How is the post about Dan Gryder not a personal attack???

Lndwarrior

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
1,150
Display Name

Display name:
Gary
I sent the following communication to the moderators this morning:

"Is Dan Gryder the biggest tool on aviation Youtube?"

I've been a member of this forum for a long time and I've never seen a post like this.

How is this NOT a personal attack according to the forum rules? Including the part about "on or off the forum".

"Personal attacks are prohibited. This specifically means any text/post that is blatantly attacking another person, on or off the forum, especially in a personal way. Make your point without calling names or casting aspersions on others."

Many people believe DG is doing something important for GA, myself included. In fact, he is the only public personality I know that is actively trying to improve aviation safety. AND he is doing it for no monetary benefit!

What kind of aviation forums allows such a personal attack on someone that is just trying to help all pilots and calling the FAA to task for not doing their jobs?

I find this entire thread, and especially the title, disturbing.

How can this NOT be interpreted under the forum rules as a "personal attack"?

I would like to see this thread deleted in accordance with the forum rules.
 
If you think Dan Gryder is doing anything meaningful for aviation safety, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

If you think that there is nobody else actually doing solid, meaningful work to improve aviation safety, you have your head in the sand.
 
@Lndwarrior, I don't see any reports for that thread.
 
Hello Dan!

Dan attacks people, so maybe ...people attacking people who attack people is allowed! And if you think he doesn't make money doing this, you should look into the YouTube model. That's why he posts about accidents before he has all of the information, so he can be the first and get more followers, which equals money.
 
If Dan Gryder is not considered a person, then no personal attack occurred and the RoC remains untrampled.

Thus I suggest you are obligated to prove to us that Dan Gryder is human and not an AI trained on trash data and clickbait news style. Go. :)


...separately, I interpret personal attack as forum member against forum member, not against a youtube persona. I might be wrong there, who knows.
 
I find it fascinating when people feel the need to "protect" public figures. Guy puts himself in the public light, and some people feel compelled to go out of their way to make people stop offering negative commentary about him? Why?
 
it's not a direct attack, it's a question....."IS dg the biggest tool?". if they had said "dg IS the biggest tool", maybe that could be considered a direct personal attack. anyways, I learned a little something about Lndwarrior today.
 
Why is this concern limited to just Dan? Collectively, all sorts of third party, non-participating users get trashed on a routine basis. The TNflygirl thread is a great example of this behavior.

Might as well try just lock the mishaps forum up because there’s usually some non-participating person getting indirectly attacked as the speculation grows.
 
It isn't really a personal attack to note the facts from court documents.

Many people believe DG is doing something important for GA, myself included. In fact, he is the only public personality I know that is actively trying to improve aviation safety. AND he is doing it for no monetary benefit!
Oh, puhLEEZE! Three sentences containing three falsehoods. Batting 1.000! Dan, is that you?

As for "many people," I'd like to quote Charles Emerson Winchester, III: "Lots of people drool soup on their chins and vote for Democrats!"
 
I often find myself in disagreement with Dan Grirder’s probable cause videos and marvel at his willingness to blame people when it appears to me he knows so little about the event or the person he is condemning.

I feel the study of aviation accidents has value to all aviators and sometimes when I see a Dan Grider video it causes me to be more thoughtful about a particular event that he appears to be confused about.

I don’t know him personally so I have no reason to attack him personally.

I agree that personal attacks have no place on POA.

It appears to me there have been some personal attacks on Dan Grider on POA.

In my opinion forum moderation should be done with moderation.

In my opinion most of the posts on POA have been about the things Dan Grider does rather than who he is as a person.
 
I sent the following communication to the moderators this morning:

"Is Dan Gryder the biggest tool on aviation Youtube?"

I've been a member of this forum for a long time and I've never seen a post like this.

How is this NOT a personal attack according to the forum rules? Including the part about "on or off the forum".

"Personal attacks are prohibited. This specifically means any text/post that is blatantly attacking another person, on or off the forum, especially in a personal way. Make your point without calling names or casting aspersions on others."

Many people believe DG is doing something important for GA, myself included. In fact, he is the only public personality I know that is actively trying to improve aviation safety. AND he is doing it for no monetary benefit!

What kind of aviation forums allows such a personal attack on someone that is just trying to help all pilots and calling the FAA to task for not doing their jobs?

I find this entire thread, and especially the title, disturbing.

How can this NOT be interpreted under the forum rules as a "personal attack"?

I would like to see this thread deleted in accordance with the forum rules.
Is this the thread you are referring to? Or are there multiple? https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/is-dan-gryder-the-biggest-tool-on-aviation-youtube

Because if it's that one, I suggest you read the links. It wasn't a personal attack in the dictionary sense of "An abusive remark about a person, without supporting evidence". There were a bunch of links that revealed a very different person from someone "actively trying to improve aviation safety".

But maybe there is another thread, because it's hard to believe you would have read all those links and still came away with any respect for him.
 
I gave up on DG when he was so far off facts on the Tweto crash that he showed he was more for reaction than facts. He has had a few problems he brought on himself.
 
It’s interesting the subject thread has been around for nigh on 1,000 days (yes, it’s from 2021), and this question just now being asked.

To a degree, I wonder how much posting this question was influenced by the thread asking moderators to explain their activity. Both threads essentially demand for personal satisfaction that moderators explain themselves for either action or inaction.

Forums change over time and if you find a place no longer brings you happiness, it may be time to move on to greener pastures or time to start your own forum. That’s kind of how this place got started.
 
inbeforethelock3zd.jpg
 
Many people believe DG is doing something important for GA, myself included. In fact, he is the only public personality I know that is actively trying to improve aviation safety. AND he is doing it for no monetary benefit!
Dan, is that you?:cool:

It took you a while to find that thread to get so mad about it. Seems like it was going on for a few years and not bothering pretty much anyone.
 
Last edited:
I find it fascinating when people feel the need to "protect" public figures. Guy puts himself in the public light, and some people feel compelled to go out of their way to make people stop offering negative commentary about him? Why?
[Ron rolls his eyes] Reminds me of the '90s, when people were saying I shouldn't question the actions of a particular person because he was with the news media.

Guess THAT has changed over the years....

I'm biased, of course, but I think the non-disparagement aspect shouldn't apply to public figures. DEFINING what a public figure is might be difficult, but I do think the ability to counter what they say is important. Picking on Joe Blow because of his choice of airplane is one thing; providing contradictory evidence against someone who makes false claims in a large forum is another.

So, say there's a company ripping people off, left and right. Are we NOT allowed to draw attention to it?

Ron Wanttaja
 
I sent the following communication to the moderators this morning:

"Is Dan Gryder the biggest tool on aviation Youtube?"

I've been a member of this forum for a long time and I've never seen a post like this.

How is this NOT a personal attack according to the forum rules? Including the part about "on or off the forum".

"Personal attacks are prohibited. This specifically means any text/post that is blatantly attacking another person, on or off the forum, especially in a personal way. Make your point without calling names or casting aspersions on others."

Many people believe DG is doing something important for GA, myself included. In fact, he is the only public personality I know that is actively trying to improve aviation safety. AND he is doing it for no monetary benefit!

What kind of aviation forums allows such a personal attack on someone that is just trying to help all pilots and calling the FAA to task for not doing their jobs?

I find this entire thread, and especially the title, disturbing.

How can this NOT be interpreted under the forum rules as a "personal attack"?

I would like to see this thread deleted in accordance with the forum rules.
How is your post not a personal attack on the moderating team? ;)
 
I'm a fan of Dan. He's put himself out there trying to reduce the GA fatality rate. His approach makes the accidents realer to me than the NTSB ever could, which is why I continue to watch.

Is he always correct? Of course not. And some of the things he does could even seem ghoulish to those who just tragically lost a loved one.

Toolness? That's for the viewer to decide.
 
I'm a fan of Dan. He's put himself out there trying to reduce the GA fatality rate. His approach makes the accidents realer to me than the NTSB ever could, which is why I continue to watch.
Nah, Dan is out there trying to make money using an addictive YouTube algorithm. YT is rife with these "influencers." But I guess if you have no other way to make a living, the grift can be good.
 
Back
Top