Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=201.225.225.169; envelope-from=rijakits@cwpanama.net
Message-ID: <014501c5fc1a$58f249b0$6e5de0c9@usuarioq3efog0>
From: "rijakits" <rijakits@cwpanama.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-868236@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Excommunication
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 12:10:52 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ernest Christley" <echristley@nc.rr.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 11:28 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Excommunication


> Lehanover@aol.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > He has little time for those who refuse to look up anything on their
> > own, and, or, insist on constructing failure prone contraptions that
> > will damage the rotary's (and home building in general) already
> > doubtful reputation.
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > But then, I could be (and often am) wrong.
> >
> > Lynn E. Hanover
> >
>
>
> I think that is the point Lynn.  Here, you may be wrong (and you'll here
> about it if you are) but at least you're heard.  I don't seem to be
> hearing that Paul is technically inept (except that he has never flown
> anything he's built), but that they think his interpersonal skill are
> somewhat deficient.
>
> I don't have a dog in this fight.  I was lucky enough to find this list
> first.  But I've been involved in list and newsgroups where a person or
> persons attempted to quell discussion or block the introduction of
> ideas, because they know better than us poor unwashed souls.  Instead of
> providing an education, or even stating their case, they would prefer
> that we bow down and plead for the crumbs of knowleged that they decide
> we deserve.  That is a derisive attitude, and it sticks in the craw of
> those on the recieving end.  I bow down to God and the laws of
> physics...not some egotistical snot that claims to have a personal line
> to the inside workings of either.  A preacher or discussion list
> moderator that doesn't allow open discussion of meritorious topics is
> trying to hide something...usually their own deficiencies.
>
That's exactly what it is:

If you are convinced that an opinion is wrong, then:
a. argue it
b. proof it is wrong, by actual testing

He is a trainend engineer, so scientific procedures should be no news to
him.
E.g. the EWP discussion, he dismissed it, then he did a half ass test and
dismissed it again.
Instead of going into details why Mazda has the flow it has on their
engines. If he really wanted to prove something he would have a his personal
test engine by now and equip it with the temp sensors he wants everyone else
to put in their engines.
As I mentioned before I don't really entertain the EWP idea either but I am
very willing to be convinced by proof.

Thomas J.

PS: Ernest, wasn't it you who wanted to subscribe just to get kicked out!?
:))