What constitutes an instrument approach

[landlover]

And now for some other housekeeping.

Aww, you can't get any traction without calling me names? You MUST be a DemocRAT.


really? What part of your post was sarcastic? Seemed pretty argumentative to me.

I was being sarcastic about me being rich and dumb, im actually the opposite smart and poor. Well, since you refer to flightinfo as your house since you need to clean it you are in fact a bigger dork than first anticiapted. I dont know what party i'll endorse, being barely old enough to vote.


Take the advice I gave you earlier just chill out, its just the internet.

 

[NYCPilot]

Intentionally retracted.

 

[Yank McCobb]

Of course they are the same person. Absolutely. However, he is correct when he says "I"m not avbug. I'm someone else." He is not "avbug"...he is "Dumbledore". But there is no question at all that the same human being is the person behind both of these usernames.

By the way...everything TD says about him is 100% correct.

Also, there ARE pilots who have earned the right to be "crusty". "Avbug/Dumbledore" is not one of them. He simply is a jackass. Jackasses aren't "crusty" they are just jackasses.

Of course, in the tradition of "avbug", "Dumbledore" will require the last word. So, have at it.

 

[NYCPilot]

Intentionally retracted.

 

[Dumbledore]

You people really ARE idiots.

Trust me when I say that you have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about!

Once and for all, the owner of the handle "Dumbledore" is not the same person as the owner of "avbug" but you can go on believing whatever you like. You'll still be wrong.

 

[NYCPilot]

Intentionally retracted.

 

[NYCPilot]

Intentionally retracted.

 

[Dumbledore]

Okay, whatever dude.

This is the story I'm sticking to: I'm not avbug - no matter how much you wish it were so. I do happen to see a lot of things the same way he does but he is whoever he is and I am someone else.

All kidding/heckling aside, you're just plain wrong about what you're thinking.

 

[NYCPilot]

Intentionally retracted.

 

[avbug]

I'm flattered guys...but I only post under one name. One a couple of occasions I got on a computer before someone else logged off and inadvertantly used their name without realizing it...but that got straightened out. Luckily they were folks I knew.

For the record, I'm not dumbledore or anybody else, though I liked the character on Harry Potter. I have enough trouble being one person, let alone more than one.

As for the use of the word "mute," vs. "moot," a number of posters over several years have taken me to task for my dogged refusal to use the word "moot." Include a few in that list who do know whence they speak...there's a good exchange on the topic between TonyC and myself. I don't disagree with TonyC, and I certainly won't try to correct his use of the English language (though in truth it does differ somewhat from the Queens English, but we'll reserve that for another time).

I don't mistakenly use the word "mute," but rather use it as an expression of my intent. For starters, I don't like the word "moot." I never have. By saying "the point is mute," rather than "the point is moot," my intent is to literally say "the point is silent." Or in other words, the point of the word is literally without voice, which more accurately expresses my intent. Words are nothing more than a vehicle for the speakers intent, and my use of that word is intentional and deliberate. Further, a little research will show that while the use of the term "mute" is not contemporary, it's not incorrect either. You merely don't hear it much any more. It is my preference, and from me, you do hear it. If you were to hear it in conversation, you would hear me enunciate "mute," rather than "moot," would would clearly hear that I intend to say, "mute."

Like it or lump it, that's how I talk, and I type on here exactly as I talk in person.

As far as the regulation goes...when discussing points of regulation, I think stating the purest intent and reading of the regulation is appropriate. How it's applied on the "street" is each person's business, and I won't presume to tell someone how to apply it...only to discuss the regulation on it's own merits. Outside of that discussion, I have no desire nor intent to field the issue. That's for others to do. Once one stops discussing the regulation verbatim and in it's stated form (and any interpretations or ammendments thereof), it takes on it's own life and becomes a discussion of conjecture. The beauty of regulation is that it involves a simple, clear issue, and does not involve conjecture.

As my imagination is rather limited and I tire easily, I try to stick to the facts as much as possible, as it's usually the only solid ground I know...hence my return frequently to the center of the topic, and my general refusal to deviate far from it (discussions of language and screen names not withstanding).

I do not know dumbledore, nor am I dumbledore...and whomever noted that I avoid the political discussions and debates is correct. I avoid them in person, too. A wise person once advised me that where able, avoid discussions of politics, religion or sports...all sure sources for debate. While I enjoy a good discussion as much as the next, and contrary to what some may believe, I do NOT enjoy conflict or arguement...and debate was for me a high school thing.

Fly safe.