As I have already broken my own promise to keep away from this subject, I'm going to reply.
1-800 – Congrats. I have no desire to put you down, but you may wish to look again at your ATPL ASI theory. You may wish to consider the impact of a blocked static tube on the reading, and the potential dangers of an under-reading or otherwise untrustworthy ASI on more critical flight phases, such as take-off or approach. You may also wish to review the light aircraft accident statistics on same. I guess that's one of the things those long runways are for. Maybe your view on the subject may change if you were told by the instructor present to ignore the ASI, and you then flew a 30 minute leg to destination within 40secs of target time on visual attitude only. But then you know all this, don't you?
Krazy - I could not make this stuff up if I wanted too, incredible as it may seem.
604 – You are the second poster harping back to the good old days. Great. Then in the absence of any other items of substance, you resort to the old “character assassination” ploy. All else failing, that should work! You might care to look up something called “the Pygmalion Principle”, or in other words, you generally get what you go looking for. Look for “character flaws” and you'll find them, look for superior performance in a positive manner, you'll likely get that too. Me, I prefer to look at the positive, until I have unfortunately, no other choice. To do otherwise takes you down some nasty roads – but that's exactly what one of Monctons little training manual anecdotes (which you probably read some time ago) promotes. Nice.
If being 100% unwilling to be happy about being sold a pup is a flaw, then I am quite happy to be considered a flawed character. When I undertake to do something for someone, I do it, and make sure that I have the time, expertise and capabilities to deliver on the promises I make. Just for the record my progress is within norms (then you probably don't want to believe that either).
Have fun.