What provocation?
You threadbanned me yesterday for writing a reasonable reply. You told your audience that I was a flying school owner? All based on your prejudices. You then searched out a 5 year old post that you seem to believe supported your contention? You promote this idea. I have already stated that given the abject nonsenses of some of your statements it is quite likely that you do it for effect or attention and to that end it is probably something of an act, so I don't think I have been provoked into anything I haven't already said? Can you say the same?
After using your position (albeit briefly) to shut me up, you then made a strange posting about somebody else having to send you a written apology before they would be allowed back? I am guessing they didn't agree with you either?
Provocation and smoking me out? No I don't think so. Backpeddling, malfeasance and posturing in front of an audience, perhaps? You make too many prejudicial and wrong assumptions about your audience to be taken too seriously. I do not think wannabes are being well informed by the suggestion that bankruptcy is being used as a tactical advantage. You have already stated your loathing of banks and anybody else who doesn't conform to your ideals. This is becoming the "Fox News" forum of PPRuNe.
The morality of bankruptcy is only one aspect of it. The consequences may well go far beyond that one aspect. You frequently espouse to anyone who will read it, how well you have done for yourself and I cannot recall that involving bankruptcy on your part? Yet you "provoke" the idea that this is a useful tool in career advancement. I can understand the Devils advocate approach, but that is somewhat negated by your use of your privilege to dismiss and remove any counter to such suggestion. You know it as well?
Bankruptcy is not something that I would advise my children as in any way a benefit or positive career advancement. It is something to be avoided if at all possible. It will not be viewed as a positive attribute, unless in a historic context it is seen as something that was successfully overcome. It may well preclude their ability to access a vital tool for securing a future job. It may well preclude their ability to be considered for certain jobs in foreign countries. It may have consequences for themselves and their families that are not so obvious in the excitement of the prospect. In other words it may not be the easy answer to all their problems. Within this same forum there are people with a weak understanding of the consequences of secured debt, mortgages, guarantors, etc. There are catastrophic potential problems for anybody thinking that bankruptcy is simply an easy way out for people considering these options.
There are people on this very page that think that bankruptcy is a "right" that has something to do with the taxes they have paid? Or that it is a sensible justification for reckless spending brought on by their inability to apply sensible judgment? Responses from sensible, intelligent people should at the very least be sensible and intelligent. There may be a spectrum of opinion and comment, but it is very wrong to stifle that opinion and comment because it doesn't mesh with your opinions.
If you understand that as you say, why do you ban and threaten to ban people who do just that?