All,
One's credibility on these lists is "on the line" with each post. Anyone and everyone who posts something thoughtful here invests personal time in order to do so. Most "on the list" want their statements or position to appear reasonable. If one is not both gracious and quick in acknowledging when a stated position can no longer be defended, one's credibility suffers.
Posts responding to a subject or a concept deserve respect even when fundamentally and demonstrably incorrect. There are civil and convincing ways to render misinformation ultimately self-evident. Those sufficiently interested in the difference should be able to discern it.
Two of the best ways to increase our knowledge of Ercoupes is in discussion with peers or in trying to convey that knowledge to another before a forum of peers. That isn't easy. A "double standard" seems firmly entrenched as to respect accorded.
The expressed opinions of all A&Ps and IAs are not equal. While it is true that each has satisfactorily completed the regulatory requirements to hold their respective certification(s), the IA level takes more time and effort to achieve and maintain. Some may be "current", some not. The ranks of A&Ps include those recently qualified with little practical experience. The practical experience of either may be primarily with commercial or military aircraft, with no specific knowledge of Ercoupes. They include those that stopped learning the day their certificate was issued. They include those that freely betray their professional obligations when they sign off "paper" annuals. They include those that have difficulty understanding applicable regulations. It is some combination of a person's intelligence, instruction, practical experience, good judgment and ability to effectively communicate that gives support and credibility to a post.
The expressed opinions of all pilot/owners are not equal. Some would need a big ball of string to follow back if they ever left the pattern at their home base. I know of one well regarded couper who paid the ultimate price for unauthorized modifications. Some are mechanically disadvantaged. More than a few don't know whether their mechanic is competent or not, or if they have been overcharged. Others have, presumably under supervision, completely rebuilt engines, accomplished top overhauls, overhauled carburetors, starters, generators, adjusted voltage regulators, and done some or all of the things permitted as "preventative maintenence. Some have worked in construction or law, and have extensive experience in understanding complex regulations (and interpreting same). Some have done extensive and original Ercoupe research. Some have extensive archival materials for reference. Others have taken their birds apart and rebuilt them to better than new condition largely on their own. Again, it is some combination of a person's intelligence, instruction, practical experience, good judgment and ability to effectively communicate that gives support and credibility to a post.
In a forum such as this the opinions of individuals of little experience can (and do) compete on an equal basis with those of individuals more "wise". From time to time enthusiasm outpaces someone's knowledge or comprehension. With persons across the spectrum of possibilities contributing, too many discussions degenerate into a furball of egos over perceived "slights". It shouldn't be about "us". It should be about knowledge, contributing to that knowledge, understanding that knowledge, and effective dissemination of that knowledge.
Recently an incomplete discussion was put to a vote. A vote may indicate who "wins" a debate, but the goal of any honest discussion is not to win. It is to reveal one or more "truths". To the extent such "truth" does not emerge with a glorious magnificence convincing to all with eyes not closed, that discussion is incomplete. There is no number of votes sufficient to complete an incomplete discussion.
This forum does not have the urgency and necessity to conclude that a jury does. We are the judges. We can, and should, take the time to "get it right". If there is no single "right", we can (and should) agree to disagree until that situation changes.
Somehow we need to better define and focus progressing discussions so as to better exclude rudeness, personalities and egos. Ed cannot be a full time unpaid referee. This long standing problem will continue until recognized and resolved.
Should we avoid subjects that are complex? The "real" question is "Are complex subjects worth examining?" If we don't examine them, associated and undecided issues continue unresolved. That alone makes such subjects interesting; as a challenge, if nothing else. Some can be broken down into smaller issues and separately addressed. In the context of Ercoupes, if not us, who? If not here, where?
Should we avoid subjects that are controversial? The "real" question is "Is discussion without controversy possible? The answer is no. One of Webster's definitions of "controversy" is "A discussion marked esp. by expression of opposing views." Discussion is intrinsic to and inseparable from the process of expanding the realm of what is known into the realm of what was previously unknown.
Serious discussions among peers often ruffle feathers even as thought is stimulated and greater understanding emerges. I get emails from individuals who say they "love" these discussions. That likely doesn't mean they love all the huffing and puffing by various contributors (although some may), but they eagerly glean from the bounty of knowledge that is stirred up and then flows by.
In terms of sheer technical knowledge and understanding of Ercoupes, there is more available via Tech than from any other single source, public or private, anywhere in the entire world. Think about that.
Less than 25% of Ercoupe owners subscribe to Tech, even though subscription is free. Our regular participants are around 10 % of that 25%, or 2.5% Is that because almost anything and everything can be posted by anyone? Does the very "look and feel" of posts comprising certain threads cause some people to "tune out"? Is there intimidation here? If so, can ee reduce or eliminate it?
Think also of those of us who repeatedly object to in-depth discussion on Tech. They are Tech's "speed bumps". They repeatedly seek to throttle the flow of information to their personal comfort level. Should the pace here be set by those who consciously choose not to keep up?
Participation that increases understanding within the "community" seems clearly desirable. That which merely burnishes or further inflates an individual's ego would, in kindergarten, result in a report card entry "Does not play well with others". Should we not expect and enforce a higher level of intellectual maturity here? To remain silent on many such issues is itself a choice with predictable consequence(s).
There are those that genuinely believe I am personally responsible for many of Tech's problems. Fine. I am certainly not without blame. Just keep in mind that in a continuing exchange between attacker and victim, only witnesses to the first blow know which is which. The opinion of those arriving later, no matter how many, do not change historical reality unless theirs is the only account that survives ;<)
I want to be part of the solution. Unfortunately there can be no solution to problems ignored or denied.
Regards, WRB
