[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Microsoft helicopters
>
>
> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:47:29 -0500 (est)
> From: "Roger S. Miller" <rgrmill at rt66_com>
> Subject: Re: it was Svengali
>
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, Alec Dale wrote:
>
> > How could a correct technical explanation not be helpful?
>
> Professionally, I've seen lots of useless but technically correct answers.
> Stop me if you've heard this one...
>
> A helicopter pilot flying near Seattle lost his navigational instruments
> in a fog. To get his bearing he flew to the nearest office building he
> could find. There he circled the building while his copilot held up a
> hand written sign so it could be read by workers in the building. The
> sign read
>
> "Where am I?"
>
> The office workers scrambled about, then held up a sign of there own. It
> read:
>
> "You're in a helicopter."
>
> The pilot nodded his thanks and immediately flew a beeline to his
> heliport. Once he landed his copilot asked:
>
> "How could that answer possibly help you find your way here?"
>
> The pilot answered:
>
> "The answer was technically correct but utterly useless. So I knew we
> were at the MicroSoft building."
>
> Roger Miller
>
> PS I'm sure we all see this story's high degree of relevance to aquatic
> plants.
>
LOL, point well taken Roger. I guess my point was just because it
is technical does not "automatically" make it useless. However, even in this
case, the pilot was able to interpret and use the information to his advantage.
;-). Perhaps the helicopter had pontoons and was inadvertently transporting
Eurasian watermilfoil?