flying for one of those "virtual airlines" with MSFS. It's a heck of alot cheaper than real flying!
:D

Again, congrats and thankyou!

Here's to 4000 more!

JD
 
Northern Lights said:
Looks like Bobby just Hit number 4000. All it took was a good ole' fashoned PFT debate
Yeah. <sigh>

Thanks much, however. Demonstrating to me, anyway, that few things have changed during the 10+ years that I've been out.

I do appreciate everyone's extremely kind comments. Happy New Year to all! :cool:
 
LOSER ADDICT!!

I'd say this guy is a MAJOR loser who is wasting his life away on the internet.......GET A LIFE BUDDY!! LLLLOOOOOOSSSSERRRRR!

Trapped in the Web

Provided by Psychology Today

More and more people are discovering the joys of the Internet. But once they arrive, some find it nearly impossible to sign off. Here's what you can do to prevent on-line excursions from taking over your life.

Frustration with the sluggish speed of a browser is the about the most serious psychological pitfall that most of us face when surfing the World Wide Web. But for as many as five million Americans, experts say, the Internet has become a destructive force, its remarkable benefits overshadowed by its potential to disrupt the lives of those who can't resist the lure of round-the-clock social opportunities, entertainment, and information. For such people, work, friends, family, and sleep are replaced by a virtual world of chat rooms and games.

Take Judy and Bob, a Seattle couple who were saving to buy their first house--until monthly credit card bills started arriving with $350 charges for online services. Bob was "pissing away all our money on the Internet," says Judy. And soon he was doing likewise to their marriage. Every evening Bob came home from work and headed straight for the computer, he stopped joining Judy for dinner or helping with household chores. At 10 P.M. each night Judy hit the sack, while Bob stumbled to bed some five hours later. Before long he was sucked into cyberspace 40 or 50 hours a week. When it became clear after six months that Bob had chosen his on-line world over his real one, Judy left.

Cybertrouble

One of the first experts to notice the some people were spending an unhealthy amount of time on the Internet was Kimberly Young, Ph.D., an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Pittsburgh, Bradford. In 1994, Young launched the first major study of the problem, surveying nearly 500 avid Internet users about their online habits. Because there was no formal definition for the disorder--which she quickly christened "Internet addiction"--Young classified study participants as "dependent" or "nondependent" Internet users based on their answers to seven questions she adapted from those used to diagnose pathological gambling. Those who answered "yes" to three or more questions were classified as dependent.

None of the non-dependents in Young's study reported academic, personal, financial, or occupational problems caused by their Internet use. But about half of dependents reported problems in all of these areas. Yet many dependents insisted they couldn't give up the Internet; a few even tossed out their modems, but their Internet cravings led them to buy a new one to get their cyberspace fix. In fact, the smokers in the study reported that their cravings for the Internet were stronger than the urge to light up a cigarette.

Perhaps the most surprising--and widely reported--finding in Young's original study was that the majority (60 percent) of dependent users were middle-aged women, particularly housewives, not young male computer geeks. But this has not held up in later studies, which give men a slight edge. Young suspects a bias occurred in her first study, perhaps because women are more likely to admit and talk about their problems. Still, she understands the appeal that chatrooms hold for these women and others in her sample. "You never worry about how you look or how nice a house you have, and you talk to people all over the world. It's instant gratification without having to reveal yourself." Lonely housewives or shy sophomores can feel like exciting people when on-line. "It's novel and unique, and they get attached to the people they meet on-line," Young says.

Indeed, like alcoholics with favorite drinking buddies, Internet addicts form close bonds that fuel their compulsions. Dan, a college student, earned a 3.2 grade point average his freshman year. Then he moved in with roommates who played an interactive Multi User Dungeon computer game as a team from separate computers, and soon began logging on 50 to 60 hours a week. Dan's grade point average nose-dived to 1.6. His fiancee began to complain that he spent too much time with his computer friends; they, in turn, griped when he signed off to spend time with her. Faced with the reality that he might not graduate or get married, Dan tried to cut back, a goal that grew easier after his roommates graduated. A year later, his use was down to 1.0 hours per week. "I still get high on the Internet," he admits, "but I'm in control."

Get high? Internet addiction? Time was when the word "addiction" referred to drug and alcohol problems--period. Today, so-called addictions are everywhere: sex, exercise, work, chocolate, TV, shopping, and now the Internet. Have we been, well, abusing the word?

An Addiction? Really?

"Addiction," notes Young, "is a layman's term, not a clinical one." In fact, the DSM-IV doesn't even mention the word. Young chose the label "Internet addiction" because it's readily understandable by the public. When writing for clinical journals, however, she refers to "pathological Internet use," modeling the term after that for pathological gambling in the DSM-IV.

Other experts shun the term addiction altogether because it means too many things to too many people. "It's a sloppy word," says pharmacologist Carlton Erickson, Ph.D., head of the Addiction Science Research and Education Center at the University of Texas at Austin. In the drug abuse field, he notes, "dependence" has replaced "addiction". "In dependence, people can't stop because they have developed a brain chemistry that does not allow them to stop," explains Erickson. Excessive behavior that hasn't quite reached full-fledged dependency, meanwhile, is called "abuse". If Internet abusers cannot stop for a month, suggests Erickson, then "Internet dependence" would be the appropriate term. Others believe that the problem is best described as a compulsion, suggesting the phrase "compulsive Internet use". And many psychologists question whether excessive Internet use should be pathologized at all: John Grohol, Ph.D., who directs the Web site "Mental Health Net," says that by the same logic, bookworms should be diagnosed with "book addiction disorder".

Treatments for Internet addiction are beginning to emerge. Trouble is, not all mental health specialists recognize the problem or know how to treat it. Internet dependents have been told by uninformed therapists to simply "turn off the computer." That's like telling a heroin addict to just say no to drugs--and just as unsuccessful. What's more, HMOs and insurance companies do not pay for Internet addiction therapy because it's not recognized by the DSM-IV.

Among those developing treatments for the problem is Maressa Hecht Orzack, Ph.D., a psychologist at Harvard University's McLean Hospital in Belmont, Massachusetts. Orzack founded Harvard's Computer Addiction Services in Fall 1996, after seeing first hand the fallout from Intemet-related problems: divorce, child neglect, job termination, debt, flunking out of school, legal trouble. One client, she says, had separated from his wife but couldn't afford to move out because he spent so much money on computer services. He moved his bed into the computer room and started an affair with an on-line sweetheart.

A cognitive therapist, Orzack likens Internet addiction to such impulse control disorders as pathological gambling and kleptomania. However, "gamblers have a choice to gamble or not," she notes. "People addicted to the Internet often do not have that choice, since so many activities require people to use a computer."

Like Binge-Eating

So the best approach for excessive Internet use, Orzack believes, will be to treat it like binge eating, where the individual frequently engages in the activity to be restricted. She treats both by teaching clients how to set limits, balance activities, and schedule time, without having to go cold turkey. "People often change in six or eight sessions," she says.

Unfortunately, the affflicted rarely admit to the problem, and it usually takes a crisis with a job, relationship, or school to spur an Internet addict to seek treatment. More often, it's loved ones who turn to the experts. "Families notice things and call me," says Orzack. And she receives letters like this: "We got divorced one year after we got the computer. My wife was in chat rooms all the time and ignored our young daughter. She spent hundreds of dollars on phone bills. . . [and] had an affair on-line that turned into a real affair...Then she left. I don't know what to do. Please help." Now lawyers and family courts call Orzack and Young wanting them to testify about Internet addiction in divorce and custody battles. (In October, a Florida woman lost custody of her kids when her ex-husband convinced a judge that the woman was addicted to the Internet and thus incapable of properly caring for their children.)

Next, set a goal of how many hours a week you want to use the Internet. If your actual usage exceeds it, remind yourself to log off after a period of time. Set a kitchen timer and turn off the computer--no excuses--when it rings.

It's particularly important to separate work and play when on-line, says Jane Morgan Bost, Ph.D., assistant director of the University of Texas Counseling and Mental Health Center. Stay focused, visit only sites needed to complete work, and don't detour. Also, she says, cut back mailing list memberships and sort play e-mail from work e-mail.

None of the experts PT spoke with demonize the Internet; they use it extensively themselves and applaud the benefits of rapid communication and information exchange. But, they add, the Internet is here to stay, and problems with excessive use need to be addressed.
 
Re: LOSER ADDICT!!

jetbluedog said:
I'd say this guy is a MAJOR loser who is wasting his life away on the internet.......GET A LIFE BUDDY!! LLLLOOOOOOSSSSERRRRR!
I appreciate everyone's comments, including yours.
 
Re: Loser

jetbluedog said:
Did I hit a soft spot, PUTZ?

I can say, without a doubt, that Bob is definetly not a loser or a putz. Quite the opposite, actually. But then again I guess it takes one to know one and I certainly enjoy listening to an expert opinion...:mad:

SK
 
Last edited:
Bobby

I can second that, having benefitted from Bobby's comments on many occasions.

I wonder about the sanity of one who must cut and paste from Psychology Today in order to support a dis....

thanks for everything Bobby!
 

Latest resources

Back
Top