A Reminder of AviationWeek.com's Community Guidelines


Aviation Week is committed to publishing content that matters to aerospace professionals and those with an interest in the industry. Our community platform is free to use for registered users and we encourage a lively dialogue among you, our readers and our editors.

We read all of your comments and enjoy interacting with you. To ensure the debate about our content stays 'on topic', we ask our readers to follow these guidelines:

  • Focus on intelligent discussion of topics and keep it relevant. We will not tolerate persistent trolling, personal attacks of users, editors or any other individual.
  • Whilst we recognize that people hold strong views and are critical of certain governments or organizations, we do not tolerate xenophobia, racism or other forms of hate-speech. 
  • Respect other people's views. You may feel strongly about an issue that is published on our website and we welcome your comment and debate, but we will remove anything we consider offensive.
  • It's fine to reference external sites in the context of the conversation, but it is not okay to post links to external advertising. We will remove any posts that are obviously commercial or spam-like. 
  • We will remove any content that is in potential breach of copyright or is potentially libelous.
  • In instances where our moderators feel the quality of conversations on any particular topic has degraded beyond what we deem to be professionally acceptable for our subscribers, we will turn off the comments section on individual articles. 

We take your comments and feedback seriously and we continue to do our best to provide a platform for intelligent discussion. If you have any suggestions or questions about any aspect of community participation on AviationWeek.com, please complete our Feedback Form

Discuss this Blog Entry 9

on Jun 4, 2016

Thank you. I wish more news sites would have firm guidelines.

on Apr 21, 2017

I agree,thank you

on Apr 20, 2017

Please remove all comments with name
calling reference as we disagree with each other. Like for example, Mark Lincoln just recently referred to a member "empty head" because the individual has a different point of view.
Thank you.

on Apr 21, 2017

Good idea,

on Apr 21, 2017

Please remove all comments with name
calling reference as we disagree with each other. Like for example, Mark Lincoln just recently referred to a member "empty head" because the individual has a different point of view.
Thank you.
- Dolomite

on Apr 15, 2017
Mark, as usual you don't understand Trump. I guess he is not operating by your twisted view of reality.

Mark Lincoln
on Apr 17, 2017
"Nonetheless residual communist are all over Washington, government and media alike."
- Dolomite

“An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything into an empty head.”
― Eric Hoffer, The True Believer

In technical detail Dolomite I did not myself call any member “empty headed.” Mr. Hoffer was addressing the difficulty of discourse with true believers.

I will not engage in the tu quoque logical fallacy by pretense that my quotation of Eric Hoffer was justified by your assertion my view of reality is twisted. I lack Mr. Hoffer’s eloquence and influence.

Your assertion that ”Nonetheless residual communist are all over Washington, government and media alike,” might be seen by Mr. Hoffer as ”rubbish.” Thus my use of an apothegm might be appropriate argument. You might benefit from reading his book “The True Believer.”

Merriam-Webster defines “Troll” as: “a :  to antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content.”

I try to avoid such. When, however, I am so targeted I will try to reveal the factual or logical fallacies of the “inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content” directed at me. I endeavor to do so without engaging in such behavior.

There is an old saying about the kettle calling the pot black.

One might more politely observe that the pot had been located over an oxygen deficient, fuel intensive conflagration for an overly protracted period.

“Focus on intelligent discussion of topics and keep it relevant. We will not tolerate persistent trolling, personal attacks of users, editors or any other individual.”

I agree wth that guideline and try to adhere to it, or with the sprit of the guideline when subjected to what might be considered trolling.

The issue was the President’s reversal of policy on the Ex-Im Bank and the Federal Reserve. I believe an examination of the conversation will show I was consistent in addressing that issue and in defending with facts the respective institutions with reasonable argument based upon factual material.

Another apothegm Dolomite: “You are master of what you say until you utter it, once you deliver it, you are its captive. Preserve your tongue as you do your gold and money. One word could bring disgrace and the termination of a bliss.”
― Hazrat Ali Ibn Abu-Talib A.S

If you wonder who he was and why I cite him, he was a wise man, an able warrior and his assassination haunts the world to this day. Also his words constitute a terse, pointed saying, embodying an important truth in few words. Do not take it as an insult. Consider his advice.

on Apr 24, 2017

…our community platform is free to use for *registered users*
…we deem to be professionally acceptable for *our subscribers*

Editors: your policy is an oxymoron. So long as you allow anyone to “register”, your paying subscribers will be forced to suffer through the daily barrage of pretentious, interminable, and useless comments (see preceding screed) if we want to get a word in edgewise.

What with the new Aviation *Every-Other-Week* & Space Technology print edition, the loss Craig Covalt’s unrivaled reporting, the “dumbing down" of engineering content for managers; insulting me with this “open” comments policy is making me question the value of continuing my >40-year subscription to this once great publication.

on Apr 26, 2017

SE Jones, I too bemoan Aviation Week’s shift of emphasis from aerospace technology to aerospace business.

I also note that when I compare issues from the late 50s when I started reading Aviation Week (it did not yet include Space Technology) and current ones I notice the drastic reduction in advertisements and advertisers that has occurred.

Aviation Week has coped with changes in the industry. The days when propulsion, aerodynamics, structures and systems involved technologies which persons from other fields than their own might easily understand has largly passed.

Aviation Week has become a magazine aimed at management but it is also a portal to a constellation of products and services. See the "products and services" tab between "connected aerospace" and "events."

Adding comments encourages participation, amplifies the "Letters" page I always save for last, and may turn up significant information, leads, or alternative opinions.

To millennials website comments are commonplace and expected.

The world is vast and history is equally vast. Aerospace does not exist in a vacuum. It interacts with the universe and the universe interacts with it.

Sometimes drawing parallels between experiences and situations may have informative content. For example there is "Plutarch's Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans" which reveals similarities and differences in the Greeks and Romans, and their civilizations.

Many times over the last almost 60 years I have seen concepts proposed which had failed in the past for sound reasons. Yet those making the proposal now are unaware of history.

Some perennial subjects do draw a lot of, often repetitive, comment.

Consider an article titled "F-35 vs A-10 debate trumped by Airbus A380 Close Air Support version backed by Eldon Musk."

Guaranteed to bring down AW&ST's servers.

What does this have to do with the standards postulated above?

They are simple, and clearly ask for polite discourse which is relevant to the article. That we not engage in commercial promotion and respect copyrighted material.

They seem devised to provide a wide latitude for comment.

Is AW&ST a proper forum for discussion of the teachings of Zoroaster? I think not.

But his observation that day follows night might be mentioned relative to solar power. Or the historical effects of the opening scenes of "2001 A Space Odessy" on the development of cultural support for manned space flight.

on Apr 26, 2017

Brevity is the Soul of Wit

on Apr 29, 2017


Please or Register to post comments.

Blog Archive
Penton Corporate

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×