While enjoying this morning's coffee, I've been perusing the Nov. issue of AOPA Pilot. On page 26, Richard McSpadden has an article entitled "Difficult Conversations," wherein he discusses when and how to initiate conversations with people whom he as observed making bad aeronautical decisions. I don't know if Richard participates here, but whether or not he does, I mean him no disrespect by asking the following questions and would welcome his, and your, insight into this. He described an incident at a backcountry grass strip. A 182 on final "dropped low, then accelerated in a high-speed, low-altitude fly-by northbound up the runway." He and a friend of his observed this action, mutually raised eyebrows, and debated whether or not to have a talk with the pilot after he landed after another circuit. They chose not to, but he states in the article that he regrets that decision. Later in the article, he states, "...the pilot of the 182 did nothing illegal, but the fly-by was misguided and out of place in that back-country setting." My initial read of the article had me scratching my head, trying to figure out what exactly the pilot had done to upset Mr. McSpadden so much. Go-rounds are common place, I've flown down runways many times with my CFI, practicing remaining aligned longitudinally while controlling drift from side to side to enhance crosswind skills, etc. A couple weeks ago, I did two low approaches but didn't land at a very small strip that just didn't feel comfortable enough to land on that day. That stuff is routine, and I didn't see how that differs from what the pilot did in the article. Then, I read more carefully and took greater notice of the "..then accelerated in a high-speed..." clause. OK.. depending upon how high the speed was, how close to the ground he was, etc., yes, flying close to the ground at high speeds would raise eyebrows. Still, if the act was not illegal or against regulations, is it really incumbent upon a pilot who disagreed with an action to approach and castigate another pilot? In fairness to Mr. McSpadden, it is a very thoughtful measured article. He does state that, when initiating these conversations, one must ".. know that your perspective isn't the only or 'right' perspective. Approach the situation with an expectation that you may very well be the one who is enlightened....," and he quotes Stephen R. Covey as saying, "Seek first to understand, then to be understood," so he's not coming off as a belligerent bully. Curious as to others' takes on this. I'm pretty non-confrontational unless confronted unreasonably, so I wouldn't bother and, as a relatively low-time pilot, I usually assume I'm wrong anyway.