I understand the Internet often isn't the best medium for communication, because we lose tone of voice, facial expression, etc. So given this, which is better: to be paranoid about every word we say, being sure to sugar-coat everything because everyone WILL interpret it negatively...or (better) to give people the benefit of the doubt and avoid taking offense at the slightest hint of something?
I don't want to beat this into the ground, but I've got to point out a few things that might have been missed or ignored in my original post...
I said Ridgely
"contrasted sharply with Blue Sky---not better or worse, just different." Right away, at the beginning of my post, I clearly stated that I was making no value judgements nor saying "Blue Sky is better."
I said Ridgely
"has a certain 'sleazy charm' to it, like the glovebox of an old car." Obviously the word "sleazy" offended some people, but please note I used it in a
phrase along with the word "charm." Sleazy may seem negative, but when conjoined with "charm" the overall phrase is positive. Haven't any of you ever liked something that was old, well-worn, or in some other way the opposite of "new and slick?" Words are nuanced in their meaning---every word isn't black or white. Clearly though, "sleazy" is a terrible word (with only one meaning) for most people, so next time I'll pick a different one.
I said
"I could've poked around all the stuff in the hangars for hours---an interesting mix of old junk and new gear. I especially liked the 'Hang Glider' pinball table---does it work?" Does this sound like I hated the place? Does this sound like I was calling myself "better" than Ridgely? Does this sound like I was taking a cheap shot? If so, then go take some remedial reading courses.
I said Ridgely
"has a bit more of that 'where it's happening' feel." Again, does this sound like a slam? On the contrary, that was a complimentary comment, pointing to the greater level of flying activity there. I said
"Ridgely had more of an atmosphere where people couldn't be bothered with being neat 'cause they're too busy flying!" This was intended as a compliment---when everything looks perfectly manicured, it suggests not much flying is going on. That wasn't the case at Ridgely!
In my comments about flying styles, I said
nothing negative about Adam doing spins. On the contrary, I said watching him was
breathtaking---that was the word I used---because I'm not used to seeing that kind of flying. My comment about Steve never letting people do that is a fact---Steve is extremely conservative about this type of flying at Blue Sky. That was
not a value judgement about aerobatics in any way.
Finally, I said
"I look forward to flying at Ridgely and eventually exploring that countryside from the air!" Again, does this sound like someone who hated the place and won't go back?
-----
By reputation and word-of-mouth only, I know Sunny and Adam are world-class pilots and instructors. I've never doubted that. And I enjoyed my trip out there yesterday. Adam, I'm sorry if delivering my Falcon to Paul was offensive---I'd actually already sold it to him a long time ago. No money even changed hands at Ridgely---I was just dropping it off (and showing him how to set it up), that's all. With Paul being a Ridgely regular who (I assume) spends money there, I didn't think anyone would mind.
And for everyone, will you
please---as a general rule of thumb on the Internet---actually take the time to really
read posts on the forum? Will you
please not have knee-jerk reactions, automatically assume the worst about people and their comments, and start a "feeding frenzy?" And
please understand that words have many meanings and aren't always black or white.
I think if more people saw the glass as "half-full" we wouldn't get into so many flame-fests online. Any of you who know me in person know I'm not an inconsiderate jerk. I'm the same person here online! I don't take drugs or let my "schizophrenic other half" loose on the forum!
(See that? It's called a "smiley face." It means someone is smiling---not frowning! I had one of those in my original post!)
Scott
PS - A fascinating study was recently done at the Harvard Cognitive Research Lab: 20 people were shown a movie that clearly depicted a
red car getting hit by a truck in an accident. After the movie, one of two
previously-coached audience members was asked what color the car was, and she replied
"blue," even though it was obviously red. The second previously-coached audience member was asked the same question. He also replied "blue." Amazingly, when all the uncoached audience members were asked the same question, all but two of them said "blue." It was a clear case of people refusing to state what they saw with their own eyes because they considered the majority opinion "correct." Think about it.
You've been sufficiently informed about the word 'sleazy' so now you can do some more flying. 
