|
|
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<< Lancair Builders' Mail List >>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
The experimental aircraft industry seems to have more than it's fair share
of overzealous marketing types (PC for snake oil salesmen and frauds). We
also struggle under a lack of credibility to the general population. Once,
just once after announcing that I fly an experimental aircraft I would like
to be asked "Is that like the one that flew around the world non-stop?"
instead of "Is that safe?" or "Is that like the one John Denver died in?".
As a group we are judged by our membership. If we allow frauds and
charlatans to feed among and on us then our credibility rightfully
diminishes. True innovators will survive the gauntlet of peer review and
succeed.
This list is the conduit for that which is essential to community, the
sharing of information. Although our group is defined as those with an
interest in Lancairs, the useful information shared may, from time to time,
extend beyond this definition.
Over the years I have run into many individuals who make amazing claims of
one sort or another. A few, I am ashamed to admit, I have fallen prey to. At
first believing and then advocating but finally, inevitably seeing the
truth. I have gotten better at spotting them. Some of the characteristics
include:
1) Claims that seem plausible but on the edge of believability.
2) Underdog status, the big corporations are trying to suppress "this".
3) Cadre of supporters who are somehow invested (financially or emotionally)
that will irrationally shout down any detractors. I call this the Sabine
Women effect.
4) Charismatic presentation, lots of rhetoric.
5) Tendency to usurp the achievements of others. Frequently phrases like "I
worked for or with the guy who did that" transmute into "I did that" or "We
did that".
6) Testimonials out the wazoo without a hard piece of data to be found.
7) Promises and assurances of hard data without it ever materializing "I'll
send it as soon as it is back from the printer" or "I would send you the
data but I am under a non-disclosure agreement".
8) Claims based on data published in non peer reviewed periodicals like
Popular Science, NASA Tech Briefs, National Inquirer or even Sport Aviation
(gasp) or in foreign publications of unknown pedigree. "As seen in the West
Caribbean Quarterly Science Digest", well tally me banana.
9) Indignant or sarcastic reply to a request for data. "You are not smart
enough to understand the basis of my research" or something like that.
10) Self professed Buckaroo Bonsai super engineer who has to borrow lunch
money. If they can't manage their own finances, what will they do with your
money?
11) The use of an alter ego logon(s) to offer support and testimonials.
These testimaoials will be unbelievability favorable and the author will be
identified by a screen name only with no other contact information.
I use this check list when evaluating fantastic claims. Inevatibly it is the
hard, independent, reproducible data that is like the light from Diogenis'
Lantern illuminating the honest man and driving out the snake oil salesmen.
Regards
Brent Regan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LML website: http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html
Builders' Bookstore: http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|
|