Mr. Yoko,
It’s 7:30ish where I live and I’ve spent a half hour or so wrangling though your voluminous contributions over the past day. I am going to engage once again because to fail to do so would be rude and would leave the record incomplete. After this I will wish you fair and following seas and call it good.
1. Jingoism and abuse of Foreign Airlines- Perhaps you genuinely do not see what you write the way others do, but your words are not only offensive, they are inflammatory and contribute nothing to the dialogue. We all get that you blame the crews and as a corollary their airlines for what happened, at least in significant part, it’s past time to put it down and move on. Follows is a quote from a recent post of yours:
"Quote:
Isn't it that MAX incidents only occured on foreign airlines ?
Well, that was kind of my point. An appeal to not criticize a "foreign" airline is tantamount to a call to not criticize any of the airlines involved. Are you saying these organization should be above scrutiny because of their citizenship?
Should I also make the obvious point that from your perspective, Boeing is a "foreign" entity? It seems you have no problem criticizing "foreigners," so excuse me if I wonder of the lack of consistency here."
That “answer” is intentionally distracting hogwash. Taking just one example of your perfidy “An appeal to criticize a “foreign” airline
IS NOT tantamount to a call to criticize any of the airlines involved.” Nor is anyone suggesting that any entity is above scrutiny. Your conflation of clearly unrelated and impractical ideas, not to mention your incessant (there are two more if I counted right just in this morning’s batch) harping on the two carriers and their pilots ignores the simple fact that
BOEING GAVE ALL AIRLINES A FLAWED AIRPLANE. A STUPIDLY FLAWED AIRPLANE THAT WILL TRY TO KILL YOU!! So for most of us that is the logical place to start. If Boeing had not created such a frankenairplane with such a flawed system(s) then neither of those crews would have had any issues and we would not be burning up the internets today with this unfortunate argument.
2. Constant circular or non-relevant references, arguments and distracting information- I’m going to illustrate this one below with another snippet from a recent post. Bottom line is when someone shows up in impromptu form, makes highly distracting arguments in copious quantities that are basically impossible to keep up with without staff to help, and not to mention offers highly refined and nuanced comments in a single specific direction people like me are going to read what is written and in fairly short order decide that this is not in fact a disinterested party. In any case the response I am about to post is to a question you were asked about last week’s discovery by the FAA that Big B had missed another target, this time by providing the FAA with software that was flawed and would (sadly) try to screw the airplane into the ground. Your messaging has made it clear that we should see this as no big deal, (That dog don’t bark.”) so your response isn’t too surprising, but it is illuminating as it shows your refusal to engage in a straightforward manner, as well as your use of proactive messaging to try to alter the narrative.
"Quote
riginally Posted by
Fly Aiprt [img]file:///C
Users\BIGPAP~1\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\09\clip_im age001.gif[/img]How about this FAA pilot in the Boeing engineering cab ?
Does that count, or is it apples and oranges ?
You mean the pilots who were stress-testing new, non-flight certified software/firmware than was never used on the accident aircraft in such a way as to introduce intentionally failures to see if the new software was compatible with the old processors? Those pilots?"
I'm sorry, but those are not the words of someone engaging in a discussion or argument, those are quite simply and obviously the words of someone using an unrelated prompt to proactively push a message.Your posts are absolutely filled with similar examples.
3. Overposting- What can I say, it’s a well-known technique to assert control of forum threads (not just PPRuNe) by posting numerous large posts repeatedly, to the extent that mere mortals lose the ability or (preferably) the interest in the topic and go elsewhere, leaving the field open for the narrative that is to be forwarded. I have no idea if this is what you are doing, if it is intentional, or anything else with regard to reason for your voluminous and enormous barrage of posts. What I do know is it is highly annoying.
4. Identity- I do not think that you should be forced or even encouraged to reveal your identity here. Everyone here is entitled to the putative anonymity that we enjoy (not we as my identity is public, metaphorical we here…) as part of membership in PPRuNe and no one should feel forced to divulge their identity. However, and this is a big however: If you are going to write the things you write, in the way you write them, then it will be hard for you to be taken seriously unless you do identify yourself positively.
5. Ad hominem attacks- Sorry Yoko, but if you think anything I wrote is an ad hominem attack you are simply mistaken. I have no issues with you, have not attacked you, nor have I questioned your right to be here, your right to remain anonymous, or your right to post whatever you wish. The only thing I have done is call out the odd fact of your creation as a user, your style and repetitive posting, and the content and push-messaging of your messages. If you don’t want people to pick apart the content you post then may I respectfully suggest you stop posting stuff online??
And with that I think this horse has been beaten well enough for 2019. This thread has been a valuable exploration of different aspects of the 737, from certification to the mechanics of the tail jack screw. I hope it lives on into the future as a reference for anyone interested in this topic.
Regards,
dce