Two things: First, if the shoe fits. Second, I wasn't responding to a different viewpoint, I was responding to an ignorant viewpoint.

(Written on 2017年10月13日)(Permalink)

"...as they are a living mess"? Really? I'm American, and live "across the pond", and I tried to understand what you were referring to. Then I re-read your post and saw "America first works for me." And then I understood. You see, there is no "living mess" (unless we're talking about the White House, in which case I agree entirely), and it's a safe bet that you're simply a very a ignorant person.

(Written on 2017年10月13日)(Permalink)

I know, I know. Sigh.

(Written on 2016年08月12日)(Permalink)

And if we're really being correct, then it's not "...computer outage that has impacted flight schedules...", but "...that has affected flight schedules...", or "disrupted flight schedules...". Or any other transitive verb. Any other, really. Because "impact" is not a transitive verb. As long as we're being picky I, for one, am pretty fed up with reading that, for example, apropos to this website, "...the airplane impacted the ground." Really? How about "crashed"? The popularity of this misused word started in the US quite a while ago, and my theory is that it started because Americans no longer knew the difference between "affect" and "effect". Or didn't care, more likely. And now even the English have started using it.

(Written on 2016年08月12日)(Permalink)

BaronG58 or sanctimonious douchebag? Because I've seen your posts before, and you don't strike me as someone who's too nice.

(Written on 2015年01月25日)(Permalink)

Churlish or droll?

(Written on 2015年01月25日)(Permalink)

Sophomoric or juvenile?

(Written on 2015年01月25日)(Permalink)

Doesn't mean it's right. People love to use "impact" as a transitive verb because they think it makes them sound gauche. But more to the point, you can always make a case that anyone can say anything, and most often find an example to prove the point. But of course we still don't use "aircrafts" as it has been used in this thread. I'm not riding on a high-horse; I was just trying to do someone a favor, as I, and the person in question, are bilingual - even trilingual - and I'm guessing you're not, if you live in the US, and pointing out things as I did is helpful. And as a matter of fact, your example "pilots use their aircrafts" would be perfectly fine with "aircraft" in the singular, as this is how we speak and write English.

(Written on 2015年01月23日)(Permalink)

I agree with neither of you, though I see Mr. Mittal's posts often here, and he seems to be an OK guy. However, two points: 1. "Engineer" in the Western English-speaking world is short for "Flight Engineer", whom you don't see anymore in the West. 2. It's "aircraft", not "aircrafts" - just like "deer", not "deers".

(Written on 2015年01月23日)(Permalink)

What a bummer for me today, Peter F. Hartmann Esq! I'm interested in aviation - have been all my life - but, sadly, I have no ratings, save my A license for skydiving. Alas, as this forum - to quote you - is "designed and maintained to help those of use directly involved in aviation", and as I am not directly involved in it, I suppose this means that today is my last day to read the forum's posts. A sad day for me indeed, as I enjoyed it so. On second thought, I think I'll continue to read them. And forget about posts like yours. Because anyone who finds it necessary to add the "Esq." to his name in a forum like this (apparently you've never heard the adage "A man who has the right to brag doesn't have to"), and anyone who maintains that this forum is only for a certain type of person (who preferably, if you had your way, would all append their names with "Esq."), needs to get a grip and keep his mouth shut and not add to the other blabber that you find so annoying. What a sanctimoniou

(Written on 2014年11月28日)(Permalink)